The Point Live: LNP MP suspended from house for 24 hours, Paul Brereton resigns as NACC commissioner. As it happened.

OK, so it was a kinda big day. And we have quite a few more of those ahead of us, so we are going to close off the blog for the day and come back bright and early tomorrow.

A very big thank you to everyone today for helping to keep me sane – you made spending my birthday staring into the abyss, worth it. Please go and reward yourself with something that makes you happy. For me, that will be an early night so I can get back into it for you tomorrow.

And please – take care of you. Ax

Anthony Albanese has entered the chamber so he can deliver a speech on former Australian of the Year and MS warrior, Neale Daniher.

It’s a rare moment of bipartisanship in terms of respect today

In Estimates Senator Shoebridge is suggesting that the resignation letter by Paul Brereton does not really explain why he is resigning.

He wants to know what reasons he gave the Attorney General. 

There is a lot of “I think his public statement explains his reasons” type responses.  

Senator Shoebridge discovers that there was a draft report supplied to the NACC from the NACC Inspector some weeks ago and he wants to know if there is a connection. 

The departmental official say no.

They also refuse to supply the correspondence between Brereton and the department about his resignation – suggesting there were some personal things mentioned. Shoebridge says they could just redact the personal things. 

Anara Watson

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has heard that NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton, who has just tendered his resignation, will still appear in Estimates tomorrow. Deputy Commissioner Nicole Rose, whose resignation from the NACC was announced on 4 May, is also scheduled to appear.

The NACC will appear before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee tomorrow at 4:30pm AEST.

“Paul Brereton’s resignation is the right outcome for the NACC and is a step towards rebuilding trust in the Commission. 

“It is striking that he chose to resign today the day before his first planned appearance at Senate Estimates which was only scheduled following a successful Greens motion in the Senate last sitting week.

“The Robodebt victims, including the people who died as a result of that unlawful scheme, and the hundreds of thousands of Australians harmed by it, deserved better from NACC than they received under Brereton’s leadership. 

“Commissioner Brereton’s inability to appropriately manage conflicts of interest, including relating to the Robodebt scandal, has plagued the NACC and materially damaged public trust. 

“Repeated questioning in Parliament oversight committees has slowly drawn out details of Commissioner Brereton’s ongoing involvement with Defence and this has been essential in shedding light on the NACC.   

“The NACC was established because Australians demanded genuine, independent accountability in the Commonwealth public sector. That task is more important than any single commissioner.

“The Albanese Government needs to learn from this experience and approach new appointments with a focus on transparency, accountability and with genuine oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee into the NACC. 

“The Greens will keep fighting to make sure the NACC becomes the integrity body this country so desperately needs.”

David Pocock has responded to the NACC commissioner’s resignation (a day before he was supposed to face senate estimates)

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is a hard-won reform pushed for years by Dr Helen Haines that I was proud to push for alongside other crossbench colleagues.

The NACC is essential to rebuilding trust in politics and institutions which sits now at historic lows.

I have called for some time for Commissioner Brereton to step aside and I welcome his decision to do so today. There have been too many perceived conflicts of interest, too many decisions out of step with community expectations and the need for the NACC Inspector to intervene too many times.

I hope the Albanese Government takes this moment to reform key aspects of the NACC’s operation, including making it easier to hold public hearings. 

The appointment of the next Commissioner must occur through an independent and merits-based process that provides Australians with transparency. And it’s on the Attorney-General to ensure this is the case.

We need the next Commissioner to help restore confidence in the organisation and for it to better fulfil the vision we had for it as a beacon of integrity.

Bill Browne

As covered on the live blog, the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s inaugural Commissioner, Paul Brereton, has announced he will resign in July, three years into his five-year term.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission was founded with great hope that it would expose federal wrongdoing, but it has so far failed to live up to its promise.

In 2024, the Australia Institute identified that the NACC’s actions and decisions risked eroding public confidence, including the failure (at the time) to investigate “the Robodebt Six”.

Commissioner Paul Brereton’s resignation is an opportunity for the NACC to make a fresh start under new leadership.

But if the NACC is going to rebuild public trust, it needs to do so in the open – with public hearings where Australians can see the NACC at work.

The Albanese Government and the Parliament could set the next NACC Commissioner up for success by allowing public hearings whenever they are in the public interest, as supported by two in three Australians.

Expanded public hearing options are one of five things the Australia Institute has identified would help restore trust and integrity in the NACC, with others including removing the government veto in the NACC’s oversight committee and establishing a whistleblower protection authority.

It has been reported that former Australian of the Year Neale Daniher has die at the age of 65

Daniher played for Essendon in the VFL and went on to coach Melbourne in the AFL.

He was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease in 2014 and since then has become the face of the campaign to find a cure – founding the charity “Fight MND” and promoting the “Big Freeze” weekend traditionally held on the Queen/Kings Birthday long weekend round and involved celebrities sliding down a slide at the MCG into a pool of water filled with ice. 

His work on this cause saw him awarded the Australian of the Year in 2025. 

Here is how Phil Thompson’s suspension play out:

Bill Browne

There’s more to politics than the policy debate, and there’s more to casting an informed vote than “just” reading a party’s policies.

In my latest op-ed for The Point, I defend attack ads, professional politicians and voting based on personality and background not just policy.

That might be a surprising line of argument for someone who works at a public policy think tank.

But something is lost when contesting power is treated as illegitimate or unseemly; when elections or parliament are seen as an impediment to good government; and when policy alignment is seen as the only test of a “good” politician.

Give it a read and let me know what you think.

This follows all sorts of allegations of conflicts of interest and disappointment in what the NACC is choosing to investigate:

Today the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner, the Hon Paul Brereton AM RFD SC, submitted his resignation to the Governor-General, to take effect on 6 July 2026.

Commissioner Brereton took office as the inaugural Commissioner on 1 July 2023, and will have served three years in the office when his resignation takes effect.

Commissioner Brereton said:

“The Commission was established to provide independent assurance to the Australian people that corrupt conduct in the Commonwealth public sector is appropriately addressed. 

“Over the last three years, much progress has been made in pursuit of our mission of enhancing integrity in the Commonwealth public sector. While our mere existence has influenced and shaped behaviour for the better, that has been powerfully reinforced by our extensive education and engagement program, which has enhanced the integrity culture across the sector.

“We have completed assessment of more than 92% of the 7,624 referrals received over the last three years.

“We have published 7 investigation reports. Our investigations have exposed corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies, Commonwealth departments and government business enterprises, including cronyism in a recruitment process, a secret commission in a procurement processes, dishonesty in senior executive decision-making, and the leaking of sensitive information about law enforcement investigations to criminal associates. 

“Much more is underway. Our 34 current investigations cover former or current parliamentarians and staff, senior executives in the public service, contractors and consultants, and a grants scheme. Fair and thorough investigations take time, and the outcomes of these and other investigations will emerge in due course, though it is important to remember that many will not result in findings of corrupt conduct. From the outset we have been committed to fairness, and that approach is well embedded in the Commission’s operations. 

“I would like to record my deep appreciation for the support and contributions of the Deputy Commissioners, the Chief Executive Officer, and the committed and diligent staff of the Commission, who work tirelessly in the interests of the Australian people.

“The ongoing focus on matters relating to me personally rather than the Commission’s work is drawing attention away from the Commission’s core purpose of strengthening integrity in the Commonwealth public sector, which has always been my primary focus as Commissioner.

“I believe that the Commission’s success is paramount, and not due to any single person. While I will continue to resist any suggestion of impropriety, I have decided that it is time, now that the Commission is established and functioning with quality staff and good processes, to step aside and allow a new Commissioner to lead it into the next phase of its development into a key and respected component of the integrity architecture of the Commonwealth.”

So what did we learn? Discipline is cracking in the Coalition – while the Coalition will be happy to have the sort of fight Phil Thompson wants to have, its record on veteran affairs funding and response isn’t exactly great, so it’s not a distraction it would have asked for. That Phil Thompson wouldn’t withdraw won’t be a huge problem – it’s sticking it to the man, has shades of One Nation etc, it does point to a broader issue of how disciplined the LNP is going to be in this new fight – and how much authority Angus Taylor has to stand against that.

Also, looks like the government has found its new selling point for the budget – the point has been made (including on the Podcast, Lamestream) that one of the issues with the budget is that it hasn’t been able to tell people what it is giving people in exchange for the tax changes. Well – now it’s all about the different tax cuts, especially the working Australians tax offset, which just got A LOT more attention in that question time.

Plus, Anthony Albanese has found a line in how to deflect the Coalition’s lived experience examples – if you are in your late 30s or early 40s and still saving for a home, then the system has failed you. That’s also new.

So that was 105 for aye and 39 for no

So Thompson is out for 24 hours.

Dan Tehan has some thoughts. Milton Dick says “we have moved on” more times than me to my cats when they are asking for their third dinner.

The suspension division is still going on – but it’s only the opposition members voting against it. All the independents, including Bob Katter, are voting with the government.

Nervous gas exporters should be a little happier that the Government has finally released some written details of its proposed domestic gas reservation scheme.

The idea of a domestic gas reservation is that the gas exporters will need to set aside some gas, equal to 20% of their exports, to be used within Australia.

The gas reservation scheme was announced as calls for a 25% gas export tax reached a fever pitch in the run up to Budget week, when the Senate’s Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources released its final report. It’s as if the announcement of the reservation scheme was timed to distract from the policy change Australians really wanted. Australia Institute polling shows that 61% of Australians are in favour of a gas export tax.

It will take some time to read the complex details of the reservation scheme. In the meantime, here is a comparison between the amount of government revenue the gas reservation scheme will generate ($0) compared to a 25% gas export tax ($17b). One policy delivers a fair return for Australia’s gas, the other doesn’t.

Before the suspension motion, the Opposition was feeling a bit smug (as seen by Mike Bowers)

There has been a lot of back and forth over the member for Herbert, the LNP’s Phil Thompson, refusing to withdraw a comment (‘Labor lies’) in a question about entitlements for veterans.

I seek leave to table the recommendation from the Royal Commission. Veterans deserve better than this Albanese Labor lies. These are lies that you are peddling. It is ridiculous

He refuses to withdraw. Dan Tehan tries to cover for him (Thompson often gets treated with kid gloves as a former veteran) and offer up times where former speakers have allowed the phrase to stand, but Dick says for the decorum of the whole house, the rules have to apply to everyone.

Then Anthony Albanese tries to make it better by suggesting Angus Taylor ask Thompson to withdraw the remark, so the house can move on, but Thompson refuses.

So now the house is dividing on whether or not to ‘name’ Thompson, which is the first step in a suspension from the house

Anara Watson 
  

Every Australian has a right to access government information. Journalists and members of the public continue to use freedom of information (FOI) law to keep the government on its toes.

In just the last couple of months, I could find eight examples of Australians doing just that. FOI exposed inadequate regulatory oversight of the big four consulting firms, directions to change messaging around the South Australian algal bloom, and severe underfunding of fire services.

But requests for access to documents are increasingly delayed and, as my colleague Bill Browne pointed out earlier today, governments too often drag their feet on releasing the information that the public is entitled to.

The Australia Institute is involved in one such example. We recently put in an FOI, about how the Government handled an earlier FOI, which was about changes to FOI. It’s FOInception, if you will.

The result? We caught the federal Attorney-General’s Department deliberately holding back information from the public to avoid facing difficult questions in Senate Estimates.

Those difficult questions instead came this morning in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Senator David Shoebridge asked AGD Secretary Katherine Jones “How on earth do you justify your department, consciously and deliberately, delaying the response of FOIs so they only come out a minute before Estimates starts?”

And yet instead of apologising or admitting the wrongdoing, Jones blamed “junior officers”.

To be clear, the FOI shows that the Department held back information from the public, about changes that would make it easier to hold information back from the public.

FOI plays an important role in Australian democracy, and Australians have a right to know what the government is doing in their name.

Anthony Albanese is asked about a 39yo Aaron who is trying to afford a house by investing in high growth investments and now is suggesting he won’t be able to afford a home. 

Geez you would think someone in the LNP might ponder that they are talking up a situation where are 39yo can’t afford a home!

Back in the day (before the CGT changes) it would be odd for a 39yo not to own a home. Now after 26 years of Howard’s destruction of the housing market it is at best a 50:50 bet (the most recent figures are form 2021, and affordability has been much reduced since then):

Skye Predavec

In 2025, 37% of people in Australian prisons were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, up from 32% just three years earlier in 2022. Last year also saw the highest number of Indigenous deaths in custody on record.

In the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe had some blistering questions for a government that has overseen the highest ever incarceration rate for Indigenous Australians.

But apparently, the Attorney-General’s Department sees promising signs.

Thorpe: How many Aboriginal people, adults and young people, have had reduced contact with the criminal justice system and incarceration as a result of your lovely justice reinvestment program that the Commonwealth governments have funded since 2022? What’s the stats people?

AG’s: So Senator we can talk to a range of outcomes across the different justice reinvestment projects. We are seeing some very promising signs in a number of the projects across the country: high levels of engagement in young people that is seeing a reduction in their interaction with the criminal justice system. In terms of specific data we can take on notice to provide more information to you about the actual numbers to the extent that, uhm, we have those numbers.

Thorpe: This is the highest incarceration rate of First Peoples ever in this country under this government. Do you understand that? Is that your understanding? That it’s never been as high as it is today ever, under this government. Do you know that?

AG’s: I acknowledge that the numbers are high at the moment-

Thorpe: Highest ever! And you have justice reinvestment money going in that is run by whitefellas, and you’re telling me there are promising signs? Tell me what a promising sign is.

AG’s: So there are 29 projects across the country – 28 sorry, and they are all – they are mostly showing some very significant signs of having a real impact on individuals.

AG’s: Senator we can give you some statistics or some information.

Thorpe: I’ll take that on notice thanks.

Tony Burke takes a dixer so he can say this:

In Australia, we’ve seen net overseas migration fall to 45% below where it peaked, and those opposites seem reluctant to acknowledge that when the peak occurred, every single one of the settings were the settings that they had left in place when the peak occurred, the reduction, the reduction of 45 per cent in net overseas migration, the largest part of the growth had been that we had to deal with had been in student visas, and so when we brought forward legislation not only to be able to cap the number of student visas but also to be able to link the number of student visas to student accommodation, link it directly to housing. What did those opposite do?

They opposed the legislation. They opposed the legislation.

We also, in the budget, have flagged further changes we’re making with respect to working holiday makers, and yet those opposite, it was the National Party before the election that said they would be opposed to any changes to reducing the number of working holiday makers, but in the budget reply speech, the leader of the opposition took a step that I haven’t seen a political leader take in this place before, and a lot’s been made of what he said about permanent residents, but there’s one permanent resident he seems to like, in that the permanent resident, Senator Pauline Hanson, is a permanent resident inside his head, living rent free, because he introduced a new argument that I’ve not seen before, a new argument I’ve not seen before from any leader in this parliament, and that was to claim that somehow you will be more worthy as an Australian if you come from a liberal democracy.

Somehow you will be more worthy based on where you’re from.

…To claim that you would be more worthy to be an Australian based on where you’re from, not who you are, and I remind the leader of the opposition that some of the people who’ve come to this nation who are not from liberal democracies, he wanted to refer to the Snowy River Scheme. I’d remind him the number of people who came post World War Two. Who had been living in fascist Europe, not living in a liberal democracy. The number of people who had come from the former USSR, including Australia’s proud Ukrainian community, who had not come from a liberal democracy. The members of Australia’s Chinese community, who ever since the days of the gold rush have been coming and building this country, and not from a liberal democracy, the Vietnamese community not from a liberal democracy. We love Australia for the nation that we are, not a warped idea turning people against each other.

Not that it matters because Angus Taylor and the Liberals know this and don’t care, they just can’t say ‘white’ so they say ‘liberal democracy’ – the US and the UK are not considered liberal democracies by the Varieties of Democracy group, that monitors the health of democracies.

Angie Bell, one of the remaining Liberal MPs who seems to still believe in the party and it’s ability to come back to something resembling the centre (whatever that looks like) asks Anthony Albanese:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Aaron has written in about how Labor’s tax changes will affect him. He says, quote, I’m 39 and supporting a young family with two children. I’ve been carefully investing in various high-growth assets over the last 10 years, so that we may one day afford the Australian dream our own home.
These tax changes will be a disaster for families that have been building on a set of rules that are now being rug pulled.
Prime Minister, why is Labor’s budget of broken promises and higher taxes punishing Aaron and his family, who are just trying to get ahead?

It seems a bit beyond the Liberal tactics team to realise that someone who is almost in their 40s and hasn’t been able to afford their own home is probably being screwed over by the system and that is a problem.

Anthony Albanese:

We want Aaron and his family to have a roof over their head.
Aaron, Aaron, is Aaron is 39 years old. So, chances are Aaron’s been in the workforce for 20 years, but has been unable to secure his own roof over his head.

It is precisely because of those circumstances of people like Aaron that we want them to aspire and get ahead, not just, not just aspiration for some, aspiration for all, that is what we on this side of the chamber stand for, and let me say this, someone who knows something about housing?

A fellow called Harry Triggerbox said this last weekend: identify positive proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing for brand new property. Buyers are pivoting from the share market back in a property that’s a direct result of the budget. Brand new apartments are now top of the list for investors, so what is happening. What is happening is precisely what these reforms are aimed at.
If you want to get ahead, you can still invest in negative gearing, you can still get a 50% capital gains tax discount, but as well as building your own assets and your own wealth, you’ll be building the assets and the wealth of the nation.

That is precisely what it’s about.

He’s been in the workforce for 20 years, 20 years.

If Aaron goes to the auction next Saturday. He won’t be standing there competing against someone who has, because they are an investor going for their 10th house or their 12th house, who has, who has as well, if they have to, they have to go that extra 20k or $50,000 in order to win at the auction, you know. Why they can do that, because all of the taxpayers, including Aaron, are paying for the benefit to them. That’s why they can do it. So, instead of that, as a first home buyer, he has a real shot. We’re about helping people like Aaron. You’re about keeping them down.

Tim Wilson asks a disgraceful question suggesting that a mother who has a child with Down Syndrome will now be affected because they had set up a testamentary trust for their daughter. 

This type of question is in line with disgusting reporting in The Australian last week on a similar thing. 

Here’s the thing, the changes to trust do not affect special disability trusts (Budget Paper 2 noted):

The minimum tax will not apply to other types of trusts such as fixed and widely held trusts (including fixed testamentary trusts), complying superannuation funds, special disability trusts, deceased estates and charitable trusts. Some types of income such as primary production income, certain income relating to vulnerable minors, amounts to which non-resident withholding tax applies, and income from assets of discretionary testamentary trusts existing at announcement will also be excluded.

And you can still set up a fixed testamentary trust that will not be affected. 

What has changed is using a discretionary trust (whether or not testamentary) because these are used to avoid paying tax. 

Let me say I have a daughter with Down Syndrome and these changes have not caused us any concerns. 

But you know what has caused us great concern? The massive cut to NDIS – especially funding of social, civic and community participation programs. These are things which enables our daughter – who is non-verbal to participate in the community, working at a café and also building her social skills. They are vital for her life. And yet they are among the $16bn cuts in 2029-30 (roughly 11% in real terms) 

If Tim Wilson wants to talk about that then I’ll give him some credit, until them I shall regard him as little  better than a ghoul.

Milton Dick has to go all Dugald Dick and expels Liberal MP Ben Small for THREE hours after he boots him for disrupting and then Small keeps talking – which, is a very dumb move. It’s the one thing that Dugald hates more than anything.

So Small is out for three hours and is warned he will be named if it happens again.

Tim Wilson:

Janet from Queensland has a child living with Down syndrome. When she drew up her will many years ago, it included plans for a testimony discretionary trust to protect her daughter. Now trusts like hers are set to be slugged with a new 30% tax.

Prime Minister, how much more will families caring for people with disabilities have to pay in tax because your budget of broken promises and higher taxes.

This is a particularly gross question, and the opposition know this. There was a similar case in the Australian last week, which when you drilled into the detail, found out that the trust for their disabled child is exempt (which they are – there are exceptions for vulnerable people) and the trust they were complaining about was a family trust that was shared among their other children.

So there is no attack on people who are able to set up trusts for disabled loved ones. There is an exception there. It’s on family trusts which exist as a tax dodge and mean that wealthy people pay less tax, on the whole, then wage slaves like you and me.

And it is also worth pointing out that there is no outrage from the opposition on the planned cuts to the NDIS.

Anthony Albanese:

Mr. Speaker, we’ve made it very clear that there are exemptions for vulnerable people, that was there, and the budget announcement Tuesday night, and what the constituent from Brisbane shouldn’t have to put up with is people promoting something in order to try to secure political advantage by scaring vulnerable people

In response to a Dixer, The Treasurer points out that some people will actually be taxed less under the changes. 

What he means is that the 50% CGT discount overcompensated relative to taxing real earnings (ie taking into account inflation) when it came to property but under compensated relative to inflation when it came to shares (ie dividend investments)

This meant that after the changes in 1999 investment switched from shares to property

The govt hopes these changes will undo that distortion

Jim Chalmers answers it like this:

First of all, when it comes to young people, this is a budget for young people.
It’s a budget that recognises that for too long in this country, for too long in this country.

Young people have been locked out of the housing market, as the Housing Minister just explained to the House, and we’re taking some difficult decisions to address that. For too long now, too many young people have seen this aspiration of home ownership as something that belongs to somebody else, and we want to fix that, and we’re here, we’re here to make a difference in that regard, mr. Speaker. We’re also helping to make sure that the tax system is fairer for workers, predominantly overwhelming young people.

Young people overwhelmingly earn income from working. 84% of young people earn 90 per cent or more of their taxable income from work.

A couple of new numbers – and the Honorable Member asked me about modeling.

Young people will be the biggest beneficiaries of the working Australian tax offset. Two thirds of the recipients of our new tax cuts will be millennials and Gen Z in 27/28 Another new number, Mr. Speaker. Our $1,000 instant deduction, 2.3 million people under 35 will benefit, which is about 40% of beneficiaries, as well as the 75,000 extra households that we will turn from rental households into home owners, Mr. Speaker.

And so this is genuinely a budget for young people, now I’m asked about making sure that by replacing one sense of unfairness in the system, one distortion in the system, we don’t want to replace it with another, and so dealing with this mistake that was made in 1999 which turbocharged house prices and decoupled incomes from house prices, we wanted to make sure that we didn’t mistake that, replace that mistake with another one, Mr. Speaker.

And so this is about reducing distortions in the market. Now, our changes, Mr. Speaker, our changes mean that some people will pay less tax. The current discount undercompensates some investors for inflation and overcompensates others.

On average, over the past 20 years, the indexation approach would have been broadly neutral, or even a bit more generous for shareholders, even a bit more generous for shareholders. The proportion of Australians who own shares has declined by almost 20% since Howard and Costello made that mistake in 1999 This is why, Mr. Speaker, UBS says, from a big picture point of view, equities would become a relatively more competitive investment proposition, NAB says. By the principles of optimal tax policy, this change should deliver an efficient, fair, and robust regime once fully implemented. Westpac, the tax system did overly encourage leveraged investment in property over investing in other things, whether that was the stock market or a business or something else that produced income, Mr. Speaker, and so that’s why we’re making these difficult changes.

We know that they are contentious for some, but they are to benefit young people in the housing market, and when it comes to income tax cuts, and that’s the purpose of what we are trying to do.

Zali Steggall asks this question:

[Young people are struggling with] High rents, or just managing with a mortgage and paying taxes on their incomes. Many are starting new businesses on the side, or investing in shares to build a buffer, and they now feel blindsided. What modeling has the government done on extending CGT changes beyond investment property? And will you release it?

Let’s take a look at what Jack Thrower was reporting earlier this morning:

Last week’s mainstream and social media were full of content handwringing about the changes to the capital gains tax (CGT) discount. One of the silliest of these ideas is that they are bad for young people. This idea usually centres around the argument that young people are using the stock market or other ‘investment strategies’ to save for a house, and the CGT changes will prevent this. 

This is nonsense. 

Yes, some young people have some shares, and a few young people have a lot of shares. However, if you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, you’ll see that the sharemarket is overwhelmingly owned by richer and older households.

Young people also get barely any of their income from dividends or capital gains. Younger people overwhelmingly rely on salaries and wages for their money. This is why things like the government’s Working Australian Tax Offset (WATO) is such a good idea.

All this means that the best way to get young people owning houses is to 1. stop house prices growing so quickly (which reform to the CGT discount will do) 2. help young people have higher incomes (which the WATO will help do). 

The budget wasn’t perfect, but the idea that it was bad for young people wanting to buy a house is ridiculous.

The first question which was about taxes was answered by the Prime Minister talking about first home buyers.

The government still likes spruiking the 5% first-home buyer deposit guarantee, which we have noted previously was just one of a long line of policies that juice the housing market. 

And yet there has been a bit of an increase in first-home buyer numbers, but when you look at the numbers as a percent of the 25-44yo population you can see things are not quite as impressive:

And this has been why getting rid of the CGT 50% discount is so important. To make a real difference you can’t just tinker.

As it is the changes are hardly earth changing. Essentially we go back to how things were in 1999, with capital gains still getting a discount. 

Tim Wilson is up (speaking about punishment) and asks Jim Chalmers:

My question is to the Treasurer Andrew from Parramatta. Andrew founded a start-up. He started his business in 2015 and sold it in 2020 for 35 point 8 million. Andrew, like so many Australians, said that the new capital gains tax regime quote doesn’t interact well with small businesses, Andrew said, and I quote, start-ups and some small businesses are a real concern, and the point that many small businesses have been making is valid. Did the treasurer endorse the Cabinet Secretary’s position

He’s speaking about Andrew Charlton.

Jim Chalmers:

I’m reminded that the last time the shadow treasurer tried to cite an example, this time at the National Press Club, it turned out the person that he had based his entire speech around was more than likely exempt or able to access very considerable concessions and carve outs. mr. Speaker, so the last time, the last time he got up here all puffed up with self-importance, mr. Speaker, but at the National Press Club he used an example who was able to answer Goldstein’s asked his question, concessions and carve outs for small businesses that we are not changing, mr. Speaker. So you’ll forgive me for taking with a grain of salt anything that the shadow treasurer says when he tries to quote specific examples in the parliament, mr. Speaker. Now, when it comes to when it comes to the changes that the shadow treasurer is asking me about, I remind him of somebody who said this, and I’m quoting, there’s no intergenerational justice in such preferential arrangements, who also said that was a quote from an author of a book, who also said in this parliament today, it’s time to be honest. The tax system is screwing over young Australians. It favors well-off established interests against those trying to get ahead. People who can predominantly live off income from their assets can pay very little tax and get discounts on capital gains from increases, increases in asset values. The same person says young Australians need to demand a fairer tax system without the only ones carrying the burden to cover the cost of Australians…

That’s Tim Wilson’s book – which is why Chalmers loves to use it.

Dan Tehan tries to stop it and says he’s not being relevant. Milton Dick says he has no idea who has written the book, (he is being sarcastic) but that the quote has to be relevant.

Chalmers:

Of course, I endorse and support the great work of the member for Parramatta, and I also, and I also, and I also support the great work of the Shadow Treasurer, who wrote this, Mr Speaker.
He said, ‘when people can earn more and be taxed less, because of the holding of assets over income. It rewards capital interests against labour, and that means that you entrench those interests, and you break apart what I think is one of the fundamental principles that has made this nation successful and strong, which is turn to the next generation and say you get your equal chance as well’.

So, I support the member for Parramatta’s great work as part of our team, and I support the comments that the Shadow Treasurer has made twice in this parliament and once in a book that I might be the only one who’s read and the reason I raise this, the reason I raise this, in endorsing the member for Parramatta, it is because it’s because it says everything about the shadow treasurer, that he is now trying to weaponise a campaign against the very changes that he called for.

Not by accident, he’s come in here twice, and he’s written a book about how we have to deal with these issues in the housing market and in the tax system, and, as I said, Mr. Speaker, he wants to be careful that the Daily Tele doesn’t put him on the front of paper with a little hammer and sickle next to him, because this is exactly the problem that he’s describing that this government has the courage to try and fix.

Unsurprisingly the SMH and AFR and other’s “wealth advice” columns are in full swing on the changes to the capital gains tax.

Last week the SMH Ask Noel column had one small business owner asking what would change for them as they profit about $180,000 a year from the business and distribute it through a family trust “as $60,000 each to my wife, myself and our 19-year-old daughter, who is at university.”

Noel notes that under that arrangement they probably pay around $9,000 tax each or in total $27,000 or 15% of $180,000. 

By contrast a person earning $180,000 in wages would pay 27.1% tax ($50,898) and 29.1% when including the Medicare levy (an extra $3,760).

Under the new provision they will instead each pay a minimum 30% tax rate – or $54,000.

But Noel point out that they have a couple year under the current system and that when the time come what they could do is “pay yourselves salaries of at least $45,000 each, bringing you up to the 30 per cent tax bracket.” And that “The balance could then be paid as a trust distribution or contributed to superannuation, where it would only be taxed at 15 per cent.”

Always good to know there is advice about how to game the tax system while the same newspapers will bash anyone attempting to find some advantage by avoiding mutual obligations under Jobseeker. 

The kicker though, as Noel notes “If you pay your daughter a wage, you will need to show that she genuinely earned it, with hours worked at market rates.” And that’s different to a trust where the money is just given for nothing other than being in a family trust.  

It has been one of those days and now we are at question time, which is more punishment than we deserve.

Angus Taylor starts on housing, because of course, and of course it is bull shit and of course we are still here.

Anthony Albanese does the usual ‘we are throwing everything at it’ (which is the new catch phrase) and then ends on:

Perhaps he (Angus Taylor) might like to speak to the next leader of the Liberal Party, who said this: I feel the anger regularly from young Australians who feel locked out of the housing market, red hot anger, frustration, also a sense of despair that they can’t put a stake in the country that they can’t afford a home again. We’ve got to listen to what they say. Good advice from the member for Canning (Andrew Hastie) You might like to watch is just behind you

Morgan Harrinton

As a diphtheria outbreak spreads across remote communities, important questions are being asked about the housing in these areas. In an interview with RN Breakfast, Dr Simon Quilty discussed the efforts of Wilya Janta to design culturally safe and climate appropriate housing for Aboriginal communities. He talked about the connection between “heat, health and housing,” including the problem of energy poverty. The residents of the NT’s remote communities pay some of the highest prices for power in the country. 

Most Australians – about 80% of the population from roughly Cairns to Adelaide – get their power through the National Electricity Market, or the NEM. The bulk of Australians not covered by the NEM live in remote Indigenous communities. Customers on the NEM are protected by a set of regulations that don’t apply to in remote Australia, which means that different rules about how power is provided, and how much it costs apply to different people. 

Out of the approximately eight million households on the NEM, less than 1% a year get disconnected from the grid. In stark contrast, one study found that three quarters of houses in remote communities are disconnected more than 10 times a year. The lights go out, the fridge goes out, and the air conditioner goes out…which is a problem if you live in one of the hottest parts of Australia.

In a new paper, UQ Economics Professor John Quiggin calls for a fundamental restructure of the NEM. The NEM was created out of what had been state-owned utilities in the 1990s at a time when governments trusted our energy future to markets, privatisation, and competition. But, as Quiggin says, “three decades on, the central claims of that reform program cannot be sustained. Prices rose rather than fell. Reliability deteriorated, or at least proved inadequate, in critical periods. Regulatory complexity expanded rather than receded.” 

Quiggin makes a good case for a fundamental restructure of the NEM. While we’re at it, let’s consider how affordable electricity can be reliably provided to the Australians most vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. 

Luke Slawomirski

The proposed change to private health insurance rebates for older Australians has prompted the usual warning: if people over 65 pay more for cover, they will drop their insurance and flood public hospitals.

That sounds plausible. But the claim is overstated.

The change would remove the extra age-based rebate for people aged 65 and over, and bring their rebate into line with younger Australians on the same income. The government says the savings will be redirected to aged care, including more aged care beds. The estimated impact on premiums is in the order of a few hundred dollars a year for many policyholders, though higher for some couples with expensive cover. 

While some people will no doubt drop or downgrade their cover, the more important question is whether that will meaningfully increase pressure on public hospitals. 

The change will lead an estimated 44,000 people to drop cover across the whole country, the effect of which would be almost negligible.

Three facts undermine the scare campaign. 

First, private insurance does not buy access to emergency departments (it only kicks in once someone is admitted to hospital). The up-front charge to be seen in a private ED can be hundreds of dollars plus tests and imaging regardless of insurance status. This means that most insured people who are experiencing a medical emergency will go to a public ED.

Second, most private hospital admissions are elective. If someone gives up private insurance – even if they were planning on having an elective procedure – it doesn’t automatically mean they will end up in a public hospital instead.  Public hospitals apply different thresholds, prioritise by clinical need, and are less likely to provide marginal or low-value procedures. They won’t all-of-a-sudden start performing the kinds of nice-to-have elective surgery that someone might only get if their insurance will pick up the bill

Third, the savings made from changing the rebate will be used to instead fund something that does reduce hospital pressure: aged care capacity. Thousands of hospital beds are occupied by older patients who don’t need acute care but cannot be discharged safely because aged care or community supports are unavailable.

The suggestion that reduced private cover will lead to public hospital chaos is simplistic and insincere. Public money is far better spent on easing one of the most obvious blockages in the hospital system rather than, as I’ve argued, subsidising private insurance premiums.

Rod Campbell

Skyrocketing private school fees have resulted in Australia having the most expensive high schooling in the world for families.

These fees are literally sending parents broke, and Financial Counselling Australia (FCA) calls private schools “emerging users of bankruptcy”.

Astonishingly, more bankruptcy cases are filed by private schools and training colleges than by banks, insurers and local governments…combined, according to FCA’s data.

Responsive iframe

Over the last four years, private schools and training colleges tried to send 128 people bankrupt, with my Alma Mater Wesley College accounting for five of them. Wes, Wes, Rah, Rah!

The rigging of Australia’s education funding system is well outlined in Jane Caro’s essay Rich Kid Poor Kid, our latest Vantage Point essay. Buy it here

Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe has been grilling the government about the age of criminal responsibility in the NT. She has advice that the government has constitutional power to raise it from the current 10 years old to 14 years old.

Senator Don Farrell, appearing for the Attorney General, disputes that and goes off on a bit of a ramble about things the government has done including increasing the percentage of Indigenous people enrolled to vote. Unsurprisingly Senator Thorpe does not take the lack of an answer well, and she rightly IMO lets go, replying

Thank you for your non-answer, Minister. It’s very disappointing that you are smoothing the dying pillow of our people in the Northern Territory”

Here is Zali Steggall on the prospect of some of the independents becoming a political party:

Obviously there’s a lot of speculation out there, some of it correct, some of it incorrect. As a community independent, I’ve always been very keen to look at how do I grow the impact that Warringah can have on policy and how do we in fact achieve better impact on policies. So I’ve always been open to having conversations to look at that of how do we evolve and grow the movement.

There’s been significant changes, right? And as an athlete, you always have to meet the field of play. You know, staying still is not how you keep winning. So for me, I have looked at in the last three terms, we saw last term the government, Labor and the coalition come together to do a deal when it came to donation reform and spending reform, very much to try evolve and there is growth of One Nation and people frustrated with the major parties and a real change in the Australian political landscape. And I think it is beholden on me, myself, as a community independent, to take responsibility and look at what are the options and how do we evolve and build more consensus to enable more communities to benefit from choice. There has to be an alternative choice from the major parties and One Nation.

And I just want to, like for me, I’m happy to answer the same question if you like, which is that I’m looking at options of what is the best way to make a difference both for my community but also in the broader country.

Community independents have shown that people want to be connected to what’s important to their community, but they also want…advocacy and work on national policy and so trying to find a way to do that most effectively that’s what I’m worried that’s what I’m really focused on at the moment I’m not making any commitments to do anything really differently but I’m certainly open to having the conversations because I think this is the moment that we need to consider what sort of political system is going to best meet the needs of what Australians ask for because people are worried. I think people are genuinely worried about some of the challenges we face. They want to see move in a direction that they get, you know, they’re really passionate and excited about and they’re concerned about the options they have on the table. And, you know, I do worry about some Western Australia, South Australia, places where there is no effective opposition because of the hollowing out of the centre. And so I think that there’s an opportunity to say, look, is it an evolution of what we do? Is it more community independents? Is there some… different way of working together that can create more options, well then I’m certainly open to looking at them.

You ask and I deliver – here is the prime minister on fuel security – including that we are asking more from China, which is something Alex Turnbull predicted in the first week of this all happening, would occur.

Anthony Albanese:

We know, as I’ve said before, while the conflict is a long way from home, we are not immune to its impacts. And the longer the conflict goes on, the more enduring the impact will be the economic tail. We are very hopeful that the positive signs of a de-escalation and peace in the region will lead to a conclusion. That is in the global economy’s interests and it is therefore in Australia’s interests as well. We’re able to report pretty positive news 43 days of petrol is five days more than were there on February 28 when the conflict began.

Importantly, 38 days of diesel, which is what there was most concern about, people concerned about their capacity to… plant crops, et cetera, was creating a great deal of concern, particularly for the agricultural community. That’s six days more than was in place on February 28. And 31 days of jet fuel, which is two days more than was available in Australia on February 28. In addition, I reported last week when I was in Perth the arrangements with China for the import of jet fuel. China has placed some restrictions on exports but after a discussion between myself and Premier Li and after confirmed by Foreign Minister Wang’s visit to China that we were able to get some 660,000 barrels of jet fuel is confirmed for Australia.

Anthony Albanese held a small press conference a little bit ago, but I was watching estimates. And also, we knew most of this. So here is the whoosh whoosh:

We have enough fuel stores until July (with more on the way, allegedly). There was a national cabinet this morning which discussed getting that out across Australia.

Supply is looking secure into July.

Budget bills will be debated this week (as is standard). The Greens have indicated they will look at passing the bills. Treasury is still in consultation with business and start ups over whether there should be any carve outs from the CGT changes.

He’s not happy with Israel’s national security minister Ben-Gvir over his abuse and taunting (my paraphrasing) of humanitarians attempting to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza

I think that people will have a look at the way that people were treated. It isn’t consistent with how we want Australians – I go further than that, how we want anyone – treated.

The Australian Government has announced it will introduce a Domestic Gas Reservation scheme, with obligations to commence from 1 July 2027. Under the scheme, gas exporters need to supply a proportion of their total export production to the Australian domestic market, equivalent to 20 per cent of their exports, on an annual basis. This is their ‘domestic supply obligation’ (DSO).

Government is also progressing complementary market reforms to support transparency and conduct, aiming to ensure effective and efficient gas contracting markets for all gas trades, including for reserved gas. These reforms are an opportunity to streamline the gas market regulatory framework and manage regulatory burden.

Following public consultation that closed on 13 March 2026, a draft Design Framework has been developed, informed by stakeholder feedback on early reservation scheme design. We now invite interested stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft design outlined in this document.

The draft Design Framework outlines how the reservation scheme would operate, including key design features such as:

• regulatory framework
• reservation design, including how the DSO is calculated
• compliance and other operational elements
• integrated market reforms.

Matt Saunders is currently going through the details and will provide a review later. But his initial response is “More carve outs than an ice sculpting show.”

Senator Pocock in the Finance and Public Administration committee is currently asking officer from the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) about sponsored passes. 

Senator Pocock has long campaigned that politicians should need to publicly list who they have sponsored passes for. 

These passes enable people to walk around parliament unaccompanied – so they are great for lobbyists. 

Senator Pocock asks DPS whether they have given advice to lobbyists that they do not need to reveal who sponsored their pass when asked in a Senate committee. 

The DPS takes it on notice, but notes that they operate according to rules set down by parliament. There is also a review of access to parliament and the DPS notes that they are also looking at transparency issues of the passes in that review. 

In the Environment committee we have moved on from Senator Henderson wanting to talk about capital gains tax changes, Senator Andrew Bragg has been asking about the appointment of the CEO of the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency. 

He discovers (according to Senator Watt) that the process is at a “’very advanced stage” – which you would think so given it starts on 1 July.

Around 3-5 candidates were on the short list, three of whom the department recommended to the Minister. 

The appointment has to be approved by cabinet, so it seems that’s the stage it is at now. 

The remuneration for the role is “around $500,000”

We should remember the EPA was created as part of a deal done with The Greens last year to get through changes to the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

Skye Predavec

New South Wales was the first state to tighten its gun laws after the Bondi Massacre, limiting the type and number of guns someone can own in the state. While there has been predictable outrage from the gun lobby, they’re already working.

NSW Police data shows that gun dealers’ sales have been cut in half since the laws were passed in late December – from around 5,000 per month last year to 2,000 per month now.

For laws with the stated aim of reducing the number of guns in the community, this is a clear success.

Similarly, the number of applications for new guns, known as ‘permits to acquire’, has shrunk from around 7,000 per month last year to just 5,000 per month after the new gun laws passed.

There is a notable spike in the number of PTA applications in December of last year, the month of the Bondi massacre.

Combined, this is having a clear impact: this is the first time the number of guns in NSW has declined in decades.

You can read the full article here.

Bill Browne

One of the joys of watching Senate Estimates is to see different politicians pick up the same thread.

I imagine Greens Senator David Shoebridge and Liberal Michaelia Cash don’t always agree, but on pursuing the AGD holding back FOI information from the public they have complemented each other nicely.

Senator Cash has asked what the Department did after learning on Friday (from journalist Miriam Webber who broke the story) that multiple FOI documents had been improperly delayed to dodge Senate scrutiny.

The public servants have not made inquiries about who gave the direction to delay the release of the FOI documents. As Senator Shoebridge points out, this seems like a deliberate omission given they knew it would come up in Estimates.

Nor does Senator Cash accept the excuse that it only came up on Friday afternoon – pointing out that they are all (senators and departmental secretaries alike) in the top 1% of income earners in the country and that means working on the weekend from time to time.

The Department did not agree to hold an investigation into what happened and has stopped short of apologising or saying it won’t happen again. They did say, “This is not how we would look to operate as a Department.”

Of course, culture is set at the top. I’m sure senior public servants and ministers are too experienced and cynical to put in writing the same things that more junior staff do, but the junior staff pick up on the pervasive culture of secrecy and unaccountability.

Senator Don Farrell, representing Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, finishes it up by implying that former senator Rex Patrick is teaching people how to “clog up” the FOI system. This is a sore spot for Senator Farrell, who has brought it up before. You can judge Mr Patrick’s output for yourself by reading his reporting, which in my opinion shines a light on AUKUS, government conflicts of interest and energy industry lobbying.  

After the initial back and forth with Senator Shoebridge, the interaction continued after some questions form Senator Cash on another topic.

It begins with Shoebridge asking Senator Farrell there if the Attorney General (Michelle Rowland) knew about this:

David Shoebridge

Did the attorney general or anyone in the Attorney General’s office, have any part in requesting the delay? No. Do you know this because you’ve asked the attorney general or the attorney general has given you that information? Yes. And when did you make that inquiry of the attorney general.

Don Farrell

When you raised the issue with me this morning.

David Shoebridge

And do, you do you understand that includes, is following an investigation by the attorney general as to whether or not any member of her staff, were a part of seeking this delay?

Don Farrell

Look, I don’t know the specifics at work. At work in coming to this, conclusion. But I should follow up and come back to you.

David Shoebridge

Yeah. And if there was an investigation, can you please identify what steps were taken in that investigation in the attorney’s office to form the conclusion you’ve just provided? 

Don Farrell:

Sure.

Then Senator Shoebridge turns his attention back to the departmental Secretary Katherine Jones:

David Shoebridge

So, Secretary, I’m just trying to understand what you did on Friday when this was raised with you, that your department had consciously delayed the release of information, because of budget estimates. Senate estimates. What did you actually do?

Katherine Jones

I, met with, Miss Harvey, and, discuss the issue. Tried to understand, the what had happened and the content of the information that was the subject of the media query. And, sought to ensure that we were in a position to be able to respond accurately to the media query.

David Shoebridge

Did you ask where did this direction come from?

Katherine Jones

Senator. We just discussed generally, the specifics of the, email, understanding that that chain of emails had been released with the FOI.

David Shoebridge

Well, I haven’t seen a chain of emails. Well, can you please can you if there is a chain of emails, can you please provide to this committee the chain of emails? And can you do it today.

This set off a whole range of questions about just how many emails were there -1, 2, 3, “a chain”

After that is sort of resolved (it seems maybe 3?) Shoebridge gets back to it:

David Shoebridge

Now, now, Secretary, I asked whether or not you asked the most basic question, which is where did this direction come from? And I wasn’t sure if you actually asked that question or not. Did you ask that question, where did this direction come from?

Katherine Jones

Senator, I, engaged with, Miss Harvey to understand and ask what what happened. This all, evolved, on Friday afternoon. Yeah. I have not had the opportunity to, talk any, discuss that any further. I just reiterate my overarching commitment that, with, if I, we seek to ensure, wherever we can, that we comply with the appropriate legal, framework and time frames.

David Shoebridge

Well, Miss Harvey, I asked Miss Jones whether or not she asked you that question. Where did this direction come from? I’ve still not clear from Miss Jones evidence whether or not she asked that question. So I’m going to ask you. You’re in the meeting. Did Miss Jones ask you where to? To investigate where this direction came from?

Tamsyn Harvey

Senator, this came to my attention via a media request. There was a, you know, a couple of lines that we received. I was not otherwise aware of it. So, on on Friday afternoon, part of what we were doing was actually understanding, this was a FOI about an FOI, about FOI reform? Trying to understand. Actually, at first the media request wasn’t clear about even, the nature of the, the FOI that had been, released. So I alerted Miss Jones to, to the fact that we had this media release, the content of the email and talked about trying to get to the bottom of it. But, we didn’t we talked about, you know, this is not, how we would, you know, generally look to operate as a department, but no, we did not.

At this point will just tip my hat to Bill Browne who caused all this ruckus – it was his FOI about the FOI on FOI reform which is why this is all happening. 

Shoebridge goes back to Katherine Jones:

What will you say if you wanted to work out? What? Well, do you agree this was wrong?

Katherine Jones

Senator? I agree that that should, that the timing of estimates should not not influence the approach we take to release of, if our response is on our disclosure law.

David Shoebridge

But, but it did. That’s exactly what happened here. If it shouldn’t have happened, it was wrong. Correct?

Katherine Jones

I agree, we will not, want that as a factor in our, approach, and I will be reinforcing that message.

Shoebridge then really lays down the hammer:

David Shoebridge

Yeah, but you say I would have thought that a competent department, if you saw something that was wrong, I would ask, who did this? Who, who who actually gave the direction to do something that was wrong so that there could be some internal accountability. But from what I can tell, you had a meeting on Friday where you studiously avoided asking that question. You just sort of “please don’t tell me where this came from, because I may have to disclose it in the next assessment session starting next week”. It was like a, you know, evil, see no evil, speak no evil meeting.

That’s what happened, wasn’t it?

Katherine Jones

Senator, that’s very speculative. In view of the of the nature of the conversation, we will work with the relevant areas and work across the department to ensure, that the, the approach that we have is consistent with it. As I described, that we do not take, factors that, such as the upcoming estimates as, as a, issue in terms of release. And I will reinforce that messaging.

David Shoebridge

Who gave the direction?

Katherine Jones

Senator, I have indicated to you, that, I, I will be engaging with the team, and across the department to reinforce.

David Shoebridge

Will you answer the question who gave the direction? And if you don’t know. Now, take it on notice. After your investigation and answered on notice who gave the direction.

Katherine Jones

Senator, I’m happy to take on notice any further information that I can provide.

And thus ends the Q*A

Over on the Environment and Communications committee Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson has decided that the purpose of questions to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is to ask Senator watt (who is the Government senator in attendance) whether he has met with a single small business dealing with the changes to capital gains tax. Watt says it’s not relevant, she says it is because there are lots of small businesses in the area, he says you can ask Treasury about questions to do with the tax changes and keeps declining to answer. Henderson says “that’s pathetic” And Watt replies “Thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment coming from you”. 

Henderson is right in that anything related to the budget can be asked, but Watt is also right in that she really is not asking about things specific to the DCCEEW.

Expect a lot of this this week. 

Jack Thrower

Last week’s mainstream and social media were full of content handwringing about the changes to the capital gains tax (CGT) discount. One of the silliest of these ideas is that they are bad for young people. This idea usually centres around the argument that young people are using the stock market or other ‘investment strategies’ to save for a house, and the CGT changes will prevent this. 

This is nonsense. 

Yes, some young people have some shares, and a few young people have a lot of shares. However, if you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, you’ll see that the sharemarket is overwhelmingly owned by richer and older households.

Young people also get barely any of their income from dividends or capital gains. Younger people overwhelmingly rely on salaries and wages for their money. This is why things like the government’s Working Australian Tax Offset (WATO) is such a good idea.

All this means that the best way to get young people owning houses is to 1. stop house prices growing so quickly (which reform to the CGT discount will do) 2. help young people have higher incomes (which the WATO will help do). 

The budget wasn’t perfect, but the idea that it was bad for young people wanting to buy a house is ridiculous.

His independent regional colleagues left him for this part of the press conference (and so did a big chunk of the press pack who don’t understand that there is a big section of the community who need a fix of Bob Katter declaring war on apex predators).

Katter also held up a photo of a person he said was a friend who lost a leg to a shark attack, but would not say who he was.

Katter was speaking following the death of a 39-year-old man who was killed by a shark while fishing in far North Queensland. There have been about 24 fatal shark attacks since 2020 in Australia. Scientists and researchers believe the warming of the ocean, over fishing and increased human activity are driving more sharks closer to the coast in search of food.

The grandfather of the parliament (in terms of time served) has some very strong views on political parties.

Mehreen Faruqi was at Sydney airport this morning where she was part of the crowd who greeted Neve O’Connor, Sam Woripa Watson, Isla Lamont, Juliet Lamont, Surya McEwen, Zack Schofield, and Anny Mokotow on their return to Australia.

The seven were among hundreds of humanitarians who had been kidnapped by Israel while trying to bring aid to Gaza, where Israel has implemented a blockade on life sustaining supplies like food, medical supplies, medicine, water and baby formula. Israeli forces kidnapped the participants before they could reach Gaza and imprisoned them, before deporting them. Many participants have reported being subjected to physical, psychological, and sexual abuse while imprisoned by Israel. A video shared by Israel’s National Security minister Ben Gvir shows humanitarians tied and prone, forced to listen to the Israeli national anthem, while he taunts and abuses them, created international outrage (in some cases, a swifter and harsher response than the genocide itself). Penny Wong summoned Israel’s ambassador to Australia over the video.

Faruqu:

It was an honour to welcome home to our brave Global Sumud Flotilla participants who have kept our hope alive and who carried with them not just aid, but humanity, love, and a commitment to a free Palestine.

The kidnapping, abuse, torture, and violence they were forced to endure at the hands of Israel is depraved, but I can see that their spirits remain unbroken. We are so proud and grateful to all of them and their families. They give so many others the inspiration to keep speaking out for Palestine and holding our own government to account.

The world has been horrified to see the treatment by Israel of civilians on a legal mission to deliver life-saving aid and break the illegal siege of Gaza, just as the world has been horrified by Israel’s genocide, mass murder and starvation of Palestinians over the last two and a half years.

Israel was able to abuse and torture Australians so brazenly only because it has been given full cover, impunity and active support by countries like Australia to keep committing and escalating their crimes against Palestinians.

Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Wong should be ashamed for calling Israel a friend and an ally, not only because of the abhorrent abuse of flotilla activists, but because of Israel’s ongoing and brutal occupation, apartheid and genocide of Palestinians.

It is frightening how little the Labor government cares about Palestinian lives or indeed the safety of our own citizens.

If Labor gives a damn about peace, international law or justice, they need to stop shaking hands with the architects of this genocide and they need to stop believing Israel’s lies and propaganda. Instead, they must sanction Israel, end the arms trade and cut ties. Useless words expressing grave concern mean nothing when people in Palestine and Lebanon are being killed every single day.”
 

Bill Browne

I mentioned this morning that an Australia Institute FOI caught the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) deliberately delaying the release of information to the public to avoid scrutiny at Senate Estimates.

The story was covered by Miriam Webber in the Canberra Times – and picked up by Greens Senator David Shoebridge, who has this morning asked AGD Secretary Katherine Jones to explain:

“How on earth do you justify your department, consciously and deliberately, delaying the response of FOIs so they only come out a minute before Estimates starts?”

Ms Jones says that the Department takes its FOI Act obligations seriously and aims to meet its timeframes.

But as Senator Shoebridge points out, “You were gaming the act so that the information wasn’t available.”

“Senator, I acknowledge that that comment was made. It doesn’t reflect the normal approach that we have to responding.”

But she doesn’t apologise or admit that they did the wrong thing. She does blame the decision on “junior officers”, but won’t say who was responsible for the decision.

And as Senator Shoebridge points out, the delay: “wasn’t for one FOI, it was for five FOIs”.

Senator Shoebridge is cut off, but Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash picks up where he let off – more to come.

Helen Haines, Rebekha Sharkie, Bob Katter and Andrew Gee are all noes for the independents party (at least for today) with each telling the press conference they are not interested.

Haines says their jobs are different – they have to argue for things their inner city colleagues don’t have to deal with in their electorates.

David Shoebridge:

This morning, The Canberra Times published a story based on some info wise the Australia Institute have done about your department’s response to a series of FOIA and before last Senate estimates hearing. Have you had a chance to look at any of that?

Katherine Jones, the secretary of the AG department says that yes, she has seen it.

Shoebridge:

How on earth do you justify your department consciously and deliberately delaying the response of air forces so that they only come out a minute before Senate estimates starts? How do you justify this conduct from your department?

Jones:

Senator, the department, takes seriously its obligations under the FOI act and seeks to comply with the requirements under that act, including in relation to, timeframes. As you know, from questioning over recent estimates periods, we’ve put a lot of effort into, trying to continue to improve, our outcomes in that space. And we remain committed to working to making required timeframes.

Shoebridge:

Well, this is what, your department was committed to doing just in February of this year, only like, 48 hours before I was asking you questions about this. Your FOI requests team emails, the FOI team who are responsible for publishing FOI requests. And they say this; Can you please amend the publishing dates for the below requests to Monday, 9th February 2026. Apology for the change. The area. The line. Area we’re seeking to delay due to estimates.

Is this standard strategy inside your department – you consciously delay the release of information under FOI so it won’t be available for you in the department to be contested under estimates. Is this standard policy?

Jones:

No. Senator. As I said, we, look to comply with requirements under the act.

Shoebridge:

You were gaming the act. You might have been within the statutory time frame, but you were gaming it so that the information wasn’t available so that you and your department could be questioned. How else do you explain delaying it due to estimates? How do you explain that phrase? Delay due to estimates?

Jones:

Senator, I acknowledge that that, comment was made. It doesn’t reflect the normal approach that we have to responding.

Shoebridge:

No no no, no, no, it wasn’t a comment that was made. It was a direction that it was given and it was action that was taken. Who who gave the direction to delay the disclosure of information under FOI because you didn’t want it available for estimates. Who gave that direction?

Jones:

Senator, I’m not going to talk to particular individuals. I would junior junior officers. I do know that the if I was released, I don’t know, ahead of our appearance.

Shoebridge:

I’m not interested in the junior officers who operationalised it. I’m interested in who gave the political direction because it’s a clearly political who gave the political direction for the delay to happen. Who in the department did that?

Jones:

Senator, I do not accept the characterisation that it was a political direction.

Shoebridge:

Well, who gave the direction? Where did the idea come from to delay the publishing of this material? Because of estimates?

Jones:

Senator, there was not a direction

Shoebridge:

No, no, it says here the line area we’re seeking to delay due to estimates. Now, are you saying that this this decision to delay the publishing of the material till a minute before estimates started simply originated inside the FOI team, and you were trying to hang these junior officers inside the time out to dry on this? Is that what you’re doing?

Jones:

That is not what I’m saying.

Shoebridge:

Well, then where did it come from.

Jones:

Senator? There is no, general direction as to, timing.

Shoebridge:

I’m not asking about a general direction. I’m asking about this. Where did the idea come from to delay the publishing of information on the Attorney General’s website for FOI because of estimates, where did that generate from? You must have done some investigation, Senator.

Jones:

This came to my attention on Friday afternoon. And, I would just, reiterate, that, our focus in responding to if a FOI matters is to, comply with required timeframes. And that happened in this instance.

Shoebridge:

Well, once it came to your attention on Friday, what did you do?

Jones says she engaged with another colleague to “understand the circumstances”.

Bet that was a fun conversation.

In the Legal and Constitutional Affairs estimate committee Greens Senator Shoebridge is absolutely tearing strips off the Secretary Attorney Generals Department, Katherine Jones over the FOI request by The Australia Institute that shows deliberate avoidance of scrutiny.

Ms Jones is absolutely running for cover – blaming junior officials and then saying that she is not attempting to blame junior officials, and that she only heard about this on Friday.

We’ll bring you a clip shortly and Bill Brown will fill you in with more details as well.

The Indi MP and her fellow regional independent MPs are trying to get the government to follow through on commitments to improve telecommunications in regional and rural areas in the event of a natural disaster. Helen Haines has introduced a private members bill which would force emergency roaming (so if your telecommunications company doesn’t have a signal available, you can use another telco’s), build resilience into the grid through generators and batteries, and invest in back ups like satellite wifi for community halls and other places communities gather in times of disaster.

You’ll also see Bob Katter utilise his favourite way of taking notes.

The Human Rights Law Centre says more than 100 investors, businesses, unions, civil society organisations, academics and survivor advocates have come together to call on the government to urgently strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. Three years ago, a review found the law was yet to create meaningful change for people impacted by modern slavery, which is estimated to include at least 41,000 people in Australia (and globally 50 million people). The Act was introduced by the Coalition government seven years ago with bipartisan support.

From the statement:

In a letter to the Attorney-General, the diverse group of stakeholders have urged the Albanese Government to prioritise the introduction of modern slavery due diligence requirements on large companies operating in Australia. The proposed reforms would shift corporate efforts from focusing on reporting alone to taking action to address modern slavery.

There are an estimated 50 million people globally and 41,000 people in Australia who are trapped in conditions of modern slavery and forced labour. Stronger modern slavery laws are essential so that the people who produce the food, clothing and technology we consume in Australia can have a chance to work in freedom and dignity.

The joint letter is the latest development in calls to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act, following similar calls for law reform made by the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Chris Evans earlier this year. It is expected that the Albanese Government will announce a decision on reforming the Act in coming months. 

Read the open letter here.

Moe Turaga, Lived Experience Advisor, Domus 8.7:

People with lived experience of modern slavery like myself had high hopes for the Modern Slavery Act. We still do. But over seven years since the Act came into force, I am frustrated we are still not seeing meaningful change to the circumstances of people most at risk. Too many organisations are still ignoring their basic reporting responsibilities
“It’s time for a harder line. We need a stronger Modern Slavery Act now. People in modern slavery can’t wait.”

Michele O’Neil, President, Australian Council of Trade Unions:  

The union movement calls on the Federal Government to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act in line with the recommendations of the independent review conducted three years ago, which made clear the current laws have failed to protect workers.
“No worker should be forced into dangerous, exploitative work that puts their health and safety at risk. It’s past the time to toughen our Modern Slavery Act. Our current laws fail to establish a legal duty for businesses to conduct due diligence throughout their supply chains. Strong modern slavery laws create a level playing field where workers are protected, and businesses who do the right thing are not undercut.” 

Freya Dinshaw, Associate Legal Director, Human Rights Law Centre:

From boardrooms all the way to the factory floor, there is clear support for reforming Australia’s modern slavery laws. Everyone deserves to live well, enjoy fair and dignified work, and build a better future, but our voluntary reporting regime is failing to protect workers from exploitation.
“We need rules that require companies to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent modern slavery, and accountability for those that fail to comply.”  

Grace Forrest, Founding Director, Walk Free: 

Australia’s Modern Slavery Act was meant to protect people, not produce paperwork. After years of reports but little change, we need legislation that shifts companies from reporting on risk to reducing it.
“There is increasing global momentum to move beyond transparency to accountability. Our trading partners are adopting mandatory due diligence and stepping up import restrictions on goods made with forced labour. Australia can’t afford to be the weak link.” 

Estelle Parker, Co-CEO, Responsible Investment Association Australasia:

Exploitation isn’t a sustainable business model, and investors are pricing that risk in. Strong human rights due diligence helps identify risks early, prioritise what matters most, and reduce material financial risk – something every investor recognises as essential to portfolio resilience.
“A business model that relies on underpaid workers, weak regulation or illegal activities like modern slavery, will unlikely produce sustainable earnings. Companies need to identify supply-chain risks before they escalate.” 

Kate Dundas, Executive Director, UN Global Compact Network Australia:  

The strength and breadth of support for this reform – from industry and investors to unions and civil society – reflects a clear consensus that mandatory due diligence on modern slavery will benefit business and is essential to driving meaningful change for workers.
“There is now a real opportunity for Australia to get this right – and in doing so, deliver a reform that strengthens supply chain resilience, supports business competitiveness and advances the government’s own productivity agenda.” 

Shaeron Yapp, Independent Member of Modern Slavery Expert Advisory Group:

Laws that clarify that actually the goal is due diligence – not just corporate reporting – would drive real impact for workers while unlocking value for business. Done well, due diligence can improve productivity through more resilient, efficient supply chains and business operations.” 

New data from the International Gas Union shows that, among the top-10 countries that export gas by ship as liquefied natural gas (LNG), Australia has the most expensive gas for domestic users, like households and businesses.

Countries with so much gas that they can export it in expensive refrigerators, known as LNG carrier ships, should probably have fairly cheap gas at home. An abundance of supply should mean low prices. But in Australia, we export 80% of our gas and yet we have some of the most expensive gas in the world for domestic users.

Economists would call it a ‘market failure’. For non-economists, it’s just another example of big-gas taking the piss. A 25% gas export tax would divert some of the export gas to the local market, lowering the price Australians pay to use their own gas.

It is kind of amazing that around the budget there was a conga line of wannabe influencer economists who decided to display their aspirations for winning the Nobel Prize by telling everyone that the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing really had nothing to do with the increase in house prices and the drop in housing affordability. 

We of course have never said it was the only thing, but that it was clearly patient zero of the housing crisis.

In an effort to treat the disease inserted into the housing market by Howard and Costello in 1999 successive governments just pumped ever more steroids into the system. Unfortunately this was not just the wrong diagnosis it made things worse 

Getting rid of the 50% discount was essential to beginning the repair of the damage wrought by John Howard and his efforts to completely undermine the capital gains tax. 

But what has been most instructive about how important this policy move was is all the stories essentially proving our point. 

Take this from the AFR on the weekend

Sydney, Melbourne property markets ‘tank’ as auctions remain flat

Melbourne and Sydney property prices are expected to fall by as much as 9 per cent by the end of 2026 as experts warn a years-long property correction is under way, caused by interest rate hikes, global instability and Labor’s proposed changes to property taxes.

Or last week

‘Strap in’: Mortgage brokers brace for slowing property market

Mortgage brokers have joined a growing chorus of small and big businesses in opposing Labor’s changes to the capital gains tax, saying the federal budget will curtail their ability to grow and tax them even more if they are forced to sell.

Or this
Tax changes weigh heavily on auction market
Fewer than half the homes listed for auction sold in Sydney over the weekend as federal budget tax changes injected further uncertainty into a softening housing market.

The economists telling us their regression analysis showed than that the CGT 50% discount really had little impact on house prices are as foolish and ignorant as those who also tried to tell us their regressions in 2022 and 2023 showed use that companies weren’t increasing prices to increase profit margins and were causing inflation.

Hamdi Jama

Last week, MLC Sarah Game introduced a new bill to tighten SA’s abortion laws.

This is the third attempt since 2024. A similar bill introduced by Ms Game was defeated in November 2025, with the state parliament voting it down 11–8.

Under SA’s current laws, late-term abortions (abortions after 22 weeks and 6 days) are permitted with the approval of two doctors where there is a significant risk to the pregnant person, to save another foetus, or in the event of serious abnormalities. 

The new bill would ban access to late-term abortions by removing existing provisions in cases involving serious foetal abnormalities after 24 weeks and 6 days.

But the reality is that late-term abortions are extremely rare. Less than 1% of abortions in the state occur after 22 weeks, with the vast majority taking place before 14 weeks of gestation. 

While proponents argue that the bill is about “protecting vulnerable human life,” the  Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists say that its practical impact will be to restrict access to essential healthcare and undermine bodily autonomy.

The Attorney-General’s Department deliberately held back information from the public to avoid facing difficult questions in Senate Estimates.

I can’t find any other way of interpreting the documents the Australia Institute received in a recent freedom of information request.

At the last Estimates, back in February, the Albanese Government was still pushing changes to FOI law to make the system more secretive and more expensive for members of the public to use.

The Australia Institute and several others had FOI requests for the documents justifying these changes. After a wait of over 150 days, those documents were made public just one minute before Estimates began – too late for them to be read by the senators.

Was this deliberate?

A second FOI request from the Australia Institute confirms it was.

The documents had originally been scheduled to go public the Friday before Estimates. The release was delayed “due to estimates”.

Yes, we put in an FOI, about how the Government handled an earlier FOI, which was about changes to FOI.

And that FOI confirms that the Department held back information from the public, about changes that would make it easier to hold information back from the public.

The Australia Institute warned that the Albanese Government’s proposed changes to FOI laws were based on dubious claims – and it seems the Attorney-General’s Department agreed. Why else would they hold back their own documents to avoid them being referenced at Estimates?

Morgan Harrington

In an opinion article published in The Australian, Jose Ramos-Horta, President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, has made it clear that if Australia is going to maintain good relationships with its nearest neighbours, the ledger from the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme – Australia’s guestworker program for neighbouring nations – needs to be even. 

President Ramos-Horta states that “the scheme generates almost $1bn annually for the Australian economy, while just $184m is sent back to the 10 countries providing workers for Australian farms, abattoirs, hotels and aged care facilities.”

These figures come from a presentation made by DFAT at the 2022 Australasian Aid Conference. The program has nearly tripled in size since, but if they are accurate it would mean that Australia is drawing four times as much of the benefit as the rest of the Pacific. DFAT’s numbers are broadly consistent with a 2023 World Bank study, which found that between 65% and 78% of the money PALM workers are left with after paying Australian taxes is spent in the Australian economy. Even the Australian Government’s own official advice to PALM workers is that they will be able to save or send home just one third of what they earn. 

Reliable data on exactly where the money generated by the PALM scheme goes would allow all involved to assess its merits. Until then, the best available evidence supports President Ramos-Horta’s claim that Australia nets the lion’s share of the benefits of the PALM scheme.

The opening of the Strait of Hormuz will be a big deal for the economy and the government. 

Regardless of how stupid Trump might be and the fact that the USA has ended up being pantsed in the negotiations if it happens, the oil price will obviously fall.

That will be a huge deal for the government because it is now 8 weeks into 12 weeks of halving the petrol excise.

Since 1 April unleaded petrol prices have come down off the back of stagnant (if high) oil prices and the halving of the excise. 

Currently unleaded petrol prices are a smidge below where they were before Trump and Netanyahu bombed Iran, but without the excise they would be back above $2/l at around $2.12. The pressure of extending the halving of the excise would be large, and so the govt will very much be hoping this deal holds.  

It also means we can forget those fears of inflation hitting 5+%

This should lead to lower inflation. 

On that score on Wednesday, we will get the April inflation figures. These will not have the quarterly figures that continue to be the one the RBA most looks at but given the love the RBA has for using any excuse to raise rates, if there seems to be a jump in inflation despite the impact of the halving of the petrol excise our glorious central bank might decide to smash us once again.

Last week when analysing the unemployment figures I had one of those weird thoughts about data that I am oft to have and just wondered about how fast the rise of unemployment was the last time we reached 4% back in 2008. Of course what happened back then was the GFC, but I was a tad shocked to discover that the current rise this year has been the same as it was when unemployment began rising in August 2008:

That of course does not mean we are destined to follow the same path all the way to 5.7% unemployment and a recession. 

I know we did not have a “recession” during the GFC, if you judge it merely by 2 negative quarter of GDP growth, but I prefer to judge these things by the rise in unemployment (because IMO GDP is valueless apart from the fact it has a decent link with unemployment).

US economist Claudia Sahm also judges recession by rises in unemployment and she came up with a measurement that essentially looks at the average rise in unemployment over 12 months periods. If it goes up more than 0.5%pts that means you’re headed for a recession unless at that point you should be cutting interest rates and pumping our the government stimulus (rather than waiting 6 months to find out if GDP has gone backwards, by which time it is too late).

On that score we are nowhere near a recession  

So when I say unemployment is rising on the same path as it did in the GFC that doesn’t mean we are in a recession, just that I would hope the RBA is aware that every interest rate rise slows the economy and raises unemployment. 

And remember the April figures largely don’t include the impact of the March interest rate rise and not at all the increases in May. 

But in the minutes of the RBA meeting when it raised rate in May, the board noted that “The slowing in GDP growth was expected to result in the unemployment rate rising by more than expected in the February forecasts, to 4.7 per cent by mid-2028. The staff assessed that this would leave the labour market with a little spare capacity by the end of the forecast period.”

The worry therefore is that they knew the economy was slowing, they expect unemployment to rise not to 4.5% but 4.7%. And they will be very happy if that happens.

Some of the independent MPs have announced a press conference to talk about the  “effect of Albanese government’s proposed CGT changes beyond the property sector” with some small business owners later this morning, so expect questions about the potential for a political party as well as their opposition to parts of the budget later this morning.

We should remember that people will only be paying tax on any capital gain they make – so there has to be profit when the capital is sold. And it’s only a tax change, so they will be paying more tax (depending on inflation, profit, income yadda yadda) than the 50% discount currently accounts for, but it brings it back to a regular tax rate. There is still profit.

But still, you would expect the government will bend on the business side of things, because that is what history would suggest happens, and exempt businesses who earn under $3m or something from being part of the tax changes (it is currently $2m I believe).

The teals represent some of Australia’s richest electorates, so it is not unusual they would be taking up this particular cause.

They were not great. 

Off the back the ructions of the Iran War and the higher oil and then petrol prices and the interest rate rises in February and March interest rate rises, unemployment hit 4.5% – the highest since 2021

The Good news for the government is that these figures largely killed off market anticipation of a rate rise in June

But that was before the negotiated deal by Pakistan with Iran that looks to have opened the Strait of Hormuz*. 

Given the RBA has raised interest rates – not to affect inflation now, but because they were worried that once the Iran war is finished workers might have too much power to negotiate for higher wages because unemployment would be too low and so employers would be desperate for workers – who knows what the Iran War end (if it happens) will mean for the RBA. 

When she gave her press conference in the first week of May Governor Michele Bullock did not think 4.7% unemployment was “too high” so don’t start thinking there might be some concern in the RBA with the April numbers. My guess is they were very happy to see them. 

*All of the usual caveats, because yes, we have been here multiple times before

Dave Richardson

Prior to the budget distracting our attention we had the spectacle of a government talk fest that looked at Australia’s labour productivity record.

American economist, Dean Baker, has been following artificial intelligence (AI) and in a recent post remarked on the contradiction between on the one hand:

·         Wild press reports and studies suggesting that AI is having a massive impact on how we will work in the future and the threat already being felt to many jobs, and, on the other hand,

·         Recent productivity experience and forecasts suggesting very modest productivity growth into the future.

Productivity is the measure of how much output can be produced per unit of labour. As Baker says “the story that AI will take all the jobs is a story of a massive productivity boom”. If AI means the same or greater output with fewer workers then it would indeed amount to a huge increase in productivity.

Baker points out that in the US the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects productivity growth around 1.5 percent over the next decade, healthy but not what the AI spruikers might have you think.

And what about Australia? The budget papers say “strong investment in AI and technology could be a potential source of productivity growth in the medium-term”.

However, the budget papers also say “the long-term underlying productivity assumption is 1.2 per cent per year” which has been revised down from earlier years. It looks like Treasury is very sceptical about the AI revolution having much of an impact.

Of course we have been here before. After decades of computerisation one influential American economist, Robert Solow, in 1987 said “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” Perhaps a good thing too, while the computer age also promised massive productivity improvements, there was also the prospect of mass unemployment which thankfully never happened. And for what it is worth, on our estimates using national accounts data, annual labour productivity growth has fallen from 1.6% in the 22 years to September 1999 and just 1.0% between then and December 2025

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live. It is only the house sitting today, as the other place is running senate estimate hearings. Those hearings, which usually set the agenda for at least two weeks after being held, haven’t had as much of a hit lately, with the Coalition running dry on ways to attack Labor, and the Greens and independents not resourced well enough to be across every one of the gaps.

The Coalition’s failure at estimates is much like its failure to work out where it is headed as a party – it either agrees with the government, so doesn’t see issues as worth pursuing (like what is going to happen to all those people who will be booted off the NDIS) and on the issues it disagrees with the government, it goes so far round the bend, you may as well be listening to RFK Jnr on a podcast.

But still, the Liberal and National party senators have to keep up the charade they have some relevancy these days or they wouldn’t be able to get out of bed. We’re sure it’s all gong to get SO MUCH better now that Tony Abbott has been elected president of the Liberal party. A man famous for his zipped lips and focus on administration. We are sure it will be a magnificent shambles.

In other political news, one of the worst kept secrets in politics – that some of the teal independents are in talks about forming a political party – is breaking into the mainstream now, mostly because the centre right has left such a gap, not even this Labor government can fill it all. There is talk about making the move as an official party to increase senate representation – with Kylea Tink (the former independent MP for North Sydney before the seat was abolished) one of the names floating around as a potential first candidate, as well as try and work through some of the campaign funding rules which are heavily in favour of incumbent parties. But there are also a buttload of reasons not to form a political party, including the main one – a lot of their strength as a movement rests on their independence as independents. But that is sure to take up some of the conversation for the next few months.

And then we have Labor trying to work out the lines to sell this budget. It may have under estimated the pushback against what are, at heart, modest structural tax changes, that are a step in the right direction, but not exactly revolutionary. That people making profit off their capital gains will only have to pay a tad more tax (depending on income, length someone has held the asset for, where inflation is at, and the sale price) and that it is not up to the taxpayer to subsidise people’s private wealth building assets in the first place, hasn’t really entered the chat yet. Jim Chalmers has been on practically every single podcast you can Imagine (and don’t expect that to slow down) while Anthony Albanese has stuck to FM radio – can you guess who they are targeting?

And of course, there is the continued rise of One Nation. So that’s the whoosh whoosh back drop of where we are ahead of senate estimates and the house sitting for the next two weeks. We have the inexhaustible talent of Mike Bowers to take you into the chambers, experts standing by to fact check what you need to know, and you’ll also have me (Amy Remeikis) with you for the foreseeable future.

A very big thank you to blog reader Andrew who came to an event yesterday just so he could pass on some of my favourite chocolate to power us through these next two weeks. I can’t be bought with brand deals or political flattery, but the right chocolate will get you the best version of Baba Yaga I can be.

Ready? Me either. But alas, we must.