The Point Live: UK to get new prime minister, tax changes to face the senate. As it happened.

It is going to be a long two weeks and all the big stuff starts a bit later on in the sitting – so let’s all grab an early mark while we can. I am going to wrangle this migraine – but hopefully I will see you back here tomorrow morning?

A very big thank you to all of you who joined us today – it means the world. Take care of you. Ax

This from Osmond Chiu over at the ABC’s religion and ethics site, tackling the myth of the monoculture is worth your time.

Here’s a sense of it:

Debating multiculturalism risks missing the deeper issue at hand. For most Australians, the unease driving these arguments is not actually about culture, language or identity, although these are the most visible markers in everyday life. It reflects a broader sense that social cohesion is under strain as Australian society is becoming more atomised, more siloed and less connected.

This has less to do with cultural diversity itself, and more to do with the erosion of the shared institutions that once brought Australians together. Over time, many of the mass membership institutions that encouraged structured and regular everyday interactions have weakened. Membership of political parties, trade unions, churches and civic associations has declined — people just aren’t joining groups as much as they used to. Workplaces are smaller, more casualised, or less stable with fewer people having a career for life with a single employer. Schooling has become more socially stratified, with the shift towards private education contributing to significant socio-economic segregation. Residential patterns, too, increasingly reflect income and class divisions, producing distinct geographic clusters.

The cumulative effect is that the “micropublics” of everyday life — the shared spaces where people routinely encounter those unlike themselves — are becoming less common. These spaces matter because it is through regular, low-stakes interaction in workplaces, schools, sports clubs and communities that people learn to navigate differences, whether it be cultural, economic, educational or political. Social cohesion is not simply a matter of shared values declared in the abstract; it is built through the shared experience of living together.

Matt Grudnoff

Over the weekend we got some modelling that claimed the changes to negative gearing would increase rents by $2,000 per year or $40 a week.

Now economic modelling can be a powerful tool to understand the impacts of a policy change. But if it doesn’t properly to capture the relevant changes it can produce completely nonsensical results.

If you can’t explain the result of an economic model, then you should be very suspicious of the results.

All current negatively geared properties have been grandfathered and will continue to get the benefits of negative gearing going forward. And newly built homes will still have access to negative gearing. So, why would rents increase?

The author of the modelling said that the changes would slash the supply of rental properties. Presumably, this is because investors will sell their properties.

But these houses won’t disappear. These homes will stop housing rental families and will instead house owner-occupier families. The same number of families are still being housed.

This can only happen if there are less renters and more first home buyers. Put simply as investors leave the market, former renters become first home buyers.

Imagine you have 100 homes and 100 families. 70 families own the home they live in, and 30 homes are owned by investors and are rented out to the remaining 30 families who don’t own a home.

The government makes a policy change that is bad for investors and10 investors decide to sell up. Who do they sell the properties to? The policy change means investors are not going to buy them. Existing owner-occupiers might buy them but that would mean their previous home would be up for sale.

The new buyers must come from those who were previously renting. So, after the change, of our 100 homes and 100 families, 80 are now owner-occupiers and 20 are renters.

After the policy change there are 10 less rental properties but there are also 10 less families wanting to rent because those previous renters have become homeowners.

But perhaps the rent increase from the model comes from a reduction in the number of new properties being built?

But under the government’s changes to negative gearing this is unlikely to occur. Investors still get access to negative gearing (and the old capital gains tax discount) if they buy a newly built home. Any incentives that negative gearing previously created to build new homes still exists after the changes.

Another possibility is that the rent increase in the model comes from the fact that investors now have a smaller subsidy because they don’t have access to negative gearing. But there are problems with this reasoning as well.

Firstly, even if this was true, all existing investors have been grandfathered, so the impact can’t be large.

But even if this was not the case, landlords can’t just increase rents. If they could then the question is really, why haven’t they done this before. The reality is that landlords are constrained by the market. They can’t just charge whatever they want.

As occurred during the 1980s when negative gearing was axed for a couple years, in some places rental prices grew faster, in some they slowed. The reason was due to the specific demand and supply in each city, not the tax changes

It makes no sense that rents would increase because of the government’s planned changes to negative gearing and just because an economic model says it will, doesn’t make the nonsensical make sense.

Jason Clare is doing the same thing in the House – speaking about the importance of early childhood education and the safety of regulations – and comparing that to the Throupilition.

And then Question Time ends.

The Senate QT ends with a question on child care

Labor want to slap One Nation about Pauline Hanson suggesting child care is bad and that also (bizarrely) regulations should be reduced.

They key issue is that childcare is a vital role for enabling women to work.

We also know it is the main reason women do not work.

The latest ABS survey showed that it was miles away the main reason people were not in the labour force

Dai Le asks:

Prime Minister, the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes announced in the May budget were significant and market-sensitive measures, so significant your government has already walked past of them back in recent days. Can the Prime Minister give the House a strong assurance that no government MP or their close relations use prior knowledge of those changes for private financial benefit before they are made public?

She is then asked to reword the question because it is against the standing orders. Everyone is very upset over whether or not it contains imputations.

Le reworks the question:

Can the Prime Minister give the house assurance that this information was properly safeguarded before the budget and were held so that no one connected to or in government was able to act on it for private financial benefit.

Albanese is told to ignore the last part still as it is not in the standing orders.

Albanese is annoyed:

I say to the member for Fowler, if she’s got a suggestion or an allegation about anyone in the chamber, she should actually say it, what it is, and preferably say it outside. (Where it is not legally protected)

This isn’t a council, this is a serious parliament.

The Coalition and Le are very upset by this.

Le:

I think the Prime Minister should have some respect in the House

Albanese:

No one’s done more for local government in this house than me

Part of the critique from some in the free right-wing parties and their cheer squad outside is there wasn’t enough consultation before the tax announcements that were made.

We were very careful, as always of course, as always , and I’m sure, as has always occurred, for as long as I’ve been here across the board, whoever has been the Treasurer and been gone through our ERC processes, that is something that we have in this country that we should cherish and we should honour, not denigrate to try to score a cheap point.

Here you go:

Today the Prime Minister convened National Cabinet for the sixth time since the conflict in the Middle East began.

At today’s meeting Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator Anthea Harris provided an update on Australia’s fuel security.

Australia’s fuel supply outlook remains secure in the near term, however we are working hard to prepare for contingencies in the event of supply disruptions in fuel and fertiliser. 

At National Cabinet the Prime Minister outlined the Commonwealth’s one month extension to the fuel excise cut and reached agreement with First Ministers on continuing their contribution, on the same basis as the previous measure.

This is more temporary support that will help take the sting out of petrol prices and help Australians with the cost of living.

In addition, the Albanese Government will reduce the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge by 16 cents for the same period to help truckies keep Australia moving.

The Prime Minister also updated National Cabinet on the discovery of H5 avian flu and the national response the Commonwealth is working on with states and territories.

The Government has already invested $113 million to strengthen preparedness for H5 avian flu, including an additional $11.2m in our most recent Budget.

Scott Morrison’s protege (what a scary sentence) Ben Small, who looks straight out of Liberal NPC central casting has a question for Anthony Albanese:

The Prime Minister has said time and time again that he has changed his position on his toxic taxes, and yet those taxes on savings, investments, housing, and businesses continue to rise. Will the Prime Minister just cut the chase, and like Julia Gillard before him, just admit he’s another Labor liar.

The question is ruled out of order and the Coalition lose a question with Milton Dick moving the call on.

Anara Watson

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has asked Environment Minister Murray Watt about the Government’s response to the arrival of H5N1 bird flu: “Will the government back calls from experts and conservation groups for a $200 million 2-year boost to wildlife resilience, coastal habitat protection and an invasive species control program?”

Minister Watt says that the Albanese government has already invested $113 million already in preparedness efforts, and that “the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has undertaken a susceptibility analysis to properly understand the species that are at the most risk of being infected, and that work has informed where our funding has gone.”

Senator Hanson-Young asks a supplementary question: “The Government has warned about the impact of this virus on Australia’s agriculture, but what modelling has the government done on the impact that this is going to have on Australia’s native species and our wildlife? How many of our endangered species will be pushed to the brink of extinction if this virus takes hold?”

After saying he took offence at the way the question was asked, Minister Watt points back to the Department’s modelling. 

Senator Hanson-Young follows that up: “One in 6 Australian bird species already are threatened with extinction. Australia has the highest rate of mammal extinction in the world because of habitat loss, climate change, and other human impacts. When will you implement a moratorium on the clearing of critical habitat, given the bird flu issue, and the fact that we are going to see our animals pushed to the brink of extinction?”

Minister Watt points to last years’ reforms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts now gets up to ask about migrants and trying to link it to productivity which he says is GDP per hours worked.

Is a weird AF question because he wants modelling, but also his line is that if migrants are less skilled than the average of Australian workers that means our productivity will fall.  

It’s all bullshit like much on productivity because by Roberts’ line of argument the only migrants should be miners. Non-market services like health care are less productive than miners but do you want a society with fewer doctors and nurses?

Roberts then wants to know the impact of GDP per capita. This is a pretty stupid argument that gets thrown around a bit. GDP per capita falling is often presented as being a falling Australians living standards.

But it is just an average.

Let’s say for eg you have 10 people all earning $100,000 than average income is $100,000. But let’s say 2 migrants come in to do care work and are only paid $50,000 each. The average income falls to $91,667, but no one is worse off.

Anyway, Roberts ends his question and every one is glad.

Now we know exactly how insufferable Angus Taylor would have been as a prefect (he gives off major prefect energy)

This is also why university debate team members should be banned from standing for parliament.

Rod Campbell

Last week NT parliament had its estimates hearings and independent MP Justine Davis was probing one of the dodgiest gas deals in Australia, the Blacktip Project off the coast of Wadeye.

Blacktip was subsidised into existence with a $4 billion plus purchase commitment. It is operated by Italy’s Eni although originally proposed by Woodside and Eni.

This is like if you were setting up a pizza shop in the middle of nowhere, but the government committed to buy $4 billion worth of pizzas making the shop viable. It’s one of Australia’s wildest fossil fuel subsidies that we have been highlighting for some time.

Unfortunately, Blacktip has hit trouble and is no longer producing gas. It is certainly costing Territorians plenty, however. Here’s the transcript, slight edits for brevity:

“J DAVIS: How much has the loss of Blacktip gas cost Power and Water and Territorians so far?

Mr WILSON: …the deficiency in the current financial year occasioned by our gas operations is $132m. Last year it was $50m—again, the difference between the two. The blue line and the grey line are the gas losses.

J DAVIS: What is the actual figure of the loss?

Mr WILSON: For this current year about to end, it is $132m.

J DAVIS: Will any more gas come from Blacktip and, if so, when and under what terms?

Mr WILSON: That relates to the legal dispute, in terms of the performance of that well and our mutual obligations and rights under that contract are being argued out.

This bungle has cost Territorians almost $200 million in the past two years alone and there were plenty of losses before that.

Worse, the $4 billion commitment gives the NT Government a conflict of interest – because it has so much gas that it must buy, it views renewable energy as a “risk” (see p45).

No wonder the rollout of renewables in the NT is so slow.

LNP Llew O’Brien has one for Anthony Albanese which is also sent Jim Chalmers’ way:

Can the Prime Minister advise whether a bricklayer who comes up with a faster way to lay bricks, a farmer who comes up with a more efficient way to harvest his crops, or a hairdresser who comes up with a new hairstyle will be eligible for the Innovative Business CGTQ?

Which – is the LNP for small business or not?

Chalmers is in no mood:

When it comes to the examples that the Honorable Member has used in every case, or in almost every case, they would be included in the new, much higher threshold for small business turnover, and so now I understand. I understand that the Honorable member is asking whether those businesses would apply for this kind of concession. I’m saying they would apply for another kind of concession, which would have a similar effect, and so….when….is the hairdresser is going to be turning over more than 10 million bucks?

It might be where you get your haircut (this is to Angus Taylor and there is a very big laugh about it)

Pauline Hanson gets up to ask Senator Tim Ayres about migrants and housing.

Ayres gets up and points out she has asked the wrong senator.

The President lets her try again, and Murray Watt gets the question.  

It’s a gross dog whistle and she really should cover her head in shame and crawl off into her gutter.

Anyway, as Matt Grudnoff has previously written – the big surge in migration was due to the COVID lockdowns, and now it’s back pretty much at normal

Senator Susan McDonald, who represents Queensland and mining companies, is asking about the changes to the CGT suggesting that per the WA Premier (who also is rather careful to always show his support for mining) the changes will reduce investment in mining and exploration.

Penny Wong says talks about the govt’s support.

McDonald them comes back with her line that she has spent a long time talking about during Senate estimates that the growth of mining investment is forecast to fall to 0% – but that is GROWTH not the amount of mining investment and eh reality is the level of mining investment remains very very high, it’s just not at once in a century iron ore mining boom levels

Over in the Senate, ALP Senator Tony Sheldon is asking Murray Watt about the minimum and award wage rises.

Watt is using this opportunity to slap One Nation and link them with the Liberal Party and doing the worst thing of all and link them to Tim Wilson especially with regard to paid parental leave. Watt quoted Willson “bragging” that he not only agreed with Paine Hanson’s view of PPL, but that he came up with it before her. Watt sneakily suggests the Libs are now writing policy for One Nation.

Expect the linking of the two parties from now till the election (the Nationals will not be mentioned, they are done)

Tim Wilson is back and he wants to know:

Can the Prime Minister confirm that businesses of all sizes will lose the existing 50% capital gains tax across all assets?

The prime minister isn’t taking this one, but Jim Chalmers is happy to:

He’s a bit slow on the uptake, mr. Speaker. We announced some time ago that there would still be a discount for capital gains. It would move to a discount, which reflects the real gains that people make, rather than an arbitrary figure. Point number one. Point number two, Mr. Speaker, is just on Thursday we announced the next steps in the legislation for the really important tax reforms that we announce on budget night, and what that made clear, what that made clear was that 98% of all active businesses will be able to access concessions and carve outs when it comes to the CGT system, and so we made that very clear, Mr. Speaker.

100% of small businesses, active small businesses, get access to the turnover threshold, the higher turnover threshold, and that means 98% of active businesses get access to carve outs and concessions, Mr. Speaker.

When it comes to those existing four concessions in the system now, mr. Speaker. Once again, once again, I think it says everything about the Shadow Treasurer that he is trying to weaponise a scare campaign against the types of changes that he called for in this parliament and in his book. Mr. Speaker, this is a shadow treasurer time and time again, called on the government to make changes of this kind, and then when we do it, he tries to weaponise a scare campaign against it.

Now those opposite, what they really want, and what their vote, the last time this parliament sat, tells the whole country is that when they’re given the option to vote to make it easier for first home buyers, they vote against it.

When they’re given the option to vote for more tax cuts for workers, they vote against it. Mr. Speaker, in that regard, they’re no different to One Nation, the Nationals, the Liberals – they’re all the same when it comes to that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if they don’t want there to be a fairy go for first home buyers, if they don’t want to better align the tax treatment of labor and asset income, as the shadow treasurer called for in his book and in the parliament on multiple occasions, if they don’t want to cut taxes for workers, they should just say so, mr. Speaker. They shouldn’t be hiding behind this dishonest scare campaign that the shadow treasurer is especially guilty of

Is Chris Bowen’s new line that he is pushing very hard.

He is also very proud of Australia having more fuel in reserve now then it did before the US and Israel attacked Iran.

Answer: John Howard and Peter Costello

I guess the Libs now want to do average across the entire period of the government and well, lulz. No.  

Kevin Hogan gives the PM a free hit:

Prime Minister, can you confirm that even after the budget back flip over your time in office, the Albanese Labor government is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history?

Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese:

I thank the member for his question, but in fact it was the Howard government that is the highest taxing government, and those opposite, if they had their way, went to the last election calling for $75 billion in higher personal income taxes.

They wanted $14 billion of higher taxes on the resources of manufacturing sectors by abolishing production tax credits, they want higher taxes on motorists by abolishing the EV concession.

They want higher taxes on housing construction by abolishing build to rent. They want higher student debts for more than 3 million Australians because they said they’d cancel the 20% cut.

In answering a Dixer on tax cuts and the fuel excise extension, Treasurer Jim Chalmers unloads on One Nation.

We’re delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer, better pay for workers, and a fair go for first home buyers. And the three-ring circus over there is standing in the way of all three of those things, Mr. Speaker. That is the absurd irony of Australia’s political system. The One Nation party talks a lot about helping workers, and the Coalition talk a lot about tax cuts, but they vote against both of those on the floor of the parliament. Mr. Speaker, every time they have the opportunity to vote for higher wages and lower taxes, the right-wing party is opposite, instead of voting the way that the workers of this country need them to do, they vote the way that Gina Rinehart and Jeff Wilson tells them to do.

Angus Taylor has opened by asking two weird questions – to the PM and Treasurer – about whether Australia would have the highest level of CGT on real incomes.

That’s a bit tough to know because it depends on what the inflation is also the rate of return, but he might be going off a graph that was in the AFR a few weeks back:

This looks like Australia has the highest in the world, but note the number for Australia goes from 23% to 47%.

The AFR noted

“Investments in higher-returning companies would likely face an effective tax rate in the 40 per cent range, with a maximum rate of up to 47 per cent for start-up founders.

In contrast, an investor in a company growing modestly at around the S&P/ASX 200 Index average of 5 per cent a year – excluding dividends – would face an effective CGT rate of between 23.5 per cent and 26.1 per cent, only marginally higher than the existing 23.5 per cent maximum.“

So if it close to 23.5% then it is one of the lowest, and if it closer to 47% it is one of the highest. But it depends.

There’s another interesting motion to be voted on later in the Senate, from Senator David Pocock.

Perhaps emboldened by his recent win on sponsored passes (the orange ‘lobbyist passes’), Pocock is moving a motion to establish an inquiry on the Personal Staffing of Parliamentarians.

‘Personal Staff’ is the term used for the select pool of staffing which currently is granted to Members of Parliament at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day. These staff are additional to the regular staffing entitlements all MPs receive for being members of Parliament.

The terms of reference for the proposed committee are as follows:

1. That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Personal Staffing of Parliamentarians, be established to inquire into and report on:
   • the adequacy, transparency and fairness of the current arrangements governing the allocation of personal staff, resources and entitlements to senators and members of the Parliament of Australia;
   • the appropriateness of any arrangements to allocate personal staff, resources or entitlements to senators or members, or to parties or groups represented in the Parliament, in connection with the consideration or passage of legislation, including but not limited to recent public reporting concerning negotiations between parties in relation to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025;
   • whether the offering, discussion or alteration of personal staffing arrangements with parliamentary votes or legislative negotiations could constitute conduct warranting referral to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges;
   • the implications for parliamentary integrity, public confidence in and the proper functioning of the Parliament where personal staffing allocations, resources or entitlements may be perceived as providing a personal or political benefit linked to parliamentary decision making;
   • options for establishing more transparent, independent or rules based mechanisms for determining personal staffing allocations, resources and entitlements for senators and members, including arrangements that ensure equitable treatment of government, opposition, minor party and independent parliamentarian; and
   • any other related matters.

Back in March, Sophie Scamps questioned Anthony Albanese about reports that he offered his Coalition rivals extra staff in exchange for their support for the Labor Government’s crackdown on Freedom of Information (FoI) rights, asking if the PM would commit to setting staffing numbers through an independent body. 

The Australia Institute’s Democracy Agenda for the 48^th Parliament also recommends setting these staffing allowances independently, as this recent case highlights the dangers of the PM of the day having discretionary power to decide the staffing allocations of the Opposition and cross bench.

Angus Taylor kicks off with a question about the the government’s CGT changes.

Angus Taylor, Opposition Leader:

Can the Prime Minister name a single country that will have a higher tax rate on real capital gains than Australia?

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister:

On Budget Night we made it very clear that we foreshadowed Treasury’s discussion paper. It was all there for all to see, but of course, for those who were busy hyperventilating and saying they were opposed to things before they even saw legislation, they didn’t look at that detail.

Further to my earlier post looking at the average incomes of different occupations, we can also work out which occupations are the most unequal by comparing the average income with the median.

Rember the median is what half the occupation earns, whereas the average is the total income of those in the occupation divided by the number who do it.

As I noted in my article on The Point:  The old line is that if you had 5 people in a room, each earning $50,000, and a person came in who earned $6m a year, then, on average, everyone in the room would now be a millionaire ($6.25m/6 = $1.042m average), while the median would still be $50,000. So the further the average gets from the median the more unequal the spread of incomes is.

Out of the 1,101 occupations there are 10 where the average income is more than twice the median.

The most unequal is that of tennis player. For this we can probably blame (or credit) Alex De Minaur who in 2024 earned $4m in prizemoney (and no doubt a tad extra in sponsorships). Next up is escort services, and well… I don’t have any stats on that., but well let’s just say I suspect the moniker “high-priced” is associated.

Then comes barristers. Here you really see the impact of KCs.

There are also a lot of CEOs – 237,168 of them. But many are CEOs of small business. Not every one of them has access to the Qantas Club or “C-suite”

Julie Collins and Murray Watt are holding a press conference with Roger Cook (the WA premier) after two birds have tested positive for the H5 strain of bird flu.

The message is to be alert, but not alarmed.

Cook:

Being over prepared here is obviously key to making sure that we can respond to any biosecurity threat. Can I also commend the Western Australian community and their vigilant protection of any outbreaks. The fact that these two particular specimens were found and and acted upon it just really is so commendable in relation to the actions of those two individuals, which now means we are in possession of the information that we need to stand up the protocols to respond as we need to do, my government has stood up a hotline for people to to report any concerns or activity they see in local wildlife or agricultural wild agricultural animals, just to make sure that we’ve got the very best opportunity to continue to early detection, and we want people to be vigilant.

This is obviously a very concerning situation, but it’s one that we’re prepared for, and I want to continue to just also do the shout outs to Western Australian industry.

We know that there’s one particular poultry processing operation which has now taken proactive actions to make sure that they can do everything they can to ensure that there is no spread to the agricultural industry and that we can do everything we can to maintain the reputation and the health of the agriculture sector in Western Australia, so we’re continuing to work with the Commonwealth, and we will from here on in to make sure that we have every resource that we need and every opportunity that we can take to ensure that we stay on top of these early detections and minimize or eliminate any risk to the Western Australian agriculture industry.

Rod Campbell

There is an important story in the Financial Review today, titled “Desperate gas producers weigh radical tax concession to fight gas plan.”

In the story, gas companies basically concede that they could pay a lot more tax in Australia:

Desperate to water down Labor’s proposed domestic gas reservation scheme, some Australian LNG producers and investors are now considering a once-unthinkable concession: giving ground on the super-sensitive issue of taxation.

According to industry sources, a growing number of major players are actively discussing a radical trade-off, offering to accept revisions to petroleum tax rules if the government compromises on gas reservation.

Well worth a read.

I really hoped the story would include the words “gas panic”, which was the name of a legendary nightclub in Tokyo in the 1990s, of which I have hazy memories.

That phrase doesn’t actually appear, but hopefully journos covering gas can include it in the future.

Greg Jericho

The annual taxation statistics out last week gave us some nice news on who earns what.

As I noted earlier women earn less than men on average in 96% of occupations, but the data also gives us information on total incomes as well as just salaries.

Not only that it breaks down the income so we know where median income is, the bottom 10% top 10% etc.

It looks like this

This is a lot different to the average earnings – because average earnings are skewed by high incomes.

But we can line the ATO tax stats up with average full-time and total earnings to see that if in 2023-24 you were earning the male average full-time earnings of $110,016 you were in the 74^th percentile – ie you earned more than 73% of all Australians who earned an income

It also is interesting what occupations put you where in the income scale.

Members of Parliament have the 40^th highest average income across the 1,101 occupations. That puts them in the top 3%. Not exactly regular folk.

But even occupations that are often thrown around as “average earners” like school principals or a bank managers are decidedly not so. The average income of school principals is $158,827 – that’s more than 87% of Australians earn. Bank mangers with $177,647 average income are even better off – they’re in the 91^st percentile – literally the top 10%.

The average income of a print journalist is a tad lower – at $106,319, but that’s still more than 71% of Australian earn. Primary school teachers have an average income of $90,010 – putting them in the 61^st percentile. That’s a lot closer to median earnings, but compared to childcare workers on $47,397 they seem extremely well off. Childcare workers are in the bottom 25% of income earners.

What is important is that of course men generally earn more than women, so when we look at the average earnings of every occupation it is important to know if you are talking men or women and also averages skew very much higher in those occupations with a lot of inequality from very high incomes by the few at the top.  

Male cricketers for example have an average income of $427,110  – skewed for example by those who play in the IPA. The median male cricket income is $138,243. But the average woman cricket earns $171,139 – and the median is 114,290. So the pay gap on average earnings is huge, but for median earning less so.

You can search all average incomes by profession here and also see the pay gaps

For anyone wanting to keep score on Senator Jordon Steele-John’s NDIS motion in the Senate from earlier, it went down like this.

Interesting that Babet and Hanson bothered to turn up for this one, as the NOES only needed 11 to defeat the Greens, and Labor of course have the numbers and then some. 

AYES, 10

NOES, 32

AAP

Twin fights over tax and disability support will dominate parliament in the coming days as the government tries to ram through reforms before MPs leave Canberra for the long winter break.

Labor is attempting to hash out a deal with the Greens to pass controversial changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing, in exchange for extending an inquiry into a planned overhaul of the NDIS.

The Greens are pushing for the tax changes to apply to all properties instead of the current proposed grandfathering arrangements

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor said the tax changes should be scrapped and accused Labor of shifting to the “crazy left” to do an agreement with the minor party.

“That dirty deal between Labor and the Greens is, I think, something every Australian should be deeply concerned about,” he told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

Mr Taylor said he wanted more scrutiny of the NDIS reforms but indicated he would work with the government to make the scheme more financially sustainable.

Greens leader Larissa Waters demanded the NDIS changes be withdrawn, arguing the changes would leave disabled Australians worse-off.

“We are using everything we’ve got to make sure that these cuts actually are stopped completely, but at the very least inquired into even further,” she told ABC Radio.

Senator Waters said grandfathering changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount was a missed opportunity to properly address Australia’s housing crisis, but added talks with the government were ongoing.

A Labor-led committee investigating the tax proposal handed down its final report on Friday, recommending legislation proposing changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax be passed.

On the same day, a separate parliamentary inquiry into the overhaul of the NDIS delayed its report for a second time, pushing the deadline back to Tuesday.

More than 30 business groups have banded together to urge parliamentarians to reject Labor’s proposed changes to the capital gains tax.

Critics attacked Labor’s initial proposal of removing the existing 50 per cent capital gains tax discount and replacing it with inflation indexation and a minimum 30 per cent rate.

In the joint letter, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warned the changes will deter business investment and weaken economic activity.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is also meeting with state and territory leaders on Monday to discuss fuel security, after announcing fuel excise cuts will be extended for another month at a lower discount.

The change means the current 32-cent-a-litre discount on petrol will be halved to 16 cents a litre from July.

As support for One Nation surges, the coalition will look to dig into the party’s policy detail to expose its vulnerabilities to voters.

For the first time, Pauline Hanson is being backed in polls as the preferred prime minister.

In her National Press Club address on Wednesday, Senator Hanson rejected multiculturalism.

But Toowoomba-based Liberal MP Garth Hamilton, who faces a likely strong One Nation challenge for his seat, questioned her “monoculture” vision.

He said the coalition needed to be “cool, calm and confident” in presenting voters with strong policies.

“We can’t dismiss the areas of concern that people are speaking to,” Mr Hamilton said.

“We also can’t shy away from the differences between us and One Nation.”

Rod Campbell

Victoria must immediately suspend recreational quail hunting to prevent the spread of H5N1 bird flu, says Regional Victorians Opposed to Duck Shooting (RVODS).

Victoria still allows recreational shooting of native birds, mostly ducks but also quail.

This is against the recommendations of a government-led committee that The Australia Institute made a submission to.

The Allan Government’s recalcitrance on this issue is largely because gun enthusiasts have taken influential positions in Labor and key unions.

According to RVODS, “The Victorian Government must act immediately and suspend recreational quail hunting before hunters, vehicles, equipment and gundogs become inadvertent vectors in the spread of a disease that has already devastated wildlife populations across the globe.

“Quail are extremely vulnerable. They lack genetic resistance to the virus, experience rapid multi-organ failure, and face a flock mortality rate of up to 100%, often dying within 24 to 48 hours. [1, 2, 3, 4]

“Victoria cannot claim to take biosecurity seriously while simultaneously allowing recreational hunting of one of the species most vulnerable to H5N1.

“We call on the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Agriculture to immediately suspend recreational quail hunting across Victoria until the H5N1 threat has been fully assessed and appropriate safeguards are in place.

“The cost of acting now is minimal.

“The cost of getting this wrong could be catastrophic for Victoria’s wildlife and Agricultural sectors.”

AAP

Australia’s share market is breaking even to start the week, as oil prices fluctuate amid tense US-Iran negotiations in Switzerland.

The S&P/ASX200 rose 1.6 points by midday on Monday to be up 0.02 per cent, to 8,828.8, as the broader All Ordinaries fell by 0.8 points, down 0.01 per cent, to 9,046.5.

“Despite the US-Iran peace deal being signed on Thursday, geopolitical risk is likely to dominate the newsflow,” Capital.com senior market analyst Kyle Rodda said.

“Peace talks commenced between the US and Iran in Switzerland amidst threats to close the Strait of Hormuz after tensions flared between Israel and Hezbollah.”

Energy stocks fell 0.8 per cent as oil prices eased from an overnight spike, weighing on Woodside and refinery operators Viva and Ampol.

A recent sell-off in mining stocks continued, albeit at a slower rate, the sector down 0.5 per cent on Monday as gold miners rebounded.

The precious metal has firmed to near $US4,190 ($A5,978) an ounce, after selling off last week as markets repriced for a hawkish US interest rate outlook.

BHP and Rio Tinto extended their declines after hitting record highs during the previous two weeks, despite iron ore and copper futures edging higher.

Major insurers helped support a 0.6 per cent lift in financials stocks, helped by decent upticks in CommBank and ANZ shares, while NAB and Westpac edged higher.

Consumer discretionary stocks also performed well, up 0.6 per cent and led by a more than two per cent upswing in Aristocrat, as the segment continued its recent recovery to trade at 18-week highs.

ASX-listed IT stocks underperformed the broader market, down 1.7 per cent after a sharp drop in sector giant, WiseTech.

The logistics software provider tumbled more than 12 per cent after the Australian Financial Review and other Nine publicationsclaimed the Australian Federal Police was investigating company co-founder Richard White.

The Nine reports centre on the alleged exploitation of a woman’s immigration status and financial insecurity for sex and the provision of false information on a visa application. 

WiseTech declined to comment and the AFP has yet to respond to AAP’s request for information about the alleged investigation, which has not been officially confirmed.

Inghams was also heavy, falling five per cent after a case of the deadly H5N1 bird flu variant was detected for the first time on the Australian continent in Western Australia.

As a precaution, Inghams has locked down its WA farms and processing operations.

The a2 Milk Company shares gained 3.7 per cent after flagging a $300 million special dividend after winning regulatory approval to transfer two acquired infant formula products to its own branding.

Debt buyer and collector Credit Corp has ditched plans to buy Humm.

The Australian dollar was buying 70.08 US cents, down slightly from 70.12 US cents on Friday at 5pm.

Looking ahead, it’s a big week for local macroeconomic data, with May consumer price index figures due on Wednesday, and unemployment data to follow on Thursday.

Rod Campbell

The main super fund of the university has “increased its holdings in Elbit Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Israeli companies operating illegally in the West Bank”, according to a newish campaign Divest from Death.

The campaign organisers “believe the default super fund for our sector should not support weapons manufacturers and other companies involved in genocide, war crimes, occupation and apartheid in Palestine.”

The organisers have had some contact with UniSuper management but “UniSuper has made it clear that they are not currently willing to divest from these companies.”

In response to UniSuper’s unwillingness to listen to these concerns, the campaign is organising a rolling mass departure of members from UniSuper.

If you’re a UniSuper member and not supportive of companies profiting from genocide and human misery, you should check out their website: https://unisuperdivest.wordpress.com/about/

Bill Browne

Last week four lions of ACT government gathered in Woden to discuss the future of government in the ACT: former Health Minister Michael Moore, the first independent minister anywhere in Australia; former Chief Minister Gary Humphries, the last Liberal to govern the ACT; former Greens crossbencher Caroline Le Couteur, who won truth in political advertising in the territory and Bernard Collaery, former Deputy Chief Minister and champion of whistleblowers. Veteran presenter Genevieve Jacobs MCed.

While the former parliamentarians represent a range of ideologies and backgrounds, they often found agreement on radical reforms that would change government in the territory. Canberra has a proud history as a “laboratory” of reforms that are later adopted in other jurisdictions.

In what would be a major break from Westminster tradition, Gary Humphries suggested ministers could be chosen from outside the Parliament: for a teacher to head the Education portfolio or a health administrator, doctor or nurse to be chosen as Minister for Health.

A more conventional proposal came from the floor: for ministers to be drawn from the most qualified MPs regardless of their party affiliation. Caroline Le Couteur thought it was workable, while Gary Humphries described it as “tempting” but he couldn’t see it working.

Caroline Le Couteur suggested the Speaker role should be filled by an independent MP without party allegiance. This is how the United Kingdom does it (and South Australia does something similar).

Gary Humphries called for citizen-initiated referenda, allowing the public to overrule politicians if their needs aren’t being met. Michael Moore warned that referenda enforce the will of the majority, while the main challenge for government is to protect minorities.

Caroline Le Couteur detailed two citizens’ juries from her time in the Assembly, one of which (on housing) went well and one of which (on motor accident insurance) did not. As a juror on the motor accident insurance jury, I can attest that it was a cynical, politically-managed exercise.

Citizens’ Assembly for the ACT asked from the floor about their proposal for a standing citizens’ assembly, that is for a body of ordinary Canberrans to be gathered to make recommendations to government. Caroline Le Couteur warned it would take a lot of work to get right, including having public servants be answerable to citizens just as they are to government ministers.

While it is not as exciting as some of the other proposals, a fundamental improvement could be made just by expanding the ACT Parliament. Tasmania has 50 MPs to the ACT’s 25, and Tasmania has hundreds of local government councillors. In the ACT, eight of Labor’s 10 MPs are ministers leaving just two backbenchers to cover all committee work.

Ventilating the ideas is the first stage in a process organised by the Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy (CAPAD) and Active Democracy Bean to consult Canberrans on how they might like to reshape democracy and government in the ACT, almost 40 years on from the territory gaining self-government.

The full recording is available on YouTube. Interested Canberrans can vote on the proposals on the CAPAD website until noon this Wednesday and attend a co-design workshop at the Woden Valley Uniting Church on 28 June.

This may be a good time to point out that a 2023 cost-benefit-analysis estimated the NDIS’ net benefits (after costs are deducted) to be $7.6 billion. This includes $341 million through improvements to the employment and financial security of parents and informal carers of scheme participants.

A 2022 review on employment outcomes found that, for participants aged 0 to 14, the percentage of family/carers in a paid job increased by 8.6 percentage points (about +16% from baseline) over six years in the scheme.

The NDIS isn’t a cost. It’s an investment in Australia’s productivity and growth.

The Senate has been discussing the NDIS, after Senator Jordon Steele-John moved a motion to suspend standing orders (standing orders = ‘the rules’, so essentially, a vote to pause what everyone agreed they’d be doing that day in the Senate).

These shenanigans were agreed to AYES 29, NOES 23, with enough of the Liberals agreeing to shenanigan along with the Greens, though they are no friends of the NDIS either.

The substantive motion that they’ve paused to now discuss is as follows: 

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Labor’s NDIS Bill is completely friendless, with almost every witness to the inquiry saying that the bill shouldn’t pass in its current form,

(ii)  the bill will have a devastating impact on disabled people, their families and carers, and it imposes inhumane and cruel requirements on disabled people, including requiring people to repeatedly prove permanent disabilities and navigate new layers of bureaucracy to access essential services, and

(iii) the government’s own modelling shows that they want to remove 241,000 people from the NDIS by 2031; and

(b)  calls on the Government to withdraw the bill.

It is unlikely the Coalition will vote for this motion as I’d be surprised to see them acknowledge point (a) (ii). But they might for entertainment purposes, as the Senate can call on the Government to do whatever as it is non-binding. 

But these shenanigans do cause a delay on the Government’s business for the day, which is to start debating and passing its Budget bills through the Senate:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 (subject to introduction)

So it’s little wonder the Coalition are willing participants in the Greens’ shenanigans this morning.

Also: if you’re wondering what the Greens and Liberal Party’s agenda for the week are, they’ve each shown their hand with the urgency motions they’ve each lodged in the Senate (again, just an opportunity to grandstand on an issue with the backdrop of The Senate in the background, which is great content for socials.)

So for the Greens, it’s gas industry lobbying. And for the Liberals it’s broken promises and higher taxes. No surprises there.

Senator McKim—Urgency motion—That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Australian Government to place a moratorium on meetings with representatives of the gas industry and their lobbyists for the duration of the public debate on the taxation of gas exports, revoke sponsored parliamentary passes held by such representatives, and immediately disclose all meetings held between Government ministers and representatives of the gas industry or their lobbyists over the previous 12 months

Senator Bragg—Urgency motion—That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain why it misled Australians before the election by promising not to increase taxes, only to now pursue higher taxes on superannuation, savings, investments and small businesses, proving that Labor’s answer to every problem is more tax, more government and less reward for hard work, enterprise and aspiration

Here is how Bowers has seen the parliament morning

Now we have finished meetings we can get back into this – we have signed an agreement with Canada which is being billed as the “nation’s largest ever defence export”.

From the release:
 
This $2.5 billion agreement marks the first international sale of Australia’s world-leading OTHR technology, building on the proven success of the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) while supporting hundreds of Australian industry jobs.
 
Australia’s Department of Defence has worked with the Canadian Department of National Defence to develop requirements for Canada’s Artic-Over the Horizon Radar (A-OTHR) capability, with the commitment to collaborate on this technology reaffirmed by Prime Minister Albanese and Prime Minister Carney in March 2026.
 
The agreement signed today reflects our shared strategic interests, combining Australia’s globally recognised expertise in OTHR with Canada’s leadership in Arctic defence and long-range domain awareness.
 
It will further strengthen interoperability between trusted partners while driving industrial growth and innovation in both nations. It also establishes a framework for joint research and development to advance OTHR capabilities for mutual benefit.
 
Working together on OTHR systems will support the delivery of early warning and surveillance capabilities in the Indo-Pacific and North Atlantic, contributing to our collective security in an increasingly complex strategic environment.
 
The project will support approximately 300 high-value technical jobs in Australia, with industry partner BAE Systems Australia set to commence delivery of Canada’s A‑OTHR capability on 1 July 2026.
 
This announcement marks the first stage of a broader Australia–Canada collaboration on A-OTHR. Both nations are committed to exploring further opportunities for joint development, deepening defence industrial ties, and building an enduring partnership that strengthens capability and security outcomes for both countries.
 

Anara Watson

Textile waste is a big problem in Australia.

In May 2024, The Australia Institute’s Textile Waste report revealed that Australian shoppers contribute to fast fashion waste more than any others on earth, surpassing Americans as the biggest textile consumers, per capita, on the planet.

New research calculates the average person has 199 major pieces of clothing. Sixty years ago, people generally owned just 40.

In a piece published in The Conversation last week – titled “How much is too much? The maths behind having a sustainable wardrobe” – Lecturer Alicja Kuźmycz shone a spotlight on the hidden carbon footprint of our clothing. Indeed, the environmental impacts of fast fashion (like Zara and H&M) and ultra-fast fashion (like Temu and Shein) are huge.

But, as Kuźmycz explains, wear-count is an important factor when considering the carbon footprint. The European Union has calculated that in order to offset carbon footprints there needs to be:

• 40 wears for shirts and blouses
• 45 wears for T-shirts
• 70 wears for pants, shorts, dresses, skirts, jumpsuits, leggings
• 85 wears for jumpers, cardigans, hoodies
• 100 wears for jackets and coats.

So, the conversation around sustainable clothing is just as much about “buying better” as it is about “wearing more”.

When the Iran War began and oil prices skyrocketed, the government actually did what governments are supposed to do when an outside supply shock hits – protect households. It did that by halving the fuel excise. Now 3 months later it looks set, according to reports, to extend the cut, but reduce it to a 25% cut.

The economics of this is rather less urgent than it was in March as oil prices are now back only marginally above where they were before the bombings began.

But given the ending of the excise cut would raise prices overnight by 26 cent a litre, it’s not a shock the Govt is not eager to give the loose confederation of opposition parties a free hit.

So what will this mean for unleaded prices?

Right now, the national average is around 160c/l – well down on the 192c/l on 28Febraury when the bombing began, and very much lower than the 259.5c/l it peaked at before the halving of the excise:

The reduced excise will raise prices to around 176c/l – still lower than they were before the war began. Indeed, even ending of the excise cut in full would have raised price to around 186c/l – lower than on 28 February.

The full cut of the excise cost the government about $212m a week, which is the main reason they reduced the cut.  

Always worth remembering that a 25% tax on gas exports would raise about $350m a week in tax.

Budget, as ever, are about choices…

James Watson

You may have heard that the newly minted trillionaire Elon Musk is now (supposedly) richer than most nations.

As the Sydney Morning Herald recently wrote about SpaceX’s IPO, if “he were a nation, Musk would command a seat at the G20”.

The same comparison can be found in the ABC and news.com.au –if Musk were a country, his wealth would make him one of the richest countries in the world.

But as our recent factcheck shows, this reporting is based on dodgy economic logic.

These media outlets are comparing Musk’s wealth with countries’ GDPs. The problem with this is that wealth is a measure of a person’s total assets and liabilities, while GDP measures the rate of economic activity for just one year.

It’s a bit like comparing the rate at which water flows out of a tape per second, with the size of the bucket it’s filling. The two numbers have nothing in common (besides being related to water).

It’d be more accurate to compare a nation’s GDP with Musk’s economic activity over the past year – the Tesla Cybertrucks he has bought to prop up his own sales figures, the hush money he has allegedly offered to women, and his minimal childcare support payments for his 14 children.

The fact is: Musk’s wealth is pretty small compared to most countries. Private capital can’t compete with public wealth (no matter how much some journalists fetishise the former).

Greg Jericho

Last week on Wednesday Pauline Hanson spewed forth her ignorance on a great many topics. One that slid through in the Q&A was that she believes the gender pay gap is not a thing because the only reason women are paid less is they work less.

Hoo boy. Must be nice to be able to say that when you have spent the best part of 30 years on a salary set by the Remuneration Tribunal and where you keep getting paid even when you don’t turn up to work.

Yes, women work less – mostly because women are expected to do the majority share of care, are the ones who give birth and then as a result are often over-looked for extra hours, and promotions and leadership roles.

Even as we might be moving ever so slowly towards men doing more care work, the problem is male-dominated occupations invariably pays more than women-dominated roles and so if you have a couple, generally the woman will earn less than the male partner and so she will be the one who goes part-time when children come along.

But all of this is fine as far as it goes but the reality the gender pay gap exists across almost every single occupation.

In the 2023-24 taxation statistics released last week 96% of all the more than 1,100 occupations have men with a higher average salary than women.

Unsurprisingly that includes the most male-dominated occupation of plumbers. But it also includes the most women-dominate occupation of midwives

That makes it clear this is a massively systemic issue and not just because “women work less”.

When we look at a chart of all the 1,100 occupations it looks like this (everything above the horizontal line men have a higher avge salary). Of note is the Member of parliament are pretty much right on the line – just reinforcing how Hanson really is utterly detached form the reality most women face:

You can find out where your occupation is by using the table at the bottom of my article on The Point here

Matt Grudnoff

Auction clearance rates have fallen to their lowest level since the pandemic. The slow-down in the housing market is being blamed on interest rate increases, and the Government’s tax changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax announced in the Budget.

Pundits on radio and in newspapers are starting to argue it’s a bad thing, but I think this missed the point.

As a country we need to ask a very obvious, but often ignored question: what is housing for? Is it a safe and secure place for people to live? Or is it a place to make a small minority of people rich?

The answer is important because the housing market over the last two decades has shown that it can’t be both.

For 25 years investors have flooded into the market, pushing up house prices, outbidding first home buyers, and making housing less affordable. Higher house prices mean bigger capital gains when an owner sells, which just attracts more investors.

But the tax changes are designed to discourage the very investors who have been pushing up prices, and recent evidence suggests it is working.

Westpac has reported a drop in investor loan applications and real estate agents are reporting a drop in investor interest.

We must confront the fact that a small number of people have been making a lot of money from housing becoming less affordable and they are unlikely to be happy to see this situation come to an end.

Now that group is trying to fight back by claiming that slowly increasing house prices are bad. However, recent history shows that rapidly rising house prices are the opposite of affordable housing.

Homes will become more affordable when people’s incomes rise faster than house prices. This means flat house prices for 10 or 15 years. If this is unacceptable, then we need to admit to ourselves that we really don’t want affordable housing.

The favourite article among conservative media is getting property and fund manager researchers to speculate how much how house prices will fall.

Morgan Stanley suggested a 10% national fall. Today we have SQL Research suggesting a 9% fall in Sydney.

Ok so what does that mean? Let’s assume by December, house prices were 9% below what they were last year.

Well, we have the latest figures for media house prices in Sydney and the news is in March they were already down on the December 2025 $1.56m peak prices (interest rate rises do that).

A 9% fall would send the median house price in Sydney all the way own to $1.4m – or back to where they were in September 2024.

At that point they would still be 41% higher than they wee 6 years earlier in December 2020.

For reference, since December 2020 private-sector wage in NSW have so far risen just 18%.

Had house prices since then merely risen in line with wages, the median house price in Sydney would be $1.178m. To get to there we wouldn’t need a 9% fall, we would need a 24% fall.

So maybe calm the farm about falling house prices.

Bill Browne

One of the things I like most about parliamentary inquiries is that they bring together unlikely allies. On Friday, Labor’s Deb O’Neill, Green Barbara Pocock and Liberal Paul Scarr came together to rip shreds off one of the “Big Four” consulting firms, KPMG.

Scandal-prone KPMG has lost its CEO and other leaders after mishandling a whistleblower complaint relating to abuse of confidential information in the audit branch.

As Alana Barbaro, Kieran Pender and I wrote for The Point last week, whistleblowers in partnerships are particularly vulnerable because they don’t receive normal corporate protections.

That’s just one of several unfair advantages that partnerships receive over regular companies. The trade-off is meant to be that every partner takes personal responsibility for the business – but as we see with KPMG, it takes years for anyone to take responsibility.

Somehow, the Reserve Bank trusted KPMG to run the RBA’s whistleblowing program – despite the firm already abusing government trust in the Transport for NSW debacle.

Overall, the Albanese Government has $653 million in active contracts with KPMG – enough to employ the entire workforce of government departments, the Bureau of Meteorology or the Criminal Intelligence Commission.

Big, diversified consultant firms use their audit and accounting branches’ reputation for honesty and integrity to tout for consulting work. The consulting work is often shoddy, expensive and self-serving. Thanks to KPMG, we now know the auditing is dubious as well.

Skye Predavec

Last Friday afternoon (or early Friday morning British time) the suburban Manchester electorate of Makerfield elected its new member of British Parliament.

While by-elections can always be mini referendums on sitting governments, this one was particularly significant, as it was expected to decide Britain’s next Prime Minister. Now that former Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham has become the newly minted MP for Makerfield, he’s in pole position to topple Keir Starmer for the top job.

For months, scandals have piled up at Starmer’s door. There was the appointment of Epstein confidant Peter Mandelson, his tepid response to wars in Iran and Gaza, and landslide defeats in local elections, to name a few.

Now, just two years after Labour secured 411 seats in a landslide victory, Starmer’s lost the confidence of almost all of them. Some of Burnham’s backers are hoping for up to 300 MPs to get behind his leadership bid, likely enough to see off any other contenders for the top job.

Burnham, who gained the nickname ‘king in the north’ with his leadership of Manchester, is the most popular politician in the country (and the only one who more people like than dislike). Polls suggest he’s the only person capable of reviving UK Labour’s crumbling levels of popular support and staving off the threat of Nigel Farage’s far-right Reform UK.

Later today, Starmer is expected to announce a timeline for his departure from the Prime Ministership. If all goes to plan for Burnham, he’ll soon have to test whether he can translate those poll numbers into reality.

Bill Browne

Australian charities don’t just provide direct support to people and the environment, they also advocate for how to make laws and systems work better.

But now charities are warning that their ability to advocate for change is under threat.

They have three requests:

• A presumption that political advocacy engaged in by a charity has a public benefit. This would help protect charities from reprisals if they say something the government doesn’t like.
• Transparent, merit-based appointment process for the Charities Commissioner. Currently the Commissioner is chosen by ministerial discretion.
• Banning “gag clauses” in Commonwealth agreements, to stop the government silencing charities that have contracts with the government by making their silence a condition of the contract.

As Australian Democracy Network head Saffron Zomer says,

“Across the country, every day, our priorities are helping people eat, learn, heal, find a home.

“And in addition to those critical services that we provide, we are also speaking up about the reasons why these people that we work with are being left behind.”

Charities Minister Andrew Leigh has promised for years to implement at least two of the three requests, but there’s little evidence of progress. Now the charities sector – mobilised by the Stronger Charities Alliance – is ramping up its calls for change.

Matt Grudnoff

The release of the Taxations Statistics by the ATO last week gave us some insights into how housing is becoming concentrated into the hands of a tiny number of investors. They showed that just 1% of taxpayers own 25% of all rental properties. Two generous tax concessions have created these conditions: negative gearing and the 50% capital gains tax (CGT) discount.

It also showed that the government’s changes to these concessions are not likely hurt young people, since young people make up only a small minority of people who own investment properties.

They show that only 4% of property investors are under 30, while more than half are aged over 50. And when we look specifically at the 1% of taxpayers who own a quarter of rental housing, two thirds of those are over 50, while only 1% are under 30.

Those aged 50 plus are more likely to be investors regardless of how many investment properties they own. And the more properties an investor owns the less likely they are to be young.

Half of those who own one investment property are over 50. This increases to two-thirds of investors who own four investment properties. Three quarters of investors who own six or more properties are 50 plus.

The taxation statistics also reveal a big increase in the number of investors who are negatively geared.

Negative gearing exploded after the introduction of the 50% capital gains tax discount in 1999, as investors rushed into the market, and pushed up house prices.

The taxation statistics show us that housing has become concentrated in the hands of a few investors. It also shows that younger people are largely missing out.

Alice Grundy

Budgets tell us what governments care about and this last budget confirmed what Australian governments have been saying for decades: foreign aid is a low priority. 

Australia has one of the lowest spends on foreign aid compared with other developed countries. When it comes to Defence spending, Australia is prepared to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for submarines that likely will never be built. But security is not a question of military might. Security is the product of good relationships and neighbours that flourish.

Under successive governments, Australia has failed to meet its commitments to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid. In fact, under the Albanese Government, spending is at just 0.19% of GNI.

To put this into perspective, Australia’s total foreign aid budget, which the government calls Official Development Assistance (ODA), was $5.097 billion in 2025-6. According to Animal Medicines Australia’s major survey and study of pet ownership, Australians spent $21 billion on their animals in the year to March 2025.

Read more on The Point. 

Environment minister Murray Watt has told ABC News Breakfast a second bird has likely tested positive for HN5, which us lay people know as bird flu. The first case was last week. But he says it there is no cause for panic just yet.

In terms of the geographic spread, it’s important to remember that at this point we only have one officially confirmed case of the deadly strain, and that involved a bird that was found around Esperance on the southern coast of Western Australia – of course, there is a second bird that looks like it has tested positive, but we’re waiting for official confirmation of that to come through.

Zali Steggall is once again pushing to have truth in political advertising a law, targeting lies, deepfakes and AI.

Steggall says the parliament has a very small opportunity to set some standards in stone before the next election and given the volatility of the political climate it is more important then ever:

Australians expect honesty from the people asking for their vote,” Steggall said. “Yet in 2026, politicians can still publish misleading advertisements, fake endorsements and AI-generated content designed to deceive voters, without being held accountable.

…As artificial intelligence becomes more powerful and accessible, the risks to our democracy are growing. Deepfakes and synthetic media can now be created quickly, cheaply and convincingly. Our electoral laws must keep pace,” she said.

The proposed new laws reflect Steggall’s years of parliamentary work on truth in political advertising. They build on a similar bill Steggall introduced in 2021 and include three new reforms:

1. Political advertising standards board

The bill establishes a new independent Political Advertising Standards Board to oversee and enforce political advertising rules. Operating within the Australian Electoral Commission but independent of its direction on substantive decisions, the board would investigate complaints, monitor political advertising and publish rulings. It would have the power to order corrections, retractions or the removal of unlawful advertisements. Non-complying ads would be subject to a financial penalty up to $300,000.

2. Ethical political advertising code

For the first time, political advertising would be subject to a formal code of conduct requiring advertisements to be truthful, factually accurate and supported by reliable evidence. Advertisements could not mislead through omission, ambiguity or exaggeration, and opinions would need to be clearly identified as opinions rather than presented as facts.

The code would also prohibit fake endorsements, false testimonials and disinformation campaigns.

3. Mandatory disclosure of AI-generated content

Recognising the rapid rise of AI-generated content in political communication, the bill introduces clear disclosure requirements for AI-generated media, including deepfakes.

Political advertisements containing digitally created or manipulated visual or audio content that is intended, or likely, to deceive a reasonable person into believing it is genuine would be required to display a prominent “AI-generated content” label.

The legislation also future-proofs Australia’s electoral framework by creating accountability for “Electoral AI Agents”, ensuring individuals and organisations remain responsible for automated political communications generated by AI systems.

Steggall:

This is not about restricting political debate or criticism. It is about ensuring that political actors cannot knowingly deceive voters with false claims, fabricated endorsements or AI-generated content designed to mislead,” Steggall said.

Australians expect honesty in commercial advertising. They should be able to expect the same standard from those seeking to govern them.”

Australia’s flagship climate policy, the Safeguard Mechanism, is failing miserably, according to new research by The Australia Institute.

With the government set to review the scheme this year, the research shows the Safeguard Mechanism’s biggest  failure is its overwhelming reliance on carbon offsets which, in some cases, have enabled big polluters, including fossil fuel producers, to increase their actual pollution.

The report exposes the extraordinary lack of integrity in offsets as well as the accounting tricks which have enabled the government to keep approving new fossil fuel projects while falsely claiming its policies are reducing real emissions.

Key points:

• The Safeguard Mechanism has failed to deliver promised reductions in gross emissions.
• The scheme has enabled polluters to claim “net reductions” in emissions while actual pollution levels are rising.
• Proposals to open the Safeguard Mechanism to international offsets would further reduce the scheme’s integrity.
• By enabling coal and gas expansion, the policy could put Australia in breach of international law.
• Allowing big polluters to use unlimited offsets makes Australia an outlier in international climate policy, alongside countries like Kazakhstan.

“While millions of Australian homes and businesses are doing the right thing, installing solar panels and batteries, and buying EVs, many of our biggest polluters are using dodgy offsets to pollute more than ever,” said Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute.

“The Safeguard Mechanism’s main function was supposed to be to make our biggest polluters pollute less. That is simply not happening.

“The scheme is undermining the overall goal of reducing real emissions because it allows polluters to rely on an unlimited amount of carbon offsets. Under the Safeguard Mechanism there is simply no obligation for big polluters to reduce the actual levels of pollution. 

“The government has an opportunity to fix this mess and get back to basics when it reviews the scheme during the next financial year.

“If the Albanese Government is serous about the science of climate change then it need to reform its main climate policy to require big polluters to reduce their actual greenhouse gas emissions. The science is simple. If actual greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, then we clearly aren’t ‘decarbonising’ the economy.”

Hello and welcome to the final sitting fortnight before the winter break.

It is going to be a bit of a messy one, as the Albanese government starts taking the One Nation surge seriously. The main agenda for Labor is passing the CGT changes in the senate. After announcing changes to make small business exempt and starting consultation to do the same for start ups, the government is more certain it can get a deal with the Greens. But still, a day is a long time in politics and two weeks is practically an eternity. So let’s see.

In the UK, Albanese ally Keir Starmer is being urged to resign to make way for his rival Andy Burnham (who is also known in Westminster circles as the ‘King of the North’ as Labour leader with the incumbent government failing to stop the surge of Nigel Farage and Reform under Starmer.

Burnham’s win increased Labour’s share of the vote in an area of the UK where Farage had swept the local council elections, so he’s already defied the current patterns. We’ll be keeping an eye on that.

And then there is everything else which is going on – the fuel excise cut has been continued for another month, with National Cabinet called for this morning to have a chat about it – because it is more lost revenue for the states. No one wants to upset the apple cart and make voters any angrier though, so it’s unlikely to be completely hostile.

So grab your coffee – I am on number three this morning – and take a breath. These two weeks are going to be loooonnnnggggg.