The Point Live: AI regulation wish list on the agenda, while industry dictates the gas reservation policy. As it happens.

Thanks for being part of today’s conversation.

All roads lead to Canberra’s Shine Dome tonight, where Treasurer Jim Chalmers will deliver this year’s Australia Institute Bernie Fraser Oration.

Then tomorrow, one of the biggest Australia Institute events of the year, the 2026 Revenue Summit. It’s a genuine blockbuster lineup.

We leave you with some images from the great Mike Bowers of Pauline Hanson addressing a business summit, including a ripper where she’s counting on her fingers.

I bet Andrew McKellar never had hosting an economic forum with Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce on his bingo card!

Who’d have thought, eh?

Sweet dreams.

Anna Chang

Senator Nick McKim gives one of his most aggro (complimentary) speeches in parliament to date. Like, even for him.

Senator Nick McKim:

Well, here we find ourselves: a Christian nationalist end times death cult has got control of the White House, enabled by its fascist, tech bro survivalist mates. 

And what’s the latest perversion that they are going to try to inflict on us? That’s right, a live-streamed, state-sanctioned snuff movie. 

Not content with destroying the planet’s capacity to sustain human life. Not content with stealing the entire intellectual, creative, and artistic output of the human race and monetising it for profit. Not content with accumulating obscene wealth, while billions of people face poverty, starvation, death, disease, and displacement. 

They now want to force a live-streamed execution onto the screens of Australian children. 

They are depraved, barbaric psychopaths, and these are the people that the Australian government claims to have shared values with. 

Well, here is one Australian that does not share those values. 

We are being ruled by tyrants. The primary responsibility that a government has to its people is to keep us safe. But in the United States and here in Australia, governments are not only failing to do that; they are actively exposing us to danger, climate and ecosystem collapse, artificial intelligence, war, genocide, necro capitalism. 

These governments claim legitimacy, but while they deliberately expose us, the people, to danger, they have none. In particular, while they’re exposing us to danger in pursuit of naked political power. 

If you think people are just going to sit back and cop this rubbish forever, human history has got some pretty harsh lessons to teach you.

Statement:

Execution live stream risks lasting trauma for children and underscores urgent need for strong Digital Duty of Care

The US Government’s plan to broadcast a firing squad execution is reckless and puts children at risk of serious psychological harm, highlighting the need for a strong and enforceable Digital Duty of Care. 

The Alannah & Madeline Foundation, which has supported children affected by violence and trauma for almost 30 years, condemned the live streaming decision and warned that Australian children would almost certainly encounter clips of this horrific violence on social media, video sharing and messaging platforms, without warning and without any choice. 

Alannah & Madeline Foundation CEO Sarah Davies AM said deliberately broadcasting a killing showed a complete disregard for the children who would inevitably see it. 

“Through decades of working alongside children who have experienced violence, we know that witnessing it, even through a screen, can be deeply traumatic,” Ms Davies said. 

“Children who see graphic footage of a person being killed can experience fear, intrusive images, nightmares, anxiety,  and a lasting sense that the world is unsafe. For children who have already lived through violence or loss, it can heighten their levels of anxiety, depression and withdrawal, and reopen wounds they have worked hard to heal.  Witnessing or re-witnessing real-world violence can desensitise children to aggression and risk normalising violence as a response to conflict.

“Children rarely go looking for this kind of material. It reaches them through autoplay, through algorithmic feeds and through group chats where a clip is passed around for shock value. The burden should not rest solely on children, parents, and schools to manage the risks of harmful content once it is circulating.” 

Children have told the Foundation that violent content is already a regular part of their online lives. In consultations with more than 800 children and young people, they described feeds serving increasingly extreme material and reporting tools that appear to do little. 

As Federal Parliament considers the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 this week, Ms Davies said the planned livestream was a clear example of why the legislation must be strong. In its proposed form, the duty would require online services, as far as reasonably practicable, to protect children from harmful material and from harms associated with the design of their services. 

“This is exactly the kind of foreseeable harm which the Digital Duty of Care seeks to prevent,” Ms Davies said. 

“Platforms have the tools to stop this footage being recommended to children, autoplayed in their feeds or spread through their messages, and they should be using them now – not after the event has already happened. 

“Right now, whether they take action is largely up to them. A strong, enforceable Digital Duty of Care would make protecting children a legal obligation, backed by a regulator with the resources and powers to impose meaningful penalties when companies fail. 

“Children deserve digital environments that are safe by design, with protections that reduce the likelihood of being exposed to harmful and traumatic content. Parliamentarians have the opportunity and the responsibility to act on this now.” 

The Foundation is urging parliamentarians to ensure the Bill delivers the strongest possible protections for children and that it covers, messaging, gaming, search, app stores and AI-powered services alongside social media, so that harmful content cannot simply move to platforms with weaker protections. 

The final question of the day went to Housing Minister Clare O’Neil who says there are more homes currently under construction in Australia than ever before.

I want the Parliament to know, Speaker, that in the latest ABS data, it showed that we have almost 250,000 dwellings in construction right now around our country … the highest that it has ever been in Australia’s history. Now, Speaker, we know that the government building homes is an integral part of this problem. We are loving seeing the private sector market start to really get that engine pumping, Speaker, this is what delivery looks like: brick by brick, brick, home by home, in every single corner of our country.

And, with that, the PM calls it. Question time ends.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers had the House in stitches with a quip directed at the manager of Opposition Business, Dan Tehan.

After receiving a question, he stepped up to the dispatch box, ready for the Speaker to call him to speak.

Responding to a comment from the opposition bench which was not picked up by the microphone, the Treasurer said:

I haven’t got the call yet, genius.

After a protracted argument about whose feelings he may have hurt and how, he withdrew his comment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw describing the honorable member as a genius.

Highlight of the day so far.

Anna Chang

It’s unusual for the same Greens Senator to have the first Greens question two days in a row, but maybe this is how it’ll work from now on?

But new Greens Leader David Shoebridge takes their first question for the second day running, this time on the US’ planned livestream of a public execution, likening it to a ‘state sanctioned snuff film’.

Senator Shoebridge: 

Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister, you and your government have consistently referred to the shared values Australia has with the US, even as the Trump regime is planning to live stream and public execution.

Can you please explain to the Australian public the shared values between us and a government that publicly broadcasts state-sanctioned snuff films.

Minister Wong:

Senator, in relation to the application of the death penalty, Australia has a long-standing position, which is bipartisan. I think cross-party — I hope. That we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and for all peoples.

And that is a principal position that every Australian government, regardless if they’re Coalition or Labor, have taken, every foreign minister has taken, in relation to death penalties being imposed on others, and certainly in relation to Australian citizens, that has been our position. 

The United States  and other countries have a different view on this.

It’s the same position. I put this position when on these issues consistently, whether it is to those with whom we work more closely or those with whom we have a more disagreement. 

In relation to the vision of an execution. I agree. It would be deeply distressing for any such vision to be live streamed, I don’t believe– we don’t believe anyone should be confronted with it, particularly younger Australians. 

Australians have a right to expect such content would not appear on their screens or on their teenager’s feeds. I would make the point that we believe that platforms do have a responsibility to meet these expectations, and I would also note, in relation to the US government. They are very clear about the Australian government’s position. It’s been the position of the Australian government for how. has always been the position of the Australian government. We’ve always put this view about about the death penalty.

Communications Minister Anika Wells provides a frightening update on Big Tech’s failure when it comes to removing eating disorder content from their platforms:

Australian researchers … conducted a study of 1,204 pieces of pro-eating disorder content on social media.

They created under-18s and over-18 sock puppet accounts and reported the 1,204 pieces of content on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, and Pinterest to see whether the platforms took them down. What they found was shocking, but unfortunately unsurprising.

On Instagram, only 10.7% of that material was taken down.

When reported to YouTube, only 7% of the pro-eating disorder content was taken down.

On X, it was 4.5%

This is the kind of mystery shopping-style test that social media platforms, online games, and AI chatbots should be accountable for in Australia, but these Australian researchers had to conduct their study in Italy, in Poland, and Germany because right now in Australia they have no protection from legal threats, and that is the kind of transparency and accountability that the coalition want to block when they say sock puppets are an Orwellian spy operation.

The Coalition have asked for an explanation of why sock puppet accounts are needed. This is why: to hold these companies to account for the harm they are causing young Australians, to not just listen to what the companies are saying, but to check what they are actually doing.

Education Minister Jason Clare gets a dixer on the University Accord legislation, which passed earlier today.

Just over an hour ago, the Parliament passed laws that will open the doors of our universities even wider, and it’ll mean more Aussies going to crack at going to uni and getting the skills they need and getting the skills that we need. Today, about one in two young people in their 20s and 30s have a uni degree, but that’s not the case everywhere. Certainly not the case in the western suburbs of Sydney, where I grew up, where it’s about half that. It’s the same story in the outer suburbs of Brisbane and Melbourne, our other big cities. It’s the same story in the regions, where it’s about half that. It’s even lower in the bush, and that’s not because of a lack of talent.

Talent is everywhere; it’s opportunity that’s not, and it’s this sort of legislation that can help to change that. And to give you an idea what’s possible, a couple of years ago we passed laws through this place that mean if you’re an Indigenous kid and you’ve got what it takes to take on a university degree, then you get a guaranteed place at university. And I can now tell the Parliament that the number of Indigenous kids starting a university degree since we passed those laws has jumped by 24% And this legislation that we’ve now passed today does the same sort of thing for all kids from poor families, and all kids from the regions, and all kids from the bush. It means an extra 230,000 Australians will get a crack at university over the next 10 years. It means more kids from the regions get to study in the regions, and stay in the regions, and work in the regions. It means opening the doors of opportunity wider. It means more teachers. It means more nurses. It means more midwives. It means more psychologists. It means more engineers. It means Australia gets more of the skills we need.

Leader of the Nationals in the House Darren Chester:

Why won’t the Prime Minister live up to his own words, follow the Coalition’s lead again, and implement the Coalition’s fuel price shield, automatically lowering fuel prices whenever global oil prices spike?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

Prior to Easter some of those opposite were actually calling for restrictions on fuel. They were talking for the odds and even system to come back. They were saying that there would be shortages of fuel, and yes, I did a national address that made a difference in encouraging people to not take more than they needed, because at that time we had a demand surge, and what we did was work constructively with organisations such as the business community, the National Farmers Federation, and others, to bring together a task force as well that dealt with our states and territories to ensure that the primary concern, first and foremost, was to ensure that we had enough fuel supplies. And what we have done by establishing the mechanisms, making sure that we go out there and purchase fuel on the spot market, is in spite of the fact that this conflict in the Middle East, arising from the problems with the Strait of Hormuz, that’s gone on for longer than was anticipated at the time when the conflict broke out, there was talk about weeks. We are now many, many months into this conflict with no end in sight. In spite of that, what we have ensured is that farmers are able to sow their crops.

I wrote earlier today that fire ants have been detected in Sydney.

Reece Pianta, Advocacy Director at the Invasive Species Council, argued in a recent article on The Point that “finishing fire ant eradication is one of the best investments governments can make.”

One Nation’s Barnaby Joyce seems to agree. He has just delivered this statement:

“This is an incredibly dire issue for agricultural Australia and for the recreation areas of Sydney.

Every year, people die from fire ant bites. But more important than that, areas become completely inoperable for recreation, for kids, for parks, for what people do, for houses.

If it gets into cattle areas, ‘course the cattle keep walking, they can’t stop. And your production levels go down. Same thing for sheep.

But if you go to our native fauna, where they will absolutely have a devastating effect is on koalas, because a koala’s capacity to go down the tree and travel to the next tree is completely and utterly smashed by reason of the fire ants.

This is an issue – it’s not made-up. You can go have a look at what’s happening in the United States and the loss of production there, and the loss of capacity of the people there to recreate.

Do the people of Sydney realise that this is happening? And do the people of Sydney realise how absolutely derelict the government has been in trying to deal with this incredibly important issue?”

Independent Member for Bradfield, Nicolette Boele:

We’re heading into an El Nino summer supercharged by climate pollution, and last week the High Court confirmed what’s already common sense: climate pollution for our coal, no matter where it’s burned, is our responsibility, and we should assess coal mine applications accordingly. Now, the application for the largest coal mine extension in New South Wales history, is sitting on the federal minister’s desk for decision. Given he is the minister for the environment and not the minister against the environment, when will the federal government reject this enormous coal and climate calamity?

Leader of the House, Tony Burke, representing Environment Minister, Senator Murray Watt:

I start with the High Court case first of all, the court case does not relate to a Commonwealth decision. So the court case was made quite specifically with respect to New South Wales law. All federal decisions on environmental approvals are made under the EPBC Act under federal environmental law. So the the Commonwealth case doesn’t have a bearing on on the legality of decisions that are that are made under federal environmental law.

My understanding is that Hunter Valley operations have proposed an extension. It’s an extension to existing mines in previously mined areas. The New South Wales State Independent Planning Commission has already given its approval with strict conditions. The state approval does not pre-empt a federal approval. They are separate processes. The National Environmental Protection Agency, and I am very proud to say, we now have an EPA. We now have a federal EPA, and it’s currently considering the project and whether it should be approved under federal law. All public submissions and advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee will be taken into account before a final decision was made.

Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson:

After driving government spending to the highest levels in 40 years and 16 interest rate rises on his watch, the treasurer’s colleagues said, “There’s no point in the treasurer jumping up and down saying inflation’s got nothing to do with government spending. That’s clearly not true. It’s like he’s a used car salesman.

That prompts a chorus of jeers, earning Labor backbencher Emma Comer an early departure.

Wilson continues:

Will the Treasurer finally admit his out-of-control spending is driving up inflation and interest rates?

Treasurer Jim Chalmers:

I wanted to make three points about three recent developments. The first one is on Friday night, Fitch reaffirmed Australia’s AAA credit rating. That means we’ve got the AAA credit rating from all three major ratings agencies. One of only nine countries in the world that has that, Mr. Speaker, from the three agencies. That’s the first development. Second development, at the end of last month, we released the final budget outcome, which showed that the bottom line for that year is better than what we inherited, better than what was forecast at the election, and it’s improved again since the budget. The deficit was $6 billion better than budget, almost half of what those opposite left us. Very importantly, Mr. Speaker, and overall, the budget’s 230 billion dollars stronger than what we inherited. As part of all of that, public demand has eased more quickly than expected. At the same time as inflation’s picked up, that tells us that there are a number of other factors at play, mr. Speaker. All of those, all of those are facts.

After a pointless point of order, the Treasurer brings Josh Frydenberg into the debate. Expect a few of these today:

When the leader of the opposition went to that far-right conference in Brisbane, he had a shot at Josh Frydenberg, and he said one of the big mistakes that they made in office was they made a mess of the budget. That they spent too much money, Mr. Speaker. And a lot of our work in the four and a half years we’ve been in office has been to clean up the mess that Josh Frydenberg left behind, Mr. Speaker. That is the fact of the matter.

By his own logic, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that the member for Canning is stalking him inside this place. The former member for Kooyong is stalking him from outside this place. Josh Frydenberg thinks the Liberal Party is circling the drain on your way, and he’s right.

Anna Chang

After largely focusing on credit card surcharges yesterday, the Coalition has kicked off today’s Senate QT with Senator Nampijinpa Price asking about the government’s tax changes to discretionary trusts.

The interchange is about as interesting as it sounds, I’m afraid. But clearly the government ‘waging war on small business’ is today’s strategy from the Coalition.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price:

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. 

Wilson Asset Management has released fresh data estimating small and family businesses face up to 13.3 billion in restructuring fees and tax advice to deal with your government’s tax changes to discretionary trusts. Why is your government waging war on small businesses in this country? 

Minister Wong: 

Leaving aside the rhetoric over there, I would make the point that I made yesterday that we have actually seen more small businesses under our government over these last years than when we came to government. 

I would also make the point in relation to trusts that the government made clear in the budget that we would be working with small business and other interested parties around how to deal with the changes in the taxation arrangements and the small number or the small proportion of small businesses who are affected, because I think it was in excess of 90% of small businesses will not be affected at all. 

The government indicated we would provide rollover relief if they wish to restructure so as to maintain their better tax arrangements in the context of changing tax laws. In other words, we said for those that proportion of small businesses who do use tax do use trust. Again, only 10% as I am advised. 

We recognise this as a change. We will have a transition period and a process of consultation around that change, and we will also look at rollover relief so that people can restructure their business arrangements so as to deal with this change.

 So I think, Senator, it’s the opposite of the language that you use. 

We are seeking to be consultative with a very important part, very important community members, a very important group in our economy, who do contribute enormously to the economy more generally, but also to local communities. 

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor:

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Labor is waging war on small and family businesses. According to reports, Labor’s new trust tax on small and family businesses will cost them $13.3 billion in compliance, on top of Labor’s $4.5 billion tax grab. When will this minister start listening to Australians who have a go, and stop waging war on small business?

Minister for Small Business Anne Aly:

We on this side of the house can, and do, and will continue to consult with small businesses, to listen to small businesses, to understand them, and to bring their their concerns to to to this Parliament. Those on the other side can talk as much as they like, but they’re not out there visiting small businesses, mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no evidence that they’re actually out there talking to small businesses.

Greg Jericho

The RBA Minutes for the September meeting have just been published and they make it pretty clear a rate rise was always going to be the result

The minutes open with

Members began their discussion by noting the increase in market expectations for near-term policy rates in a wide range of advanced economies. Although the scale of the increase had differed somewhat across countries, the pick-up had been underpinned by a range of common factors: resilient economic activity, persistent underlying inflationary pressures and higher oil prices as the Middle East conflict broadened and escalated. Several central banks abroad had already raised their policy rates, and market pricing implied an expectation that monetary policy would be tightened in most major advanced economies over the course of 2026 and 2027.

So yeah, everyone around the world is dealing with inflation.

In Australia, market expectations for the cash rate target had also risen since the previous meeting, though by less than in some other countries. This followed stronger-than-expected data on inflation and activity in Australia, higher oil prices and recent RBA communication. Market pricing implied an expectation that the cash rate target would be increased at this meeting, followed by an additional increase of around 15 basis points by the end of the year and another 30 basis points in the first half of 2027. All surveyed market economists expected an increase in the cash rate target at this meeting and several expected a further increase later in the year.

When you are noting that everyone thinks you will raise rates, that is a pretty clear indicator that you will follow. Nice note though that forecast for higher rates ae not as strong here as in other countries. That weird – after all Tim Wilson keeps telling us that inflation is due to the government spending so much! Guess he should go lecture the USA, Canada, Japan, Germany UK….

The board then looked at the risks in the economy – basically oil prices

The risk of a re-escalation of the Middle East conflict had since crystallised. Global energy prices were significantly higher than assumed in August, reflecting ongoing disruptions to shipping, damage to refineries and low inventory levels. Higher energy prices had pushed headline inflation up in most economies over preceding months. Although pass-through from higher energy prices to other consumer prices abroad had been limited so far, members noted that underlying inflation in many countries was already above target for other reasons, and higher wholesale energy prices meant it was likely that the indirect effects on consumer price inflation would ultimately be larger than previously thought. The recent and prospective policy tightening by several central banks was in response to concerns that this impetus to inflation could prove to be more persistent than previously thought.

They had a talk about the labour force and decided they don’t really trust the unemployment rate

Labour market conditions had eased gradually since the previous meeting, consistent with the slowing in growth in domestic demand. The unemployment rate had increased to 4.6 per cent in August, alongside a rise in labour force participation. Members noted that considerable caution is warranted when interpreting the current official labour force data, because of methodological changes to the survey. They discussed how to interpret more forward-looking indicators of labour demand; most indicators pointed to stability in labour market conditions but others (such as some measures of job advertisements) appeared to be strengthening a little. Taken together, the staff’s judgement was that these leading indicators pointed to broadly stable labour market conditions in the near term.

They then discussed why they need to raise the cash rate – and the exchange rate was a big factor (a higher interest rate usually means a higher exchange rate. If they didn’t raise rates they were worried the exchange rate might fall which would make imports more expensive – ie more inflation

A third argument to increase the cash rate target was that its current level might not be sufficient to bring the economy back to balance within a reasonable timeframe, even if the identified upside risks to inflation did not materialise fully. Members acknowledged that if the signals from financial markets of a potentially higher global neutral interest rate were correct, it would imply that the current cash rate target of 4.35 per cent was less restrictive that it had been two years earlier. Moreover, if monetary policy in Australia was unchanged, recent and prospective policy tightening by other central banks could cause financial conditions in Australia to loosen via a depreciation of the exchange rate.

And they concluded that they will raise rates to get back to 2% to 3% inflation even if raising the rate won’t affect a lot of the things causing current inflation. And they admit this will slow the economy

They confirmed that their strategy was still to return inflation to target in a timely manner, while preserving as many of the gains in employment as possible. However, executing this strategy in an environment of more persistent adverse supply shocks would require accepting slower growth in demand and employment than would otherwise be the case. Members added that the Board’s task was to stabilise medium-term inflation at the target even if part of the medium-term persistence in inflation is driven by factors beyond the influence of monetary policy.

So I suspect this means this is not the end of rate rises.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

His contribution to our nation was extraordinary in both its breadth and its depth. He excelled as a parliamentarian, minister, diplomat, and ultimately as a Catholic priest, as a Senator for Tasmania, and later minister for justice in the Hawke and Keating governments, Michael helped shape important reforms. In 1987, he played a key role in establishing the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, and initiated a national review of gun control laws. In 1994, he was appointed as Australia’s ambassador to the Holy See and to the Hague, and represented our nation with distinction, wisdom, and dignity.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor:

Father Michael Pate served his country, his community, and God with grace, humility, and devotion. In June, the priest, pastor, scholar, teacher, diplomat, advocate, pilgrim, and visionary, was farewelled at Requiem Mass by so many who loved him. We extend our heartfelt condolences to Richard, Helen, Monica, and James. May God bless you, and may Father Tate rest in peace.

Emergency doctors have issued a grim warning about what Australia’s ageing population may mean for hospitals.

People aged 65 and over already account for about a quarter of emergency department presentations. Older patients are more likely to arrive by ambulance, more likely to need admission and increasingly likely to spend hours (sometimes a day or more) waiting for a hospital bed.

This is just the beginning.

The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine projects that emergency presentations among people aged 85 and over could more than quadruple by 2050.

We’re not going to solve that simply by squeezing more beds into hospitals.

We’re also not going to solve it through higher private health insurance uptake. That’s because insurance doesn’t cover emergency care, so the vast majority of broken bones, strokes and heart attacks end up in public hospitals anyway.

Better aged care is an obvious part of the answer. If we look after older Australians better, they will be less likely to present to ED. They also won’t stay in hospital longer than necessary. Remember, every patient stuck waiting for somewhere to go is occupying a bed needed by someone in emergency.

And if we treated healthy ageing as a serious policy objective, fewer people could be arriving at hospital sick and frail in the first place.

That would include better primary care, falls prevention, exercise and nutrition, vaccination, chronic disease management, safer housing and stronger social support.

And it means starting much earlier. Today’s 50- and 60-year-olds will become 70- and 80-year-olds. Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and frailty develop over decades.

Australia has poured money into hospitals while giving prevention a fraction of the attention for many years.

An ageing population makes that model increasingly untenable.

We need more aged-care capacity and better hospitals. But unless we also invest in keeping people healthier for longer, demand will keep outrunning whatever capacity we build.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will welcome His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (that’s a mouthful) to Australia this afternoon.

Anthony Albanese:

Australia and Jordan share a warm relationship, underpinned by defence and security cooperation.

Our countries are working together to advance peace and regional security, support humanitarian efforts, to counter terrorism and violent extremism, to grow trade and to strengthen cooperation on resources, energy, and the environment.

His Majesty will visit Canberra for a range of meetings, as well as defence and cultural engagements.

King Abdullah II’s last official visit to Australia was in 2016.

King Mike joined King Hussein as he met King Milton in the Speakers office a short time ago.

Nearly 80,000 older Australians are expected to drop private health insurance by 2030 if the government removes the extra age-based rebate, with 44,000 expected to do so by 2029.

The familiar response is that this will dump tens of thousands of people onto public hospitals.

But that argument falls into a familiar trap, one I outlined these to the Senate committee last month.

Private activity is not automatically public activity

Defenders of the rebate uplift would like us to assume that every privately funded procedure is necessary and would otherwise have to be done in the public system.

That’s simply not true.

Just about all private hospital activity is elective. Some of it is valuable. But some of it is marginal, unnecessary or simply would not meet the threshold for treatment in a public hospital.

As I’ve argued before, if someone drops their insurance and therefore doesn’t have a low-value arthroscopy or other marginal procedure, that does not create another patient for the public system. It may simply mean less medical churn.

More aged care capacity will take pressure off public hospitals

Second, the government expects the rebate change to save around $3 billion and has committed that money to aged care.

This figure is based on the 44,000 people dropping their cover. If the number goes up so will the savings invested into aged care.

This is good because one of the biggest pressures on public hospitals is ‘stranded’ older patients who are medically ready to leave but can’t be discharged because there is nowhere appropriate for them to go.

So, more aged-care beds and home-care packages can free hospital capacity directly.

Shifting taxpayer money from subsidising elective care into services that actually keep people out of public hospitals seems like a good trade.

Each time someone proclaims the demise of book publishing, I only need to point to the continued role of books in our culture to feel that any endgame is far away. 

The latest case in point is former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg whose hardback memoir, A Grateful Son, co-authored with Gideon Haigh, is out today. A book like this is a clear statement of ambition. 

And it creates opportunities to talk to the media.

Aside from a justification of COVID-era spending, in an interview with the AFR, Frydenberg said the government needs to reduce spending as a percentage of GDP, except for defence which should get more money. He wouldn’t tell the AFR what government programs should be cut and instead said: 

“It’s not about cutting and spending. It’s about explaining to the public that the services they are told are free are really not, and about putting in place a tax system that grows the pie as opposed to simply redistributing it. If you do that, then you can afford to fund priorities like defence – which I think is non-negotiable for Australia.”

After all, it was Frydenberg who said of AUKUS, “Everything is affordable if it’s a priority”. 

Greg Jericho

One of the more fun series I have been running over the past few months is just how much Australians have turned from travelling to the USA since Trump took over at the start of last year.

The latest figures ae in and once again in August there was a drop in the annual number of tourists travelling to Australia (we use the annual numbers because the monthly figures get massively skewed by seasons)

Now some of it might be due to tastes. After all if we look at where Australians are choosing to travel since January 2025 there has been a decided shift from the USA and Europe to Asia:

But that doesn’t explain why in the same time there has been a big increase in the number of Australians travelling to Canada.

When we compare the growth of Australians travelling to the USA and Canada, it is pretty clear Australian still don’t mind travelling to North America, its just that more of us in the past are choosing Canada than the USA.

I suspect we don’t need to think too hard why

Anna Chang

New Greens Leader Senator David Shoebridge has accused the “Labor stacked” Joint Standing Committee on AI of a “stitch up” and delivering an “utterly captured message”.

Senator David Shoebridge: 

“Labor created, controlled and is running this committee so it’s no surprise at all that the result reads like Labor’s own talking points.

“In setting up this committee it was made clear from the start that the Government would not allow me as the Greens AI spokesperson to have a seat. Hard questions and serious challenges to US big tech was never part of their plan. 

“Captive committees doing pretend inquiries serve no one but a Government ducking for cover. 

“The letter to the PM from this committee being edited by the PM’s office is a farce worthy of Utopia. 

“I know copyright holders are deeply concerned about the foreshadowing in this report on the possible erosion of copyright. They are right to be concerned, it looks like there is nothing this Government isn’t willing to sell out to pander to billionaire big tech owners.  

“We support moves towards public investment and ownership in data centres but the rules have to be fixed first so the taxpayer is funding ethical AI not just trashing the environment and our culture for someone else’s profits. 

“We are now in the more than ridiculous situation that OpenAI breached a site holding Medicare data and while the investigation is on foot they have secured a recommendation for more funding.

“Sometimes you look back and have to be grateful, not being part of this Labor farce was a blessing after all.”

During Question Time yesterday, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor declared:

“Since Labor came to power, over 50,000 businesses have gone bust.”

It’s a frightening number. And there’s some truth to it.

According to ASIC’s insolvency statistics, just over 50,000 companies have entered external administration since mid-2022.

But entering administration isn’t necessarily the same as going bust. Some businesses are restructured and continue operating. Indeed, a recent ASIC review found that nearly half of approved deeds of company arrangement involved businesses continuing to trade.

There’s also the question of how many companies exist in the first place.

ASIC reports that 14,153 companies entered external administration in 2025–26, down from 14,722 the previous year. As a proportion of all registered companies, insolvencies fell from 0.41% to 0.38%.

For comparison, the rate reached 0.56% in 2011–12 and 0.53% in 2012–13.

The Reserve Bank’s latest Financial Stability Review confirms that insolvencies as a share of operating companies have declined over the past year and are around their longer-run average.

Covid-19 also played a part. Government support and temporary insolvency protections kept many struggling businesses afloat. The subsequent increase in insolvencies could partly reflect the withdrawal of that support, alongside tougher trading conditions.

And there’s another number Taylor didn’t mention.

According to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Australia had 84,618 more actively trading small businesses in June 2026 than a year earlier.

Cumulative insolvencies make a dramatic political soundbite. But they tell us little about the overall health of Australian businesses, and even less about whether government policy caused them.

For that, we need rates, trends … and context.

Anna Chang

A cross-sector alliance has warned the Albanese Government’s domestic gas reservation is on course to be captured by narrow vested interests.

The group includes the Australian Workers Union (AWU), the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), ACOSS and the Australian Industry Group.

They warn that draft legislation for the reservation, published last month, contains weaknesses that will be exploited by some gas producers keen to avoid supplying the local market in favour of more exports. The reservation risks failing to deliver on its key objectives of cheaper, reliable domestic gas.

The group has suggested a list of amendments to the draft legislation.

It says a few gas producers are seeking to undercut the reservation to preserve the high-cost, supply-constrained status quo. But the preferences of any one company or project must not be allowed to override the national interest in affordable, reliable energy that is compatible with Australia’s climate progress. 

Paul Farrow, National Secretary, Australian Workers’ Union:

“Let’s be honest – the Santos-GLNG project is by far the biggest weight on local gas users, pilfering mountains of gas for export without supplying the domestic market. Their imitation reservation would just preserve this broken status quo.

“Santos and a few other producers claim we’ll solve the gas crisis by letting them shirk a reservation. We can’t fall for it. We can have free reign for Santos or a fair go for everyone else.

“If we get this right, we get much needed gas price relief and greater energy security. If we fall for Santos spin, we get a leave pass for them that we all pay for.

“The AWU has spent 14 years fighting for a reservation to restore sanity to our gas market and stability for gas-reliant workers and industry. The government can’t let it fall at the last hurdle.”

Innes Willox, Chief Executive of Australian Industry Group 

“Australians got a raw deal when Eastern gas exports began: all the risk of price swings from increasingly chaotic overseas energy markets, with no guarantee of local gas for local usage. More than a decade later we’ve produced more gas than ever before, but prices have soared and gas users have done it tough or shut up shop.

“The gas reservation debate looks complex but it really isn’t. Will we do now what we should have done before, and put strong clear and fair expectations on gas exporters ahead of their next wave of contracts? Or will we fudge it until it’s too late, and condemn Australia to decades more of costly insecurity?”

Dr Adam Bandt, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation

“Big gas has gamed the system for too long, and it’s time the government reined it in and delivered a loophole-free reservation scheme.

“Instead of giving free passes to big corporations like Santos to keep on polluting, the government must ensure that any gas reservation puts Australian homes and industry first by diverting existing gas back to Australia, not rewarding speculative schemes for expensive new gas basins.”

Dr Cassandra Goldie, CEO of Australian Council of Social Service

“Gas exports have led to a tripling of domestic gas prices. A functioning national domestic gas reserve is critical alongside the transition to renewable energy, to bring down energy prices, inflation and relieve cost of living pressures – especially for those on the lowest incomes.

“The design of the reserve must put the interests of people in Australia first, not highly profitable exporters and foreign investors. The Labor Government must shut down loopholes and prevent corporate carve-outs and gaming.”

Summary of proposed amendments

The group has presented the Government with a series of changes to the draft reservation Bills to make sure the scheme can meet its goals and serve the people of Australia. The Bill must be made lobbyist-proof and strengthened to: 

• Ensure every gas exporter is required to contribute to the domestic market fully and fairly.
• Guarantee that the supply of gas (or investment in alternatives) will be made available based on the amount of gas Australia needs to achieve downward pressure on prices.
• Prevent exporters from further raiding the local gas market – driving up prices and drying up supply for Australian manufacturers and households.
• Make clear in law that the reservation cannot be gamed with dodgy gas deals with third parties or promises of speculative and expensive new gas basins, which would function to reserve high-cost, high-emitting gas for Australians.
• Hold exporters to their obligations to reserve gas over time and properly supply Australia, and recognise where they do more than asked. 
• If the Albanese Government is serious about its commitment to deliver a workable gas reservation that serves the interests of people in Australia, we urge the adoption of these amendments. It’s time we put Australia first and back our manufacturers, workers, households and the environment.

New ABS data shows Australian travellers are continuing to stay away from the US, instead flocking to Indonesia and New Zealand.

Short-term resident returns, Australia – top 10 destination countries

New data centre regulations are supposed to require them to bring on new electricity generation. But there is a huge risk that this will be a box ticking exercise and the massive additional demand for electricity is going to drive up households’ electricity prices.

Data centres are massive consumers of electricity, and this is expected to grow. By 2036 data centres are expected to make up 13% of electricity consumption in the east coast market.

This is bad news for consumers as Australia’s old gas and coal fired generators are coming to the end of their working lives and need to be replaced. Renewable generation is being rolled out but they are struggling to get enough projects through the approvals process.

At this point a new large source of demand is just going to push up prices.

But what of the promises that data centres will have to add in new supply?

This would be great if true. Adding additional supply would stop data centres from increasing prices, but only if the new supply wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the data centre.

Remember we need new supply to replace the old generators. What is probably going to happen is new renewable projects that have made their way through the approval process and are ready to be built, will suddenly be rebranded as new data centre supply.

But they’re not actually additional supply. These projects were already approved and ready to replace aging generators.

Next year the government is going to be discussing the approval process around data centres. It will be interesting to see if they can tackle this problem of getting additional supply.

If they don’t then any boom in data centres is going to hit every household and business with higher electricity prices.

And remember not every renewable project with a data centre stamp on it, is additional supply.

Greg Jericho

Regular readers will know I like showing just how well the gas giants of Santos and Woodside are doing since the start of the USA and Israel war on Iran.

Well today Santos’ share price just went over $9 – higher than even after the Russia invasion of Ukraine.

It means that Santos’ share price is now up 34% since the USA and Israel began bombing Iran – while the overall Australian stock market is down 4%

One big reason why Santos is making out like a bandit and profiting from human misery is made clear by a graph the Managing Director of the IMF showed in her speech overnight ahead of today’s release of the latest World Economic Outlook

Qatar’s LNG output has fallen off a cliff. Qatar is the third biggest exporter of LNG behind the USA and good ole Australia. So that means the supply of LNG has taken a big hit, while the demand is unchanged – and that means a lot better prices for those exporting LNG from Australia.

But don’t think that is going to lead to a tax bonanza for Australia. All the LNG leaving the Gladstone port (which is where most of Santos exported gas goes from) is not subject to PRRT and as for company tax, well…

Taking the piss, and laughing at us while they do.

Not one, not two, but three federal ministers were out spruiking a pay rise to more than 460,000 health, disability and community services workers following the Fair Work Commission’s findings that those workers had been undervalued.

The Fair Work Commission’s findings recognise that work done by women has been undervalued for too long because of gender-based assumptions.

The government’s claiming credit. In a statement, Health Minister Mark Butler says the FWC decision is “a direct result of the Albanese Labor Government’s reforms to put gender equality at the centre of the Fair Work Act. Our $630 million investment will support charities and not for profit organisations that deliver Government programs to meet these wage increases while continuing to deliver the essential services that millions of Australians rely on every year.”

Mike Bowers was at the presser:

Give me strength.

The Guardian is reporting that fire ants have been detected at the Enfield Intermodal Logistics Centre in Sydney’s inner west.

Fire ants are native to South America, but have spread to North America, Australia and parts of Asia. Humans have helped spread these “notorious hitch-hikers”, including on plants, agricultural equipment and packaging. That seems to be what’s happened in this instance: genetic analysis has confirmed that these ants likely arrived from overseas.

Currently, fire ants are only found in Queensland, but most of Australia is suitable habitat for them.

The Guardian’s Lisa Cox says that “Fire ants are one of the world’s worst invasive species” and that “They can sting people and livestock and cause serious harm to the environment and local economies.” And Cox is absolutely right.

Research released by The Australia Institute in June shows that if fire ants are allowed to spread across Australia, they could cost Australian households $1.08 billion in medical, veterinary and management costs every year. These household costs are just part of the story, as they don’t cover the considerable environmental costs, costs to agriculture, or costs to industry and government that fire ants could cause.

Fire ants are bad news for Australia; if Australia wants to eradicate them, there needs to be significant investment now.

The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority has just released this:

MAITLAND COMPANY FINED FOR OPERATING ILLEGAL WASTE FACILITY

Maitland -based company ROBBOR Pty Ltd (ROBBOR) has been fined $30,000 for unlawfully operating a waste facility on a rural property it owns near Woodberry.

An investigation by the NSW EPA found ROBBOR was using the property to receive, store and sort a range of mixed waste materials, including demolition timber and scrap metals , despite not having the required environmental approvals.

NSW EPA Director Field Operations Greg Sheehy said ROBBOR’s actions demonstrate a clear disregard for environmental law, especially as its director has previously been convicted of the same offence .

“This is not a case of an operator being unaware of their responsibilities. The director has a prior conviction for unlawfully operating a waste facility through a different company and knew, or should have known , that activities at the site required proper approval.

“Instead, waste materials were brought to th e property, stored and sorted without approval from either the local council or the EPA.

“This is particularly concerning because EPA officers identified stockpiles of hazardous materials on site, including fragments of asbestos and end -of-life electronics, which can pose significant risks to human health and the environment if not managed properly.

“Companies and individuals cannot simply ignore the rules and bypass the planning and environmental safeguards designed to ensure waste is handled safely and lawfully .

“Repeated non -compliance will not be tolerated, and those who choose to operate outside their legal obligations can expect the EPA to take strong enforcement action.”

Under NSW environmental laws, a waste facility is any site used to receive, store, sort, process, recycle or dispose of waste. It is an offence to o perat e a waste facility without the necessary land – use planning or environmental approvals.

Follow up inspections of the property confirmed waste activities at the site have now ceased and the waste material has been cleaned up.

Is it just me or is a thirty grand fine only marginally worse than a slap over the wrist?

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has announced plans to livestream an execution by firing squad. Australia’s eSafety regulator says it can’t stop Australians from watching.

With new digital duty of care laws set to be introduced in Parliament on Thursday, this crisis only highlights the need for Australia to strengthen regulation of online spaces.

Right now, eSafety can only block content once it’s already been posted, it has no powers to warn platforms of the need to take action before harmful content is already being spread online.

A digital duty of care would mean platforms have an overarching duty to remove harmful content and prevent harm on their services. While the Albanese government’s draft bill isn’t perfect – it can be strengthened to allow Australians harmed by big tech to seek compensation – a digital duty of care would push big tech to take responsibility for such content.

A strengthened digital duty of care would be a start, but it may not be enough to prevent the livestream on its own. Australia’s laws about online content outlaw the sharing of “abhorrent violent material”, which encompasses recordings or livestreams of offences including terrorist acts, murders, kidnapping and torture. These laws were passed in the aftermath of the Christchurch mass shootings in 2019, committed by an Australian far-right terrorist, they were the first such attacks to be successfully livestreamed online. However, they may not cover Hegseth’s planned firing squad killing – they specifically target killings that constitute criminal offences, and both the execution and the planned livestream are legal in the US.

The Australia Institute’s petition to strengthen digital duty of care laws already has almost 10,000 signatures. However, even an effective, well-enforced duty of care needs to be the start of improving Australia’s digital protections, not the end.

Every year the Australian Public Service Commission conducts a survey of public servants on questions like job satisfaction, work culture and any inappropriate behaviour (like corruption or harassment).

It gets good uptake: this year 80% of eligible public servants completed the survey, so it’s an enormous dataset. As well as the overall results there will be department-by-department analysis.

Unfortunately, the top-level results are a bit grim. Of the dozens of questions in the survey, only one has a better result than last year: 35% say technology is not a barrier to their performance, up from 34% last year.

The questions that have worsened the most are “I am fairly remunerated” (61% agree, down from 66% last year), “change is managed well in my agency” (44% agree, down from 48%”) and “I am satisfied with the stability and security of my job” (82% agree, down from 86%).

One of the interesting questions each year is whether people have witnessed a public official engaging in corrupt conduct over the last 12 months. 2% say yes, which given the number of people employed in the public service represents thousands of people witnessing apparent corruption. Most of the conduct was abuse of office (67%), followed by adversely affecting the honesty of a public official (38%), misuse of information or documents (26%) and a breach of pubic trust (24%).

Only one in four who thought they witnessed corruption reported it (25%, down a hair from 26% last year).

Parliamentary AI committee chairperson, Labor’s Jo Briskey, stood beside Liberal Jonno Duniam at a joint press conference to support recommendations to the Prime Minister from the committee.

But ACT Senator David Pocock smells a rat.

One of the other things that I’m really concerned about is that when I actually loaded the letter up onto my computer, there’s a whole bunch of track changes from the PM’s office. So this is meant to be a letter from the committee, but clearly has been heavily vetted by the Prime Minister’s office.

Pictures from Mike Bowers:

Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson was uncharacteristically economical with his words when asked about Josh Frydenberg‘s obvious pitch to be the next Liberal leader in a doorstop a short time ago:

Qustion:

Would you welcome a political comeback from Josh Frydenberg?

Tim Wilson:

I’ve said consistently, I want good candidates to stand everywhere so we can elect a Taylor led Liberal majority government in Coalition with the National Party. And so, if Josh wants to put his hand forward, so be it, because we want the best candidates on the ground in the communities committing to make sure that we can build a better nation.

Sounds like one of those “the leader has my full support” comments the day before a challenge.

Every now and then the media is invited for the first few minutes of party room pep talks.

Mike Bowers was in the Coalition joint party room meeting a short time ago. Here are his images:

Environment Minister Murray Watt has been asked about an ABC online story about gas coal and gas expansions (rather than new mines) not being covered by the Safeguard Mechanism.

Coal and gas mines are using what the Climate Council warns is a “loophole” to expand operations and add new emissions while avoiding stricter laws imposed on new coal and gas projects.

The Climate Council says unless emissions from mine expansions are treated the same as emissions from new mines, it will cause an additional 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2035.

Full story: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-13/safeguard-mechanism-loophole-coal-expansions/107246600

Murray Watt was on ABC TV earlier.

Question:

One of our colleagues at the ABC has written a piece online about a warning from the Climate Council, this is in your portfolio of course, and the Climate Council’s warning of a loophole saying that oil and gas expansions aren’t subject to the same stricter laws as new projects when it comes to emissions. Why aren’t they?

Murray Watt:

I haven’t seen that myself, Emma. I’m happy to take a look at that report if that’s been provided. Certainly, from my perspective, when a federal government is assessing any project, whether it be an expansion of an existing one or a brand-new project, the test we apply is whether that project would significantly impact on one of the matters that we nationally regulate. That’s the test that applies for coal projects, gas projects, renewable energy projects, housing developments. So we don’t distinguish, to the best of my knowledge, when it comes to expansions of existing projects or new ones.

The first big test of whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can work with new Greens leader David Shoebridge will come this week with the digital duty of care bill. Josh Bornstein has been doing great work with a diverse mix of groups on how these laws need to allow Australians who have been harmed to take action to enforce the duty of care.

Senator Shoebridge plans to challenge the “dead politics” of the major parties while his predecessor, Senator Larissa Waters, was “firm but constructive”. Senator Shoebridge’s approach has been compared to that of Adam Bandt, who led the Greens in Albanese’s first term.

Some commentators suggested that the leadership change will make things harder for Labor, but I’m not convinced. In a piece for The Point over the weekend, I argue:

• The voting patterns under Bandt are very similar to those under Waters, so the negotiating strategy of the Greens’ leader doesn’t seem to block legislation forever.
• On landmark economic reforms – like industrial relations and Stage 3 tax cuts in Albanese’s first term and capital gains tax/negative gearing reforms in his second term – the Greens have been ready allies.
• On truth in political advertising laws, nature positive laws or disclosing political donations, the barrier to Labor reform has been Albanese’s reluctance to work with the Greens (not the other way around).
• Compromise with the Greens could help Labor’s agenda. Public hearings and more independent oversight for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, as the Greens were pushing for, could have helped the NACC.

A less conciliatory approach to negotiations may be uncomfortable, but historically it has not stopped collaboration. And if the Greens can use balance of power to strengthen the digital duty of care bill, that will ultimately be a win for the Labor Government’s reform agenda as well.

A new report from Greenpeace and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia, but fears the state government’s blinkered support for gas exports – despite declining demand – could cost the state dearly.

The report finds gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns. Since the war in the Middle East, countries like Japan, South Korea and China have placed a higher priority on renewable and nuclear energy over gas.

Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace:

As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise. The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.

This report clearly shows that the WA government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.

Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory:

Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.

The Australian government has been excruciatingly silent when it comes to standing up for the International Criminal Court and foundations of international law it so loves to talk about.

Guardian Australia journalist Ben Doherty joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Australia’s non-response to the Trump administration’s sanctions on the International Criminal Court, the American military footprint in Australia, and the OpenAI hack of Medicare on this episode of After America.

Interesting exchange in the Senate over last week’s High Court ruling on coal and climate change.

Not only did Senate Leader Penny Wong go out of her way to suggest the court ruling had little impact on the federal government, – wrong – she even hinted at an error in the judgement.

God help us.

Greens Senator Steph Hodgins-May to Senator Wong, representing Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese:

Last week, the High Court ruled that governments must consider emissions from coal burned overseas when deciding whether to approve a coalmine. For the Mount Pleasant coalmine, those emissions count for 98 per cent of the project’s total emissions. This was a fantastic win for the Hunter Valley community and, of course, for our planet. Minister, does the Prime Minister agree with this community and these science teachers that the coal dug out of the Hunter and exported to the world is causing climate change?

Penny Wong:

In relation to the Mount Pleasant mine, as I understand it, there are three points I’d make. The federal government is not a party to the proceedings, so this is a matter for the New South Wales government. I’m also advised that the High Court did not consider the EPBC Act. The case does not relate to a Commonwealth decision. There are no outstanding applications, as I’m advised, before the Australian government in relation to this project. We’ll obviously work through the judgement carefully and consider any broader findings. Any federal decisions are made in accordance with the national environmental law under the EPBC Act.

Hodgins-May:

So no acknowledgement of climate change. Minister, has the Labor government obtained legal advice on the Hunter Valley court case, and will it make it available to the public so that they can understand the ramifications of the case on any future coal and gas approvals?

Wong:

We are committed to acting on climate and we always have been. And we have worked, when we have been in government both this time and previously, to reform our economy to respond to the challenge of climate change … what we recognise, unlike others, including your party, is that that is a big structural change in our economy that has to be manifested over time.

Greg Jericho

This morning the Great Gas Giveaway tracker ticked over to $78 billion.

If the Albanese government had introduced a 25% tax on gas exports when it first won office back in May 2022, it would now have raised $78 billion in tax.

Instead the PRRT has raised a bit over $6 billion.

I guess the government has decided the gas companies need that money more than does our health system, or schools, or people living in poverty, or disabled, or those dealing with domestic violence, or those with kids in childcare, or parents in aged care, or…

Alice Grundy

There are more headlines on Firmus today. Your take on the failed IPO will vary depending on what you read. The Australian is pushing the line that it’s Australia’s regulation that is to blame ( — a small reminder here that regulation are the guardians on our society.)

They quoted James Packer who apparently thinks:

 “the difference between America and Australia is very noticeable in the way Australia tends to tear down aggressive entrepreneurs and America builds them up.”

But the AFR looks into one of the key players, a San-Francisco based ‘investment giant’ saying that:

“Despite expectations of significant investor interest, prospective Firmus backers ultimately worried about its lack of operational history and the considerable debt it planned to take on to build a portfolio of data centre projects across Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia.” 

So maybe it’s not a question of Australia’s regulation after all.

Big thanks to The Point’s resident editorial cartoonist, Fiona Katauskas, for the literal lol this morning.

Anna Chang

Thank-you to the eagle-eyed reader who has pointed out that actually, one (1) parliamentarian did mention Anti-Poverty Week yesterday.

Some good points made by Greens for Queensland, Senator Penny Allman-Payne, in yesterday’s Senate debate on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026:

Senator Penny Allman-Payne:

This bill is more proof that Australia’s social security system is too complex and often inaccessible. Services Australia can’t seem to grasp social security law—and they’re the ones administering it. 

Every day, people who are sick, working, parenting, elderly, disabled or just trying to live their lives are punished for making minor mistakes.

This government has made the deliberate choice to keep all social security payments below the poverty line. 

It’s Anti-Poverty Week. The fact that we even have to have an anti-poverty week should be a source of shame. It’s the start of Anti-Poverty Week, and instead of ending government induced poverty the Minister for Social Services has announced meagre funding for emergency relief charities that amounts to less than $1 per welfare recipient, while people in this country are dying from poverty.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s latest report on mortality outcomes showed that people accessing the JobSeeker payment are up to 10 times more likely to die than people not on any income support. Almost three in five people aged 22 to 64 who passed away between 2012 and 2022 were accessing income support. 

Social security is supposed to help people. It’s in the name—’security’. But governments, including this one, continue to impose strict conditions policing the ways people can get support and what people must do to get that support. 

It’s gatekeeping, and it’s killing people. Poverty is always a political choice.

Anna Chang

The Antipoverty Centre is hosting an online event at 3:30pm AEDT today featuring the Central Land Council and Single Mother Families Australia to highlight issues compounding poverty that do not get the attention they need or are not well understood. 

The event is open to both media and the public, with community sector workers in particular, encouraged to attend. 

More info, and rego to receive the zoom link here: https://events.humanitix.com/compounding-poverty

Dr Josie Douglas, Central Land Council General Manager said:
Raising the remote area allowance is one compassionate and practical thing politicians can do right now to relieve the extreme cost of living crisis faced by the poorest Australians out bush. The allowance clearly hasn’t kept up with the skyrocketing prices in remote communities for a long time, but people are now at breaking point. We implore anyone who believes in a fair go to support a meaningful increase.

Jay Coonan, Antipoverty Centre Co-coordinator said:
Privatised “job” agencies are designed to deprive people of their rights. People are told that if they do not comply, they will have their Centrelink payment stopped. A rights guide won’t fix the root issue, but it is tool people can use to defend themselves from these parasitic companies who manage the poor. Whether it’s pushing back against being forced into a useless AI course, or being told to travel an hour by train for a 10 minute interrogation – we created the rights guide to help people understand what is and isn’t compulsory and avoid unfair and unlawful penalties. 

Some key stats:

+ Currently, the main unemployment payment is $412 a week – 40% below the poverty line. 

+ More than 1 million people rely on unemployment payments, around 40% of whom are disabled. 

+ 20% of people on the JobSeeker payment is employed, subjected to an effective marginal tax rate of 75% for every dollar of gross income above $128 a week. 

+ People on the two main working age payments (JobSeeker and DSP) make up around a third of all suicide deaths among working age adults. People on JobSeeker represent 20% of all suicide deaths among those aged 15 to 66 years old. 

+ 167,000 people on income support aged between 22 to 64 years old died between 2012 and 2022 – 58.2% of all deaths for people in this age group. Those on JobSeeker aged 35 to 44 are 9.6 times more likely to die than their peers.

Environment minister Murray Watt is speaking to ABC News Breakfast, where he is being asked if the digital duty of care bill is friendless in the senate (the Coalition is just a no, the Greens want more protections and options).

Watt says:

Of course we want to see these laws passed and even this recent example of this execution and the possible streaming of it is an example that we need to strengthen Australia’s laws as it relates to the responsibilities of the tech platforms. You know, we remain open to passing this legislation, either with the Coalition or the Greens, and I know that Minister Wells is in discussions with both sides about that. It’s too important to have this blocked through sort of some sort of politics from either side. We will continue discussing with both the Coalition and the Greens. What their changes are, whether we’re prepared to make them, but we need to put the interests of Australians first on these sorts of things they are concerned about on social media.

On the bipartisan committee looking into AI regulations and the release of their wish list, Watt says:

Well, again, those recommendations have just been received and the Government will certainly give them consideration. It’s good to see some bipartisan work happening in this space and, just to go back to the Digital Duty of Care, we’d like to see that sort of bipartisanship on that as well. I think on the Digital Duty of Care t is a bit of a concern that the remarks we’ve got coming from the Coalition indicate that, yet again, they’re being led to a policy position by One Nation, trying to copy One Nation’s policy and it’s further evidence for what Josh Frydenberg has been out there saying, that the Liberal Party needs to get back to the centre. I mean, the fact that the Liberal Party is now having people outside the Parliament publicly audition for the leadership role shows how lacking in talent they have and, again, I think it’s an admission from Josh Frydenberg that there’s simply no way the Liberals can govern without One Nation. So the more bipartisanship that they can show on these matters, that concern Australians, like AI, it will show they are doing what Josh Frydenberg says, which is get back to the centre and think about the needs of Australians.

Given the amount of natural resources the AI industry requires, Watt should be at all these negotiations. But notice how he switched up to Frydenberg there? That’s how you know how much Labor is enjoying Frydenberg’s latest intervention (five years after he lost his seat and while also refusing to say if he’ll run again – because he can’t say. He will only run if he thinks he is guaranteed a win, so you won’t hear either way until much closer to the election)

So how are the Greens handling the gas reservation policy which the government is already walking back?
Sarah Hanson-Young:

This is an example, actually,week?of what we’ve just been talking about. Labor promised a 20% gas reserve. They’ve now walked that back and watered that down. It feels like every time Labor promises something, they go weak before they’re even in the ring. We need to make sure that, actually, we have policies in this country that deliver for people. We haven’t seen the detail of the legislation yet. We’ll have to look at that.

But let me say – I think Labor’s barking up the wrong tree here. We need a much bigger and much more – and a much simpler plan to tackle the gas industry and to deliver for Australians. And that would be a 25% tax on gas exports. It’s hugely popular, the community wants it. They’re sick of companies making massive profits and not contributing to the national budget. Let’s be bigger and let’s be simpler and let’s put in place a tax instead.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young was a guest on ABC TV 7.30 overnight, where she was asked whether the Greens had been too soft in their negotiations with the government. Hanson-Young is the leader of those negotiations in the senate, and the context was whether David Shoebridge, who beat her for the leadership (comprehensively) within the party room was criticising how some of those negotiations had gone.

Hanson-Young:

Look, I don’t believe we’ve been too soft, but I do understand that Australians – particularly those from, um, progressive voters – are frustrated that this government, that the Albanese government, continues to water down their ambition. We want Labor to deliver on what they promised Australians, and we want to make sure that the parliament can deliver for the community. We will hold Labor to account. We will stop the radical right from gaining a further foothold in this country. And we will be there fighting in the corner for regular people. Across the country, no-one can deny that the community is frustrated. They’re looking at politics and thinking, “Hang on. This isn’t working for us.”

Hello and welcome to another day of parliament – and The Point Live. It is party room Tuesday, which means there is going to be a mixed bag of a morning and then a big rush in the middle with parliament sitting from midday.

It’s mostly about AI regulation today. The parliamentary inquiry into AI wants independent safety checks, local computing power for local use and Australia’s security agencies to have early access to new models before they are released. There is also a call for a review of copyright protections, which in Australia are pretty messed up. So yeah – they want oversight, but despite the massive alarms ringing around this issue, there is no ‘we are moving too fast’ or ‘we shouldn’t do this’. As a reminder, a local ‘frontier model’ doesn’t mean Australia owns anything. So yeah, at the moment we are doing exactly what we did with gas and other fossil fuels. Good times.

Oh and we are still talking about whether or not we should ban any footage of any livestreamed execution the Trump administration wants to do – like we could. So that’s fun too.

We’ll cover that and everything else that pops up today, including how many more times Josh Frydenberg can make the Liberal party about him (the limit does not exist).

I am still looking for coffee. Pray for me. Ready? Let’s do this.