The Point Live: First tax reforms pass the parliament, Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender launch 'Community Strong Australia' Party, ASIO boss wants terror alert definitions changed. As it happened.

It has been A week. So we are going to wrap things up a little earlier (mostly so I can get out of my pyjamas for the first time today) and free you all to go live your lives.

We will be back on Monday with the last sitting week before the big winter break (which can not come soon enough) but then there is Labor conference and….you know. It never ends.

So please – check back at The Point for all the different views, fact checks and data journalism you don’t get anywhere else and I hope to see you bright eyed and bushy tailed on Monday.

A very big thank you to Mike Bowers and The New Daily for letting us borrow his work. It makes all the difference in the world and we are very lucky.

In the mean time – take care of you. Ax

The first battle in passing the budget has been won – and these two are pretty happy about it.

Here is some of how Mike Bowers saw QT:

For the fourth day in a row (I think) Jason Clare finishes up question time.

This was another very tired Coalition performance which does not seem to have anything to offer except attempts at culture wars.

And there is so much to actually smack Labor with. It’s very lazy.

You can tell Anthony Albanese genuinely cares about this next issue, but the answers aren’t necessarily as complicated as he is making them. There is a big defeatism that goes with trying to tackle Big Tech – when governments have power. They can regulate and legislate and AI is not inevitable – we don’t have to hand over the future to a few tech billionaires, but that is what they tend to act like.

Allegra Spender asks:

Last night, ASIO Chief Mike Burgess said social media was, and I quote, ‘promoting discord and inflammatory rhetoric, exacerbating polarisation and creating a permissive environment for violence’, my community has experienced that violence directly at Bondi, and in the anti-Semitic online hate directed at the Jewish community. Social media algorithms feed extremism and polarisation. Will the government make algorithms opt out on its social media, on social media, as part of its duty of care bill to protect our community from online extremism.

Albanese:

I thank the Member for Wentworth for her very important question, and the speech of the Director General of ATL was a very important contribution to the nation’s safety and security. We think about safety and security as being about our defense forces, we think about it being the acts of terrorism that we saw with the anti-Semitic attack at Bondi Beach, but it can also be our safety and security can occur tragically, as we know in the bedroom of one of the children around Australia, where the parents are not conscious about what they are having access to, that can also lead to a loss of life, and tragically has led to the loss of too many young lives. The digital duty of care will take the principles that we have enshrined with the bipartisan support for our social media ban and look at ways in which we’ll consult about how we extend that duty, that duty that we have even further, we know that, as the member has said, algorithms drive people towards more and more extreme positions, so they start off in a mainstream position talking about ethnicity, perhaps, or faith, and they end up over a period of time receiving in their inbox, not just children, adults as well, of course, can be impacted by this with Nazi level propaganda, with calls for violence, we know that just to name one area that is of concern, chatbots, a second is notify apps.

We are seeing as well with some of these algorithms coming through, we’re seeing increased presentations in our hospitals of young women who have been choked, strangled, we see anal tearing growing at an extraordinary horrific rate, because what too many young men are seeing online is normalizing behavior that is anything but normal, and we need to be really conscious as a society about this.

We need to be conscious as a parliament about this. We need to be courageous about this.

I think one of this parliament’s finest moments was a social media ban and that came primarily not from this Parliament that came from parents who had lost their children and who took those personal tragedies and determined that they would make a difference for others so others did not have to go through that traumatic experience, so this is something that is not simple, but something that we’ve worked with. We’ve increased the funding for the e Safety Commissioner by four times. We’ve introduced fines of $49.5 million to be available for breaches of the social media ban aimed at young people, but clearly we are going to need to do more, and that’s what the digital duty of care is about.

So I encourage people to participate in this. The government’s considering as well comments from the eSafety Commissioner, and work that will require a further strengthening of the social media ban, and I look forward to receiving the same support from across this parliament that we received for the legislation. We’re working on that as a priority, because this is something that other generations didn’t have to deal with, which is why it’s complex. We can’t allow the power that these companies, which are unaccountable, which get massive amounts of funding of profit and have extraordinary power. We need to make sure that Australians are in charge of this, but indeed the global community is dealing with this as well, which is why we should be proud as a nation that at least 16 countries have followed our social media ban, but there’s more to do

Andrew Wilkie asks:

I’ve spoken to many post office licensees, and it’s clear that Australia Post is running them out of business as it morphs into a parcel delivery service. This deals with the move away from perpetual licenses and the revelation that the board supports reactivating license buybacks. It also puts the recent closure of the West Hobart LPO in a very different light, Minister. This will have severe impacts on communities. Will you stop it?

Anika Wells:

I thank the member for Clarke for his question, and I think I might speak for everyone here when I say we love our local post offices, that many communities, particularly regional and rural communities, are dependent upon them. Australia Post represents more than just a post office. It is a hub for the community and for banking and for other services that would otherwise be non-existent in these areas. No one likes to see them close. Regrettably, sometimes they have to close, particularly if a licensee operator hands back the license. It’s not something that Australia Post can control, but it is something that Australia Post must manage under our system. Australia Post is a government-owned corporation. It has a board and an executive who make decisions about the post office network. The corporation must be sustainable. It needs to cover its costs, but within that framework the government expects Australia Post to meet its Community standards and, in particular, the Government requires that Australia Post maintains a minimum of four post offices, a number that it currently exceeds.

As I said, in some cases and for a range of reasons like sickness or retirement or personal circumstances, licensed post offices do close suddenly. Often this happens with very little notice, both to its customers and to Australia Post itself.
In my own community, Pinkenbar licensed post office is suddenly closing, like the member for Clark. I know that will impact my community in Lilley.

Happy to arrange a meeting for the member for Clark with the CEO of Australia Post about his specific concerns in West Hobart. Just as I am raising my own concerns about Pinkenbar.

The member has raised some broader concerns about the licensing network.
Australia Post is working with its licensees to modernize the arrangements that govern those commercial relationships.

The licensing model is decades old. It has served Australia Post and Australia very well over that time, but we cannot ignore that things are changing, and that arrangements between Australia Post and its licensees must reflect that. You only need to look at the mobile phones in your pockets to understand why there is a dramatic decline in the letter business. There is a dramatic decline in the retail foot traffic. All that must be considered not just by Australia Post, but for the licensing networks, many of whom are mum and dad small businesses in our communities.

The government will continue to work with Australia Post and all stakeholders to ensure that it remains financially sustainable and continues to meet the needs of our Australian community. I am confident that if we all work together in good faith. Australia Post and our valued licensees will renew their partnership for many years to come.

Seems like the LNP have run out of women, because Andrew Hastie gets the next woman focused question:

I refer to the Minister’s previous answer. When did the Minister first become aware that the government’s changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing imposed the new death tax on widows, divorcees, and victims of domestic violence?

Clare O’Neil:

I think the government’s made clear in several statements that this is an issue that we’ve been aware of for some time, and the Treasurer has spoken about the government’s deliberations. Those opposite will have the opportunity to have their further say about how this is legislated, because it will come back in the second tranche of legislation

Tony Burke just gave this dixer answer which you can take to mean they are going to make the changes spy boss Mike Burgess has asked for.

As the Director General made clear last night, our threat alert level remains at probable, but the level above probable of expected can only be reached when there is very specific intelligence about an immediate attack, and we are not in that situation.

Therefore, the Director General wanted to make the point very clearly to everyone, we should not presume that because the threat alert level remains a probable that we are at the same spot as to where we were when it was first put at that level a couple of years ago. We are not, he predicted in his last year’s speech that the threat dynamic by 2030 would be more dynamic, more diverse and degraded. Only 12 months later he said what he had predicted would be the case by 2030 we are already there.

Global tensions, new technology and the temperature of debate in the country have all contributed to a heightened security situation for Australia.

He highlighted, in particular, while all forms of bigotry have the capacity to lead to violence, the fact that with anti-Semitism almost every violent group comes together on this, whether it is ISIS-inspired groups, whether it is neo-Nazis, or whether it is conspiracy theorists, but he also highlighted that direct traditional forms of terrorism are not the only threats that we deal with, something that we would regard all objectively as a terrorist act. With the burning at the Adas Israel synagogue was not what traditionally had been the operating method. We know now that it was directed by directed by Iran, directed by Iran in an act of foreign interference using organized crime, combining communal violence and politically motivated violence to an act of state sponsored terrorism.

There are multiple forms of bigotry, and every one of them can lead to violence. The director general referred to summer alone, where in December we had the horrific anti-Semitic terrorist attack at Bondi.

In January, we had a very near miss, where it will be alleged in court that the intention was there for that bomb to go off in Perth, which could have been a mass casualty event directed by bigotry against First Nations Australians, and in February another arrest in another part of WA for someone whose bigotry was directed against politicians, against government, against police, and against Muslims.

There are two specific instructions that have been given to each and every one of us that can work to keep Australians safe. When people know of anything they think they should might be of concern, regardless of the form of bigotry, they should contact the National Terrorism Hotline, the National Security Hotline one 800 123 400 and, secondly secondly, as the Prime Minister reflected in those words earlier, we all have a responsibility to take the temperature down to keep our nation safe.

Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown asks:

My question is to the Prime Minister. A minimum 25% tax on gas exports has proven to be one of the most popular policies with the Australian public. Despite this, you’ve chosen to listen to the gas industry over everyday Australians. Will you listen to the people and hold a national plebiscite for a gas tax?

(Full disclosure, the Australia Institute supports the plebiscite for a gas tax)

Anthony Albanese goes to some strange places here:

The member for Ryan suggests that from some of the campaign, which has been had publicly, that somehow gas companies or other companies in the resources sector don’t pay tax, and that there’s no company tax, there’s no resources resource tax. The PRRT does not exist and will not grow in the future. *

It also ignores the work that we’ve done in two areas, the work that we’ve done on the gas reservation of 20% of exports**, which is very important in Western Australia, the former WA Labor government brought in a gas reservation that has served the people of WA well, but on the East Coast, that has not happened.

That has been inadequate from governments of all persuasions in dealing with this challenge. We’re dealing with it, we’re getting it done. We’re consulting with industries to make sure that it happens.

The other thing that we’ve done, and the unspoken suggestion from some as part of this campaign, is that we should just tear up contracts that are made with our trading partners***, and if the member says no, that that’s not the case, then I welcome the fact that they are saying that, but in the public campaign that’s certainly not a part of it, and the truth is that in recent times one of the things that we have been able to rely upon is that we are a reliable trading partner, so despite the fact that some said that I shouldn’t go to Singapore and Brunei and Malaysia, that we shouldn’t engage with China and Japan and the Republic of Korea to make sure that our suppliers of diesel and petrol and aviation fuel was here, we have in part been able to achieve the outstanding outcomes that we have through Export Finance Australia, through the work with our trading partners, because we are a reliable trading partners, and we do honor contracts, and will continue to do that****.

*Every company pays company tax and payroll tax. Not every company gets the resources for effectively free. The PRRT is such a disaster that it had to be revamped, and then even with that it barely raises revenue and while it is slated to go up for a small period of time, it then drops back down (and is nothing compared to the ultimate profits of these companies)

**A gas tax wouldn’t change this and would actually lower domestic prices.

***No one serious is saying that because the tax would be paid by the gas companies, and not change the contracts (and they would still make massive profits even with an export tax)

****And we could still do that.

Bill Browne

One of the greatest heists of public value is the Westpac Rescue Helicopter: the bank, one of Australia’s richest countries, funds a small percentage of the budget but gets all the glory.

By rights, it should be called the NSW Taxpayers’ Rescue Helicopter.

The Rescue Helicopter Service itself is under a cloud, as Eryc Bagshaw at the Sydney Morning Herald has reported.

Now, the $500 million contract with NSW Government is at risk:

“as the iconic rescue service misses deadlines and blocks whistleblowers from speaking publicly during its investigation into claims of bullying, sexual harassment and safety breaches.”

Whistleblowers report that Westpac Rescue created “a culture of fear”. Former staff are not even allowed to talk to the government, despite it fronting up the vast majority of the cash.

Skye Predavec

Victorian Liberal MLC Moira Deeming has alleged that former Liberal leader Matthew Guy assaulted her at a Macedonian community event last month.

Guy “vehemently denies the allegation” and is reportedly considering defamation action against Deeming.

Deeming is perhaps best known for another defamation action, her suit against Guy’s successor as Liberal leader John Pesutto over his description of her attendance at a 2023 anti-trans rally. Pesutto narrowly avoided bankruptcy after losing that suit.

Deeming lost pre-selection in March of this year, before regaining it a week later after it emerged her replacement had provided a character reference for a now-convicted child sex offender.

This is just the latest headache for current Liberal leader Jess Wilson, who has shelved her planned media appearances.

The LNP have found some women to ask questions about women. So we are seeing backbenchers we barely see to ask these questions, which have already been addressed in the senate.

So we have this one:

Reports say the government is backing down on another toxic tax hidden in Labour’s budget of broken promises. Can the minister confirm 1000s of Australian women, including widows, divorcees, and victims of domestic violence, will be disproportionately impacted by Labor’s rush changes to property taxes due to pass the parliament today? Why won’t this government delay this vote to fix this shambles of a budget

Clare O’Neil:

I think she’d be aware that the Minister for Finance has clarified the government’s pathway on this in the Senate earlier today. We’re aware of these issues, and we’re working through them in the usual manner. Speaker, we intend to address the arrangements for jointly owned assets in circumstances like inheritance and divorce in subsequent legislation. We’ll also ensure that the exemption for income from genuine testamentary trusts applies to the minimum tax on capital gains. Speaker, so the parliament will have the opportunity to debate and discuss that as the second branch of legislation comes forward.

And then we have this one:

Yesterday, the Treasurer was asked about his plan to force 1000s of widows and divorcees to pay more tax by removing their access to grandfathering for capital gains tax and negative gearing. He said, quote, the arrangements as you describe them are consistent with the way that the acquisition rules apply in the current CDT arrangements. This morning, the Prime Minister had to step in again and dump the treasurer’s plan. How many more humiliating back downs will it take for the treasurer to admit his budget is a failure?

Jim Chalmers:

I’ll tell you what’s humiliating, mr. Speaker. The shadow treasurer’s inability to ask me a question himself.

I thank the Honorable Member for her question, as we said yesterday, the arrangements are consistent with treatment elsewhere in the tax system, but when we were asked about this yesterday, we did take particular care around our response because we were still considering the amendments that were being circulated in the Senate throughout the day, and that’s why we provided the answer that we did at the time.

We are, and we have been, as the Housing Minister and the Finance Minister earlier today has said, we have been aware of these issues. We are working through them in the usual way. We do intend to address the arrangements for jointly owned assets in subsequent legislation.

We’ll also ensure that the exemption for income from genuine testamentary trusts applies to the minimum tax on capital gains as well, so that they work appropriately together.

Now, we’ve made it clear on a number of occasions, mr. Speaker, and I think those opposite know this, that it’s not unusual at all for big tax packages, reform packages to be legislated with multiple pieces of legislation. The Howard government did it with the GST.

The Howard government did it when they made this mistake on capital gains tax discount in 1999 something like 30 pieces of legislation on both occasions.

So it’s not unusual for there to be consultation. There’s not unusual for there to be multiple pieces of legislation, and that’s what that’s what we are doing in this instance, Mr. Speaker. And I can hear the interjections from those opposite, and I think everybody here, and everybody watching at home, and in the galleries as well, knows what’s really happening here.

They are trying to distract from the fact that when the bills come back down from the Senate, that they will vote against tax cuts for workers and a fair day for first home buyers, mr. Speaker, and that’s what they’re trying to obscure, they’re desperately hoping that nobody notices that the three right-wing parties and their divisive anti-worker agenda will see them vote against tax cuts once again.

Tim Wilson has suggested that Clare O’Neil was saying house prices will fall 20%. This is because she suggested the current fall in prices happening is a “correction”, and generally the technical definition of a market correction is a fall of up to 20% fall.

It really is a stupid argument which no one watching would have grasped.

Anyway, as we have noted even if we get a 10% fall, which some economists have suggested the level of housing affordability would only be back to where they were in 20223 – hardly a time when people thought housing was cheap

Clare O’Neil has been fairly good in pushing back against the Coalition – mostly because Labor has now found it’s lines on this – that this is unfair and should be addressed to stop it being so unfair.

Tim Wilson asked:

My question is to the Minister for Housing yesterday the Minister for Housing revealed Labor’s budget of broken promises and higher taxes will see the value of an Australian home collapse by up to 20%.
This could see negative equity loans rise to roughly one in 20 and leave homeowners owning more than their home is worth smashing their nest egg. How many Australians will become poorer because of Labor’s deliberate correction in house prices?

Which, sigh.

House prices will continue to rise, but it won’t be at the artificial rates we have seen for the past 30 years. This is so tiring.

O’Neil:

Let me first start by saying that that is a characteristically dishonest representation of what I said, Speaker. I just say to I say to those opposite, if you can’t win a political debate without misrepresenting the position of a people that you’re arguing with, then you don’t have a very good argument, that’s just a hot tip on our argument.

I talked to the parliament yesterday about what has happened to our housing market in this country since John Howard and Peter Costello reshaped our market in favor of investors over first home buyers, so let me take the parliament through it again.

What we saw was investors flooding into the market, purchasing at 80 to 90% existing Australian properties, and the consequences of that are not altogether surprising. Speaker, what they have seen is a 400% increase in house prices since the last 25 years.

Now, Speaker, those opposite may think that a 400% increase in house prices is a sustainable and good thing for the country, but let me be clear with you. The result of that is that home ownership rates for the young people of this country are falling through the floor. Speaker, a low-income young couple in this country is half as likely to own their own home today than they were in the year that I was born. Now, I’m not surprised that those opposite don’t want to see change in this system.

We’ll see some rejecting, or be warned, and he won’t be able to write the answer. No more rejections, Minister. I’m not surprised, Speaker, that those opposite don’t want to see change in this system, though I do want to point out some inconsistency.

It sounds like the member for Goldstein is advocating for another 400% increase in house prices, perhaps another halving of the home ownership rate for young people. I would point out to his to him that his colleague and friend, the Shadow Housing spokesperson, Andrew Bragg, has made quite clear his views that he wants house prices right around the country to decline.

Not surprising to see more chaos and more crazy over there as they try to sort out their positions. Speaker, they may be still sorting out what they think about what should happen with housing in this country. Speaker, we’ve got a really clear view. We want a fair and equitable housing market in this country, and that means putting first home buyers on even keel with investors. If those opposite have a different view, they’ll have the chance to state that again when they vote on this legislation this afternoon.

The bills have passed, to the cheering and clapping of (Labor) Senators. 

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

Now to QT. Go make a drink.

Zali Steggall has reintroduced her private members bill calling for truth in political advertising. Now this has mostly been dismissed by Labor, but after the budget was handed down, malinformation (deliberate misinfomation) spread almost as soon as Jim Chalmers got to his feet, with a meme about the government owning 44% of your business or some other bullshit spreading across the socials like wildfire.

So Labor has been a bit spooked. Which is reflective in Albanese’s answer here:

I haven’t considered the details in the bill that she refers to that she has tabled. I’m happy to have a look at it, as we’re happy to consider any ideas going forward. Certainly, the issue of political advertising is is very real, and the issue of use of artificial intelligence is something that should be of concern across the parliament.

The images, which people can see in videos, for example, they have been published recently, showing various members of parliament and ministers when it isn’t actually them, but for people who look at it, they can see them, they can see them, they can hear their voice, and so this has the potential to really change the way that politics operates in this country. Politics does have to operate in a way where there is fairness and where people are able to see things that they know are real, and so we’ll examine these things as something when it comes to artificial intelligence in general.

Can I assure the member for Oringa that this has been the subject of substantial debates within the government, and as well with the private sector and with the bureaucracy I convened a meeting of half a dozen ministers just this week, where across portfolios, looking at the challenges that it represents, it represents a real opportunity for growth, and you can’t stop these technologies from emerging, which is why we need to make sure that we shape them rather than allow them to shape us in the way that our society operates, but we’ll continue to work constructively across the parliament with all those who are prepared to work constructively across the parliament, and that includes the member for Warringah.

I went and made my fifth coffee, so I am BOUNCING. (Not really, but I can feel my heart beating so that is something)

There is more on the tax changes, which – I can not do this again. It’s a bunch of bullshit – and there are actual issues in the world and actual things the Coalition could be pushing Labor on, but no, they stick on this ridiculousness.

So then we get to Angus Taylor asking about the return of the last Australian woman (and her child), who had travelled to Syria as an 18 year old to join the Islamic State, after the court withdrew the temporary exclusion order which was blocking her return.

So this isn’t a government decision, it is a court decision removing one of the rare blocks to Australian’s right to enter the country.

This is important context for Taylor’s question – but you can see how he is framing this for the coalition and what would be happening the shadowy social media campaigns no one has eyes on.

The Labor government has back flipped again, issuing an entry permit for yet another dangerous ISIS terrorist sympathizer to enter Australia. Last night, in his annual threat assessment, the Director General of Asia declared that Islamic State and al-Qaeda and their affiliates are growing their capability to conduct and inspire attacks. Why does the Prime Minister keep rolling out the welcome map for ISIS terrorist sympathizers?

So again – the government couldn’t stop this and that is a good thing – you WANT citizens to have the right to return without the government being able to decide if that is OK or not.

Albanese:

…The Director General of ASIO’s comments are worth reading, and I asked people to think about what the Director General of ASIO has said, and then the language that was just used in that question.

He said, ‘This I reckon a fair go for all could be a good place to start. I appreciate this is not traditional territory for a spy chief, but I firmly believe if more Australians, not just visitors, embrace the ethos of a fair go, mutual respect, and tolerance, the temperature of our security environment would be several degrees lower.
By all means disagree, but consider how we disagree.
By all means protest, but consider how we protest. By all means report the news, but consider how you report the news. By all means condemn a government or a political party, but consider whether you should condemn a people.
Despite the scale of this challenge, Australia is well placed to meet it.

Our parliaments are sovereign, our communities are resilient, our economy is growing, and while we may not be perfect, our security and law enforcement agencies are world class.

We should not be insecure about our security. We can and should have confidence in our ability to respond, Mr. Speaker. The Director General of ASIO has my absolute confidence, and the Director General of ASIO is an extraordinary Australian who…(there is a point of order that is not a point of order)

…And the leader of the opposition couldn’t have more effectively outlined what the problem that the Director General of ASIO was identifying, because the idea, the idea that anyone in this parliament, that anyone in this parliament is not totally opposed to ISIS and terrorism is something that has no place, no place in this parliament, and what the leader of the opposition knows is that one of the things that defines our country and distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes is the rule of law.

Matt Grudnoff

In the committee of the whole stage of the CGT bill, Pauline Hanson went on another racist tirade in her question (or “question”) to the Minister Katy Gallagher, looking to blame high immigration for why we need housing reforms.

In a tale as old as time, we have busted this myth already, but let’s run this factcheck again.

The facts simply don’t support the idea that high immigration is to blame for the housing crisis.

The simple fact is that over the last decade the population has increased by 16% and the number of homes has increased by 19%. The number of homes is increasing faster than the population.

We regularly see cherry picking immigration (or population) growth from 2023. They then ask how can we house this many new people?

But 2023 was a strange one-off moment that was heavily impacted by the pandemic.

The pandemic caused a massive disruption to population growth and immigration. When the pandemic first hit population growth stopped. This was almost unprecedented in Australia’s history.

The borders closed and no new immigrants could enter Australia and because of lockdowns jobs vanished and people who weren’t citizens or permanent residents couldn’t access support. Many people left Australia.

When the borders reopened immigrants like foreign students came back. This caused high rates of immigration. But this was just the bounce back from the pandemic. If we look at population growth rates, we can see that for the last year growth rates have returned to pre-pandemic levels.

If you look at the whole period, the Australian population is now back to about the same amount it would have been if the pandemic had not happened.

It also doesn’t make sense that the housing crisis was caused by high population growth in 2023 because the housing crisis has been around for 20 years. If the problem been around for decades, how can a change in population a few years ago be the cause?

So, what has caused the housing crisis? Investors rushing into the market, bidding up prices and locking first home buyers out of the market. They have been attracted by two massively generous tax concessions, negative gearing and the 50% capital gains tax discount.

These are the very things the government is trying to fix. These are the very things that Hanson and One Nation have said they are going to vote against.

Migrants are an easy target to blame for problems. But this kind of scapegoating only hurts ordinary Australians. If we crack down on immigration and ignore the real problems, it will just continue to make housing less affordable.

It’s the downhill slide to question time now, so go get yourself a little treat. This is the last one for the week, with only one more week before the winter break, so yeah. It’s going to be a lot.

Dave has talked about the head of the productivity commission, Danielle Wood’s speech that she is giving today.

The AFR reports she will say:

“AI has the potential to be just as transformative. We’ve estimated that it could add about 0.4 per cent a year to labour productivity over the next decade 10 – which would be a substantial step up … for a country averaging 0.3 per cent over the past one.”

That 0.4% a year growth comes from the PC’s report last year which opened with this

“Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) could transform the global economy and speed up productivity growth. The Productivity Commission considers that multifactor productivity gains above 2.3%, and labour productivity growth of about 4.3%, are likely over the next decade, although there is considerable uncertainty.”

This is the calculation that gets the 2.3% multifactor productivity gains

The PC suggests we’ll lose 21.5% of labour hours due to AI, but not to worry there’ will be a 21.5% increase in “knowledge work”. phew!!

“For instance, an LLM may increase the output of a programmer and their associated capital (laptop, office space). Hypothetically, eight programmers, eight laptops and 80% of an office could now produce what previously took ten programmers, ten laptops and an entire office.”

Cripes.

They also argue that “Developing and training AI models is a global opportunity worth many billions of dollars.” Ok, but worth to whom? It is astonishing that an institution notionally filled with sentient being who understand economics have not understood where the profits of datacentres and AI will go, regardless of where they are built.

As such the PC is worried about regulation:

“Currently, gaps in licensing markets – particularly for open web material – make AI training in Australia more difficult than in overseas jurisdictions. However, licensing markets are developing, and if courts overseas interpret copyright exceptions narrowly, Australia could become relatively more attractive for AI development”

And as ever the PC just thinks that productivity benefits automatically will lead to higher wages and more income for households. And as Dave has shown that has been bunk for much of the period the PC has been in operation.

The productivity commission is a neo-liberal wet dream that deserves to be disbanded. It offers nothing of worth and contributes to the harm of society.

So the government is trying to get vote on the tax changes, which means it has to go through a guillotine debate motion.

The Coalition are against calling the vote, as is One Nation. Hanson just used the motion to spew forth her usual feelings over facts anti-migration diatribe.

Katy Gallagher tried to appeal to the Coalition:

I can’t reconcile your kind of your focus on housing in this country as a key economic and social priority, and your op and your opposition to these changes, I just can’t reconcile them, and so therefore I have to think that, you know, you probably don’t think that it’s just because you’re, you know, over there that you have to take this political position, but it’s really, really clear that first home buyers, younger generations have been competing with investors for estate of housing in this country, and they have often lost out because they are not able to avail themselves of the concessional treatment that the laws currently allow to compete on a level playing field, and we think that’s wrong.

We think the status quo, the system as it stands now, the status quo that you seek to protect is broken, and these reforms tackle that, you know. And so this is the budget we tabled on budget night. These are the laws that we’re debating that relate to those decisions.

We’ve made adjustments where they’re sensible and reasonable and affordable to do so.

We think that’s a good thing, a government that listens and responds, and we will bring forward further legislation to implement the full package over the next over this calendar year

Andrew Bragg disagrees. Yes we know.

And then we get to Hanson:

All this is is a tax grab, because you, the government, cannot weigh in your spending. That’s what this is about. Now you’re going to rip $77 billion out of the taxpayers’ pockets again. More taxes going your way, because you can’t control your spending, that’s what this budget is about. Now you talk about investment, we’re keeping people out of the investment market. Why has that happened? Because we’ve had the highest immigration into this country, basically in history, under this government, under this government.

So in 2322 23 we had 739,000 people. Yes, there might have been a couple of 100,000 left, but it’s high immigration has caused the squeeze on the Australian people of being able to get into housing.

Another thing that I’ve said, and this is what I’ve been on and on and on about was high immigration. Another thing, too, is foreign investment. You have not reigned in foreign investors in the country. You worry about the Australian investor, you want to shut them out of it, but you’ve done nothing.

Only by my speaking about it prior to the last election that finally you’ve put a stock to foreign investors for two years while you kept bringing that many people in the country. What are you doing about the foreign investors that are here in Australia to ensure that Australians can have homes

OK, so again for the people in the back – immigration is not the reason for the housing crisis. The reason Hanson loves to use those years is because that was the covid backload. And it has been dropping ever since. High prices jumped during the pandemic when we had no immigration. But these facts don’t matter in times of economic downturns when people feel angry and are willing to listen to anyone who tells them it is someone else’s fault and gives them an easy group to blame. This is why having one on one conversations with the people listening to Hanson is so important.

And on younger people feeling distant from politics, Albanese said:

I say that you have more of an incentive to engage than us old people, because by definition, the decisions that are made will have an impact on your life. They have a decision on properly funding schools, the universities, of course, all of those measures that we’ve taken, cancelling 20% of student debt that helped 3 million Australians by an average of $5,500 each. The work that we’re doing on housing is about young people. It’s about saying, you know, that, you know, I was able to get into home ownership in my.

In my 20s and talking and engaging with young people.

That feedback must be said with the support of their parents and grandparents who just say, you know, my little Mary or little Ben has given up on getting into a home. We need to be really conscious about intergenerational equity for you and the sort of society that we want. And politics could sometimes be, you know, difficult for people, and people don’t want to pay attention, I get that, because they’re busy with their lives. But it has an impact, you know, if you get sick, whether the hospital is able to look after you, whether you can go into a Medicare urgent care clinic. The work that we’re doing on mental health, you know, the spike in youth mental health issues is, you know, huge, and we’re providing more resources for that, but also trying to tackle some of those debates about, you know, why is this happening? You know, what. What is it that that’s occurring in.

The young people I meet as well, and, you know, there’s a distortion because by definition, the people who are in this building or. Or who I engage with are really interested in the state of the world, and that’s a fantastic thing. So, we need to reach out.

One of the things that we’ve done Is, you know, we’ve got a youth minister, we’ve set up an Office of Youth Affairs.

That wasn’t there. It wasn’t there in the former government had been gotten rid of. You know, one of my first engagements in politics was I was president of Young Labor during International youth year of 1985. Just to give away my age. And I was really. I was a tiny little kid, you know, we.

We made part of what I was able to achieve, practical change. Went along a national conference, Bob Hawke And people didn’t realise how much it was going to cost over the years.

But I got what was Double J in Sydney, National Youth Network. Triple J came from grassroots in order to have that engaged. But they play an important role in promoting debate and giving young people access to those big national questions as well, and has been really important.

So, how do we do that? How do we train young people as well for the jobs of the future? What we’re talking about, you know, we created Jobs and Skills Australia, that its job is to identify what are the jobs Australia needs in 5, 10, 20 years time to provide the training for that 750,000 free TAFE. Places, you know, are making an enormous difference, all of these things. Often young people have been, I think, not given enough consideration.

I think there is, you know, some justifiable tension there about, you know, boomers and, you know, what they’ve had access to. You know, I have people say you got a free education, you got, thanks to Gough, you got all these things. You know, we’re struggling with the challenges before us, so continued engagement and, you know, one of the fantastic things that happened on May 3, 2025, was Charlotte Walker getting elected to the senate on her 21st birthday. And she’s nailing it over there. She is bringing energy and enthusiasm and that voice of young people directly to the heart of our government. And that’s a great thing.

Asked about the impact of social media, Albanese said:

It can really undermine, I think, the cohesiveness of a response. You know, when you can have people on social media who literally post budget, literally put things out that they said is not real and is not factual, but that’s how you get attention. I thought that was a terrific moment where people who were running a campaign said that it wasn’t based upon fact. Rather extraordinary, but. But at least honest. Even if the campaign was based upon just trying to press buttons with people, I worry about polarisation. The algorithms push people to more and more extremes. Don’t get into a debate about nine at the moment, but, you know, look at what’s happened.

You go down that road and you get further and further out on the edges of what is mainstream political debate in this country. And, you know, I think that that can have, you know, an impact. I met with people from the arts sector yesterday, from the creative sector. Tim Minchin and a bunch of people. One of, I think they’re really powerful arguments is for more support for the theatre and live performance, is that, you know, and this is much better than us, you know, just putting out stuff online, having a real conversation with real people changes the dynamic and there’s not enough of that. It is really easy. The social media ban was a really historic.

When we did that, it was a pretty gutsy call to do it because we thought the blowback from global powerful corporations would be bigger than it has been, perhaps because people have jumped on board. There’s 16 countries are on board across Europe, US states across the board. And that’s because people are really conscious about the impact that social media is having. You know, our educational leap up from schools across the country that have banned mobile phones. The difference that it has made to behaviour, to learning, to all of that as well. And, you know, this is an example maybe of technology going ahead before society was ready to debate what it meant. And we need to really engage in a way that builds that social cohesiveness and not consensus.

But having civil debates as well is something that’s, you know, being. We’re losing some of that capacity because of algorithms. Encourage that to occur.

Albanese was then asked this question:

Question:

I’m glad you brought up AI. I had a question. I’m in my last semester of university and we’re already seeing less internships and grad roles, particularly in the commerce discipline. I just want to ask, where do your priorities lie when it comes to protecting the jobs of young people like us that did the right thing, went to university looking to go out and get an office job. How do you look to protect those jobs while also making sure we don’t miss out on the huge productivity that comes with AI?
 

Albanese:

One of the things to do is that when we look at how we shape the future, to acknowledge that with all previous technological breakthroughs as well, you will get some change in workplaces.

Some jobs that exist today will not exist in 10 years time, but there’ll be new jobs and the history is more jobs, if we get it right, created.

So, it’s not a matter of just protecting all of the jobs that were there. You know, my team, my mighty Bunnies play tonight. And it used to be when I grew up at the flats near me, because they didn’t get paid much, heaps of them worked as garbos. They did that to keep fit.

They ran behind the trucks, they lifted up the garbage bins. Is it a good thing that now that’s automated? You bet it is. And you know, we need to acknowledge technology will keep going.

And part of, I think the challenge of decision makers of today is to recognise that some of the uncertainty and the break away from traditional political support and all of that is happening is a response by people who are going to. You will probably have three or four careers in your working life.

When I did my HSC on a Thursday was the last exam. I started working at the Commonwealth Bank on the Monday morning I sat for a test with paper to go through and I thought that was a job that was secure, that I could do for 20, 30 years, you know, and it’s a very different world now.

And that uncertainty creates anxiousness and that makes easy answers and slogans perhaps more appealing to some, like it’s to stop the world. I want to get off. And in some cases it’s not stop the world. It’s let’s pretend there was a world, you know, of monoculture. That has never existed in this country. Has never existed. So, you know, it’s just a matter of, I think, making sure that government is brave enough to acknowledge change and to look after your interests, both in terms of work, how we deal with AI, how we deal with that change, in order to shape it so that you have a future which will change from the time when I did an economics degree.

The world is changing. How do we deal with that and take advantage of it? There’s no country you’d rather be. I met with Anthropic this week. There is no country you’d rather be at the moment than Australia. We have everything under the ground, everything in the sky that the world needs.

We have space, which is a big thing that countries to our north simply do not have. That provides us with an incredible opportunity, combined with our workforce, including the diaspora workforce, and the connections with everywhere in the world, like we are just set up for a really dynamic and positive future. I’m really optimistic about your future because I’m really optimistic and positive about Australia’s future.
 

Among the reasons for why two independents would want to form a political party right now goes back to laws Labor and the Coalition passed in the last parliament to try and stitch up the major party dominance. At the next election there will be new spending caps for electorates, which, if you are an independent candidate you will be quite hamstrung by. But political parties can blanket the state in branding and say it is part of their senate campaign – a loophole in the rules which gets around those spending caps independents have no way through.

There is also going to be a ban on how much money fundraising funds can funnel towards political campaigns. So the major parties have multi-million dollar war chests through fundraising foundations – like the Cormac Foundation – which exist to funnel money to political parties (and each major political party is actually six or seven political parties – depending in how many states and territories they have registered in). So there is Queensland Labor, NSW Labor, Victorian Liberals etc. They can all raise money (capped still but multiple avenues to raise it) which independents can not. But if you wanted to set up one of those funds, you pretty much only have until the end of the year to do it and raise buckets loads of cash before that particular funding avenue is closed.

So if you wanted more of a presence at elections, or wanted ways to get a senate candidate in (say like former independent MP Kylea Tink) then setting up a political party would help maximise your chances.

Albanese was asked about election spends at the CEDA launch this morning and said:

I think it’s rather a bit strange that that seems to be the motivation for people who are independent to form a political party is to somehow get it. Try to, South Australia is a different model. We have got I think the balance right in improving transparency and disclosure provisions, in putting caps on expenditure.

You know those, those ads. I mean I fear for the actual newspapers when they don’t have those wrap rounds in yellow and black that we see. I don’t quite see the point but that is living evidence that some people have just too much money. Those Clive Palmer ads, you know that achieved precisely, I don’t think it got anyone elected at all last time round. But you know those double page spreads, I don’t know if anyone actually reads them.

Unemployment in May dropped from 4.5% to 4.4%, which is good news, although for now the trend seems rather more on the increase

The big growth came in youth employment – undoing some of the fall in last month’s figures. There was not much other employment growth

And because almost all of the increase employment for those under 25 was part-time, it continued the slowing of full-time employment growth – just 0.5% in annual terms

All in all I should not think there is too much to bother the Reserve Bank in anyway that would have them thinking they should raise rates.

Yes the RBA is comfortable with unemployment rising, and are always worried that lower unemployment will set of a wage-price spiral. But these figures don’t suggest much other than in April employment fell 40,652 and in May it rose 40,343, and pretty much we’re back where we were in March.

David Richardson 

The Productivity Commission chair Danielle Wood has made the claim that millennials are “the first generation in 75 years whose living standards and disposable incomes are not improving on those of their parents”. These remarks are apparently included in a speech she will give this evening.

This plays to the fears of younger groups that they are worse off than earlier generations were. Some of them might be and they certainly have a case when they talk about housing. But Danielle Wood is head of a productivity think tank and her emphasis is on overall productivity so let’s check her assertions against reality.

The following graph shows two measures of productivity going back 32 years using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These are indexes set at 100 for September 1994.

Overall productivity and market sector productivity, Sep 1994 = 100

Looking at the graph we can certainly see that the period from the pandemic onwards has been very sluggish in terms of productivity growth. However, if we are talking about productivity generally as an influence on living standards then we see GDP per hour worked is now 45% higher than it was 32 years ago. We would argue that if we are talking about disposable incomes then we should be talking about market sector productivity, because it is the market sector where that income will be spent. Using market sector productivity, output per head has improved 66% over the same period.

Even if we confine ourselves to the last 20 years productivity has increased by 15% and 25% respectively and that includes the difficult pandemic and post-pandemic years.

The PC has always looked for excuses to support business and attack unions and working conditions while advocating for lower taxes on business at the expense of workers and the social wage. So for example, Danielle Wood’s speech today will include advocating open slather for business to use artificial intelligence to replace labour. She reckons with AI business can save 0.4% of labour each year, which might not sound much but its another 13% less labour over the next 30 years, when the millennials’ children will be in the workforce.

Australia’s problems today are not low productivity but access to housing, secure work, shifts in the income distribution towards business and high-income earners as well as, of course, access to affordable housing.

Pauline Hanson, who claimed a stunt with a banner was a potential security risk, has pulled a stunt outside the parliament with billboard trucks, as she continues her stunts ahead of substance road to political success.

One Nation has done this because in the house and senate using the term ‘liar’ has been deemed unparliamentary (it pretty much always has been) so she smells blood.

The CEDA state of the nation event has been held this morning in Canberra, where Anthony Albanese was one of the speakers.

As you can imagine he addressed the most important issue facing the nation at the moment – Karl Stefanovic’s career.

Nine has let Stefanovic, one of the best paid television personalities in Australia’s history, go after he did a podcast with UK fascist Tommy Robinson.

Albanese (who has been a guest on the podcast) told the CEDA audience about Stefanovic

I don’t want to get into a debate about Nine at the moment, but you know, look at what’s happened.

You go down that road and you get further and further out on the edges of what is mainstream political debate in this country, and … I think that that can have, you know, an impact.”

So both headline and trend unemployment is now at 4.4 – but the trend is the highest rate since the Covid period since 2022. ABS suspended the publication of its trend estimates for two years, starting in April 2020, due to large month to month changes in the data in the covid pandemic – it restarted the trend series in April 2022 – when it was 3.9%.

We got trend unemployment down to 3.5% at the end of 2022 and now it is 4.4% – it is trending higher. The RBA wants this to happen – it predicted the unemployment rate sitting at 4.3% at the end of this year and 4.4% by June 2027 and 4.6% by December 2027. It is expecting unemployment to keep rising, which means they don’t want to keep unemployment at the low we established – even though it did not have an impact on inflation.

Jim Chalmers says:

New jobs numbers just out show the unemployment rate fell to 4.4 per cent in May and 40,300 new jobs were created.

This is a very welcome reminder of the strength of our labour market and the resilience of our economy in the face of all this global uncertainty.

It means more than 1.25 million jobs have now been created on our watch, most of them full time.

This Albanese Labor Government has overseen the lowest average unemployment of any Australian government in the last half a century.

Michael Bachelard at the SMH had it first, but here is the official statement from Jerome Laxale, as chair of the parliamentary committee into electoral matters, outlining its willingness to compel the Plymoth Brethren Christian Church and Advance to attend their committee hearing:

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has been conducting a review of the 2025 election.
 
On 24 June 2026, the Committee agreed to re-invite the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (informally known as the Plymouth Brethren or PBCC), and Advance (previously known as Advance Australia) to give evidence before a hearing of the Committee. This is after both groups declined to appear at previous hearings in November 2025, and March and May 2026.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has been conducting a review of the 2025 election.

On 24 June 2026, the Committee agreed to re-invite the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (informally known as the Plymouth Brethren or PBCC), and Advance (previously known as Advance Australia) to give evidence before a hearing of the Committee. This is after both groups declined to appear at previous hearings in November 2025, and March and May 2026.

Given multiple attempts have been made to have these witnesses appear before the Committee, the Committee has also resolved to issue a summons to compel their attendance if witnesses continue to decline these invitations.

The Committee acknowledges that this is an extraordinary step, but one it believes necessary.

Preliminary analysis of Committee evidence shows that over 75 published submissions to JSCEM mention the Plymouth Brethren, and note their presence in approximately 80 different suburbs in federal electorates across Australia.

Given the volume of submissions the Committee has received, and the level of community concern about their involvement in the electoral process, it is not just in the Committee’s interest, but Australia’s interest, to understand the involvement of both of these third parties in the 2025 federal election and their influence on the electoral process.

Information on the hearings will be made available on the Committee’s Public Hearings webpage as they are finalised.

Save the Children Australia CEO Mat Tinkler has welcomed the child’s urgent return to access the medical care she desperately needs. 

 
After seven long years languishing in a desert camp, with no clear pathway home, today’s news means the last Australian child and mother in Syria are now able to return home.

This little girl was among the most vulnerable in the group, making her safe and immediate return to Australia a matter of urgency to allow her to access healthcare and wraparound supports to recover and reintegrate into the Australian community.  

The Home Affairs Minister has made it clear that the returning mother will be subject to stringent monitoring conditions and surveillance. If there is evidence the woman has committed any crimes, or poses an ongoing risk to the Australian community, Australia’s judicial and national security system is best placed to assess and manage these risks.   

As the remaining Australian child and her mother return to Australia, we call on the wider community, including politicians and commentators to consider the child’s wellbeing and allow her the best chance of recovery away from public scrutiny.” 

Anara Watson

The ABC reported today that the Pandandus Park community, who live in the remote Kimberly, has been fighting for over a decade to have their water infrastructure upgraded.

While the United Nations recognises the access to water as a human right, for many people living in remote areas of Australia, this is not a reality. According to the UN, “The right to water entitles everyone to have access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible, and affordable water”.

In 2024, the Northern Territory Court of Appeal upheld the right of tenants in Laramba to clean drinking water. In March of this year, that same community took the Territory government to court for failure to deal with their contaminated water.

In many remote areas, pollution occurs naturally – whether through vegetation or geologically. For residents of Laramba, the contamination is caused by naturally-occurring uranium – known to cause severe health implications such as kidney disease. That’s also true for the community in Burringurrah.

For the Pandandus Park community, nitrate contamination is a result of decaying vegetation. Nitrate levels in this area are high enough to cause the potentially fatal condition blue baby syndrome.

According to a report by the Australian National University, some 200,000 Australians don’t have access to safe drinking water. Forty per cent of the affected locations are remote Indigenous communities.

But it doesn’t have to be like this.

Australia is a rich country. It can afford to fix this if only governments choose to act. 

Skye Predavec

One Nation’s so-called ‘member democracy’ has garnered some attention recently, including a question at Hanson’s press club appearance about the hypocrisy of publicly championing ‘free speech’ while gagging her party’s own branches from speaking to the media. Pauline Hanson is the party’s president for life, and almost all important decisions need her sign-off.

Community Strong Australia, the new Teal political party sees itself – at least in part – as a challenge to One Nation. So how does it treat grassroots members? From its name, you might think the answer is obvious.

But the new party’s constitution reads more corporate than democratic, down to having disputes resolved through formal legal arbitration.

The only members who have votes on internal party matters are MPs – or other members that “a Super Majority of Parliamentary Members determines from time to time.” MPs also decide on whether anyone else can be a member in the first place, with only MPs and candidates automatically granted that status.

If they do open up the membership, what might that look like?

While Community Strong advertises that its candidates will be “selected from and approved by the local CSA community”, members don’t get to vote on who they’ll be. In fact, the only requirement is for candidate selection to “involve the local teams representative”, not the wider party membership in the seat.

Even if they don’t get a say in who the candidate will be, members must commit to “advocating and voting in a manner consistent with the Policy Pillars”, those being sensible economic management, climate action, equality and integrity. In a party where every MP has a conscience vote on every issue, it’s a curious choice to bind any potential rank and file members to voting in a certain way.

MPs also have “absolute discretion” to cancel any memberships, for any reason, and to charge whatever fees they see fit.

However flawed in practice, Australia’s most successful parties including Labor, the Liberals and the Greens have always prided themselves on membership democracy. For its part, Community Strong says “traditional parties are out of touch” and that it “expands and enshrines the strengths of community-led politics into a new party.”

If that community doesn’t get a say on the party’s direction, candidates and rules, what does community-led mean?

Bill Browne

Liberal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has finally managed to spit out the word “multiculturalism” after days of equivocating, saying he supports a “type” of multiculturalism.

There are hints at what “type” of multiculturalism the Liberals are talking about, with Taylor rejecting “Labor’s multiculturalism”, which he blames for Antisemitic hatred, “ugly” protests, terrorist sympathisers and “non-citizens accessing benefits that should be there for Australians”.

But Shadow Treasurer Ted O’Brien reassures us that “Johnny” who speaks English at work and Italian to his grandmother is safe.

It’s not the thoughtful soul-searching that one might expect after the Liberals’ disastrous election result last year. After that, the Liberals’ worst result in the party’s history, the official review said:

“Broadening the support base is necessary if the Party is to reflect modern Australia.

The Party must develop a renewal strategy for engagement with multicultural communities and young people.”

Among those responsible for the party’s loss of faith with culturally and linguistically diverse voters was Senator Jane Hume for her “single but unfortunate reference to Chinese spies”.

She has since been promoted to Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.

But Senator Hume was by no means unique. As the review said,

“The Party’s capacity to thoughtlessly offend groups, including the Chinese, was, as others have observed, a widespread problem.”

If the Liberals ignore these lessons, they will further trash their brand. Fine. But when they do so, it carries a real human cost. Heartbreakingly, the Liberals’ own review found that Chinese-Australians identified “the sense that they were not welcome in the community” as one of their top issues.

For them, it’s not a game.

James Watson

We know we’re in a unique moment in Australian history when Pauline Hanson says the Socceroos is her “vision of a monocultural Australia”.

In fact, the Hanson of the 1990s probably would not have been caught dead supporting the national soccer team.

Until fairly recently (the Socceroos’ famous 2005 qualifying match against Uruguay was probably a turning point), soccer was ostracised in Anglo-Australian culture as “wogball” and an “ethnic” sport.

This was because the sport was so firmly embedded in Australia’s histories of migration – especially within the continental European migrants who came to Australia after World War II.

Across the country, migrants founded soccer clubs formed around their ethnic and national identities – South Melbourne Hellas, Hobart Juventus, and Polonia Adelaide are just a few examples.

This was a form of proto-multiculturalism (arriving decades before Whitlam formally adopted the policy in 1973) that directly challenged the monoculture of the White Australia Policy.

White Australia supporters long tried to humiliate the sport and its supporters, but things are changing now: in the 21^st century, we’ve begun to see more and more Anglo-Australians embrace soccer (especially the Matildas during the 2023 World Cup).

As one scholar put it, soccer in Australia has gone from “wogball” to “the world game”.

So why is Hanson co-opting the Socceroos as her supposed vision of Australian monoculture?

It seems that even Hanson can’t deny a winner – the Socceroos and Matildas are immensely popular, and if you can’t beat them, you might as well join them.

The fact that Hanson now imagines Australia as the Socceroos is a sign of just how successful multiculturalism has been.

Pauline Hanson has stood outside the parliament with three billboard trucks saying ‘fire the liar’ – which is her latest stunt, with zero substance. She then did a press conference where she whined on about how Anthony Albanese is destroying the country. Bold for someone who has no policies and has been in politics for the better part of 30 years with nothing to really show for it, and stood by while one of her chief benefactors said they wanted to give away Australian islands to foreign interests. Nothing says sovereignty like giving away territory to foreign agents!

In the way back in she came across an SBS employee who pointed to his yellow SBS hat and said he was ‘still here’ – which is in response to Hanson’s declaration she will scrap SBS and her attacks on the network, including political editor Anna Henderson who she said wouldn’t have a job. This is obviously outrageous, but this is how emboldened Hanson feels now. So good on SBS employees for pushing back – they serve a vital role in our community and show Australia to the world.

In response, Hanson said “not for much longer.”

Rod Campbell

The annual meeting of Australia’s local governments has not only called for a levy on coal and gas exports, but has passed a unanimous resolution to “to call on the Australian Parliament to deliver an immediate increase in untied funding”.

They warn that “the financial sustainability of councils and the services communities rely on are increasingly at risk.”

This highlights a point The Australia Institute has been making for years – Australia is a low tax country, because the Federal Government doesn’t raise and share enough revenue.

The Feds shortchange state and local governments, meanwhile they give away billions in free gas, subsidise mining companies’ diesel and choose not to properly tax wealthy superannuants or carbon emissions. There are loads of ways the feds can raise money and make Australia better at the same time.  

Not raising this money directly leads to the things that the local governments are complaining about. More from the ALGA media release:

Australian Local Government Association President Mayor Matt Burnett said the motion reflected the shared reality facing councils across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote Australia.

“Financial sustainability is not an abstract discussion for local government. It is about whether councils can keep doing the job our communities expect us to do,” Mayor Burnett said.

“Councils are responsible for the roads, bridges, libraries, pools, parks, footpaths, stormwater systems, waste services and community facilities Australians rely on every day.

“We are also the first people communities call when something goes wrong, whether that is a local road failure, a disaster, a planning issue or a service disruption.

“Yet councils are increasingly being asked to do more with less funding certainty, less flexibility, limited revenue capacity and less ability to plan for the long term.”

The second reading of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 is under way in the House of Reps. This Bill will require medical specialists to publish their fees on the Medical Costs Finder (MCF) website, giving patients comparable information about how much procedures like a joint replacement or colonoscopy will cost them in the private sector.

Voluntary participation in MCF failed dismally, with 88 out of over 6,000 eligible specialists signing up.

As this chart suggests, specialists appear to be charging what their local market will bear.

Because supply is so limited, there are concerns that price transparency may result in specialists aligning their fees (at the upper end) thus resulting in higher fees. This is a legitimate concern, which is why price transparency should be accompanied by additional information and education for patients and their referring GPs as well as stronger regulation of fees.

The Bill also prohibits the practice of ‘phoenixing’ where private health insurers close a product then release a very similar one at a higher price. A deceptive practice that’s rightly being curtailed.

Further to Matt’s post about reports of a 7% fall in house prices, my column today in Guardian Australia is on how the changes to the CGT discount have had a clearly immediate impact. This is despite rather a few conservative economists and the Liberal Party trying to tell us that the discount had nothing at all to do with house prices.

I noted that when Matt and I appeared before the Senate committee last week, Liberal finance spokesperson, Claire Chandler, asked If “the CGT changes in 1999 are still what’s impacting the increases in the property market, 27 years down the track?” I told her that “The problem is that the thing that happened 27 years ago is still happening; it’s still here.” (until now)

I also had a look at claims by Pauline Hanson (and others) that young people are the ones most badly affected by the changes because they will no longer be able to get generous tax breaks from investing.

And well., sorry, but nah.

Capital gains (and negative gearing) are the purview of older rich people, and the distortive impact they have had on house prices is all too clear by what has happening since the budget.

You can read my column and see all the other graphs here.

Here is how some of the morning (and one from yesterday) has played out as seen through Mike Bowers of the New Daily, lens:

The SMH’s Michael Bachelard, who has been covering these issues for some time, has a story on how the parliamentary committee looking at electoral matters will compulsorily summon Elders of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church and right-wing lobby group Advance to face the committee if they ignore another invitation to attend.

Bachelard reports from a statement from chair Jerome Laxale where he explains the matter:

The committee acknowledges that this is an extraordinary step, but one it believes necessary

The groups had already “declined to appear at previous hearings in November 2025, and March and May 2026,” the statement said

“Given multiple attempts have been made to have these witnesses appear … the Committee has also resolved to issue a summons to compel their attendance if witnesses continue to decline these invitations.”

The committee wishes to speak to the groups after they were mentioned in at least 75 submissions sent to the inquiry.

Rod Campbell

AAP reports that yesterday Australia’s local governments “overwhelmingly support a national levy on coal, oil and gas companies to help them cope with escalating climate damage.”

“A City of Sydney-led motion to set up a climate compensation fund has been formally adopted unopposed as an Australian Local Government Association position.

“Councils face mounting costs to repair and maintain roads, drainage, parks and coastal defences under global temperature rise that are well outpacing revenue growth.”

This is great news and something The Australia Institute has long called for.

The reason councils are so keen on this is that climate costs are rising rapidly while local government revenue is increasing slowly. Here’s a chart we published last year:

The second reading speeches concluded last night and the Senate adjourned at a very decent 7.08pm rather than the 10.30pm that was allowed for — I guess the Opposition (and everyone?) ran out of puff in terms delaying the inevitable.

The Senate is now going through the raft of amendments to the CGT and income tax bills, from the Government, Opposition, Greens, David Pocock, Jacquie Lambie and One Nation.

Some amendments will be mischief-making, some will be Important Point Making / Putting Positions On The Record, and some will be actual real amendments that will pass (most notably the grandfathering amendments to the CGT bill the Greens got in their deal to pass the legislation).

If this bill doesn’t pass in its own time this morning, it’ll be guillotined through at 1.30pm today, as per Tuesday’s hours motion.

So plenty of time for the amended bills to head back and pass the House before sitting finishes today (and for the week).

Here we have Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender announcing their new party. They are framing it as an ‘evolution’ of independents and bringing community into parliament.

Matt Grudnoff

There are more predictions of house price falls, this time from Domain who are predicting a drop of 7% next financial year in Sydney house prices.

While some in the media are reporting this as if it is a terrible outcome, a drop of 7% (or 8%, or 10%) is not terribly unusual. House prices dropped 8% between 2017 and 2019, and they drop 6.5% in 2022 and 2023.

But these small falls are nothing compared to the enormous increases we have seen in recent years. As my colleague Greg Jericho has pointed out recently, even if Sydney prices fell 9% by the end of the year that would just take prices back to where they were in September 2024.

It is also important to remember that lower house prices mean housing is cheaper. If we are really concerned about housing affordability, then this is a good thing.

And that is exactly what most people think. A recent Resolve Poll found that most people supported house prices going down.

Australians overwhelmingly support access to abortion care – but there’s a resurgence in anti-abortion politics underway.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Amy Remeikis and Hamdi Jama join Ebony Bennett to discuss the resurgence of anti-abortion politics in Australia, failed legislation in South Australia seeking to restrict late-term abortion, and the influence of far-right politics in the United States and United Kingdom on Australia.

The Senate has kicked off on Thursday morning with Private Senators Time (the debate of Private Members Bills). 

The hours motion struck out the Opposition’s allocated time yesterday, but very politely retained David Pocock’s allocated time today.

So the Senate is now debating David Pocock’s private members bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025

Online Safety Act 2021 to establish a complaints and enforcement regime for the non-consensual sharing of digitally altered or artificially generated audio or visual content that depicts a person’s face or voice without their consent (deepfake material); and Privacy Act 1988 to establish a cause of action for the wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material.

An important issue for the Senate to be discussing, indeed.

Pauline Hanson is currently giving a bit of a ‘why are you so obsessed with me’ style defence of One Nation’s social media operations, with interjections from Sarah Hanson-Young regarding foreign interference.

On One Nation and foreign interference, this piece by Alex Fein spells it out for you: It’s time to call it what it is: Foreign Interference 

The Senate has kicked off on Thursday morning with Private Senators Time (the debate of Private Members Bills). 

The hours motion struck out the Opposition’s allocated time yesterday, but very politely retained David Pocock’s allocated time today.

So the Senate is now debating David Pocock’s private members bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025

Online Safety Act 2021 to establish a complaints and enforcement regime for the non-consensual sharing of digitally altered or artificially generated audio or visual content that depicts a person’s face or voice without their consent (deepfake material); and Privacy Act 1988 to establish a cause of action for the wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material.

An important issue for the Senate to be discussing, indeed.

Pauline Hanson is currently giving a bit of a ‘why are you so obsessed with me’ style defence of One Nation’s social media operations, with interjections from Sarah Hanson-Young regarding foreign interference.

On One Nation and foreign interference, this piece by Alex Fein spells it out for you: It’s time to call it what it is: Foreign Interference 

The Australian woman who travelled to Syria as an 18 year old in 2015 to be part of the Islamic State caliphate can now return to Australia after the temporary exclusion order on her return was found to no longer apply.

The woman and her nine-year-old daughter were the only remaining Australians in the Syrian camp where other women and their children returned from, after a court ruled the government could block her re-entry. That block is no longer applicable. While the woman’s daughter, who has medical issues, would have been able to return without her mother, they did not wish to be seperated.

Home Affairs minister Tony Burke said that the government was advised yesterday that “we can no longer have an exclusion condition for her,” which clears the way for her re-entry to Australia.

But that won’t mean she won’t be under constant monitoring. ASIO boss Mike Burgess told ABC radio this morning:

When there are Australians who have been overseas in places like Syria and Iraq who represent security concerns, we assess them. We know the level of the risk, and anyone who’s considered a high or medium risk gets my agency’s full attention.”

The woman could still be charged with breaking Australian law upon re-entry to Australia.

William Ton for AAP

After weeks of talks, Warringah MP Zali Steggall and Wentworth MP Allegra Spender on Thursday announced the formation of Community Strong Australia.

“Australia is at a crossroads. Across the country, Australians want something better: a politics that brings people together, tackles long-term challenges with courage and optimism, and gives communities a stronger voice in shaping the future,” they said in a statement.

The party’s focus issues include creating opportunity and prosperity, safety and security, housing affordability, cost-of-living pressures, climate change, childcare, education, healthcare and social cohesion.

“Australia is at a turning point and people are worried about what the future holds. Community Strong Australia offers unity over division and reason over rage,” Ms Steggall said.

The MPs say they will work together to develop policy, but will retain a free vote and prioritise their communities.

The new party is looking to build on the principles of the community independents movement, which they have listed as integrity, accountability, practical problem-solving and putting communities at the centre of decision-making.

Ms Spender said Community Strong Australia responds directly to the feeling among many Australians that politics is dominated by career politicians who don’t listen to them.

“Our country’s success wasn’t built on complaining or fighting each other. It was built on the common good of hard work, tolerance, shared identity and purpose,” she said.

Community Strong Australia wanted to counter the political forces that fuel division and push voters towards more extreme choices, the women said.

“At a time when others are promoting conflict and hate, I feel a strong sense of responsibility to provide a real political alternative and promote a positive narrative about what Australia is and what we can achieve together,” Ms Steggall said.

Independent MP for Bradfield Nicolette Boele congratulated the pair, saying she expects to work with Community Strong Australia on policy regarding the economy, climate action and integrity.

“For now, I am remaining independent. That is the mandate Bradfield gave me, and any decision to change that belongs to my community, not to a press conference,” she said.

“I am still working through what this party would allow me to do for the people I represent that I cannot already do as a community independent — and until I am certain, I will not pretend otherwise.”

The new party will engage with communities across the country over coming months and will support community-backed candidates and parliamentarians in both houses of parliament, the MPs said.

They said party registration was required to allow them to run Senate candidates, with an application lodged to register Community Strong Australia as a political party expected to be finalised by October.

Community Strong Australia (or CSA) has gone for coral and a warm teal as their colours.

You can find their website here

Spender and Steggall envision that the parliamentary members will collective lead the party, but spokespeople may be appointed on policies or areas of interest, there would be a free vote on all parliamentary votes except in the cases of supply and confidence and those free votes must still be in line with the pledge and policy pillars of the party and if in the balance of power, supply and confidence would be carried by a majority vote.

In terms of the ‘vision, values, policy pillars and objects,’ the constistution which was formalised last week, says it wants the vision of Community Strong to be a “more prosperous, equitable and democratic Australia actively shaped by communities.”

The values it lists are

• future‑focused stewardship;
• community‑engaged representation;
• integrity and accountability;
• evidence-led decision-making;
• fairness and prosperity.

And it’s ‘sensible policy pillars’ include:

• Sensible economic management
• climate action;
• equality;
• integrity

Tess Ikonomou for AAP

Changes are being considered for Australia’s terrorism threat level system, as the nation’s spy chief warns it wasn’t designed for the “degrading security environment” facing society.

Following his annual threat assessment on Wednesday evening, ASIO director-general Mike Burgess said the system in place should be reviewed, and that he is in talks with Home Affairs Department Secretary Stephanie Foster on how it could be overhauled.

The nation’s terrorism threat level is probable, meaning there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore attack, or attack planning in the next 12 months.

But Mr Burgess said the level “does not tell the full story”.

“I do not believe the system was designed for a situation like the one we now face,” he said.

“This is where a degrading security environment intersects with a diverse one. 

“In the current climate, it is too simplistic to assume there is a single terrorism threat or a most likely terrorist threat.”

A minute’s silence was held ahead of Mr Burgess’ address, for the victims of Australia’s worst ever terror attack at Bondi, which targeted Jewish Australians.

People attending the speech in Canberra – which included senior defence force officers, federal police and politicians – were shown a video which collated several news reports depicting fraying social cohesion in Australia.

It showed pro-Palestinian protesters clashing with police*, the march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge**, white nationalists, neo-Nazis and the aftermath of the Bondi terror attack.

As the royal commission into anti-Semitism examines intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the Bondi attack, Mr Burgess said even as surging espionage and foreign interference demanded more attention “countering terrorism remained a priority”.

“We increased CT (counter terrorism) resourcing when we raised the threat level in 2024 and it continued to grow in the months before Bondi,” he said. 

“Resourcing followed the threat.”

He also revealed an Australian based in Iran and an ex-resident now in Iraq masterminded firebombings of a Jewish deli in Sydney and a synagogue in Melbourne.

ASIO has foiled 31 major terrorism plots since 2014, with Mr Burgess revealing 14 cases since the Bondi attack last December have been resolved.

* It has been the police which created the ‘clashes’ with the response to the Herzog protests under review because of the force used. Civil cases are in the courts, and NSW have admitted that Hannah Thomas was assaulted and falsely imprisoned by NSW police while at an anti-genocide protest. So the use of this footage is misleading at best and combining it with footage of neo-Nazi marches is part of the reason that our political establishment is in this mess in the first place and people feel that are not being heard – protesting for equal human rights and dignity and against genocide is not the same as neo-Nazi protests. How are we still doing this?

**This one is PARTICULARLY egregious because how do you claim that 300,000 people PEACEFULLY walking across the Sydney Harbour Bridge calling for humanity, in a court approved protest, where there was no violence, despite the rain and kettling attempts by police, and constantly changing exit points, is an example of fraying social cohesion and not democratic rights being exercised? The Australian government changed its policy and officially recognised Palestine at the UN after this march. That it is is being used as an example of what ASIO is talking about is an absolute disgrace.

Motions in the Senate were delayed from their usual ~3.30pm-ish time yesterday to after our blog closed for the day, due to the Senate’s condolence motion for the death of Trish Crossin AM, a former Senator for the Northern Territory.

So just to catch you up —

Firstly, as we said yesterday, Michaelia Cash’s attempt to bring forward a vote on the NDIS bill to next week was not successful. So, nothing to worry about there.

On the other motions, it’s fair to say that the Coalition and Greens, along with David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe, Pauline Hanson and Ralph Babet don’t agree on much. So when they do, it’s worth sitting up.

And so yesterday, they all banded together to agree to Senator Bragg’s motion for a ministerial explanation on the first home buyers scheme, for failure to comply with orders for the production of documents (for those new to the Senate, OPDs are kind of like Senate FOI requests).

The substantive part of the Senate’s slap on the wrist for the Minister is as follows:

1. since those orders were agreed to, the Senate has agreed to a further 9 motions concerning the minister’s failure to comply with the orders, rejected a public interest immunity claim raised by the Minister for Housing and required a minister to attend the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders on 5 separate occasions,

2. most recently, on 12 May 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing attended the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders or to respond in full to the orders,

3. the additional explanation provided by the minister was not satisfactory and did not address the minister’s failure to fully comply with the orders, and

4. the orders have still not been fully complied with; and

b. until the Senate resolves that orders for the production of documents nos 27 and 119 have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to fully comply with the orders.

So let’s see next Monday.

The only other motion of note (maybe?), was Senator Antic moving a motion so strange, that even his own side didn’t want to sit with him. Awkward. :-/

AYES, 6

NOES, 34

Well that was a busy evening!

We were a day off with the announcement for the new political party Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender have been consulting on. And close with the name – it’s not Community Alliance, it is Community Strong Australia. There will be a press conference a little later, followed by a background briefing on how it is all going to work. But given there are only two names on the media release and the other teal independents have ruled out joining the party, it does seem as if the two Sydney MPs are branching out on their own. A political party will mean they benefit from the public election funding changes the government and LNP agreed to in the last parliament, and they will be able to advertise for senate candidates which means they won’t be hamstrung like other independents by the changes to electoral advertising rules. But they also won’t be ‘independents’ any longer. We’ll learn more soon.

ASIO boss Mike Burgess delivered his annual address overnight and announced he was in talks with the Home Affairs departmental secretary to overhaul the terror alert system. Australia’s alert is currently set to ‘Probable’ which means there is a greater than 50% chance of a terror attack in the next 12 months (according to the assessment) but can’t move to ‘Expected’ unless ASIO has actual information about a planned attack. It doesn’t have that information, but Burgess said the current volatile environment didn’t fit in ‘Probable’ either.

“I do not believe the system was designed for a situation like the one we now face,” he said.

Which, OK. Probably. But also, I am yet to meet a security chief who did not want more powers to enact whatever they believe necessary. And with those powers comes all sorts of assaults on civil liberties, whether intended or not. ASIO already has compulsory questioning powers – where you can be locked up just for refusing to answer a question – and includes minors. Australia has passed more than 100 security laws since 9/11 and most people don’t know how much access ASIO and other security agencies have to us, our data and how little rights we have if deemed a suspect in a terror investigation. Now the ASIO boss is asking for changes to the alert system, there will be more consequences for citizens attached to that. So this is absolutely one to watch.

And after people began pointing to the Socceroos as an example of what Pauline Hanson was against in her quest for ‘monoculture’ (an absolute myth by the way – and we all know she means ‘white’) Hanson has now tried to claim the Australian football team as an example of what she means by ‘monoculture’. She told the senate yesterday:

In the past week the far left have, naturally, taken my comments into the realm of utter fantasy,” she said in the Senate.

I was going to ban foreign food and the Socceroos wouldn’t have beaten Turkey under my policy. What rubbish. Predictable and pathetic.

The Socceroos, in fact, represent my vision of a monocultural Australia. People from different background and cultures and nations all wearing the green and gold and representing one nation under one flag and succeeding under the same set of rules.”

Apart from being absolute bullshit – Hanson refuses to give any detail about her migration policy but has previously said she wants to stop migration from Muslim nations – what has been revealed is how smooth the One Nation operation is getting. The Socceroo example was obviously biting, so they address it. Hanson will also claim that whatever people criticise her with is ‘pathetic’ and she will take the example of what it is her policies will destroy and then twist that example into something she claims to represent, all to try and hold on to the soft One Nation voters which have given her this current level of political dominancy. But the Socceroos, five of who come from Western Sydney – Paul Okon Engstler, Cristian Volpato, Mat Ryan, Milos Degenek and Patrick Beach, is not at all an example of a ‘monoculture’. It represents, as even LNP MP Garth Hamilton was able to articulate on ABC yesterday, “Australia as it is”.

So yeah. A bit on and a lot of bullshit to wade through. I have coffee number three ready to go to do just that. Join me?