The Point Live: 'Like a stone in our heart' day of tributes to Helen Haines, while estimates begins As it happened.

The tributes for Helen Haines will continue for the rest of the House sitting, with business resuming, as scheduled, tomorrow. Let’s see how long the enforced ‘civility’ stands. So far, it seems to be anything a MP disagrees with is uncivil, and staying civil requires not saying anything. Which serves one purpose we suppose – of silencing dissent – but doesn’t actually take any debates forward. You can be civil AND pushback against policy AND have high expectations of your democracy. That doesn’t seem to have reached the parliament yet, but tomorrow is another day.

Until then, please take care of you. Today and all the days are rough for a lot of reasons and it can be hard to muddle on when you feel so heavy about the world. You’re not alone. And if there is anything you ever want to pass on, you can always reach me at amy.remeikis@thepoint.com.au. Ax

David Richardson

There is a press report showing that Australia’s wholesale electricity prices are among the lowest in the world. For example the average price in the Eastern Australian states is US$50/MWh. (MWh is a unit of measurement for electricity and stands for megawatt hours.) By comparison European wholesale prices range from US$98/MWh in Portugal to US$145/MWh in the UK and US$174/MWh in Italy.

A lot of the credit for the lower prices goes to the increasing supply from renewables in Australia.

Adjusting for exchange rates these figures means, in Australian dollars, the average Eastern Australia price is around $71/MWh. But that is a long way from the prices charged to consumers. AGL’s annual report for 2026 shows that the average price to consumer customers was $379.2/MWh and that is before the GST which would increase the price to $417/MWh. Big business did better because they were charged just $203/MWh and the GST does not apply.

On top of the wholesale costs AGL adds the network costs (transmission and distribution) and other costs of $123/MWh. Those figures suggest that AGL would be earning an operating profit on sales to consumers of around $180/MWh, almost half the retail price. For that, almost half the cost of electricity, AGL does us the honour of billing us. 

We have singled out AGL Energy but Origin and Energy Australia have similar pricing strategies. Australia may have the cheapest wholesale prices but that does not help Australian households that are being ripped off by the electricity oligopolies.

David Shoebridge also addressed some of Angus Taylor’s speech in tribute to Helen Haines, which included his claim that Australians were being made to “feel guilty” of their country in his press conference:

I think there were elements of what Angus Taylor did that saw him use this as a political opportunity, and I’m deeply surprised at that. And I think it’s it’s unfortunate that he chose to do that. We know the Victorian police are still trying to work out how and why this attack happened on time, and and we’ve seen complex factors behind this, and and and they range across things including mental health, things including isolation, things including poverty, and we don’t yet know what if any ideas also came to play in that, and for politicians at this point to be trying to craft a narrative out of the tragedy for Helen, I think is deeply, deeply inappropriate and unfortunate. We should allow the Victorian Police to undertake their investigation, allow the AFP and ASIO to undertake their investigation. I will say this on politics, though.

Politics needs to address the material problems we’re facing.

Politics needs to not spin off into virulent personal attacks, but actually address the real material needs that are happening across this country and across the world.

And I have seen language from politicians that are deeply dehumanising of migrants, deeply dehumanizing of people because of their religion, deeply dehumaniaing, and and I would ask any politician who engages in that to have a good hard look at themselves.

But I’ll also say this: that when there are hard things happening, you need to act with principle. If there is a genocide occurring, you need to do everything you can to stop a genocide. If there’s systemic poverty, you should call out the systemic poverty, and and hold those politicians, those those leaders who haven’t addressed the systemic poverty, hold them to account. If there is a dramatic failure to provide mental health services, and that’s been known and advised, well, you should, with passion and directness, demand those answers. Now, if demanding answers to material concerns and real-life issues is seen by some people who don’t want politics to answer these things as extreme, I reject that.

Answering people’s material concerns, dealing honestly with the world, is the way in which you generate respect for politics. And and in this moment, in this moment, to try and craft a narrative when we know so little about the terrible tragedy that happened to Helen Haines, I didn’t think that was what today was for.

David Shoebridge also spoke about the latest Foodbank hunger report, which we reported on earlier:

One in three Australians, one in three Australian families, have had food insecurity in the last 12 months. Think about that: one in three Australians facing food security in the last 12 months, and that means there have been times when there hasn’t been enough to feed everyone in the family, to feed someone in the way in which they need. One in three Australians.

And what is really shocking when you look at the food bank data is it’s not just one in three Australians have had food insecurity in the last 12 months. For the great majority of them, 70% of those, this is the first time it’s ever happened to them.

Now, of all the things this country should be providing, a square meal when it’s needed, food on the table, this sense that you won’t go hungry and your kids won’t go hungry that surely is a bedrock for our country.

And yet, 70% of those Australians in the last 12 months who have faced food security, this is the first time ever.

And why is this happening? It’s because wages are flatlining while prices are going through the roof, it’s because the people working in Coles and Woolies, stacking the shelves, their wages have flatlined, while the profits from the owners of Coles and Woolies have gone through the roof in the billions and billions of dollars.

And what’s happening between those workers on the floor in Coles and the and the the billionaire owners of Coles, the wealth being taken from the workers and put in the hands of the billionaire owners. That’s happening across our our society. It’s happening across industries.

And Labor doesn’t seem to have an answer for this. Their their answer, if they have one economically, is invite in some U.S. tech bros and some billionaires to cover the country in data centers, and maybe enough, maybe enough economic activity will trickle down so that people might have enough to eat. That’s not a plan. That’s a surrender.

Politics needs an answer to these things, and there is much criticism in the commentariat about oh, how could you possibly come up with real solutions? Well, I’ll give you a real solution for food insecurity, developed by the Green Institute, it’s publicly owned supermarkets, where instead of the profits going in the billions and billions of dollars to billionaire, many of them offshore owners, the profits are held in the public, making cheaper food, making it so that people don’t go hungry.

That’s a solution. The Greens are keen to develop this solution of publicly owned supermarkets. So next year, or the year after, when we’re looking at the data, there are no Australians who have food insecurity.

And we we will be told, I am sure, by the Labor Party, by One Nation, and by the Coalition, all this idea of publicly owned supermarket it’s it’s nonsense. How could it possibly happen? Well, it’s happening in New York, and if it’s happening in New York, it can happen here too.

This is this is a moment. This is a moment when we need to see that the the plan to this point of our economic system of privatise this, deregulate that, hand everything over to corporates. It’s not working. It is not working. It’s not working for Australians.

We need some answers, not just putting your hands up and inviting some tech pro in and hoping that some crumbs fall off their table to working Australians.

Greens leader David Shoebridge held a press conference ahead of QT, where he spoke about Helen Haines:

It is still hard to comprehend coming to this place and not having Helen walk in the corridors, engaging in the kind of principled critique of the government and support for her community that we all seen her do.

That the violence against Helen was just another incident, a tragic additional incident of male violence against another woman in this country, and it also it also drew an attack against one of our dear friends and colleagues, we need to take stock about this as a country, about what the ways forward are to ensure that our society responds to politics with non-violence, responds to conflict with non-violence, but also it’s a society where people feel included, people feel like they’ll be protected, and that’s not just physical security for MPs. It’s material security for people across the country.

Politics has an obligation to not just be a fight in this place, but to be a way in which people’s lives get better, and people can look to politics with hope and a sense that we’re answering people’s hard material needs at this moment.

But right at this point, our thoughts are with Helen. Our thoughts are with her family. Our thoughts are with her team, who have come here into Parliament under I can’t imagine what kind of stress and anxiety to do what Helen and her team have always done to be there for community, to be there to fight for the right things in this place with integrity, with soul, and with a sense of connection to her community that I think few MPs could match.

It’s with grief and sorrow and love. We take this moment to reflect on Helen.

Greg Jericho

In Senate estimates Michaelia Cash is very worried about Ben Roberts-Smith.

She wants to know when the Attorney General knew he was about to be arrested and if she knew where – and if the Attorney General’s Department knew. This is all because the poor fellow was arrested in Sydney “in front of his family”.

She then is very concerned about the appointment of Raelene Sharp KC as the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) on 4 December 2023 given her previous role was counsel assisting the Special Investigator appointed to investigate possible breaches of the Laws of Armed Conflict allegedly committed by members of the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2016.   

She wants to know if Ms Sharpe has considered whether she has a conflict of interest. They state she has and that there is no conflict of interest.  Cahs wants to know if the department or the Attorney General made the decision to get the CDPP to consider this – especially given a ”perceived conflict of interest” would be worrying.

The departmental official point out there is no conflict of interest or even a perceived one as it is “common practice” of prosecutors to provide advice to investigating agencies.

Cash is saying this is different because it in volves war crimes and a man who was awarded a Victoria Cross.

The Departmental official takes the rather odd stance of assuming all crimes and all people being prosecuted should be treated with the same standards. Gee what a shock!  

Cash basically wants the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith (“along with the ISIS brides” – a weird little aside she throws in, but apparently because such charges are also very serious) should be treated with extra care.

All this is about trying to suggest there is something iffy about the prosecution of B R-S because of… “reasons”. …

Mark Butler is asked about the changes to the over 65 private health subsidy, which will remove the additional subsidy for private health and revert back to the same as everyone else and says:

I’m asked why the government made the announcement we did in the budget this year to change the private health insurance rebate arrangements for over 65s.

First of all, just to be clear, what it is that we have decided to do is to return those rebate arrangements, or effectively a subsidy that government pays for private health insurance, to its original design, which did not discriminate on the basis of age.

So the two households living next to each other on an income of 50 or 80 or $100,000 would receive exactly the same taxpayer subsidy for their private health insurance, whether they were 60 or 50 or 65.

We think that is a sound policy proposition. It was the original design of the private health insurance rebate system, and it is the sort of difficult decision, but defensible decision we think that we need to consider to fund the very growing needs for aged care services for older Australians. And this really goes to the why part of the question the member for Bowman asked me, Speaker.

When I was first appointed Minister for Health, we spent 24 billion dollars on aged care services four or five years ago. This year, not 24, we’ll spend 44 billion dollars. We’ve tripled the number of support at home packages for older Australians, we’ve increased the number of care minutes by about 8 million care minutes every single day. We’ve put nurses back into nursing homes, as the Prime Minister promised to do, and yet still, at a time of unprecedented demographic change in our community, particularly as the oldest baby boomers reach the age of 80, which is a very significant time of need for aged care and health services, we continue to have to find new money every single budget and every single budget update. So I acknowledge the the members’ constituents’ concerns that this is a hard decision at this time. But these are the sorts of hard decisions a responsible government needs to make if we are to do what I think older Australians deserve, and that is to provide the level of care and dignity that they deserve.

Anara Watson

Deputy Greens Leader Senator Steph Hodgins-May has asked Senator Tim Ayres, the federal Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science, about Australia’s progress on the transition away from fossil fuels.

“Australia is a signatory to the Transition away from Fossil Fuels treaty that was signed in Belém – can you explain how many new and expanded coal and gas projects this government has approved since signing that agreement?”

Senator Ayres didn’t give any figures, but said this:

The framework that we’re in does permit countries that have energy resources to export them. And countries are responsible for the emissions that they emit within their jurisdictions – that’s the way that the framework works. If there was an effort to make it work any other way, it would fall apart, and the world would go backwards in emissions terms – that’s the truth of it.”

Nicolette Boele then asks one of the more important existential questions:

Q: My question is for the minister for social services. The minister is the longest-serving woman in the house, and I’m Bradfield’s first female member. Recently, I delivered a speech here, written by young women from my electorate. But I fear that the violent attack on the member for Indi will teach them to retreat from public life. Violence against women, whether physical, spoken, or in writing, is used to silence them. And when it keeps women out of this place, it decides who represents us. That is not democracy. What does the minister say to the young women of Australia now, wondering whether public life is safe for them.

Tanya Plibersek takes a moment before answering this one:

Thank you so much, mr. Speaker, and thank you so much to the Member for Bradfield for really a very important question.

I’m not surprised if there are young women all over Australia looking at the horrific attack on Helen Haines, and wondering whether a life in public is worth it, whether it’s safe for them.

And what I would say to them is 100%, it is worth it. Every single day in this place, we make important decisions that change this country, change it for the better, and we can’t vacate the field to the people who would stop us from doing that.

It’s true that in my time here, almost three decades, the tenor of public debate has changed a great deal. It is more violent in its tone, and I think the industrial scale of the abuse that all of us receive, but I think particularly the women here receive, that has changed. It’s been supercharged by social media.

But I’d say this about social media: that’s no accident either. Social media companies profit by the division they drive in our society, and that’s why all of us have a responsibility to resist that too, to resist that division, to resist the violence and discord that the big tech giants are forcing on us.

We see it not just in political commentary; we see it in relationships between people, and particularly our youngest Australians. It’s no coincidence that the explosion of social media tracks pretty closely with the explosion of sexual violence we’ve seen, where both the perpetrator and the victim are under the age of 18.

It’s also no coincidence that practices like strangulation have exploded at the same time as social media, online pornography, and the manosphere are promoting those sorts of violent, dangerous practices.

So we have an opportunity. All of us, as elected members, to play our role as individuals and as a parliament, as individuals, to use this moment to change the way each of us behaves.

To use this moment to change the way each of us behaves, but as a collective, as a parliament, to resist the pernicious influence of social media, to resist the tech giants trying to tell us how to run our democracy, how to run our relationships, and I think if we miss this opportunity to take this time as a turning point for our country, we will have missed a really important opportunity.

But as a collective, as a parliament, to resist the pernicious influence of social media in our democracy.

Michael McCormack then asks a more direct question about the proposed sale of the Victoria Barracks:

In relation to Victoria Barracks in Sydney, the Minister has said it is not my aim to see Defense manage the oldest wine cellar in Australia. Former Chief of the Defense Force and Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove, one of our greatest living Australians, has described that as the most stupid thing I’ve never ever heard, Minister. And you know I’ve got great respect for you, but why do you think you know more about defense heritage than a man who has served this country valiantly in uniform for 40 years?

Richard Marles:

Well, I thank the member for his question.

What is clear when we came to government is that we had, as a nation, a significant defense estate, much of which we did not use, and we were spending not hundreds of 1000s of dollars in maintaining it, but hundreds of millions.

Now we undertook an independent audit of the entire defense estate to properly understand what defense needed and what it didn’t, so that we could make sure the defense estate properly grounded the work of the Australian Defense Force, and I’d invite the member to read what those independent auditors said, not just about Victoria Barracks Sydney, but about the management of the defense estate in total, because it’s actually damning of successive governments in terms of facing up to the fact that the defense estate has not been maintained in terms of what is needed for our future defense. Now…

We get our first point of order and it is relevant.

McCormack:

The question was specifically about Victoria Barracks and Sir Peter Cosgrove’s comments in relation to the minister’s comments.

Milton Dick asks Marles to stay on relevance.

Marles:

Now the estate audit specifically discussed Victoria Barracks Sydney, and it made it clear that whatever else Victoria Barracks Sydney is not fundamental to the defense of the country, and that what we face in respect of Victoria Barracks Sydney specifically is a bill of $200 million over the next decade to secure it as a defense site, an amount that would not need to be spent if it were not a defense site, and it’s on that basis that we’ve taken the decision that we have taken, particularly given that Defense Plaza Sydney, established by the former coalition government and a decent decision, which is a kilometer away right now, sits 60% empty.

Now it’s got offices in there, and the fundamental function of what happens at Victoria Barracks Sydney is office work. Now, given the strategic landscape that we face, we simply cannot afford to be wasting money, and that’s what we’re doing in this way. We actually need to look at how we best use defense money for defense capability. I take the interjection in respect of defense history.

It is really important, and I understand the importance of that history to the Australian Army. To be clear, most members of the Australian Army have never been to Victoria Barracks Sydney, nor is Victoria Barracks Sydney open to most members of the Australian Army, and what we are talking about doing now is opening it to the entire nation. And the history of the Australian Army does not just belong to it; it belongs to the Australian people.

And we will ensure every one of these buildings is absolutely protected and returned to the nation, returned to Sydney siders, so that Australians and members of the Australian Army can properly respect Australian Army history.

Mayo independent Rebekha Sharkie wants to know what the government is doing to protect fruit growers:

Australian pear and apple growers are concerned the government is seriously considering allowing the import of apples from the United States, and that’s despite a biosecurity risk and our growers already under financial pressure to survive on narrow margins. Will the government rule out the import of American apples and protect this vital industry.

Julie Collins:

I thank the member for Mayo for her question, as she would be aware, Australian farmers do benefit significantly from our free trade and from fair and free trade across the globe. In fact, around 80% in value and about 70% in volume of Australia’s agricultural trade is exported overseas.

The member would also be aware that we have an incredibly strong biosecurity system, and our government has been very firm that we won’t put at risk our biosecurity in Australia, and that’s why we’ve invested over $2 billion since we came to office in terms of our biosecurity, as the member would be aware, we do have an obligation from trading nations and nations that we trade with to inspect and to go through any processes that they request in relation to two-way trade, and that is what is happening. But I assure her we are not going to compromise on our biosecurity. It is not up for negotiation, and no imports will be permitted unless an independent, science-based assessment shows that risk can be managed to Australia’s appropriate level of protection. Our appropriate level of detection of protection is a deliberately very high standard, and it’s designed to make sure that it is very low risk.

As I said, we do export, and our farmers benefit from that substantial amount of our agricultural production in Australia. So our trading system is important, and our biosecurity system is important, and we won’t compromise on that.

Tony Burke just gave a dixer answer on national security:

Our national security, domestic security concerns, our international work works through two main methods: our engagement with our Five Eyes partners and our engagement with the region.

Some of the most significant meetings that occur each year on the region occur on an alternating chair basis jointly with ourselves at Indonesia. A ministerial council meeting directly with myself, my Indonesian counterpart…and then what was now the seventh subregional meeting on counter-terrorism and transnational security, around the table, while it’s co-chaired between ourselves and Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Singapore participate, working through issues on the domestic and regional security environment, irregular migration, maritime security, counter-terrorism, countering violent extremism, transnational security, cyber security, and critical infrastructure.

There are two issues in particular that I want to advise the House, where the level of unity and concern in our region and the impact on every nation was significant.

The first is the issue of scam centers. In Australia, our interaction with scam centers is often people being scammed, people being blackmailed, they direct engagement that way.

But throughout Southeast Asia, while they have that impact as well, they also have the people who are trafficked into these scam centers, factories of misery and modern modern slavery, and the cooperation between all of us in eradicating these these institutions is essential. But the second area that I wanted to advise the House on was the similarity in every country on what’s happening with terrorism and violent extremism, while the networks such as as ISIS and its different forms throughout the region, that work always has to continue, and that work remains the significant threat that it is. Every country is reporting a new cohort, and growing fast of young people, particularly male, where we used to worry about people becoming involved and radicalized in their teens.

Now every country has an example of radicalisation of young people who are not yet teenagers. The radicalisation is happening online and involving mixed ideologies, ideologies that would be completely incoherent with each other, but only having violence together as their only principle. For example, one country referred to one on their caseload as someone who had been radicalised both with ISIS ideology and with white supremacism.

I want to assure the House of the cooperative work that Australia is doing with all of our agencies and all of our effort.

Angus Taylor, who has been leading the charge against government spending, is now leading the charge against government selling.

Q: Australians from across the political divide are coming together to stop Labor’s fire sale of Victoria Barracks in Sydney.

Former Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove, RSL President Peter Tinley, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, former Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, the leader of the Greens, and 1000s of veterans across the country are calling on the minister to change his mind. When will the Prime Minister start listening to veterans and step in and stop the sale?

Albanese:

I thank the leader of the opposition for his question, and we are making the decisions which are necessary to ensure that our defense forces have the facilities and capabilities that they need to keep Australians safe.

We need to acknowledge that we did an independent report into the defense estate to ensure it is fit for purpose, and that report followed an independent estate audit that found that many defense properties are no longer a priority for defense of Australia in the future. The report identified more than 50 sites that were underutilized across Australia.

The funds required to maintain these sites is estimated to reach in excess of $2 billion over the next 25 years, with no direct contribution to capability outcomes. When it comes to Victoria Barracks, I certainly understand the importance of that history, and that’s why it is heritage listed. That’s why there can’t be any development or interference with that heritage listing that applies not only to the main building there; it applies even to some of the roads and and areas on the outside of that site, it is a major major site that is currently underutilized.

We have put forward practical plans, whether it is there, the plans on the banks of the Derwent River, where I stood with Premier Rockcliffe, and that are going to be developed into housing for around about 3000 people. Whether it be the housing development that will take place in Adelaide on the two sites that have been identified, where I stood with Premier Malinauskas as well, I understand the importance of heritage, and one of the ways that we can ensure that that heritage is protected and indeed enhanced is by giving some ordinary citizens access, so that it isn’t cut off from what is a part of Sydney, not that far from where I’ve spent a lot of my life, and at the moment, there will be very few people who ever have access to what is a very large site in need of substantial Commonwealth investment just to just to maintain the site, rather than being utilized appropriately with full respect for the heritage of the site.

The Liberal MP for Casey, Aaron Violi then follows the trend of the Coalition’s questions, asking:

Last week, I met with Caroline and Shane, business owners in Lillard who’ve employed hundreds of locals for over 20 years. Through tears, they shared how it’s never been harder to keep business going and cash flow positive. They are losing hope. Inflation, 16 interest rate rises, red tape, soaring fuel costs, and Labor’s budget of higher taxes have made it even harder to survive. When will the Prime Minister start listening to Australians who have a go, like Caroline and Shane, and axe his taxes on small businesses.

Albanese (who is still using his very sombre voice):

We do engage with small business. Indeed, I’m very conscious of the fact that the treasurer has some meetings with small businesses later today, who’ve visited, and I certainly engage with small businesses.

And last during the last sitting week, of course, I spoke with with ACCI, I spoke with AIG, I spoke with a range of businesses, as I do, as I do consistently, and small businesses, we know that there is pressure on in the global economy. We know that that has occurred, and you can’t just dismiss something like global oil prices that rise up and have an impact on everything that goes into a supermarket shelf will go. Never forgets, and we’ll cease interjecting for the remainder of question time.

But what I what I do know is that objectively, the global ratings agencies have all made comments about Australia in recent times when confirming our AAA credit rating, including the last one just this month, Fitch, who said Fitch Ratings has affirmed Australia’s long-term foreign currency issuer default rating (IDR) at AAA with a stable outlay. Look, and we are one of the few advanced economies that haven’t gone through a recession or a single quarter of economic contraction over recent years. That is something that has happened right around the world. We do have faster economic growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. We have a lower unemployment rate than Canada, France, and Italy. The same as the UK. We have stronger economic growth, employment growth, than all seven of the G7, and a higher worker participation rate. And when it comes to the interjections about government spending. Well, the truth is that we have a smaller budget deficit as a percentage of GDP than the entire G7, the major economies in the world: Japan, Canada, Italy, the UK, Germany, France, and the United States. So, what we will do is continue to work each and every day. We’ll continue to engage with small business. The member didn’t say what the small business is that his constituents have, but I would.

So I’m not sure of the circumstances in which they find themselves. But what I do know is that small business people take risks, they invest, and they make a positive difference to this country. And I applaud each and every one of them.

LNP MP Llew O’Brien asks Anthony Albanese:

Interest rates have hit their highest level since 2011 under the Gillard Labor government, does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the average new mortgage holder now paying $30,000 more per year because of the 16 interest rate rises under his government?

Albanese:

I thank the member for Wide Bay for for his question, and we, of course, take responsibility for government policy, and our government’s policy has been to be responsible when it comes to getting inflation down, inflation is of course lower than what we inherited, and importantly as well, we’ve done that whilst not scuttling employment. Because as a Labor government, we will always be concerned about getting people into work, and we’ve created something like 1.3 million jobs have been created on our watch.

At the same time, we have done what we can to create savings in every budget. As I said to a previous question, delivering over 230 billion dollars improvement to the budget bottom line.

We know from the evidence of the RBA governor that there are global concerns as well, and she gave the clear evidence to the House Economic Committee, when she said global cost pressures have increased, there’s little sign of resolution of the Middle East conflict. Oil and related prices have increased sharply again and will add directly to inflation. We are not alone in being concerned about this. Central banks in many other advanced economies are responding to this global inflation shock by increasing their policy rates or signaling they will do so if needed, and of course the United States, for example, increased interest rates on the 17th of September, saying the the U.S. Reserve saying uncertainty remains elevated owing in part to geopolitical developments, the European Union did the same thing on the 10th of September, 2026, and the European Central Bank said the conflict in the Middle East continues to generate inflation pressures, and inflation is set to remain well above target for an extended period. And of course, just across the ditch as well, on the 2nd of September, the Reserve Bank did there as well, as did the Bank of Japan on the 18th of September. So that is something that is having an impact on the world, on the world economy. It is something, though, that we’re very conscious of doing what we can domestically to reduce pressure by having cost savings. You’ll see in my EFO the work that we’re doing already in the lead up to the budget next year.

Like every other economic statement, there’ll be responsible savings in there. Responsible savings, though, aimed at as well, keeping people in employment and keeping growth going.

That leads on to a dixer from Chalmers which is very much on the same topic.

Jason Clare takes a dixer on education and says again that tech will start to be removed, or at least relied on less, in schools – and then adds in the digital duty of care:

The reading wars are over. We know what works to teach children how to read. It’s phonics. Phonics works things like phonics checks, and that’s why they’re embedded in these agreements. And we also know that small group tutoring works. When you get kids into a small group, they can learn as much in six months as they’d normally learn in 12 months. In other words, they catch up. These agreements help to fund that too, with the people to do that work.

We also know the curriculum needs to be fixed, perhaps maths most of all, and that’s on the agenda when education ministers meet next week. And I think we know that our schools also need a digital detox.

The evidence is mounting that the more kids, the more time kids spend behind a screen or in front of a screen in the classroom, the more their results are inclined to decline. Now, I’m not talking about burning iPads here, but I am suggesting that we need to dial this back a bit, and that’ll be on the agenda next week too.

This week, we’ve also got a chance to do something that I think every mum and dad across the country wants us to do.

I think every parent worries about what their kids are being fed on the internet, all the anger and the hate and the bullying and the smut.

When our kids are being bullied online, I think parents want us to do something to help take that bullying down.

And when photos of our kids are being cut and pasted and put onto a naked body, that’s what these nudify apps are doing. Then they expect us to do something to stop that too.

And when algorithms are turning our kids into someone that they’re not, I reckon Australians expect us to do something about that too. That’s what the digital duty of care bill is all about. And I hope this week that we can all come together and support it.

The House is absolutely silent for this QT. There are no heckles, or interjections, or anyone saying anything. So it seems that the only way we can get civility is for the MPs to be…entirely silent.

Berries and Cream (Tim Wilson – and if you want to know why, look up the Berries and Cream Starburst ad and tell me you don’t see the energy match) asks Anthony Albanese:

Last night, the Reserve Bank’s assistant governor confirmed government spending is contributing to higher inflation and interest rates, with government spending at a 40-year high outside the pandemic, does the prime minister accept his treasurer’s spending addiction is forcing the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates again?

Grog’s has already given his thoughts on this – you can find the post on the first page of the blog.

Albanese:

I thank the member for his question, and under this government and under this treasurer, average real annual spending growth is 1.5% over the eight years to 2930 from our election, less than half the 30-year average of 3.2%, and less than half of what it was before we were elected. We have produced the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades, and importantly, when it comes to savings, we have improved the budget bottom line by $230 billion compared to what we inherited.

Another fact is that debt in 2526 is nearly 198 billion dollars that was forecast at the 2022 election, and that is saving us around 70 billion dollars in interest cut costs over the decade. Australia remains one of only nine countries with a AAA credit rating from all three major ratings agencies. Our priority has been to invest in cost of living measures and the services the Australians rely on, but our priority has also been to make sure that we produce savings in each and every budget and each and every MYEFO and economic statement that we have made, making hard decisions, some of which are still before the parliament. One of which on private health insurance was rejected in the parliament just a short time ago. But one which we want the parliament to have the opportunity to give proper consideration to as well, because we do need to take difficult decisions, difficult decisions that produce savings, that put the budget in the best shape that is possible, and in spite of the global circumstances which we are in. We will continue to do what we can to make a positive difference, and that is what my government and this treasurer will continue to be focused on.

Greg Jericho

Over in Senate Estimates clearly the civility pledge has yet to arrive.

As Amy has been noting, speakers in the House have been pledging “In my political life, I pledge to act with honesty, respect and compassion”.

In the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee earlier this morning there was not a great deal of respect or compassion (I’ll leave the honesty for others).

The issue was around the travel and accommodation costs for Sally Higgins, who is the government appointed COP31 Presidency Youth Climate Champion. On one trip which involved going to 6 places including Kenya, Türkiye, Germany and France (so not really one trip) her flights costs $28,920 and accommodation $13,320. Henderson wanted to know why the flights were so expensive (they were business class as is Departmental policy). There is then a bit of ary bargy about an FOI relating to those costs.

We then move on to a contract for a series of events in Sydney relating to COP involving international delegations that cost $682,000. Henderson can’t believe that hosting at least 5 multi-day events and accommodation for foreign delegates in Sydney could cost that much.

She says “the reason we are so concerned about this is the expenditure in this department is simply out of control. $150m has been allocated for pre-COP and related activities”

The Department explains that the funding does come out of the that $150m.

She wants to know why were they hosting so many events *in Sydney*?

The Departmental official points out there were mandated events as part of our responsibility for being the co-chair of COP31.

Henderson then ludicrously suggested “you could almost buy a hotel for that amount of money” – somehow I doubt $682,000 would buy you much in Sydney….

At this point ALP Senator Tim Ayres gets involved pointing out that no you couldn’t buy a hotel for that amount… after a bit of back and forth Ayres gets agitated and suggests the LNP is not all that interested in either climate change or the Pacific Islanders and he suggests Senator Henderson was badgering the officials (Henderson takes great offence and demand that she not be reflected upon like that) and he refers to the lines from Peter Dutton about “water lapping at Pacific leaders doors” (this was not the exact joke) and then he says ”just a moment ago, one of you – I can’t remember which of you or Senator Macdonald said that ‘the local blokes were coming’ I can’t imagine either of you saying that about a meeting of European leaders”

Henderson then asks that he not “reflect on me”

Ayres tells her to not be so pejorative in her questioning.

He ends by saying the “costs were fully funded by the $500m coalition era Strategic International Partnership that Angus Taylor, Mr Taylor put together to bribe his way out of the naughty corner when the previous government became so isolated on these questions in the region and around the world”.

He withdraws the comment.   

This is the first question time since Helen Haines’ alleged attack. Estimates has been full of allegations of bullying public servants (including for legitimate questions) so let’s see how this question time goes.

We are straight into questions, with Angus Taylor starting in on small businesses (picking up from the last sitting)

This morning, a small businesswoman said to me, “There is no reason to grow a business in Australia anymore.” How many more small businesses have to close for the prime minister to axe his taxes on capital gains, trusts, and negative gearing?

Well the numbers don’t bear that out.

Anthony Albanese:

I thank the member for his question, the leader of the opposition, and I state that under our government there are now an extra 265,000 more small businesses than there were when we came to office.

That brings it up to a record of 2.7 million. Indeed, under our government, an average of 900 companies have been created each day, while just 30 have become insolvent. We have made the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. We introduced lost curry back and made it permanent. The member raises the issue of tax changes that were in our budget. We consulted with small business.

We lifted the definitions from the previous two to 10 million, that made an enormous difference, as well as a result of the consultation that we committed to. The other thing that we’re doing, which is really important, is that we’re backing Australian business with the EU free trade agreement.

What that will do is open up a market of 450 million people, making an enormous difference for the goods and services that we produce and are able to export overseas to that market.

What that means is immediately some 10 billion dollars in trade additional, more Australian jobs and more Australian industries, from growing industries as well, such as critical minerals, which will, compared with other producers of critical minerals, get access to those European markets as part of the 98% of goods and services that will be completely tariff-free.

It will give us a competitive advantage into that growing market, and we know, of course, Europe has a very large middle class, big consumers of products and services, and it will make an enormous difference as we go forward.

So I would encourage senators, in particular, to to examine the difference that it will make across the board and to give support to that free trade agreement when it comes before the Senate.

That last bit is because the Coalition is opposed to it. And it should also be mentioned that one of the main reasons prosecco will still be able to be used as a wine variety in Australia is because of Helen Haines’ advocacy for her grape growers in her electorate

Eleonore Hughes, Mauricio Savarese and Anna-Catherine Brigida for AAP

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, has been re-elected in a result that provides relief to critics of widening US influence in Latin America.

With 100 per cent of the vote counted, Brazil’s electoral court announced on Sunday the soon to be 81-year-old Lula had a lead of nearly 4.4 million votes — 51.8 per cent of the total vote – over his right-wing opponent Flávio Bolsonaro. 

The announcement capped an evening of chaos at polling places across Brazil, following a last-minute decision to extend voting by two hours. 

Late on Sunday, Bolsonaro refused to concede defeat, calling the move to extend voting hours unprecedented – though both he and Lula made the request – and asked for the election results to be annulled, saying they were impossible to accept. 

Lula’s triumph bucks a trend in Latin America where increasing numbers of right-of-centre presidential candidates allied with Trump have been winning. 

Lula’s victory leaves Mexico and Brazil, Latin America’s two most populous nations, with left-of-centre leaders. 

It also positions Latin America’s largest economy, with a GDP of $US2.6 ($A3.7) trillion per year, to remain independent of the US, despite the pressure of increased tariffs imposed by Trump.

A video published by Lula’s campaign shows the veteran leader celebrating with First Lady Rosângela da Silva and allies after his runoff victory was confirmed by Brazil’s electoral court. 

Wearing star-shaped red glasses, he kissed his wife. Hundreds of his supporters began gathering on São Paulo’s main artery to celebrate the victory.

In Rio de Janeiro, cars beeped their horns and a woman dressed in red – the colour of Lula supporters – shouted “You lost! Cry harder!” to four men in yellow and green sipping beers, Bolsonaro’s signature colours. A huge roar echoed in the street as the result was confirmed.

Lula’s victory, which, if confirmed by electoral authorities, will give him his non-consecutive fourth term as president. The next term begins on January 5, 2027.

The electoral court’s announcement ended an evening of confusion at polling places after Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin ruled three minutes before the scheduled end of voting to keep polls open for two more hours, following requests by both candidates.

Lula’s request came after issues with buses that provide transportation to polls in Sao Paulo and Salvador, two cities that tend to favour the incumbent. Bolsonaro’s request was due to heavy rains in Brazil’s south, where he is favoured.

Bolsonaro bested Lula by more than 2.2 million votes in the first round of the election earlier in October.

Sunday night’s victory by Lula marked the first time since Brazil’s military dictatorship ended in 1985 that the second-highest vote-getter in the first-round elections won the presidency. 

Lula faced a tough re-election battle because of concerns about the cost of living and security. 

Bolsonaro made a tough-on-crime approach the cornerstone of his campaign and pledged to bring down food costs while Lula, trying to lure undecided voters, has invested in costly incentives.

Both have been hit by corruption suspicions involving family members and allies, with Bolsonaro implicated in a sprawling scandal rocking Brazil. 

Lula previously spent more than a year in prison on corruption convictions that were eventually annulled. 

with reuters

Again, for the record, here is what Angus Taylor had to say about Helen Haines, including where he raised a culture war

Helen, we’re thinking of you.

We’re praying for your swift recovery.

My hope, our hope, the nation’s hope, is that you will be back here soon.

And when you resume your seat in this Parliament, that will be a resounding moment for our democracy.

A moment when our nation says with one voice to those who seek to undermine our way of life through intimidation and violence:

You will not break us.

You will not silence us.

You will not change us.

Speaker, while last Monday’s horrendous attack was a national tragedy, it is, first and foremost, a family’s tragedy.

We’re also thinking of course, of Helen’s beloved husband, Phil.

And their three cherished children, Will, Nick and Georgia.

In the past week, so many have spoken and written about Helen’s qualities.

Her intelligence, compassion, and commitment.

Her poise, gentleness, and courtesy.

Dr Helen Haines epitomises civility.

And that’s why the violent attack on her seems unfathomable.

In those horrific moments last Monday, and in the critical hours and days afterwards, one man’s cruelty stood in stark contrast to the courage and decency of so many Australians.

Ricky Jefferies, the barber we just heard about, who disarmed the assailant and wrestled him from the vehicle to the ground.

Young Cody Lepoidevin, the outdoor gear store worker who helped restrain the attacker.

Jacklyn Black and Jacob Evans, Melburnians who tended to Helen’s injuries.

There were others too.

The many more bystanders who assisted.

The paramedics and police officers first on the scene.

And the nurses, doctors, and surgeons who kept Helen alive, and whose care has been outstanding.

In the most horrible moments, we always see heroic Australians.

It reminds us of who we are, and we should be proud of who we are.

The attack on Helen Haines was an attack on a Member of Parliament.

And the attack on a Member of Parliament is an attack on our democracy.

Of all days, today is a day to reflect on our democracy.

In the past week, it’s been suggested by some that there is a causal connection between robust parliamentary debate and political violence.

I disagree with this view.

Our democratic system has served us well – from our colonies, through to Federation, to the present day.

The Westminster system is about settling differences through robust and rigorous debate – not violence.

With symbolic significance, the distance between the Prime Minister and Opposition leader is said to be the length of two swords.

Importantly, we debate with adversarial vigour.

But we never allow that vigorous Parliamentary debate to spill over into violence.

People who resort to intimidation and violence cross a line that should never be crossed.

Their choice to use violence is a rejection of robust debate – a refusal to accommodate difference and disagreement.

The antidote to violence isn’t to compromise our system of robust debate, but to cherish, champion and strengthen that system.

What we must also do is call out and confront the actual sources of intolerance, intimidation, and political violence in our country.

And the Government has been absolutely right to call out far-right extremism.

But all extremism must be called out.

Every source of extremism must be named, targeted, and must be fought.

Especially through additional funding for intelligence and law enforcement.

And we need judges to come down much harder on people found guilty of acts of intimidation or violence.

Another thing we must all do is celebrate Australia more readily.

Too many Australians have been taught to feel guilty and shame about our history and our country.

Is it any wonder that some people feel deep animosity towards our democracy, our institutions, and our nation?

Is it any wonder that we see war memorials graffitied and statues defaced.

Yes, we’ve had our historical dark chapters.

But our nation’s successes far outweigh our failures.

On the historical scales, Australia is an incredible achievement.

And if we nurture greater love for Australia, that will go a long way to stopping hate for Australia.

I look forward to Helen returning to the House as soon as possible.

Luke Slawomirski

Bulk billing is making a comeback. According to the RACGP’s latest Health of the Nation report, 26% of GPs now bulk bill every patient, more than double last year’s 12%. An estimated 63% of Australians have all their GP care bulk billed, up from 56%.

This is good news.

But there’s always a but: the figures come from a voluntary survey of 2,766 GPs, and bulk billing remains below its 2019 level of 70%.

As I told The Guardian, affordability is only part of the story. Access and quality matter too. Only two-thirds of patients with a preferred GP can always see that doctor when needed.

We could also rethink how we pay for primary care. Higher rebates for longer consultations would help, but our reliance on fee-for-service rewards activity rather than keeping people healthy.

Potentially preventable hospitalisations cost Australia $7.7 billion in 2023–24. Better primary care could reduce that burden.

Blended payment models, multidisciplinary teams as well as better remuneration for GPs compared to non-GP specialists could help address this.

Ultimately, Medicare investment is to be judged by improvements in people’s health, rather than simply counting bulk-billed consultations.

Luke Slawomirski

As many as 20,000 endoscopies may be overdue in the NSW public healthcare system, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

Endoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that uses a flexible tube with a light and a camera (an endoscope) to directly view inside body cavities. Colonoscopy – used to examine the bowels – is a common type of endoscopy.

That tens of thousands of public patients face such delays (in NSW alone) is unsurprising in a health system where money can buy faster access to care.

According to the Australian Atlas of Healthcare Variation, Medicare-funded colonoscopy rates vary 30-fold across the country. Predictably, the number of colonoscopies performed were highest for patients who live in affluent postcodes like Sydney’s eastern suburbs. The lowest rates are found in rural and remote Australia.

Number of Medicare-funded services for fibre optic colonoscopy per 100,000 residents, age standardised, by local area, 2013–14

Source: www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-06/first-australian-atlas-of-healthcare-variation-2015.pdf

Rates are age-standardised so that the data don’t simply reflect the age of residents.

Two important caveats: the data exclude colonoscopies in the public sector; and, without examining outcomes, it can’t be directly inferred which rates are too high or too low.

However, bowel cancer incidence is 126 per 100,000 in low socioeconomic areas compared to 96 per 100,000 in more affluent postcodes. For mortality it’s 32 deaths per 100,000 versus 20 deaths.

This suggests that people living in poorer postcodes may be getting underserviced … and vice versa.

A more recent report shows how repeat colonoscopy (when the procedure occurs within three years of a prior one) is performed more often on people higher up the socioeconomic ladder.

Repeat colonoscopies per 1000,000 by socioeconomic quintile, 2023–24

Quintile 1: most disadvantaged; quintile 5 – least disadvantaged.

Source: www.safetyandquality.gov.au/data-and-measurement/australian-atlas-healthcare-variation/atlas-focus-report-colonoscopy

Current guidelines recommend that repeat colonoscopies only be performed on a small proportion of people with specific risk factors.

It’s unlikely that these risk factors are concentrated among more affluent Australians.

Inclusion Australia has joined with other DROs calling on the government to reverse the resumption of punitive welfare measures, which allow social security payments to be cancelled when people don’t meet their ‘mutual obligations’.

At least 396,000 people with disability are required to participate in employment services to receive income support and may face payment suspensions or cancellations if they do not meet compulsory requirements.

Inclusion Australia CEO Maeve Kennedy said in a statement:

The Government’s own figures show more than 3,200 people with an intellectual disability are subject to compulsory activities under the Targeted Compliance Framework, but the true number is likely to be much higher. Many people do not disclose disability, do not have a formal diagnosis recorded, or are counted under another primary diagnosis.”

People with an intellectual disability face significant barriers navigating employment services, digital systems and administrative requirements. You cannot have an inaccessible system and then punish people for struggling to navigate it.”

It is fundamentally unfair to financially penalise people with an intellectual disability for barriers they did not create and often cannot control.

We are calling on the Government to stop the reintroduction of penalties and abolish the Targeted Compliance Framework and all compulsory activities.”

Here is the whole statement:

The undersigned Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) strongly oppose the resumption of penalties under the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF), which comes into effect today.
The resumption of penalties under sections 42AG(1)(a) and 42AM(3) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 will expose at least 396,000 people with disability who are compelled to participate in Workforce Australia, Inclusive Employment Australia or the Remote Australia Employment Service as a condition of receiving income support to additional payment suspensions and cancellations.
People with disability face significant barriers navigating employment services and meeting requirements that are often inaccessible.

Departmental data and evidence from our communities over many years have consistently shown that First Nations people with disability; people with an intellectual disability; Autistic people; people with disability from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds; people with physical disability; and young people with disability are all severely impacted by payment penalties and harm in these systems. In addition, people with psychosocial disability comprise a significant proportion of employment services caseloads and are overwhelmingly impacted by harms caused by payment penalties.

These experiences may be compounded by co-occurring disabilities and intersecting circumstances.
These harms are not limited to the groups identified and affect people across all disability communities, particularly where individual circumstances, accessibility requirements and reasonable adjustments are not adequately recognised.
Compelling people to meet these requirements as a condition of receiving income support, under threat of payment suspension or cancellation, puts lives at risk. When payments are withheld or cancelled, people are left without the income they need for food, housing, medication and other essentials, compounding poverty in a community already experiencing this at disproportionately high rates. These risks are deeply concerning given the history of unlawful decisions under the TCF, documented extensively by the Commonwealth Ombudsman across two investigations.
Employment services should uphold people’s rights, support choice and enable people with disability to be genuinely supported, rather than penalising people for not being able to navigate an inaccessible and unfair system.
Compulsion backed by the threat of losing essential income is fundamentally inconsistent with these principles.

We call on the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to withdraw the resumption of penalties, and remove the TCF and all compulsory activities.

Anara Watson

In the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Deputy Greens Leader Senator Steph Hodgins-May has asked Senator Tim Ayres, the federal Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science, about MACH Energy targeting children in marketing materials spruiking coal.

In case you missed it, the story was published in the Sydney Morning Herald over the weekend.

Senator Hodgins-May asked: “MACH energy is saying the quiet part out loud in its annual reports; it’s saying that it’s actively trying to influence curriculum and extra-curricular activities. Are you aware of this?”

To that, Ayres replied: “I read that story with some interest, Senator. I guess my immediate reflection when I read that story was, you know, if kids in school in the Hunter Valley are filling out a colouring-in book that celebrates their mum or dad’s work, or their uncle or their aunty’s work … these are communities where industrial work, whether it’s in the new economy…”

Senator Hodgins-May interrupts him there to ask: “Would you say the same if they worked in tobacco or asbestos?”

His response? “Well, I guess I don’t see an equivalency there, Senator.” And later, he said: “These aren’t people selling vapes to kids, like the way that you’ve inferred. These are good, honest Australians, who are proud of their work, driving big trucks, handling engineering work.”

Glenn Connley

Senior public servants would be required to make an affirmation that they will tell the truth when appearing before Parliamentary Inquiries, under a new proposal by The Australia Institute.

The plan also suggests ending taxpayer funded coaching in how to avoid answering questions from Parliamentarians.

It’s proposed senior public servants fronting committees, like Senate Estimates, swear or affirm that they will answer questions truthfully and directly, and they understand failure to do so may constitute contempt of Parliament and a breach of their legal obligations under the Public Service Act.

Unlike those giving evidence before a court, public servants are not sworn in or asked to commit to telling the truth before facing questions before a Parliamentary inquiry.

The proposal follows a call by a committee of the nation’s most senior public servants to ban or restrict the sharing of videos from public hearings.

“Departmental secretaries are among the highest paid and most powerful people in Australia. They have far more power than the backbenchers who occasionally get a chance to question them. It is a ket principle of our democracy that voters should be able to see the public servants they fund in action,” said Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute.

“The best way for senior public servants to avoid looking silly when appearing before Parliamentary committees would be to simply answer questions honestly, openly and fulsomely. They don’t look silly when they do their job well, but some of them do look quite silly when they contort their answers to serve their minister rather than their Parliament.

“It might seem old fashioned to say this, but senior public servants are ultimately accountable to the Parliament not their current minister. The Parliament has placed clear obligations on them to be honest and open, no matter how embarrassing the truth might be for a minister. It is their responsibility to provide a fulsome and honest answer.

“If senior public servants wish to avoid ridicule on social media, they could start by doing three things: respect Freedom of Information laws, respect the Archives Act and stop wasting taxpayer money training staff on how not to answer questions. If they would provide information outside of Senate Estimates they would be under a lot less pressure during Senate Estimates. 

“Parliamentary scrutiny should be civil and respectful, but it will necessarily be robust if it is going to expose wrongdoing and poor administration. So long as governments deliberately hide information, open questioning of senior public servants will remain a necessity so the public can see what is being done in their name and with their money. “

Background:  

• The Albanese Government circulated a document “that provides advice on dodging tricky questions on notice” in Senate Estimates.  
• The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 requires senior public servants to act honestly and in good faith.  
• Earlier this year, departmental secretaries suggested either preventing the use of committee evidence on social media altogether, or requiring committee evidence to be published without editing or captions. 
• An Australia Institute FOI request earlier this year caught the Attorney-General’s Department holding back key information to avoid questioning in Estimates 
• Last year, then Australian Public Service Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer said public servants were writing their “genuine thoughts” on Post It notes so they could never become public knowledge. Senators reminded him that this was an illegal breach of the public service’s obligation to keep accurate records. 

Wentworth independent Allegra Spender has delivered her statement to the house. She addressed Helen’s family directly, as well as her community and others before turning to:

Helen, I really miss you today.

Over the last few weeks, and here today, many have spoken about your kindness and generosity, and praised your decency and respect that you bring to this place. You are all these things. You are someone I go to when I don’t know what to do. When I’ve got an ethical dilemma, I go to you, Helen. Phil told us about your first words since when you woke up after your after the attack, and said that your first concerns when you awoke were for the start for your staff and gratitude to your first the first responders, nurses, and bystanders. That exactly speaks to the character of who you are. People have spoken about your empathy and grace, and they deserve recognition. But I think it paints a sort of picture of you as a sort of benign force wandering through the parliament, and what I will say is that you are also a force for change, and I think this is genuinely the lesson in your life, because you were a force for change. Your list of parliament of achievements in parliament is considerable, not least the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which you championed fearlessly for years, but also paid placements, home batteries, ensuring the needs of the regions were front and foremost. You championed this, and the way you did it really matters because you showed that you can have dignity and compassion and respect, but also strength. The combination of restraint and force that you showed is a lesson for how to achieve things in public life and do that with the dignity that this Parliament deserves. Because this attack on you, Helen, should not just shock us; it should change us.

And there is no meaning in senseless violence, but we need to create meaning from it in the actions that we take, and Phil challenged us this morning to do that. For this place to change before Helen returns, I think we owe you that, and I think we owe the country that. We do not know the causes exactly of the violence that you faced last week. We cannot generalize from the specifics, but we can see the rising tides of threats against parliamentarians, but against everyday Australians who are serving each other, and that is a problem for the whole country. We can deal with security measures, policing, you know, online hate, mental health services. These are all you know questions of economic prosperity. These are all relevant to how do we take the temperature down. But we also need to look in the mirror, because this country does not believe that Parliament is the best of us. And how can we be surprised when people come to watch our democracy in action, and grown adults call out, “Rip him another one and rip her apart” ? That is not robust debate in an adversarial system. That is violent abuse.

We cannot stop violence by our words, but we cannot pretend that our words don’t carry weight, that some people won’t hear them in moments of distress and despair. We can work for restraint and force the way that Helen has and shown us. And so, like others ahead of me, I am also going to take the civility pledge because I think it is a place to start.

Spender then takes the civility pledge and finishes with:

I want to speak specifically about honesty because I think it’s that is actually something we don’t talk enough about. Having an honest debate about what government can and cannot do, being realistic about the promises that we make, being fairer to the strengths of an opponent’s argument, even when we disagree with them and continue to disagree, it is less newsworthy, but is less likely to disappoint people, to weary them with false hope, and to make them distrust us.

So I don’t have all the answers, or any well, I don’t have all the answers coming out of what has happened here, but I think in listening to the debate that we have had to date, I do think there’s an opportunity for the common ground to be found, for us to do things better collectively, for recognising again, in Phil’s words, that we are both the participants and victims of the coarsening of public debate, that we can do better, that we must do better, and that Helen, you expect us of it.

Just so people understand some more of the context behind the importance of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva winning re-election on Sunday with 51,7% of the vote, this was being seen by the world’s climate watchers as also one of the last chances for the Amazon’s survival.

Lula’s victory gives him another four years to meet his pledge to end deforestation of one of the world’s most important eco-systems and climate sinks by 2030. He had been reducing forest loss in his last term. But it also means that Brazil will remain committed to wider spread climate action, which includes implementing Paris Agreement commitments and advancing the transition away from fossil fuels (although, like Australia, there are caveats – Lula is expanding oil in Brazil).

But it is not going to be easy – a right leaning congress, where seven in 10 members oppose the environmental changes, will complicate matters.

Bill Browne

As Rod reported earlier on the live blog, leftist president Lula de Silva has turned around his poor result in the first stage of the Brazilian presidential election and is on track to win another four-year term. He is running against “Trumpish” Flavio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Jair could not run himself because he was found guilty of abusing his power to undermine Brazilian democracy.

Brazil is one of the largest democracies in the world, but it is far from the only country going to elections in the next month or so.

Yesterday’s election in Serbia saw 70% turnout – the highest since Yugoslavia broke up in 1992 – as voters ousted the Putin-endorsed president Aleksandar Vučić in favour of a student-led movement against corruption and authoritarianism.

Israel elects the 120-MP Knesset (parliament) by proportional representation tomorrow. The Poll Bludger reports that most polls have the right-wing block supporting the government (led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) failing to win a majority of the seats. Laura Tingle writes of the election’s implications:

“But the thing to understand about this election is that it is not a choice between the far right and the left in classical terms. It feels to many Israelis more like a choice between the current state of play continuing, and the possibility of Israel going further to the right if Netanyahu were to stay in power.”

Vanuatu has its general election this Saturday.

The United States mid-term elections are on Tuesday 3 November. The elections, for all 435 House of Representatives seats, one in three Senate seats and most governor positions, mark the halfway point of President Donald Trump’s second term in office. The Democrats are on track to win control of the House of Representatives and may win control of the Senate as well, leaving Trump isolated.  

New Zealand votes on Saturday 7 November. Recent polls have the one-term right-wing coalition government ahead, writes Adrian Beaumont for The Conversation NZ. It may come down to the particularities of the New Zealand electoral system, including a strict 5% threshold before a party can benefit from proportional representation (with the centrist party “Opportunity” hovering on the threshold) and how many Maori-specific electorates Te Pati Maori (the Maori Party) wins.

The state of Victoria votes on Saturday 28 November. The 12-year-old Labor Government (albeit with a new premier in Ben Carroll) faces both the Liberal Oppositon (led by Jess Wilson) and a surging One Nation. The Poll Bludger has a full guide to the Victorian election.

David Richardson

Last Friday saw some new national accounts figures which raised some interesting issues.

Productivity. To hear some people talking about productivity you would think it is one of the most vital issues in Australia. Productivity we are told determines Australian living standards. On the other hand, to hear the mining industry talk one might think that mining is the key to Australia’s living standards. Must mean that productivity has been high in mining right?

No. Below is the graph over the last 10 years showing productivity in mining as output per worker, with output measured as “gross value added”. That’s a bit of jargon but just means we take mining output and deduct intermediate goods used in the mining industry, electricity and fuel, transport and stuff like that. With those deductions we are left with just the incomes (profit and wages) generated in mining. 

From the graph we can read that mining productivity peaked in 2016-17 at 136.4 and last year was just 99.2. That is an average decline of 3.5% per annum.

What is the lesson here? No one believes the miners are 3.5% worse at their job every year. But there are other things going on, for example, mining inferior deposits that involve more resource costs. What these figures do reinforce though is that we should not take productivity figures at face value.

Another good example. We know that the health system is improving rapidly at fixing us when we are sick or injured and diagnosing us early so we don’t get sick in the first place. Yet official figures show productivity in health care has barely changed in the last 10 years. The reason is that statistical agencies all over the world have a hard time trying to work out what we even mean by productivity in health care. So the low productivity growth in the public sector is just a measurement problem.

The message is certainly that we should not get hung up on low productivity figures in Australia.

The Jewish Council of Australia has condemned the political threat by Victorian Liberal leader Jess Wilson to drastically restrict protests in Victoria with ‘move on’ laws, as well as following Queensland in banning phrases like ‘globalise the intifada’. (That is currently being challenged in court, with the NSW Labor Minns government joining with the Queensland LNP to fight any reversal of the law).

The JCA has released a statement in response to Wilson’s plans:

The Jewish Council of Australia condemns the political threats made by Opposition Leader Jess Wilson on Sunday and rejects her misleading connection between protest of Israel’s genocide and the horrific Bondi attack. 
In her comments, Wilson vowed to drastically restrict the Victorian public’s right to protest with new ‘move on’ laws, a bureaucratic permit system for holding demonstrations, and bans on phrases including “globalise the intifada”. Wilson also promised to withdraw funding from organisations that ‘promote antisemitism,’ leaving open how that would be defined. 
Queensland’s similar ban on pro-Palestinian political phrases has been widely criticised by legal scholars for violating the Constitution and is currently being challenged in the High Court. 
The Jewish Council has documented in its submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion the dangerous irony of how laws and policies introduced in the name of Jewish safety including those in Queensland have led to Jewish Australians themselves being arrested, including 73-year-old clinical psychologist and child of Holocaust survivors Stephen Heydt.

Bart Shteinman, Executive Officer of the Jewish Council:

It is blatantly irresponsible for politicians like Jess Wilson to be linking legitimate and peaceful protest of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to the Bondi terror attack. We unequivocally condemn her mislabelling of peaceful protest as antisemitic. 
Growing numbers of Jewish Australians are regular attendees of protests condemning Israel’s genocide and advocating for Palestinian rights to peace, freedom and safety. It is not antisemitic to protest a live-streamed genocide. 
It is ridiculous that the Victorian Opposition Leader is looking to Queensland as an example – where similar laws are being challenged in the High Court and are leading to Jews themselves being arrested – all in the name of Jewish safety.
Antisemitism is a real problem in Australia and it is growing, but we vehemently disagree with the Opposition Leader about its cause. The growth of the far-right, neo-Nazi and conspiracist movements, Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the conflation of Jewish identity with Israel are primary drivers of antisemitism, not peaceful protestors.
If Wilson is genuinely concerned with fighting antisemitism, she should explain why her party has not ruled out doing preference deals with One Nation, which has run holocaust deniers for Parliament and has extensive links to neo-nazis and white supremacists. Or explain why the Coalition has resisted gun reforms that would make the Jewish community, and all communities, more safe.”

Greg Jericho

There are few harsher critics of the ALP’s defence policy than former Senator Doug Cameron.

On “Pearls and Irritations” he has written a blistering piece anticipating the Independent Report into AUKUS led by Peter Garrett (at which the Australia Institute appeared)

He writes:

“In my view it is now clear that AUKUS is about militarising Australia in the interests of the US, ensuring the grifters in defence and the arms industry are well fed. It is an act of self-harm and madness on the part of the Australian government.

The secrecy that lies at the heart of this $368 billion fiasco was maintained by federal or state governments that refused to appear before the public inquiry to make the case for the biggest transfer of sovereign wealth in Australia’s history. That is some kind of contempt for the Australian community.”

He suggests:

“if this project goes well it will result in the cost of $368 billion, plus over $120 billion to manage the weapons-grade nuclear waste. It will put at least four Australian cities in the cross-hairs in the event of a conflict between the US – now an international wrecking ball – and our largest trading partner, China.

That’s if these nuclear submarines ever materialise. AUKUS is looking increasingly like a distraction from the main game, which is about turning Australia into a compliant base for the US military.”

It’s a good read – so head over to the site and check it out

Here is some of how Mike Bowers has seen the morning:

The orange cockatoo is one of the symbols of the Voices Of movement that Helen Haines (following Cathy McGowan) represents in the parliament. One has been placed in her seat as a tribute to her.

Helen Haines is considered the matriarch of the crossbench. Today many of the women MPs are wearing white and orange in her honour.

Senators from across the parliament sat in the House to pay their respects to Helen Haines. Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce have been absent this morning (from what we have seen) but David Farley has sat in the chamber.

The result in Brazil is extraordinary because we know how hard big tech, thinking it was what Donald Trump wanted, made things as hard as possible for Lula’s campaign.

Here is a Reuters’ report from October 16:

Meta employees acknowledged in internal communications that the Instagram accounts of Brazilian ​President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were hindered by ‌restrictions during the country’s election, newspaper Folha de S.Paulo reported on Friday, citing messages it reviewed.

The messages also acknowledged the platform recommended the profile ​of challenger Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, as well as his ​WhatsApp channel, according to the report.

• Meta said the technical ⁠issues cited in the report were already public and the ​conversations it referenced related solely to the severity of the issues, ​not political interference. “Any suggestion that Meta favors one side is false,” it added in a statement
• Lula will face Bolsonaro in a runoff on October ​25, following a stronger-than-expected performance by the senator in the first-round ​vote earlier this month
• Lula’s camp said earlier this week it would file a ‌complaint ⁠before the Organization of American States alleging that Meta, which owns Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook, manipulated social media during Brazil’s election
• According to Lula’s party, some of his posts appeared without a ​share button, suffered ​reduced reach, and ⁠had stories that prevented reactions and sharing, in addition to appearing without audio or playing at ​accelerated speed
• A justice at Brazil’s top electoral court ​ordered ⁠the company on Thursday not to unjustifiably limit the reach of political content related to both candidates through the end of the ⁠runoff ​campaign
• The ruling also stipulated that Meta AI, ​the company’s artificial intelligence chatbot, must not favor either candidate when generating election-related ​content

Ricardo Brito and Luciana Magalhaes and Pedro Fonseca for AAP

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has won an unprecedented fourth term, in a shock ‌result that defied polls, precedent and global anti-incumbent sentiment to put the brakes on a wave of right-wing election victories across Latin America.

Lula, an icon of the global left and the most dominant force in Brazilian politics this century, ‌defeated Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former president Jair Bolsonaro on Sunday. 

The senator had finished first in the election’s first round and hoped to revive his father’s far-right movement.

At times, Lula’s re-election looked like a long shot, as voters ‌soured on him and his Workers’ Party after years of corruption scandals and rising prices, while sweeping societal changes left the former metalworker and union leader looking out of touch with an increasingly app-based economy and its growing ranks of informal workers.

Lula’s victory marks another comeback in a career full of them. 

The 80-year-old was jailed from 2018 to 2019 on corruption charges that were later overturned, paving the way for him to beat Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 election.

“He is a statesman, a giant,” leftist federal lawmaker Erika Hilton, who was with Lula in Sao Paulo during the vote count, told Reuters.

Pollsters said better-than-expected turnout had powered Lula to victory. 

During the campaign, Lula ​pointed to a track record of falling poverty and inequality, while unemployment, illiteracy and deforestation hit record lows during his third term.

He warned Bolsonaro would cut welfare spending, backslide on social advances and hand over Brazil’s sovereignty to US President Donald Trump, whose State Department led a campaign to get the Bolsonaros back to power.

Lula’s win deprives Trump of a major addition to what has been a growing bloc of friendly right-wing Latin American governments that have embraced Washington’s agenda on security and migration.

Celso Amorim, a former Lula foreign minister, told Reuters the leftist “would be very important for establishing a point of balance in Latin America. Lula is that balance”.

Lula becomes the first candidate since Brazil’s return to democracy ⁠in the 1980s to be elected after finishing second in the first round.

Lula, who was president between 2003 and ‌2011, campaigned on a potent mix ​of pragmatism and populism that has shaped his career in national politics for half a century, rolling out a slew of reforms aimed at improving the lives of workers and poor Brazilians.

These gained steam with late-campaign pledges ​that ranged from free ‌nationwide weekend public transport, which has to be formally submitted to Congress, to a 15 per cent increase in his trademark welfare program that is already being implemented.

Lula also championed a constitutional amendment that became Brazil’s biggest labour ​reform in decades, which passed with wide support in Congress.

Still, Lula’s fourth term could be his most difficult yet, after Brazil elected its most conservative Congress since returning to democracy in the 1980s.

Combined, Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party and allied parties could control over 280 seats in the lower house and up to 50 seats in the Senate, enough for comfortable majorities in both chambers.

with reuters

Rod Campbell

There are now reports that the Brazilian election has been won by incumbent president Lula da Silva, against the Trumpish Flavio Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro had been the favourite to win following an initial run-off election that saw him win the most votes.

I lived in Brazil in 2010 at the end of Lula’s first presidency and I saw first hand a lot of the good that he has done and what a hero he is to so many. The idea that he could have lost to a cartoon-villain style candidate like Bolsonaro was appalling.

Vai, Lula Vai!!

The leader of the Nationals in the House, Darren Chester, delivers his statement to his friend, Helen Haines, whose electorate of Indi shares a boundary with his electorate of Gippsland.

Speaker, as you are aware, just over 1,200 people have served in this chamber since federation, and the 18th member for Indi could hold her own with them all, if their contributions to this place were measured on decency, on respect, on empathy, and a capacity for kindness.

As you’ve already heard, she would be at the very top of the list. When she made her inaugural speech after the 2019 election, Helen Haynes spoke of her aim to serve the people of Indy with integrity, with kindness, and diligence.

She has done that, and she will do it again.

It is my hope, and I’m sure it is the shared hope of this house, that Helen will recover sufficiently in the weeks and the months ahead to continue to serve her community in whatever capacity she chooses in the future.

Speaker, in that first speech, the member of Indy said, “Life is short, family is everything, and there is honor in the service of others”. But these weren’t just empty words; it was a wisdom of lived experience from a lady who had already served her community with great distinction.

Helen was made a matron at Chilton Bush Nursing Hospital at just 26 years of age, and has provided a lifetime of service to health in regional Victoria.

Alongside her husband Phil and their family, she has been a champion for regional Australia on incredible range of issues. Now, because of our shared electoral boundaries, Mr. Speaker, we often found ourselves talking on quite similar topics or exchanging notes, particularly in the aftermath of Black Summer bushfires. And Helen, I give you this undertaking today. Although I have had my eyes on Mount Hotham and Dinner Plain for quite some time, I will not be approaching the Australian Electoral Commission for a boundary restructure or a land grab in your absence.

So, on behalf of the Nationals, Mr. Speaker, I do extend my thoughts and prayers to Helen’s family, her friends, her staff, and her volunteers.

Speaker, quite rightly, the events of the past week have shocked and appalled everyone in this place. I can see it on the on the face of my colleagues. I can see it in my own community when I talk to people about the terrible attack, but we can’t let this define Helen or her community. In that moment of crisis, Helen was assisted by bystanders and emergency services personnel who came to her rescue and protected her from any further harm. And Wangaratta itself is a magnificent town, and it should be remembered for the long list of positive reasons, which I am very confident Helen will remind us of when she returns.

Our democracy is precious, and it is strengthened by the access we have to communities like Wangaratta, and the feedback we can receive from the people who are interested in the future of Australia, and naturally, Speaker, there has been increased media focus on security and poor behaviour towards elected officials. But I remain optimistic, as I’m sure Helen does, that we are talking about a minority of people. In my time as a member for Gippsland, my face-to-face dealings with 1000s of locals and people throughout Australia have been overwhelmingly positive and constructive.

I do accept the world has changed, and the online environment can be assessed with hatred, of sexism and bigotry. But we mustn’t allow assaults on democracy by a minority of people to stop us from doing our job properly.

Speaker, there is a simple lesson from this tragedy: violence is never the answer.

I’m not just talking about elected officials like us. Every day we hear about assaults on paramedics, on nurses, doctors in emergency departments, shop assistants, and school teachers, whether they are a member of parliament or a police officer, Australians should be able to go to work and return home safely, without the fear of violent attacks. Violence is never the answer, and we must choose our words carefully to ensure we don’t incite violence in the future.

Now, finally, Speaker, I want to give the last words today to the former member for Indy, Cathy McGowan, who I spoke to yesterday.

Cathy is struggling with the severity of Helen’s injuries and conscious of the impact it’s had on her family and the community that she loves.

Cathy told a vigil this week, “My ask is that we don’t let violence win; that we ensure the legacy of this attack on Helen will be a stronger, more vibrant, and effective democracy, and all candidates, especially women, know they can run for office and be safe. I commend the motion by the Prime Minister.

Greg Jericho

As I noted earlier Angus Taylor has come up with $31bn in spending cuts to pay for his tax cuts.

You will not be surprised to discover that the cuts are just of things the opposition doesn’t like – public housing and migrants – or to be honest, doesn’t think is real – ie climate change.

The Australian has reported the following cuts:

$9.4bn over four years from net-zero initiatives, including an end to tax breaks and subsidies to home batteries and electric vehicles.

$7.3bn cut from the National Reconstruction Fund and production tax credits for green hydrogen, green aluminium and critical minerals.

$4.7bn from cutting Labor’s housing programs [whew, didn’t realise the housing crisis was over!]

$2bn from ending welfare for non-citizens [that it is an average of $500m a year shows just how little this really is given in 2028-29 $17.7bn is expected to be spent on JobSeeker]*

$7.9bn by cutting the tobacco excise [yes the Libs believe cutting the excise will raise more excise because people will go back to buying legal cigarettes. This will also probably increase smoking rates, so it’s a truly cromulent health policy as well!]

All up that gets us $31.3bn.

Thing is that is over 4 years from 2028-29.

And to be honest, that is not a lot.

We can actually compare just how little it is by looking at for example how much the government is forecast to spend handing out fuel tax credits (half of which go to mining companies) over the same period.

Forget $31.3bn, the government would save $52.6bn.

Now also imagine the government kept Defence spending at the 2.03% of GDP that it is now instead of ramping it up to 2.3% of GDP (which is just an arbitrary amount designed to make Trump happy and says nothing about the quality of the spend).

That would save $29.7bn over the 4 years from 2028-29.

Combined those two measures would cut $82.4bn – more than double what the LNP is proposing.

So you know, choices can be made.

*And this means asylum seekers and refugees by the way

Richard Marles delivers his statement:

Helen Haines is completely incapable of being nasty to anyone, stuck in Canberra watching the 2020 pandemic grand final together between my beloved cats and her beloved tigers. Even then, as Richmond started to dominate in the second half and I began to wallow in my own misery, Helen quietly slipped away, telling me afterwards that she didn’t want to rub my nose in it. I mean, who does that? I mean, for most of us, football culture is about rubbing people’s nose in it.

But for Helen Haines, her humanity is defined by seeking to uplift those around her and not bring them down.

And I suspect that for almost everyone in this chamber, at one point or another, in our interaction with Helen, we’ve experienced that, which makes Monday’s attack on Helen all the more shocking.

Over the last week, as we’ve tried to make some sense of this, maybe it was an isolated, random, terrible event, and yet somehow that explanation feels inadequate.

An extreme action, definitely, but maybe the public discourse of which we are all a part has a temperature which is too high, and maybe that elevates actions across the board. And just maybe on the extremes, those actions can become dangerous, and it’s not just us. It’s police. It’s emergency service workers. It’s frontline public servants.

But if all of that is true, then we all have a collective responsibility, and a responsibility for our behavior going forward.

And here is where Helen’s example is so important for me, because as we engage in the public debate, and as those in the media give their opinions about the public debate, sometimes there is a reflex from many of us, me included, when our arguments are not so strong, to play the person.

The prime minister is this. The leader of the opposition is that. So and so is arrogant, weak, venal, a coward.

If analysis and reason doesn’t quite get us there, then if we deny the humanity of our opponent, we can still win.

I’ve done it. We see it happen all the time, and we see it from the media in the way they describe us.

But I have never seen it from Helen Haines.

It’s as if she understands that to deny the humanity of an opponent is to cede the humanity of oneself, and I truly believe that from Helen’s perspective, she acknowledges the sincerity in which we all engage in our work, because after all, we we all want to improve the lives of our constituents. We all want to make Australia better, but we have different views about how to do that, which is healthy.

And it’s appropriate that we prosecute those views robustly. That at times we do not give an inch, but it must be possible for us to do all of that whilst maintaining a fundamental respect for each other.

In the wake of the terrible event last Monday, it feels as though the whole country has come out and expressed how much they value what Helen Haines does, and yet the very idea of this Parliament is that government is a collective act by all of us.

That in acknowledging the value of what Helen does, and perhaps more importantly in acknowledging the value of what our opponent does, therein lies the key to valuing what we do ourselves.

My thoughts are very much with Phil and Helen’s family, and of course, Helen, our thoughts are very much with you. We wish you the speediest of recoveries, because our greatest wish is to see Helen Haines once again take her place on that bench.

A note on all of today:

These tributes are being given in a very well meaning fashion and the words and wishes behind them would be heartfelt. But they are also coming after the last parliament sitting, where Helen Haines had been pushing for more integrity and transparency in grant funding – a consistent position for her – and that debate very quickly became very political. A list of the grants Helen Haines had received for her community was compiled – both for government MPs pushing back on the arguments, and in response to what quickly became a quagmire over whether or not the prime minister knew he was a member of a Marrickville golf club which received a grant (while his membership had not been declared). Some in the government insist media had asked whether or not Helen Haines had received any grants, and contained no reflections on Haines’ character, while others saw it as business as usual in a political fight for credibility, but today’s tributes about the member for Indi’s integrity are occurring in the shadow of that last week, and for many, the residual anger.

For the record, here is the whole statement from Anthony Albanese:

As the House meets for the first time since the horrific events of last Monday, it is appropriate that our very first act is to speak about the Member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines.
 
Her husband, Phil Haines, is with us this morning. He has shown a level of grace that, for most of us, is simply beyond reckoning.
 
This morning Phil spoke lovingly of Helen’s superpowers as empathy, kindness and compassion.
 
He spoke of hope and change, and the need for a gentler, more cohesive path.
 
I want Phil to know that we are with him and Helen, and with their children and their grandchildren – and will remain with them.
 
The shock from what happened last Monday is like a stone in our hearts.
 
What brings it home is being back in this chamber, on what should have been an ordinary sitting day.
 
And looking across at the Member for Indi’s seat over there, and hoping and looking forward to the day in which she’s back here representing the community that she loves.
 
A community that, right now, is hurting badly, as are her wonderful, close-knit staff here and in Wangaratta and Wodonga. Our hearts are with you.
 
We look across to the Member for Indi’s place and, despite ourselves, half expect to see her face – like a trick the heart plays on the mind, if only to grant us a moment’s respite from the truth.
 
Right now, our friend and colleague is in hospital, grievously injured, the shape of her life and her family’s lives changed forever.
 
The day will come when we look across this chamber and see the Member for Indi’s face in here again.
 
As the Victorian police, AFP and ASIO continue their investigations, we give our thanks to them, just as we give our thanks to the health and emergency service workers, and all who have provided assistance to Helen.
 
We are also uplifted in the knowledge that on that terrible afternoon, we saw examples of the best of the Australian character.
 
From Ricky Jefferies, the barber who rushed without concern for his own safety to ensure the alleged perpetrator was secured until police arrived.
 
From Xavier Norden, a director of the local technical school, who was one of the first to Helen’s aid.
 
From Jacob Evans and Jacklyn Black from Melbourne. They were there looking at the local store on their way to a well-earned holiday in that beautiful part of Victoria, but they applied tourniquets, assisted paramedics, and provided invaluable assistance.
 
I have had the opportunity to speak with Ricky, Xavier, Jacklyn and Jacob and others in recent days and expressed the nation’s gratitude for their brave and invaluable interventions.
 
The Member for Indi – in all her decency, integrity, compassion, humour and empathy – has always embodied the truth that there is more that unites us than divides us.
 
That there is no stronger foundation than common ground.
 
Her capacity to do it all with such heart and unrelenting advocacy is in its own way, a reminder that she has served in far tougher places than this.
 
As a former nurse and a midwife, her rich personal background is something that she has brought to this chamber.
 
It is hard to think of anyone in this place with a more irrepressible twinkle in the eye, a twinkle that more than hints at a real inner strength.
 
Last Monday, the Member for Indi was just doing her job when she was attacked.
 
While the investigations go on, we must not rush to conclusions.
 
But nor can we shrug off the very real rise in anger that distorts and corrodes our public discourse.
 
Enabled by the anonymity and speed afforded by social media, we are seeing rage and aggression increasing, not just in politics, but towards workers in hospitality, in retail, in schools and in hospitals, towards police, paramedics and other officials.
 
We’re seeing a normalisation of the language of grievance and violence.
 
We must not conflate the robustness of Australian democracy with this rising tide of rage.
 
We have always had disagreement in Australia – it’s part of our story.
 
Ours is an unbroken democracy and our continuous system of government shine as a beacon to the world. 
 
But we cannot allow disagreement to become a full stop. We keep talking. We keep working towards something better.
 
And that is why the Member for Indi is such a natural in this place, working with conviction, working with an unrelenting advocacy for her community, and moving through this building with a sense of purpose and momentum that says she is absolutely here to get things done for others.
 
Like many of my ministers, I have the regular pleasure of sitting across the table from the Member for Indi, including during the last sitting week, when Helen took up the issue of rural and regional health that she is so passionate about.
 
She always engages, always looks you in the eye, and never lets up.
 
And she always works on the principle that disagreement only functions when it doesn’t depart from respect and humanity.
 
Right now, the Member for Indi is on the hardest road of all.
 
As we pray for her, we console ourselves with this one solid truth, as Phil, who I’ve spoken to daily keeps reminding me every day: Helen Haines is a fighter.
 
As Phil returns to Helen and their family, may he take with him our love – and the love of the nation.                                

Greg Jericho

Today the Liberal Party is set to announce its “costings” for how it is going to pay for its tax cuts.

If you are thinking, wait tax cuts what tax cuts? Don’t worry, you aren’t alone.

Just a quick recap – in his Budget Reply address Angus Taylor proposed indexing the income tax brackets to inflation. The idea barely registered, and it’s rather dumb because it is in effect is the Liberal Party saying that they are not to be trusted with tax policy and so are just going to leave it up to inflation to decide. This is rather silly because, for example if this year everyone got a tax cut, the RBA would be responding by raising rates even higher than they have thus far.

The reality is that good economic management means actually giving tax cuts when it is economically best to give tax cuts, not just give them out every year because you came up with a formula.

The whole idea is to combat “bracket creep’, which despite what you might think is not a sleazy economist trying to pick you up at a bar.

Bracket creep is what happened when you get a pay rise that essentially keeps pace with inflation, but because tax thresholds are on nominal income and don’t move automatically that can mean you pay more rtax even though in real terms your income hasn’t gone up.

For example:

Let’s say last year you earned $90,000. You would have paid $19,5888 in tax (including the Medicare levy)  for an average tax rate of 19.76%

Now let’s Assume inflation rose by 3.5% over the year, but your pay also went up by 3.5% (so in real terms no rise at all)

Now you earn $93,150 and pay $20,596 tax for an average rate of 20.12%

Well, that sucks you think. And yeah it does, and so you think well if we index the tax cuts then that won’t happen – all the thresholds would have gone up by 3.5% so you average tax rate would have stayed the same.

Problem is, as I noted before, if that had happened this year the RBA would hit us all with higher interest rates and so all the gain of paying less tax would be wiped away.  

But the other issue is governments as a rule, when they give tax cuts, overcompensate for bracket creep.

For example, back when John Howard was kicked out in 2007, the second lowest tax threshold kicked in at $25,000. Now it is $45,000. But if instead we had been indexing thresholds with inflation the threshold would be just $40,090

That would mean everyone earning more than $40,090 would now be paying more tax, not less.

So no. Leaving tax cuts up to inflation is a pretty dopey way to go about it.

David Richardson

We have been informed that One Nation has watered down its stance on foreign investment, except in the case of China.

Previously it had said essential services like power, telecommunications, roadways and ports “would be off-limits to foreign investors” if it were elected. Barnaby Joyce has now said “I think there is a clear differentiation between foreign investment which is beneficial and foreign investment which is strategically foolish.” He seems to suggest all foreign investment is either one or the other.

Maybe this is the influence of having Barnaby Joyce on the team but maybe also the influence of people like Gina Rinehardt who is well known for rubbing shoulders with international big business. Either way it is a strange move for a populist party like One Nation that wants a return to a mythical time when Australians used to be in control of their own destiny.

In any case, Australian big business is dominated by foreign multinationals, from Shell and Chevron to News Corp to Amazon. Occasionally they bring in skills unavailable otherwise but usually it means profits and head office jobs disappear overseas. Measures of economic activity such as GDP may improve with foreign ownership and control but it is just as likely that Australian incomes fall at the same time.

Milton Dick makes a statement as speaker:

Like so many Australians, I’ve struggled to comprehend what happened a week ago to our beloved colleague Helen.

We all know Helen is a respected parliamentarian, a dedicated local member, and above all, a decent person.

But in this place where we often disagree, Helen has always shown that respect and courtesy go hand in hand.

The Helen Haines I know is someone who always asks how are you going, someone who treats everyone, regardless of title or position, with genuine warmth and respect.

Helen embodies these values every day.

There is much discussion on how we, as a Parliament, can work on showing respect to one another. Today, again, say this is a moment for all of us to rise to the challenge. I want this. Many of you have told me you want this.

Most importantly, Australians want this.

We must be able to disagree with respect, as the leader of the opposition has said. That’s the heart of democracy.

There’s been a number of suggestions already made by members about how to respond, including those advocating for a civility pledge. This is a personal decision, and I encourage all members to continue these discussions, decide the best way for themselves.

Like many members, I valued Helen’s friendship at council and her commitment to making our parliament better.

I could always count on Helen when I had a particularly difficult day, or if I needed a bit of extra encouragement, that’s just Helen.

Today, my thoughts are with Helen, her husband Phil, along with her family, her staff, and the people of Indi who love and admire so deeply. On behalf of the house, Helen, we are thinking of you. We are praying for your quick recovery, and we look forward to the day you return to this place, and I get to say the following nine words, I give the call to the member for Indi.

And then Angus Taylor decides to drag in culture wars:

Another thing we must do is celebrate Australia more readily.

Too many Australians have been taught to feel guilty and shame about our country and about our history.

Is it any wonder that some feel deep animosity towards our democracy, our institutions, and our nation.

Is it any wonder that we see war memorials graffitied and statues defaced?

Yes, we’ve had our historical dark chapters, but our nation’s successes far outweigh our failures.

On the historical scales, Australia is an incredible achievement, and if we nurture greater love for Australia, that will go a long way to stopping hate for Australia. I look forward to Helen returning to the chamber as soon as possible.

The idea that recognising and reckoning with Australia’s past, as well as the very real systemic issues in our society is ‘being taught to feel guilty and shame’ about Australia, said in a speech which is meant to be about an injured member of parliament who has always fought for justice, is just….I don’t have words.

Anthony Albanese:

Last Monday, the member for Indi was just doing a job when she was attacked. While the investigations go on, we must not rush to conclusions, but nor can we shrug off the very real rise in anger that distorts and corrodes

Real rise in anger that distorts and corrodes our public discourse, enabled by the anonymity and speed afforded by social media, we are seeing rage and aggression increasing, not just in politics, but towards workers in hospitality and retail, in schools and in hospitals, towards police, paramedics, and other officials, we are seeing a normalisation of the language of grievance and violence. We must not conflate the robustness of Australian democracy with this rising tide of rage.

We’ve always had disagreement in Australia. It’s part of our story.

Ours is an unbroken democracy, and our continuous system of government shines as a beacon to the world.

Angus Taylor then speaks and he, after a tribute to Helen as a person says:

The attack on Helen Haines was an attack on a member of parliament, and the attack on a member of a parliament, our parliament, is an attack on our democracy.

Of all days, today is a day to reflect on our democracy.

In the past week, it’s been suggested by some there is a causal connection between robust parliamentary debate and political violence.

I disagree with this view.

Our democratic system has served us well, from our colonies through to federation, through to the present day.

The Westminster system is about settling differences through robust and rigorous debate, not violence.

With symbolic significance, the distance between the prime minister and opposition leader is said to be the length of two swords.

Importantly, we debate with adversarial vigor, but we never allow that vigorous parliamentary debate to spill over into violence.

People who resort to intimidation and violence cross a line that must never be crossed.

The choice to use violence is a rejection of robust debate, a refusal to accommodate difference and disagreement.

The antidote to violence isn’t to compromise our system of robust debate, but to cherish, champion, and strengthen that system.

What we must do is call out and confront the actual sources of intolerance, of intimidation, of political violence in our country. And the government has been absolutely right to call out far-right extremism. But all extremism must be called out. Every source must be named, must be targeted, and must be fought.

Especially through our additional funding for intelligence and law enforcement, and we need judges to come down harder on people found guilty of acts of intimidation or violence.

The prime minister has moved to suspend standing orders:

I move that this house declares one, its support for the member for Indi following the horrific incident in Wangaratta on Monday, 19 October 2026. Two, its strongest well wishes for the member for Indies recovery ahead.

Three, its appreciation for the courage and swift action of bystanders, first responders, and health professionals. And four, its support to the member for Indy’s family, friends, staff, and community at this extremely difficult time, Prime Minister, as the House meets for the first time since the horrific events of last Monday, it is appropriate that our very first act is to speak about the Member for Indy, Dr. Helen Haynes.

Her husband Phil Haines was with us this morning.

He has shown a level of grace that, for most of us, is simply beyond reckoning.

This morning, Phil spoke lovingly of Helen’s superpowers as empathy, kindness, and compassion. He spoke of hope and change, and the need for a gentler, more cohesive path.

I want Phil to know that we are with him and Helen, and with their children and their grandchildren, and will remain with them. The shock from what happened last Monday is like a stone in our hearts.

What brings it home today is being back in this chamber, on what should have been an ordinary sitting day, looking across at the member for Indy’s seat over there, and hoping, and looking forward to the day in which she’s back here, representing the community that she loves, a community that right now is hurting badly, as are her wonderful close-knit staff here and in Wangaratta and Wodonga.

Our hearts are with you.

We look across to the member for Indyce Place, and despite ourselves, half expect to see a face, like a trick that the heart plays on the mind, if only to grant us a moment’s respite from the truth.

Right now, our friend and colleague is in hospital, grievously injured. The shape of her life and her family’s lives changed forever. The day will come when we look across this chamber and see the member for Indira’s face again, as the Victorian Police AFP.

Previously injured, the shape of her life and her family’s lives changed forever. The day will come when we look across this chamber and see the member for Indy’s face again.

As the Victorian Police, AFP, and ASIO continue their investigations, we give our thanks to them, just as we give our thanks to the health and emergency service workers and all who have provided assistance to Helen.

We are also uplifted in the knowledge that on that terrible afternoon we saw examples of the best of the Australian character, from Ricky Jeffries, the barber who rushed without concern for his own safety to ensure that the alleged perpetrator was secured until police arrived, from Xavier Norden, a director of the local technical school who was one of the first to Helen’s aide. From Jacob Evans and Jacqueline Black from Melbourne, they were there looking at the local store on their way to a well-earned holiday

At the local store on their way to a well-earned holiday in that beautiful part of Victoria, but they applied tourniquets, assisted paramedics, and provided invaluable assistance.

I have had the opportunity to speak directly to Ricky, Xavier, Jacqueline, and Jacob, and others in recent days,and express the nation’s gratitude for their brave and invaluable interventions.

The member for Indi, in all her decency, integrity, compassion, humor, and empathy, has always embodied the truth that there is more that unites us than divides us; that there is no stronger foundation than common ground, her capacity to do it all with such heart and such unrelenting advocacy is, in its own way, a reminder that she has served in far tougher places than this.

As a former nurse and a midwife, her rich personal background is something that she has brought to this chamber. It’s hard to think of anyone in this place with a more irrepressible twinkle in the eye, a twinkle that more than hints at a real inner strength.

Helen Haines’ office staff, a very close knit team, were also on scene and gave assistance. Many of them, who are obviously traumatised by what they have seen and experienced, have been left out of these tributes and they deserve recognition for how they went above and beyond as well.

The first order of business will be the suspension of standing orders to begin the tributes to Helen Haines.

Anthony Albanese will move that.

We will bring you some of those speeches, but also a reminder that we don’t know the motivation at this time for what happened, and there is someone who has been charged, which will mean the need for careful language (a timeless statement)

Lucinda Garbutt-Young and Noah Secomb for AAP

Independent politicians will sign a civility pledge promising to treat their colleagues with respect in honour of fellow crossbencher Helen Haines.

The well-regarded member for Indi was allegedly struck repeatedly by a four-wheel drive in a deliberate attack outside her office in Wangaratta, northern Victoria, on October 19.

Dr Haines had both her legs amputated but is now in a stable condition.

Independent MP Kate Chaney, wearing an orange blazer and a cockatoo brooch in support of Dr Haines, urged other politicians to act with kindness.

“It (the pledge) is a very simple thing. It just says: in my political life, I pledge to act with honesty, respect and compassion,” she said on ABC Radio.

Dr Haines was the first MP to sign the Compassion in Politics Australia pledge. Ms Chaney will add her name to it shortly.

“That feels to me like a simple and poignant way to honour the contribution Helen’s made to the parliament and continue to try to embody those values that she personifies in the way that I do my work in parliament,” she said. 

Ms Chaney also wanted a better code of conduct to be applied in the chamber. 

The Western Australian is one of several independents elected in 2022 who have benefited from the guidance and care of Dr Haines, who was voted in the term prior.

Labor members have also learnt from her behaviour, and it was incumbent on each person to act respectfully in their sector, Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek told Seven’s Sunrise program.

“Just think: Can I do this better? Can I be kinder to the people around me?” she said.

Parliament will open on Monday with increased security in public areas, which the Australian Federal Police and government are continuing to work on.

Liberal MP Dan Tehan said he wanted better security for electorate officers, too. 

“As a rural MP, you’re always out in your community in public, like Helen was. And I think that’s just probably more an area where we need to be looking at,” he told ABC Radio National.

It will be a solemn start to the sitting week, as politicians pay tribute to 65-year-old Dr Haines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will speak first before others are invited to join him. 

A fundraiser for charity Save the Children, set up on Wednesday by Dr Haine’s family in lieu of flowers, had surpassed $1.2 million in donations by Sunday afternoon.

Despite the solemnity, federal parliament will continue wading through complex legislation and Senate estimates this week.

Labor’s digital duty of care bill, aimed at curbing harmful content online and stamping out predatory behaviour from platforms, will be debated in the lower house later in the week.

The government aims to pass the legislation before the end of the year, but opponents argue it could result in political censorship.

The government has pointed to the alleged attack and rising threats toward leaders as examples of why greater action is needed against online harms.

Authorities are still investigating potential motivations for the incident, but the man accused of ramming Dr Haines with his vehicle, Brendan Nugent, posted prolifically on social media about political issues.

Senators will also brace for the first week of estimates hearings in five months.

The company responsible for the embattled Snowy Hydro 2.0 project will face a grilling on Monday over another cost blow-out that could lift the project’s price tag to $25 billion.

Zoe McKenzie, who is always more level headed than many in her party, and seen as the party’s moderate future (whatever that means for the Coalition these days) also had some sensible things to say about the last week. There is a reason why the Coalition has put her up for the media round today, and not one of the people they have used to push agendas.

Look, I think the really important thing that happened for us last week is that we sort of got a very cold bucket of water thrown over our heads. The conduct, the aggression that we might see every day there’s a bucket of it online, but there’s equally a fair amount of it that happens in the streets from time to time. And generally speaking, we as parliamentarians just go, it is what it is. You’re a public figure.

People are doing it really, really tough at the moment. If they want to take it out on someone, you know, it’s fair that they bring to me their concerns for their future, even though sometimes that gets a little bit hairy. So, now we’re not going to just always walk past those incidences.

We will make sure that in every instance we bring that to the attention of the AFP so that they can form a real solid picture of what goes on in our lives. I think last week, in fact, for the AFP and various other law enforcement agencies, it was a bit of a, for them, a bit of a wake-up call, frankly, as to what we do and see each and every week in our electorates and around the country. So, I’m hopeful that somebody’s thinking about that architecture of safety and making sure that just where we can strengthen things, that we will. Ok, we don’t want to change the way we go about our communities, but if we can make them stronger, whether that’s in our electorate, offices or in our homes, hopefully that will happen.

Matt Thistlethwaite was asked about the somewhat muted proceedings today, which will also include question time, during a morning appearance on News24:

Obviously, we’re thinking of Helen and her family this week wishing her a speedy recovery. Today, the Parliament will devote almost all of its time to MPs offering support for Helen and her family, pointing out the wonderful job that she’s done as the Member for Indi. Helen’s beloved in the Parliament. She’s the last person that you would have expected to have been attacked in these circumstances. So, today we’ll pay tribute to her and the role that she plays and wish her a speedy recovery.

Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie was asked how the Coalition will balance holding the government to account with the calls for civility (which, honestly, says a lot about politics. You can be civil and hold the government to account, while still disagreeing with policy direction or wanting better. It is not mutually exclusive.)

Look, as Matt just said, we will be focused very much on the terrible act that happened to Helen a week ago today. Our thoughts are with her team in her office. Our thoughts are with her extraordinary family, her beautiful husband, who I understand will be in the Chamber with us today.

So, that will be the main focus for today, as it should be. And then I suspect through the week, we will continue the conversation that we had last week about whether there is sufficient safety built into the architecture of our lives to make sure we can still be out and about and amongst our communities each and every day, but that our teams in particular, as well as us, feel safe in doing our jobs.

And then of course, we will get back onto the important issues for the country. So, we’ll be talking about taxes on trusts, and we’ll be talking about the digital duty of care and various other critical issues to the prosperity of the nation.

Anthony Albanese will move the motion to suspend usual House business at 10am and start the tributes for Helen Haines.

Haines’ independent colleagues have a cockatoo they will place on her seat in tribute. The orange cockatoo has become one of the enduring symbols of the Voices of movement, which Haines has helped cement in regional communities, following in the footsteps of Cathy McGowan.

It has also come to represent Haines in the last week, with people using images of the cockatoo to show their support for the well-loved and respected independent MP, mother, wife, friend and all round incredible human being.

The health minister Mark Butler was asked about expanding that trial on ABC radio RN Breakfast this morning and said:

Well, we’ve heard really a message for some years now that women don’t feel they get the choice and the access and the affordability for their healthcare that they that they need. And we’ve done a lot of work over the last few years to put more medicines onto the PBS to introduce Medicare entitlements for people for women to to get better care from their doctors, and this latest chapter really deals with a situation where women are often in a situation where they need a medicine urgently for a UTI, for a urinary tract infection, within 24 hours.

And if they can’t get to their GP in that time, things can get very, very serious. So, being able to access your local pharmacist, provided that pharmacist has undertaking some additional training, we think will improve access, but also improve affordability.

How will the government measure success?

Well, we’ll look at a range of things, things like safety and adequacy of the training that pharmacists are undertaking, which is largely determined at a state level, but we also want to know what it does to improve access and affordability. So it will be quite a serious evaluation.

And at the end of that 12 months, so into 2028, we’ll think about what happens over the course of the future.

Ben McKay for AAP

It will soon be cheaper for women to go on the pill after visiting a pharmacist, rather than a GP, after an expansion of federal government support.

A trial to allow easier access to both hormonal contraception and treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs) will kick off on January 1, 2027.

Under the move, an estimated 900,000 women will have cheaper access to medication. 

The subsidised drugs were previously only available to concession card holders.

“We’re making practical changes that give women more choice, make health care more accessible and help save women thousands of dollars over their lifetimes,” Women’s Minister Katy Gallagher said.

Federal funding will pay to train pharmacists and will underwrite pharmacist consultation fees of up to $38 per visit.

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has championed the move, describing it as “landmark reform”. 

But doctors argue that women with less straightforward symptoms risk misdiagnosis when heading to a pharmacist rather than a GP.

“UTI symptoms can overlap with other conditions,” Royal Australian College of GPs president Michael Wright said.

“If the diagnosis is wrong, patients risk receiving antibiotics they don’t need while the real cause of their symptoms is missed or treatment is delayed.”

Infectious disease physicians have also expressed concern about UTI mistreatment through antibiotics.

The Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases said pharmacy treatment risks promoting multidrug-resistant infections.

But pharmacy guild president Trent Twomey said the trial “provided women more choice”.

“Already, every month, more than 8000 Australian women visit a community pharmacy for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs,” he said.

“Thousands more think pharmacy first for hormonal contraception initiation and resupply.”

The year-long trial is part of a five-year $792 million women’s health package announced in 2025.

Nick Wilson for AAP

As major parties take to the hustings weeks out from a state election, a third force is shaping their messages to voters. 

Victorian Labor will on Monday embark on day two of its official ground campaign ahead of the  November state election.

Premier Ben Carroll is hoping to fend off the Liberal-National coalition, which is leading in the polls, and take his incumbent party to a historic fourth term in government.

On the first official day of Labor’s campaign, Mr Carroll was keen to tie the opposition to a resurgent One Nation while touting his government’s health credentials with a $1.5 billion pledge to reduce emergency wait times.

“Every Victorian knows there’s a real choice at this election,” he told reporters on Sunday.

“A party and a movement that is fighting for working people, or a Liberal-One Nation coalition that will hurt working people.”

The refrain is one Mr Carroll has used since first becoming premier, warning of a “Liberal-One Nation government” in his maiden speech in July.

Opposition Leader Jess Wilson has explicitly ruled out forming a formal coalition with One Nation but has refused to be drawn on whether she would rely on its MPs if they are needed to form government. 

Primary support for the coalition has surged to 33 per cent, according to the latest Newspoll conducted in October and published by The Australian on Monday.

That represented a lift of two per cent, while Labor’s primary support slumped four percentage points to 24 per cent.

One Nation’s vote edged one point to 20 per cent on a primary basis, while support for the Greens was boosted by the same margin, to 14 per cent.

Labor’s two-party preferred vote has plunged 10 per cent since the 2022 election, according to the Newspoll, positioning the coalition ahead 55-45.

The figures suggest Ms Wilson is on course to lead a Liberal Party majority government, despite swirling questions surrounding the strength of preference flows from One Nation.

But Mr Carroll has made clear his belief the opposition will need the minor party’s support to take power.

On Sunday, he cited reports in The Age newspaper that a Liberal candidate had been recorded encouraging a voter to support One Nation in the upper house and the Liberals in the lower house.

“Her own candidates are telling people to vote for One Nation,” Mr Carroll said.

Pressed on the report, Ms Wilson stressed the Liberal candidate exposed in the article had apologised and retained her support.

“Mistakes happen in campaigns,” she told reporters while accusing Labor of being weak on crime. 

Victorians will go to the polls on November 28. 

In response to the harsh and punitive return of ‘mutual obligation’ penalties, which we still don’t know whether the government has confidence in whether they are even legal or not, the Antipoverty Centre has released a new guide for people receiving benefits on how to navigate the system.

It is this sort of information which is often missing in the system, which is deliberately opaque and offers no easy recourse for when your payments are stopped, or docked. Which, when you are living below the poverty line can put you even further into poverty and financial stress for years on end, as you deal with late payment fees, overdrawn fees and returning any loans you may have been forced to take on, even when its family and friends.

From the Antipoverty Centre statement:

Today the Antipoverty Centre is releasing its new “Mutual” obligations survival guide for welfare recipients who have compulsory activity requirements, including people on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment and the Disability Support Pension. .

The guide is being published to coincide with the Albanese government’s reintroduction of harsh penalties today that allow for Centrelink payments to be completely cancelled without human oversight, regardless of whether a person has employment income. Tomorrow the Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union will hold a protest against the return of cancellations.

The system of compulsory activities is largely implemented by outsourced employment services and costs the public $5 billion a year. For years, welfare recipients have worked to expose widespread abuse and mistreatment by these organisations, but the Albanese government’s priority has been to not only keep the punishment machine, but to reward the worst offenders with more contracts.

The Antipoverty Centre produced the “Mutual” obligations survival guide because government resources that should help people understand their rights aren’t just inadequate – they actively obscure important rights information, are riddled with doublespeak and undermine people’s confidence to stand up for themselves against unfair treatment. A perfect example is DEWR’s new Easy Read information – an important accessibility requirement for many people in the system including people with an intellectual disability, thousands of whom have compulsory activity requirements. These new materials do not contain any information at all about people’s rights when dealing with employment services.

Our new guide is something we wish we had for ourselves to help us deal with employment services, and that other welfare recipients in our community have long been asking for. It explains in clear terms how people can and can’t be penalised, with rules and tips to make the system safer – with references to government policies that are often ignored by organisations that are paid to administer the rules.

It’s for people with compulsory activities, community sector workers or anyone who wants to help – including the many workers in the system who are concerned about being forced to do harm by their employers through policies that mandate unfair use of the rules. This resource won’t fix what are fundamentally cruel policies, but we hope it helps to fight unfair treatment in the face of government’s abdication of its responsibility to protect the people it forces into these services.

Reintroduction of penalties on 26 October
Centrelink payment cancellations related to “mutual” obligations have been paused for more than two years after it was revealed that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Services Australia were unlawfully administering them (See background information below including compensation scheme). Despite this pause, automated systems and outsourced employment service providers were still able to apply payment suspension penalties for the entire period that the system – called the Targeted Compliance Framework – has been under scrutiny.

The Antipoverty Centre is a member of the DEWR stakeholder reference group, which has unanimously rejected the decision to bring back these penalties as the department has not adequately demonstrated how its processes will address unfair and unlawful decision-making investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Last week employment minister Amanda Rishworth refused to say she has confidence in the system in response to questions from InnovationAus about reintroduction of these penalties. A week prior, she declined to answer a question about the TCF at a press conference, saying the legality of the system is “a matter for the secretary”.

Antipoverty Centre spokesperson Jay Coonan said:

It is completely absurd to be dialling up penalties at a time when the RBA is determined to increase the number of unemployed people and the legal foundations of the system are in doubt.

We want to know why Minister Rishworth is refusing to answer questions about whether she has confidence that the TCF is operating lawfully. It should be her highest priority to ensure that inflicting pain on people in poverty is ended entirely, not making it lawful, but at the very least she should be taking responsibility for upholding the law.

We were forced to create our new guide to help people survive the welfare compliance regime because government policy is being used to harm who rely on Centrelink payments, so we are doing what is in power to try and help.

We’re left with no choice when the government seems to care more about the profits of private companies and charities who make money from this system than the people who are hurt by it.

The “Mutual” obligations survival guide is designed to cut through the bullshit and give people confidence that when something sounds like a lie, they can point to the evidence that it is. We encourage everyone in the community to use it and share it with as many people as possible.

Artist, welfare advocate and Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union helpline volunteer Mel Fisher said:

I can’t wait to hand the survival guide out, this is what people need to know.

It’s important that I and others trapped in this system know our rights. There’s so much dishonesty that comes from job providers and we’re often given conflicting stories. This will also make it easier for me to find the information I need to give advice to others when they call the AUWU helpline.

I’ll be using the guide to make sure I can cut through the bullshit that I’m told and can actually get the advice I need.

Health minister Mark Butler is next and he is asked about the national conversation about threats to politicians and whether it is beyond time for it and says:

Well, I think probably yes. I think this is a really good opportunity this week, given the depth of the discussions that have been taking place among MPs, but also with federal police and other security agencies about what more we can do to keep MPs, their family, their staff safe from what is clearly a very significant increase in physical threats, and and do that in a way that allows MPs to continue doing their job in the way I think Australians really, really cherish, which is pretty accessible, pretty open, in a way that’s not seen really in any other country I can think of.

Q: Has it changed much in your time?

Butler:

Yeah, it’s changed dramatically in my time. I’ve been here for almost 20 years, and and security has changed. The federal police, in my experience, have been very, very responsive to our requests when there are threats or the possibility of me going to an event.

But just the number and the nature of threats of violence and death, not just to MPs but to their children, and to their partners and to their staff, is like nothing we saw 20 years ago.

Dan Tehan is asked about the comments from the AFP commissioner, Kristy Barrett on Insiders yesterday, where she linked increased political threats to political rhetoric. Tehan says he thinks its anonymous people on social media.

Look, the the problem we’ve got, I think, at the moment is the the anonymous voices online. That that to me, I’m a big believer in freedom of speech, or always have been. But I’ve always strongly believed that you have to put your name to your words. That’s that’s the key. And I think here in Australia, in our political process, you know, if during elections, you know, you’ve got to. If you’re a candidate, you’ve got to write and you’ve got to say it’s written and authorised by you. And I think that is very, very important because what I find out in the communities, face to face, when you you talk to people who disagree with you, they do it respectfully.

…I sort of it’s it’s always the question of balance because you know why why do we have a parliamentary democracy? Because it’s a better way than the alternative, which is you’re fighting it out either through civil wars, bullets, executions, you name it. The history is riddled with it.

So we’ve got to keep the strength of it. And to me, it’s people being prepared to own their words. And if you overstep the mark, and look, we do. I’ve done it.

Being prepared to to just own it, and that’s why in the parliament, I think it’s a terrific system we had have where you know you’re asked to withdraw, and you know on the whole people immediately will get up and withdraw, and that’s a way of saying, yeah, I’ve crossed that line.

So it’s a balance, and I think it’s really important we get it right because if you don’t, my concern is you force it more and more offline and into darker places where I think it would create would make the problem even worse.

On the extra security at parliament house today, Dan Tehan says:

I actually think Parliament House the security here is is pretty good. Obviously, there’s always a few tweaks and changes you can make. I think where we need to have a look is, especially for MPs out in their electorates. I think that’s where we probably need to have some sort of a some sort of a look, whether it’s around security for MPs with their at their homes,

I mean, one of the issues, you know, as a rural MP, you’re you’re always out in your community in public, like like Helen was, and I just think that’s probably more an area where we need to be looking at.

I think, you know, there’s been a lot of money and a lot of effort and a lot of thought gone into security here at Parliament House.

I think the vulnerability is actually when we’re out doing doing our job in the in the community, and that’s probably where we need to put the focus.

Liberal MP Dan Tehan is speaking to ABC RN Breakfast this morning and is asked how important it is that the House pay tribute to Helen Haines:

Look, it’s it’s vital. You know, we need to to show empathy and sympathy with with Helen and her family at this time, and I think we’ve all been absolutely relieved that it looks like her condition has stabilised, which is fantastic news.

But obviously, there’s still a long way to go, and I think us showing our support for her and her family at this time is is is just vitally vitally important because you know they’ll be questioning and wondering why, and you can you can understand that.

I think as the whole nation is, and I think we’ve just got to show you know got to show our love. We’ve got to show that that we really do care, and I think people do. You know, where she’s a colleague.

Obviously, you know we have our differences in Parliament House, but there’s a level of respect there. And she was highly, highly respected for the way she went about doing her job, whether it be in parliament or in her electorate. And I know many people in that constituency. She obviously grew up in Colac or near Colac in my electorate. So there’s many people down in my electorate, who who know her and respect her, so I think it’s it’s absolutely vital that we can demonstrate our support for her at this time.

Greg Jericho

In a very rare occurrence, Deputy Governor (Economics) Sarah Hunter was interviewed on 60 Minutes.

I don’t mind this – I much prefer it to the RBA exec always fronting up at cozy finance industry gigs, or Business Council shindigs , but I would prefer not 1-on-1s with organisations desperate for headlines. 

It would be nice if they had done this for ABC’s Business program, but oh yeah.. the ABC has now axed that excellent program because… dunno really… I guess quality is not the ABC’s thing anymore? Maybe rather than actual reporting on business we all need more personal financial help from some wannabe barefoot investor? (seriously if there is one organisation more in need of a clean out than the RBA it is the ABC exec)

Anyway, I digress…

Here’s a run down of what you need to know she said:

Sarah Hunter: We know that it’s a really tough time for everyone right now, and that’s why we’re doing what we’re doing. We want to solve this problem. We know that higher interest rates will bring inflation down, but it’s just really tough in this sort of period of time trying to get there.

Adam Hegarty: Will they bring it down? How’s it looking right now?

Sarah Hunter: Well, look, it’s tricky at the moment because we’ve obviously got this external shock coming through from overseas, the oil shock. I’m sure everyone who’s going to fill their car up at the petrol station is noticing that. We’re starting to see it also coming through into some other prices as well. The cost of doing a renovation on your home, I’ve noticed that if you’ve got a builder in, he’s saying, I’m going to have to put my prices up a bit because my material costs have gone up. So we’ve got this shock coming in from overseas, which is really difficult, that’s nothing to do with us here in Australia.

Yep. COMING IN FROM OVERSEAS!!!

Sarah Hunter … we do know we also have a challenge around the domestic economy as well, and it’s just at the moment we have got a bit too much demand, relative to what we can sustainably supply where inflation is low and stable within our mandate, and so we’ve got to try and tackle that problem as well. We’ve got to make sure inflation doesn’t become embedded, the thing that’s coming in from overseas, and we’ve really got to try and tackle that domestic challenge too.

Look I don’t want to be too harsh, but this is drivel. 

Too much demand? Clearly not from consumers – we are not seeing household spending growing too fast at all, wage are slowing not growing. What she is talking about is data centre construction. 

Interest rates won’t affect that. 

They don’t want inflation to become embedded? Cripes. Suck it up poors, your wages are growing slower than inflation but you need higher interest rates as well just so you don’t think things are too good. 

Now we get onto what will get the headlines – government spending

Adam Hegarty What I can see happening is people starting to get a little bit more clued in about other factors. You mentioned overseas. Another that is constantly talked about right now is government spending. So, please, what is the benefit of continuing to slug everyday households and Australians when seemingly state and federal governments can splurge however, basically?

Sarah Hunter Yeah, look, government spending is definitely part of the picture. So we take quite a lot of time to understand what governments are planning to do. You mentioned state and federal, and it is important that it’s both because they both have a role to play. So we look at state budgets, announcements and things, and that’s what we factor into our forecasts.

And government spending is part of demand, and it’s that imbalance between demand and supply that we’re really trying to tackle right now. But what I would also say is that we are an independent central bank. We’re unelected. It’s really not our place to tell the country, politicians, individuals, anyone, what governments should or shouldn’t spend money on, how much they should or shouldn’t be spending.

That’s a conversation the country should have. We all get to have our say at the ballot box eventually when elections roll around, but it’s really not the place for the central bank to say, I don’t think, because, like, you know, we’re not here making those decisions. It’s not what we’ve been asked to do, and it really is a conversation that should happen in the country through elections and through political discussion and debate. So as a central banker, that’s something I can say out of –

Adam Hegarty Is that right? The RBA can’t pull governments aside and go, “hey, your spending, more so than household spending, is making our job really difficult right now?”

Sarah Hunter I mean, I think hopefully we’ve been pretty clear on the government’s role in contributing to demand and then what total demand means in terms of inflation outcomes right now

I’m sorry but the current RBA executive is so out of touch they need a wholesale clean out. They want unemployment to rise, and I have a few suggestions of who can assist the rise of those numbers. 

This is truly pathetic. Hunter is right – she is not elected, but here she is freely spouting that government spending is contributing to inflation and that cuts would help. She will say that she is not saying govt demand per se is too high but that government (or public) demand and private demand are all part of total demand and that demand in total needs to fall.

But no one is that naive.

It’s bloody easy to sit around on your extremely high paying unelected gig and suggest government spending needs to be reduced. Because you know you will not be at all affected. If the RBA were to suggest the fuel tax credit which costs $10bn a year is one area that could be cut, then ok, but we know that won’t happen – they are “unelected” and so don’t talk about specific government policy, and they NEVER suggest anything that might hurt corporate profits.

And you know all the talk about government spending driving inflation will be focussed on government benefits, the NDIS, child care etc. 

But here’s the thing, the contribution of government spending and investment on GDP growth (ie demand) has reduced each quarter over the past year or so, and the contribution specifically of the federal government to annual GDP growth is now below what it was even during the mining boom years of John Howard and Peter Costello  skylarking around pretending they knew what the heck they were doing. 

The rest of the interview was just more crud about how tough it is and we’re all trying our best blah blah platitudes everywhere and it made me want to vomit.  At least she didn’t spout the bullshit of Andrew Hauser about how the rate rises are mostly about affecting the exchange rate rather than the “cash flow” (incomes) of households.  

The RBA is in a bad state. The loss of Guy Debelle and Luci Ellis in 2022 and 2023 was a huge blow to the talent within the executive. 

Ellis, who now is the Chief Economist for Westpac said in her recent economics note of Hauser’s suggestion that the main impact of rate rises was the exchange rate:

People need to understand that monetary policy is not simply an exercise in hitting mortgage borrowers. We doubt they would be comforted, though, by the Deputy Governor’s explanation this week that the ‘cashflow channel’ was the smallest of the transmission channels from interest rates to inflation, with the exchange rate much more prominent. That implies a lot of pain for a small group, for little effect on inflation. It raises the question of whether other policy tools or institutional arrangements might get the same effect on inflation through the other channels without hitting a minority of households disproportionately.

It does indeed. 

The RBA got it wrong after the end of COVID and the start of the war in Ukraine – they pig-headedly refused to admit profits were driving inflation as they were elsewhere around the world . And now they continue to stick to the view that raising rates is bringing down inflation despite the pressure coming from overseas and once again profits increasing.

They appear bereft of any ideas other than raising rates, bereft of any thought other than inflation must be caused by excess demand and bereft of any solution other than hurting households. 

There is not universal acceptance of the extra security around parliament house today, which has been put in place in response to the alleged attack against Indi MP Helen Haines.

David Pocock, who told the Canberra Times last week he had to move house after personal security concerns, in order to ensure his family were protected, said politicians should remain accessible to the public. For many MPs, like Pocock, parliament isn’t the issue – it’s electoral offices and their homes where the security issues come into play.

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie told the ABC:

I’d hate to see a situation where people like myself on the conservative side retreat from saying what we believe should happen, and similarly, people with opposing views feel they shouldn’t be standing up for their values and their communities.

Meanwhile, Pauline Hanson, who just a few weeks ago was claiming that Anthony Albanese telling the Queensland Labor state conference that One Nation policies would be ‘divisive, and a threat to democracy’ had incited ‘political violence against her’ and made her feel unsafe, says that her Please Explain cartoon series which has made fun of Jacqui Lambie’s medical condition, targeted Andrew Hastie for his testimony against Ben Roberts-Smith and depicted former Victorian premier Andrew Daniels being run down by a car, and other politicians including Anthony Albanese and Lidia Thorpe being hit by buses, will be going nowhere and attempts to criticise them are just politicians trying to silence freedom of speech.

For those interested, she has put up a statement on her social media pages explaining her thoughts.

Greg Jericho

On Friday, the ABS released the annual nation accounts – ie the GDP figures for the full 2025-26 financial year. 

These figures don’t get much coverage because they don’t tell us much that we didn’t already know. 

The main difference is that the usual GDP figures compare quarters with previous quarters. For example if you hear then the Annual GDP growth in June was 2.1% that means Australia’s economy in the June 2026 quarter was 2.1% bigger than it was in the June 2025 quarter. 

These annual figures however compare the size of the economy through the entire 2025-26 year with what it was in 2024-25.

That is why in 2025-26 Australia’s GDP grew 2.3%, which actually is not too bad considering the past decade of weak growth

We also get the latest household income figures. In 2025-26, real household disposable income per capita rose a bit to $65,763

This was a 1.2% increase – not great, to be honestly It came off of the back an ok increase in “compensation of employees” (ie wages and salaries) and a drop in the amount of mortgage repayments (remember 2025-26 covered the period where there was rate cuts)

But looking at the household disposable incomes really bring to the fore just how weak the past 15 years have been.

The 1990s and 2000s saw much strong growth. But the GFC and the end of the investment mining boom saw the end to that and since then we have been pretty much mired in mediocre income growth.

Now obviously you can’t assume the good time will always keep happening, but when you look at the path we were on from 1990-2010 you can understand why those who have reached adult hood or even into their prime earning year since 2010 feel like that have been cheated:

Noah Secomb for AAP

More households are going hungry as rising fuel and cost-of-living pressures hit more Australians, according to a Foodbank Hunger Report.

One-third of all Australian households have reported skipping meals or being unable to access quality produce at some point in the past 12 months.

It’s a rate that appeared to be easing just two years ago and now represents more than 3.5 million households.

More households were falling into food insecurity than ever before, Foodbank chief Kylea Tink said.

“The gap between those that do have and those that don’t is getting wider and wider,” she told AAP.

“A working-family income is increasingly not able to stretch to provide all the food that people would expect to be able to provide for their families.”

In every corner of the country, 18- to 34-year-olds and couples with children are at increasing risk of falling into food insecurity.

Further economic pressures could make this worse as the Reserve Bank has projected higher unemployment in coming months and another interest rate rise a possibility.

Food insecurity was just one part of a series of crises facing Australian households, Ms Tink said, acknowledging that food relief agencies could not fix the root causes of hunger alone.

“If our federal government did raise the rate of youth allowance, the pension, the single parents payments, that would have a significant impact on the rate that food insecurity is being experienced,” she said.

“There is no magic bullet here.”

But there is one “bright light” in the hunger report.

School breakfast programs have seen real improvements in outcomes, particularly state government-supported schemes in NSW and Victoria.

It’s in this area that Ms Tink is pushing for direct funding from each level of government instead of “scattergun throwing cash into the wind”.

“A kid that is able to have access to a nutritious breakfast is more likely to turn up to school from the very beginning. They participate more effectively,” she said.

“The family has one less meal to worry about.”

Greg Jericho

Last week the Treasurer Jim Chalmers gave a speech in which he outlined some of the numbers that will be in the budget’s half yearly update, released in December, which is known as the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).

He told the audience that: 

Both Treasury and the RBA expect inflation back in the band over the next 12 months.

Treasury is in the process of revising all the numbers for the mid‑year update.

Higher interest rates and higher inflation are likely to mean softer growth and slightly higher unemployment.

While there are a lot of data updates and potential surprises remaining between now and the end of the year, I can also share that if MYEFO were released today, we’d be printing a very substantial upgrade for business investment.

Business investment this year could more than double compared to the Budget forecast in May, up from 2.5 per cent to over 5 per cent.

Last year’s outlook was also revised up from 4 per cent to 7.4 per cent.

That’s an extra $11.7 billion last year alone.

Ok let’s untangle all that for you.

“Softer growth”? Well in the Budget the Government estimated the economy in 2026-27 would grow just 1.75%, so expect that number to come down. In the August Statement on Monetary Policy, the RBA estimated GDP growth in June 2027 of 1.5%, so I’d suggest that will be what we’ll likely see in the MYEFO.

Does that matter? Well only in so far as lower GDP growth generally means unemployment rises so….

“Slightly higher unemployment”? Again the budget forecasts it hitting 4.5%. Well it’s currently 4.7% so we are already past that. The question is how high? The RBA estimates unemployment get to 4.7% by December 2027 and then 4.8% in 2028 (hey don’t laugh, they put a lot of work into these estimates).

The IMF, which likely took the figures from the RBA and the Treasury recently estimated it’d get to 4.8% in 2028. But who knows. The forecasts are for June 2027, so maybe the RBA hopes it won’t go up by much by then. Although given the RBA’s attitude, I wouldn’t bet on it. 

“A very substantial upgrade for business investment”? He means data centres. 

And don’t you just love that even with this massive increase in investment, unemployment is expected to rise. 

Says it all about the worth of datacentres, really. 

Greg Jericho

Wednesday is going to be a bit of a big one for economists, the government and anyone worried that Australia might be about to be put into a recession.

This week is Senate estimates, which means all the departments and assorted government agencies will front up for quesitoning.

On Wednesday morning we will have the Secretary of the Treasury , Jenny Wilkinson before the economics committee and then straight after morning tea we will heard from the RBA with Governor Michele Bullock appearing.

And in a rather nice moment of  kismet, while the RBA is appearing the ABS will release the September month and quarter inflation numbers. 

We already know it not going to be a wonderful number mostly because…

Back in August, in it’s last Statement on Monetary Policy, the RBA wrote:

    ”the sharp increases in oil and some other commodity prices following the start of the conflict were largely unwound in June, after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to cease hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and as global supply chains adjusted.

However, some prices increased again in July as the conflict re-escalated. Crude oil prices are currently below where they were at the time of the May Statement, although global inventories of oil and oil products are much lower than at the start of the conflict, suggesting upside risks to energy prices if supply disruptions continue.”

And well done RBA, the upside risks occurred. Oil prices at 31% higher than they were when the RBA opined on the state of things in August. 

Little wonder that the Deputy Governor, Andrew Hauser, in between joshing about bond traders and the comfy banker class in his “Fireside Chat” (yes they actually call them that) with Citigroup last week, suggested that “The inflation outlook looks materially worse than we projected in the August report.”

The idiotic thing about Australian financial market is everyone knew this, but my gosh did the market react to his statement, 

The odds of a rate rise on Melbourne Cup Day went from 22% to 51% purely off the back of his statement

Never mind that a week before Hauser decided to give us the fruits of all his knowledge Australia’s unemployment rate rose to 4.7%m which puts us right on the edge of hitting recession like conditions according to the measure used by economist Claudia Sahm:

And remember as well that the unemployment rate of 4.7% is for September – which means the rate rise at the end of last month has yet to have an impact on the number unemployed. 

But forget that, inflation is higher than we thought because oil prices are higher than we thoughts they would be and also AI datacentre construction is also driving up the cost of materials and equipment. 

Raise those rates!

In August petrol rose around 16%, and then in September it rose another 10% so we know what will again be the main driver of inflation:

But I have not seen an RBA so desperate to choose a recession over inflation above 3% and below 4% in my life. 

Andrew Hauser, displaying all of the marvelous English attitude that he has brought to his role (truly it stuns me that we have a non-Australian sitting on the monetary policy board of the Australian central bank, do we have no sense of national pride?) told the audience of elite bankers and investors last week that

we have a survey, the BOSS survey, that we work on with Macquarie University, which shows that there is an increasing share of businesses who are thinking that maybe three to three and a half per cent is the new normal. And look, that is the central banker’s nightmare. 

I would have thought unemployment rising at a level consistent with the start of a  recession might be a central banker’s nightmare rather than inflation expectation rather than being 2.5%-3% are 3%-3.5%. 

Imagine a recession occurring because of a lousy half a percentage point of inflationary expectations…

The House will sit today, but most of the day will be set aside for tributes to Indi MP Helen Haines. Dr Haines’ chair will be kept empty today, with the prime minister to start the tributes from 10am. Any member who wishes to can then deliver a statement in support of their parliamentary colleague.

Parliament security has been beefed up for this week and the foreseeable future.

You can find the estimates schedule, here.

Hello and welcome back to The Point Live, and parliament.

There is a sense of heaviness to this return that I don’t think anyone can brush away. Indi MP, Helen Haines is in a serious but stable condition in hospital after having both her legs amputated. A man has been charged with the attack which put her in hospital. We don’t know the motivations, we don’t know what the police investigation has revealed so far and we don’t know why. We do know there have been many to already assign blame. And we do know that leaders like Anthony Albanese want people to ‘turn down the temperature’ but so far, it’s unclear who they mean. Yes, it’s directed at everyone, but there is a lot of conflation of genuinely legitimate democratic dissent, with hate speech and threats. Violence is abhorrent and no one deserves threats for doing their job. Politicians should be accessible to their communities and Australia has not seen the intense security measures which separates elective representatives from their voters. And death threats, and threats of violence or wishes for it, should never be normalised. But neither should demonising legitimate protest and desires for leaders to do better for the nation, and in the nation’s name.

There is going to be a lot of point scoring and blame gaming over the coming weeks. We will do our best to wade through it, while also holding consistently to morals, values and ethics. And above all, remembering that there is a human at the centre of this, a very good one (not that anyone deserves what has happened) who has her own story, her own thoughts and beliefs and her own story. Helen Haines is so much more than what has happened to her. She will remain top most in our thoughts as we wade through the coming weeks, and we hope she will in yours as well.

Estimates is also getting underway, and we will bring you the highlights from those hearings. It’s going to be a strange week, where MPs will be trying to hold each other to all sorts of standards. If it gets too much for you this week, we understand. You, our audience, are also always in our first thoughts, and we will do our best to wade through the politics to get to the policies, the questions, and the actions which matter.

It’s going to be a big, sad and awful week. If we can help you make sense of it in anyway, please send us an email – you can reach me at amy.remeikis@thepoint.com.au

Take your time. We’ll see you when you’re ready. Ax