The Point Live: "Weak. Piecemeal. Pathetic" deal struck on gambling reform between major parties, As it happens

Allan Behm

Oman is caught between a rock — Iran — and a hard place — the United States. An erstwhile ally of the US, Oman has been hit hard by Trump’s attack on Iran. Like Iran and other Gulf states, it is economically dependent on the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Understandably, it has spent the past few weeks negotiating with Iran on a transit-fee (effectively a toll) system to facilitate easier tanker transit through the strait.

It has run head-on into the failure of Trump’s so-called Memorandum of Understanding. Struck only six weeks ago between America and Iran, it was doomed from the beginning. It has come to nothing. And consistent with Trump’s modus operandi, what began with a rush of blood to the head is likely to end with bloodshed — his impetuosity inevitably leads to obduracy.

Increasingly, Iran is holding the whip-hand in this contest. Whereas Trump is impulsive, the Iranians understand attrition. Just like the North Vietnamese Army in Vietnam and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Iranian leadership is determined and resilient, grinding its adversary down until inertia forces a retreat. For America, it is not capitulation. It is exhaustion. America will inevitably call it quits. It always does. Because any belligerent that starts without a plan ends in the quagmire of enervation.

Iran has staying power. Trump does not. So Oman is caught in the middle, threatened by both and respected by neither. Trump’s threat to declare the Strait of Hormuz as “territory of the United States” is yet another expression of self-indulgent bravado, completely the opposite of his position of just a couple of weeks ago that the Strait was an international waterway subject to freedom of passage.

Trump may bomb Oman, though that is less likely: the US is running out of munitions and, anyway, it is even more quickly running out of puff. The Middle East is spiralling into unpredictable chaos, neither an inferno nor a wasteland. Rather, it will remain a suppurating sore, dependent on the return of wise heads and diplomacy on all sides. And that’s no time soon.

Matt Grudnoff

The Prime Minister has been asked about NAB’s comment that rents would need to rise 25% to 30% to compensate them for the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing. The PM claimed that NAB have since clarified that they weren’t making a prediction about what rents would be.

But just because taxes on rental housing goes up doesn’t mean it will lead to higher rents. We know this because back in March 2023, Victoria announced much higher taxes on investors. As a result, lots of investors sold up.

We can see from data on active rental bonds (effectively the number of rental properties) that soon after the changes, the number of rental properties in Victoria fell. If we account for where the number of rental properties would have been if it had continued to grow, then the drop has been about 10%.

That’s a huge proportion of the rental market. If investors selling up was going to push up rental prices, then this kind of drop would certainly do it.

So, what happened to rental prices in Melbourne?

They increased at about the same rate as the national average.

But how could this not have impacted rents?

This is because when investors get out of the market they don’t burn their property to the ground. They sell it.

Who is buying?

Not other investors. We know they’re getting out of the market. They’re being bought by owner-occupiers. And more owner-occupiers mean more homeowners and more first home buyers.

First home buyers usually rent before they buy. So, as investors sell, the number of rental properties go down, but at the same time the number of families wanting to rent also goes down. The result is little to no impact on rental prices.

This is exactly what we have seen in Victoria over the past 3 years.

Skye Predavec

As the government’s watered-down gambling reforms have started their journey through Parliament, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young asked Penny Wong, “What would Peta Murphy say?”

Former Labor MP Peta Murphy chaired a 2023 inquiry that recommended banning all gambling advertisements, an inquiry she worked on while battling the cancer that took her life in December of that year, at the age of 50.

Labor’s gambling reforms, set to pass parliament after a deal with the Liberal-National Coalition, fall well short of Murphy’s recommendations.

To the question, Penny Wong silently shook her head and did not answer. The President of the Senate ruled that “it is impossible to align” the question to a ministerial portfolio, and immediately moved on to a Dorothy Dixer on Youth Parliament.

Angie Bell now gets a question:

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Yesterday, the minister said she was damn proud of Labor’s broken promises on capital gains tax and negative gearing. Is the minister damn proud of making millions of Australians pay more for their rent?

Given this has already been debunked, they are mostly just doing it for the lols now.

Clare O’Neil:

I really appreciate this question from the member for Moncrieff because it’s a broad one that allows me to go a little bit back to basics with the Parliament about what’s happened to housing in our country. Speaker, we have got a housing crisis in our country that has been building for 40 years. This is a crisis today which is hurting literally millions of people who live in our country. 

Speaker, we see that for renters, who are living with a housing insecurity and rising rents in a way that should never be happening in a country like Australia.

We see it for young people, who are desperate to get into their own home, who are doing all the right things – saving, working hard – and yet watching that opportunity go further and further away from them. And if we want to get to the absolute worst aspect of this crisis, we see it everywhere in our streets and suburbs where a rising number of Australians are literally without a roof over their head.

Now, Speaker, I have a pretty traditional view. We got into this Parliament to solve the big problems facing our country and there is not a single person behind me who looks at that situation and says, “We’re not going to do anything about … No, no.Ithat.”

Speaker, I say this really clearly to you – this is a situation hurting millions of people. Those opposite are the only people in the country that cannot see we’ve got a broken housing market in this… rents.nation. I’ve talked to the Parliament about some of the examples previously.

We’ve had 400% house price growth in this country in the last 25 years and those opposite don’t want to do anything about that. They just want to let … order. that continue, Speaker, while we watch aspiration and ambition fade away for younger generations of Australians. Speaker, we have got polling which shows us that 81% of Gen-Z…

There is a point of order. It is not a point of order.

O’Neil:

Thank you so much, Speaker. I’d just say to those opposite it helps when you come to the Despatch Box on questions like this to have a leg to stand on and I just remind those opposite that they had nine… years in office. They did not raise Commonwealth rent assistance once in the time that they were in office. They didn’t do anything about rental standards. In fact, remember they were so outs of housing that for most of that nine years, they didn’t have a Commonwealth Housing Minister and I say directly to the renters of this country, Speaker, they have never fought for you for a single day that I’ve been in this Parliament.

We’re addressing challenges in our housing market to help renters across this country get the thing they want most of all and that is a real chance at home ownership.

In his reply to Angus Taylor, the Prime Minster boasted that in the June quarter a record number of investor loans were taken out for construction.

He was right. Some context though – it was more of a general long-term trend increase, but there has been a notable increase over the past year.

Yesterday, the changes for food delivery drivers came in, which gave a minimum hourly price, as well as more access to the platforms for complaints and changes, and potential for insurance.

Both dixers so far have been on that.

Albanese gets in on it:

Now, the fact is that our economy has changed and there are great benefits for Australians of getting things delivered right to your door and that flexibility is a good thing, but just because jobs and industries change and adapt doesn’t mean that working people deserve less protection or lower wages, because when change happens, it’s up to us to shape it for the better.

For too long, deliver drivers in the gig economy fell through the cracks – no fair pay, no sick leave, no basic protections – and that happened because of those loopholes.

And, put simply, at times it not only wasn’t fir, it’s outright dangerous, because we know of the examples of people, delivery drivers, who have lost their lives because they’re trying to get from A to B in 15 minutes for something that should take 25 or 30. So taking risks, literally losing their lives, is what has occurred. 

And that’s why we passed this Closing Loopholes legislation, to make sure that every worker gets a fair go. And whilst we fought for and delivered that change, those opposite, the and the Nationals, did everything that they could to stop it. They voted against the legislation.

They argued against the decision. They said reforming the industry was just too complicated. They chose to ignore the problem and then they argued against fairness. 

That is their play book. Labor chooses a different path. We choose to act. We choose to back working people and we choose to deliver real change.

It’s not often my home town of Mannum in SA gets a mention in Question Time, but Milton Dick just acknowledged members of the Mannum Lions Club who are in attendance.

Woot!

Angus Taylor is back:

The National Australia Bank has confirmed Labor’s toxic taxes will…send rents soaring by 30%. Will the Prime Minister guarantee rents will not go up by 30%?

Anthony Albanese:

Today, NAB has clarified publicly, to quote the National Australia Bank, “This was not a forecast and it’s important to note that we do not forecast rental yields.”

And a couple of points to make, Mr Speaker, that those opposite seem to have missed – the Budget made no changes for people who already negatively gear property, none whatsoever.

Arrangements that were… call.in place up to Budget night remain grandfathered in. So how could it possibly be the case that you can have this sort of absurd justification?

Going forward, of course, negative gearing and the 50% capital gains tax discount can still be used for investment properties, but on new builds, so that when people are investing, they’re not only investing in their future wealth and assets, they’re investing in the future wealth and assets of the nation.

And that is already making a difference.

Angus Taylor:

Point of Relevance, Mr Speaker. Look, the question asked a very – put a very simple proposition, that the National Australia Bank had put, and it asked whether the Prime Minister was prepared to guarantee, guarantee, the rents…

Dick:

Yes, I think the difficulty with that point of order is that the Prime Minister directly dealt with that issue in about the – just let me finish, Leader of the Opposition – that the quote or comment that you moved, he dealt with that straightaway. He’s got the remainder of his answer of 1:45 has to remain directly relevant. He can’t stray into other topics. His answer has to remain directly relevant to the question he was asked and he has

Albanese:

I was asked about NAB and I’ve said exactly what NAB said today and I’m sure, perhaps, the Australian might clarify its position tomorrow. I think they might. They might.

But that is very clear from NAB and you can’t be clearer, Mr Speaker.

And there’s a reason for, that of course, because the Budget made no changes for people who already negatively gear property. It’s already making a difference.

According to ABS data released on Friday last week, more investors are borrowing to build new homes than ever before, than ever before.

In the June quarter, there was a 27% increase in investor loans for new builds and a 20% increase for construction loans. That is more investors are borrowing for new builds and more new builds are being constructed by developers. That is happening. And that’s precisely what the aim of the policy was to do.

The aim of the policy was to assist with housing supply, because we know that housing supply is absolutely critical. The ultimate aspiration for any Australian is to own their own home and backing that aspiration is what our reforms are about.

And throughout all of this debate, I haven’t heard one person – perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might be the one – who thinks that the housing system is working. None. None. It is a broken housing system that we inherited and we’re fixing it, to give young people a fair time.

After asking no questions in yesterday’s question time, Angus Taylor takes the first question:

After 98 days of denial and delay, the Government has finally to its senses, finally come to its senses because of pressure from the Coalition. There will be no widow’s tax. Why did it take so long for the government to do the right thing?

There are so many interjections, you can barely hear him. Milton Dick tells Labor to settle down. Jim Chalmers is warned.

In between the interjections, Albanese gets out:

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I really do. We have had draft legislation on this measure out for weeks for consultation, consultation… consultation…(INTERJECTIONS )It was due to finish on Friday, and we had, in that context, made it very clear that we would introduce legislation to deal with this issue. A

And during the debate about tax, Mr Speaker, those opposite have complained about a lack of consultation up to this point. They’ve said that what we should have done… They’ve said that what we should have done is to flag taxes before the Budget, which would have, of course, like other tax measures that take… Have an impact on the day that they’re announced, would have meant there was a potential…

There was a potential for windful gains. Now, what we were asked to do last night – and it took me a millisecond to say yep, we’re up for that, was to pass our legislation quicker that we had put out there for consultation. So I was more than happy to do that.

As a result of that, and the context here, Mr Speaker, was the NDIS legislation that those opposite are going to vote for, to their credit, because what it will do is make sure that the system is sustain able.

They kicked that can down the road at a cost to the taxpayer because of a deal that they did in the Senate with the Greens. That is what occurred.

He finishes his answer.

As The PM and Leader of the Opposition pay tribute to the Vietnam Veterans let us remember the day, 29 April 1965 when then PM Robert Menzies rose in the House and said

Let me add one item to my statement. Arguments have been going on for some time, publicly and privately, about this matter. Some attempt has been made occasionally – I do not think in this House – to suggest that we are in some way at odds with the United States on this question. Therefore, I am happy to tell the House that today I received from the President of the United States of America a message which I have his full authority to make public.

Mr James -Oh!

Sir ROBERT MENZIES – Yes, I am like that. I never publish a message without having full authority to make it public. Therefore, the honorable gentleman may be interested to hear it. I do not assume for a moment that he will like it, but I think he ought to hear it. It is in these terms –

Dear Mr. Prime Minister: I am delighted at the decision of your Government to provide an infantry battalion for service in South Vietnam at the request of the Government of South Vietnam.

This was a lie. The South Vietnam government had not requested the troops.

As the AMW historian notes:

Late in the evening of 29 April 1965 Menzies stood up in the half-empty House of Representatives and announced that Australia would soon send an infantry battalion to Vietnam. He somewhat misled parliament by implying that he was sending the battalion because the South Vietnamese Government had asked him to do so. In fact, they hadn’t. Nor had the United States, formally.

“Somewhat” is being very, very kind.

It was a lie.

Yes, Australians were sent to war on the back of a lie.

And 521 Australian service personnel died.

Never forget.

First off, there is an acknowledgement of it being Vietnam Veterans Day.

Anthony Albanese:

As we mark Vietnam Veterans Day, we solemnly remember the 60,000 Australians who went to that war. 60 years after the Battle of Long Tan, our bloodiest battle of the entire conflict, we honour all who fell and all who came home, including the many who struggled to free themselves of war’s long shadow.

As we do, we also acknowledge that it took us too long as a nation to come to terms with a fundamental truth – that we can disagree with a war without ever diminishing the profound respect we feel for every single Australian who puts on our uniform and serves in our name.

Our respect for the valour, camaraderie, integrity, and character of our Vietnam War veterans is coupled with our recognition of the burden they have carried, as have so many of their families. To all who are still with us, and in honour of the memories of those who are not, we say what we should have been saying from the very beginning – we honour you, we respect you, we thank you, lest we forget.

Angus Taylor:

South Vietnam, 18 August 1966, D Company, 6th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, 100 men spread across three platoons. They enter a rubber plantation near the village of Long Tan at 3:00pm. The Australians find themselves pinned down and outnumbered by a number of well-armed, highly skilled enemy, some 2,000 strong. They fight in a torrential downpour which hits the red earth and kicks up mud mist, reducing visibility.

On the verge of being overrun, the Australians are saved by the guns of the New Zealand Artillery Battery. And then, as ammunition runs low, two RAAF helicopters fly a daring mission in atrocious conditions, and resupply D Company at the crucial moment. As the Viet Cong prepares for an all-in attack, hope appears on the horizon, and, like a friendly cavalry coming over the hill, Australian armoured personnel carriers arrive carrying A Company. 

The enemy withdraws, and the battle ends. At least 245 Viet Cong soldiers have been killed. T

he men of D Company have endured 3.5 hours of hell against all odds. But not without cost. 17 Australians have fallen. 25 wounded. One would die of wounds just days later. Speaker, the Battle of Long Tan reinforces the courage, the camaraderie and the composure that defines Anzacs in war.

It came to represent Australia’s commitment to the Vietnam War. That’s why, every year, on 18 August, this day, we… forget.commemorate Vietnam Veterans’ Day, and today on the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, we not only remember those who fought and fell in that fray, we also acknowledge the spirit, the suffering and the sacrifice of all of our Vietnam veterans. Between ’62 and ’73, some 60,000 Australians served in Vietnam, 15,000 nashos, men conscripted, who went to war without complaint and serves as wholeheartedly as the regulars.

The Warsaw 3,000 Australians wounded and 534 tragically — 523 tragically killed and, as we just heard from the Prime Minister, this country did take too long to recognise the sacrifice of our Vietnam veterans. To the war-fighters,… call.freedom-fighters and heroes of Vietnam, on your day, Vietnam Veterans’ Day, we remember you, we honour you, we thank you for your service, your suffering, your sacrifice. Lest we forget.

Things heated in the Senate as Hanson-Young tears into both the ALP and LNP over their gambling “reforms”
“Lap dog” is now apparently unparliamentary

What does Richard Marles think about US president Donald Trump scaling back defence drills with South Korea so as not to upset North Korea?

Not a lot. But he does have thoughts about North Korea:

Firstly, what the United States does is a matter for it. But, let me be clear about a couple of things. Australia is very concerned about North Korea’s nuclear program, as well as its missile program. And we have consistently made that point. Indeed, when I was in Tokyo last year, I think there was a North Korean missile test, which had just occurred whilst I was there. We’re seeing that activity happen frequently and we remain very concerned about it. In respect of South Korea, we see South Korea as a critically important country for – in terms of Australia’s bilateral relationship, especially in terms of the way we operate together, we have conducted lateral meet — trilateral meetings between Australia, South Korea and Japan previously. We look forward to further meetings between Australia and South Korea later this year. At a defence and a foreign affairs level. And we see that we have a shared strategic alignment with South Korea, shared values, shared trust. I think – in the challenging world that we face, and there are many challenges, but North Korea is the author of quite a few of those challenges. We greatly appreciate our relationship with South Korea, but we very much appreciate our relationship with Japan and it forms part of the context in which we have a stronger relationship today with Japan as we never had.

Today is the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, which also serves as Vietnam Veterans’ Day.

So I give a shout out to my Dad who was a Nasho and served in 1968 with 3RAR (and came home with a burning hated for Menzies and the Liberal Govts that sent him there off the back of a lie that the USA and the South Vietnamese govt requested our troops)

Below is the media release from Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh

LONG TAN, SIXTY YEARS ON: A DAY HELD IN AUSTRALIA’S MEMORY

Each year on 18 August, memories of Vietnam return in many forms — a name on a memorial, a photograph kept close, a service medal, or a story shared around a family table.

This Vietnam Veterans’ Day marks 60 years since the Battle of Long Tan, when Delta Company, 6th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, and 3 New Zealanders from 161 Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery, fought in the rubber plantation near Nui Dat.

Heavily outnumbered, running low on ammunition and fighting amid a torrential downpour of rain, the men of D Company faced incredible odds against a determined opposition. They were supported by timely artillery from the New Zealand Army, daring RAAF helicopter resupply sorties and a relief force.

Eighteen Australians lost their lives and 24 more were wounded.

For many years Long Tan Day served as the unofficial annual commemoration day for Vietnam veterans, before Prime Minister Bob Hawke named 18 August as Vietnam Veterans’ Day in 1987.

More than 60,000 Australians served in the Vietnam War over more than a decade.

These Australians served with distinction, including almost 19,000 National Servicemen deployed to Vietnam, thousands more were not deployed, but had their lives put on hold for years. Non-military staff supported Australians in Vietnam including medical volunteers, Qantas staff and entertainers.

The Australian War Memorial Roll of Honour records the names of 524 service members who lost their lives due to their service in Vietnam, and two others who lost their lives in Thailand while supporting Vietnam operations. Others came home wounded, injured or ill. Many veterans and their families carried, and continue to carry, the weight of their service today.

Vietnam Veterans’ Day is a chance to commemorate all Australians who served, ensure their stories are heard, and their place in Australia’s history is honoured. We acknowledge the families whose lives were changed by service, and whose support formed part of the story of Vietnam.

Today, communities across Australia will gather in remembrance – at memorials, in schools, with veterans’ groups and in quiet personal moments.

Applications for the Long Tan Bursary also open today, supporting eligible children and grandchildren of Vietnam veterans with up to $12,000 over three years for tertiary education costs.

For more information about Vietnam Veterans’ Day, the Battle of Long Tan and commemorative resources, visit the Anzac Portal.

Shinjiro Koizumi now speaks:

Today we held a defence ministers meeting with Australia’s deputy prime minister, and Minister for Defence. The honourable Richard Marles.

Under the framework for strategic defence coordination. During the meeting, we discussed ways to further strengthen bilateral defence co-operation in line with the Japan Australia leaders statement in May this year. There are two new points to highlight. First, we confirmed that we will further promote co-operation regarding the use of Australian test ranges. If Japan’s self-defence forces are able to conduct launches of hypersonic missiles, it would be a ground-breaking development. Second only to similar co-operation with the United States.

We would therefore accelerate discussions about realising this objective. 

Second, we welcome the successful completion of field trials in Australia of the prototype system for the project, the initiative between Japanese industry and Department of Defence, based on cutting edge laser technology. We confirmed this achievement represents a significant milestone in bilateral defence industrial equipment and technology co-operation, and will continue to work closely together towards the project’s success.

This project is not only the first core development between Australia and Japan, but also the first case where Japan’s defence industry and technologies have attracted the interest of a foreign government and progressed to international development in the defence field.

Following the conclusion of the general purpose frigate contract, its success represents another important step forward in deepening Japan and Australia defence equipment, technology and industrial co-operation. I like to express my appreciation to all those involved. 

The Minister for Defence will continue to support the project’s success. In addition, we welcome the steady progress of Australia’s general purpose frigate program and reaffirmed our commitment to continue advancing the project strongly following the Mogami memorandum signed between us in April this year.

In addition, further more, we participated in the exercises conducted in Australia such as the visit of a ship to Australia in April, participation in exercises southern jackaroo, and in exercise southern cross 2016, and exercise pitch black 26 from July to August. Through these activities, the Japan’s self-defence forces participated in a range of training exercises in Australia across the land, maritime and air domains. 

During Exercise pitch black 26, the Deputy Prime Minister Marles visited and encouraged the JSDF personnel. We welcome these active exchanges between Japanese and Australian forces. And confirmed our intention to further strengthen Japan Australia and Japan US Australia co-operation through training. 

Thereby, enhancing our collective deterrence.

In addition, we exchanged candid views on the regional security environment, including updates on our respective assessments of regional developments and co-operation among like-minded countries. Prior to the meeting, I also had the opportunity to pay a courtesy call on Prime Minister Albanese.

I conveyed during the meeting that defence co-operation is deepening across all areas and I look forward to continuing close co-operation with Deputy Prime Minister Marles.

Earlier today, I became the first Japanese Minister for Defence to visit the headquarters of the Australian Defence Force’s joint operations command.

The headquarters maintains close co-operation with Japan’s joint operations command, including through the reciprocal exchange of liaison officers and my visit allowed me to witness the strengths of this partnership firsthand. This meeting marked my 7th discussion with Deputy Prime Minister Marles. I will continue to maintain a close relationship, and work to advance Japan Australia defence co-operation. Thank you very much. 

Richard Marles is pretty pleased with himself. Despite what you might have taken from some reporting, this meeting between defence ministers was not in response to the melons and has been in the works for YONKS.

Marles:

Today we have had our fourth meeting under the framework for strategic defence coordination, a mechanism we established in Tokyo last December.

And at a time in the world where our strategic landscape is challenging and volatile, we deeply appreciate the relationship that we have with Japan.

We have never been more strategically aligned, there is no country with whom we have greater strategic alignment than Japan, and our engagement together is underpinned by complete trust. That’s very much been a feature of the conversation that we have had today. Today we have agreed to continue to advance the information sharing that we undertake between our two defence forces.

We have also agreed to the very fast tempo and deep tempo of defence exercises between our two countries. To that end, over the last couple of months, Darwin has hosted F-35s from the Japanese air force have participated in two exercises, exercises sovereign — exercise southern cross exercise pitch black, involving Australia and 20 other countries. Across those two, Japanese F-35s were in Darwin for the better part of two months. I had the pleasure of meeting the crew, and a couple of the Japanese E3s.

They did a fantastic job in participating in that exercise. Today we have also talked about the progress of the Mogami class vessel and the partnership we have with Mitsubishi heavy industries. We remain on course to see the first of those vessels in service in the Royal Australian Navy this decade, making it one of the fastest acquisitions of a surface combatant into the Royal Australian Navy in our history.

And we could not be happier with the level of co-operation that we are having with the Japanese government in respect of that, but also the level of co-operation we’re having with Mitsubishi heavy industries.

We have previously spoken about seeking to increase the level of engagement between our defence, science and innovation sectors. Today we can announce that through that collaboration we are progressing a project which is called blue book, it’s an Australian owl that can see very well in the dark, that’s why we have called it that, but the project is about an enhanced laser capability that can be put on land combat platforms as well as other platforms that gives greater protection and situational awareness by using laser to optically detect incoming threats.

We’re really pleased about that specific project, but it evidences the level of collaboration between our defence science and innovation systems. In terms of today’s conversation, we have spoken and progressed Japan’s use of Australia’s missile ranges. Now, again, we’ve spoken previously about Australia being able to provide strategic depth to Japan, across a range of areas, but one of them is the use of our ranges.

Today we have agreed to progress a better and enhanced arrangement between Australia and Japan for Japan’s use of our missile ranges over the course of the next decade, across a range of missile capabilities, including Japan’s hypersony missile program. We’re really excited about the progress we’ve been able to make in respect of that. Which I think is probably as significant a step as any we have taken today in respect of our meeting. This is the fifth occasion this year that we have met. It’s the seventh occasion we have met in the course of the last 12 months. We would be in contact pretty well most days, one way or another.

I have more contact with Shin as one of my defence counterparts around the world as anyone else. It befits the very trusting relationship that he and I have on a personal level, but much more significantly, it befits the significance of our bilateral defence relationship today, which in a very difficult world, has never been stronger.

A favourite topic of the opposition is the number of businesses going bust each year – it’s an easy way to blame the government not being able to mange the economy.

Today the ABS released the “Counts of Australian Businesses, including Entries and Exits” for 2025-26. It found that 77,743 business “exited” the industry. That is 0.09% fewer than in 2024-25.

A better way to look the numbers is the number of businesses entering the sector and those leaving as a percent of total businesses.

This gives us the entry and exit rates. In 2025-26, the exit rate was lower than it has been i this current government and the entry rate was higher.

The net increase was was the biggest during the Albanese government

Tim Wilson is one who likes to talk about exit rates, so it will be interesting to see if he tries to torture the figures in Question Time.

AAP

Australia’s energy system faces a growing cyber threat as criminals weaponise artificial intelligence technology to launch more attacks and exploit vulnerabilities faster. 

Online security firm CrowdStrike revealed the extent of the trend on Tuesday in a report into online threats, which found AI agents were triggering more than twice as many attacks as humans. 

The findings come after the Australian Energy Market Operator warned the nation’s power grid was vulnerable to AI-powered attacks, and after the Five Eyes security agencies advised organisations to strengthen their defences against AI. 

CrowdStrike’s 2026 Threat-Hunting Report analysed online attacks launched during the past year, in addition to closely monitoring more than 290 criminal, nation state and hacktivist groups. 

It found attacks using artificial intelligence spiked by 89 per cent during 2025 as groups increased the volume and speed of their intrusion efforts. 

Attacks triggered by AI agents were 2.5 times more common than those from humans over the past year, the report found, and AI-powered threats were shrinking the time between a criminal breaking into a computer system and spreading to more devices.  

The breakout window could now be measured in hours rather than days, CrowdStrike counter adversary operations senior vice-president Adam Meyers said, and just minutes in some cases.

“Things are going to get a lot faster and that’s probably the scary part here,” he said. 

“Look at our global threat report where we saw … the speed increase of the adversary, on average, went from 48 minutes to 29 minutes, with 27 seconds being the fastest one.”

Between January and June, most software vulnerabilities were being exploited within 48 hours of confirmation (88 per cent), the report found, and some hacking groups were launching attacks within 24 hours. 

AI would shrink that window even further in future, Mr Meyers said, and could be used to attack weaknesses in legacy systems such as those in critical infrastructure. 

“AI is certainly being used to find vulnerabilities in these types of systems and it could be a problem,” he said. 

“That depends on what systems they’re using and how they’re configured.”=

The findings come after the Australian Energy Market Operator, which runs the National Electric Market, warned national electricity systems were at growing risk from AI-powered attacks. 

“Critical infrastructure sectors, including energy, are particularly exposed to AI-enabled cyber threats because of complex operating environments, legacy systems and interconnected supply chains,” the report said.

“Lower barriers to entry mean that poorly secured or legacy systems may become more attractive targets to increasingly capable threat actors.”

Energy service providers and suppliers should ensure their defences are capable and have been tested, the report said, and that older systems are patched quickly. 

OK, so now that the rush of the morning is over and the government has won the support it needs to pass its two marquee pieces of legislation from the Coalition (both terrible pieces of legislation it must be said) things are starting to relax (at least if you are a government MP)

So we will move into the ridiculous, as is usually the way.

So go and get yourself a little treat and come back when you are feeling a little bit more fortified to handle it all.

The Greens have just released this statement on the NDIS agreement:

The Australian Greens say the Albanese Labor government has abandoned disabled Australians in an appalling dirty deal with the Liberals.

This major party stitch up on the NDIS leaves hundreds of thousands without support, and solidifies Albanese’s legacy as one of commitment to protecting corporate profits over people.

Larissa Waters, Leader of the Australian Greens: 

“Today the Labor party becomes responsible for the largest cut to a government services program this century.

“This cowardly Labor-Liberal deal means Anthony Albanese is choosing to balance the budget off the backs of disabled people, rather than making the 1% pay their fair share.

“Albanese is choosing to kick 241,000 disabled people off the NDIS to save money, instead of a minimum 25% gas export tax that would raise at least $17 billion.

“It is a government’s job to look after people, but when Labor has the opportunity they side with the greedy gas corporations and leave Australians behind. 

“A vote for Labor is a vote for the vested interests they protect. A vote for the Greens is a vote for people, not profits.” 

Jordon Steele-John, Greens NDIS spokesperson:

“You can’t say you haven’t been warned.

“The community has made its position clear: the NDIS bill should not pass. What is clear now is that the major parties have come together behind closed doors in Canberra and signed away the rights, security and lives of people who depend on the NDIS.

“The passage of this bill is a betrayal, particularly of the people who trusted Labor to protect them and maintain the supports they rely on.

“And the government had choices.

“It could have chosen to properly tax gas corporations and ask those with the greatest capacity to contribute their fair share. Instead, it has chosen to strip back the safety net and the supports available to people who need them most.

“Shame on Labor.”

Some of the divisions on these gambling amendments are a bit wild.

Like LNP-ers Andrew Wallace and Pat Conaghan voting against the government (and their party) and voting with the independents.

Rebekha Sharkie, Dai Le, David Farley and Nicolette Boele are abstaining (some of these amendments have only just been made available)

Here is the independent MP’s statement:

Well, the Government and Opposition have teamed up to protect the interests of the gambling lobby yet again. Minor tweaks and piecemeal amendments to this bad bill won’t address the wave of gambling harm washing over this country. It won’t protect children. It won’t break the nexus between gambling and sport. It won’t stop the suicides.

The job of a Member of Parliament is to represent their community, not the predators in the gambling industry and their fellow travellers in the media companies and major sporting codes. It’s clearer now than ever that on this issue the major parties care only for their mates and the profits of these corporations.

The evidence on gambling harm has been overwhelming for years. We know what works. We know what the community wants. We know the recommendations that need to be implemented. What has been lacking is political courage.

We should mark this day in our calendars as one of national shame.

And as expected, the government adjourned the debate on Julian Leeser’s motion, which means they didn’t end it, but just said ‘not now’.

Anthony Albanese has walked into the chamber to speak on the gambling reforms.

He is giving the rose tinted glasses view:

Importantly, this legislation concentrates on those who need our help the most-people at most risk of harm. It doesn’t preach to the community, but it meaningfully increases protections for those who most need it. I want to pay tribute to the minister, Anika Wells, but also to the previous minister, the member for Greenway, for the work that has been done since we came to government in 2022.

This is now the next tranche of reform to make a difference.

It will minimize children’s exposure to gambling ads by banning gambling ads during children’s programming, banning gambling ads during live sport between 5 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. It will result in fewer gaming ads during sport by blacking out wagering ads 15 minutes before a live sporting event, and it will as well ban celebrity endorsements, odd style ads, and ads in venues and on jerseys. This is what will make an enormous difference.

The majority of the NRL clubs currently in the National Rugby League have something on their jumpers or some form of sponsorship, which means that sponsorship is constant, and it will this will outlaw that.

It will allow people who want to opt out of gambling ads to do so more easily through a simple opt-out gambling ad register, AdStop, to back up the previous bet stop legislation introduced by the former minister, that previously to this legislation was the most significant anti-gambling measure ever, and one that has been particularly successful, it will protect vulnerable or addicted gamblers with strengthened measures prohibiting direct marketing of inducements to people at risk of gambling harm, extending to 90 days the ban on direct marketing for people exiting backstop, banning wagering companies from giving commissions to employees to increase customer gambling activity, and specific higher penalties for social media companies which publish illegal gambling ads.

This legislation, across the board, will make an enormous difference.

And I want to thank all those who have engaged constructively on this process. These issues are not simple. These issues are one in which we want to make sure that we identify those most at risk and take action to provide protection for them.

One of the big problem with Australia’s emissions figures is that only the emissions produced in Australia are counted to our target of for example reducing emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.

But Australia exports absolute stonks of fossil fuel – especially coal and gas – and that i snot counted at all in our figures, even though clearly it ends up contributing to the heating of the planet. The lack of Australia taking any responsibility for those emissions gives the government a pretty free pass to keep approving gas fields and coal mines and still say they are committed to net zero.

Well climate researcher Tim Baxter has produced some quite excellent research that counts the emissions from those exports.

In his briefing note he finds

By far, Australia’s largest contribution to the climate crisis continues to be the production of fossil fuels for use overseas. In the 2026 financial year, Australia was the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal, and its second largest exporter of both thermal coal and liquefied gas (aka LNG). The climate crisis is driven first and foremost by the production and use of coal, oil and gas. Australia shares responsibility for the harm caused no matter where these are burned.

He has graphed the combined export and domestic emissions from 2005:

His research shows that the increase in emissions from exports of coal and gas is much greater than the reduction in domestic emissions.

In effect Australia is contributing more to global emissions than it was in 2005 and make a mockery of our 2030 and 20235 targets.

Baxter notes:

There are no planned reductions in sight for Australia’s fossil fuel exports. Official forecasts from the federal industry department predicting coal and gas production to continue near today’s level until at least 2030.

It is another good reminder that when you hear the government boast about emissions falling since 2005, not only are they including land clearing that looks good because in 2005 there was an abnormal level of clearing in NSW and Queensland, but they are not including all the emissions from our exports.

By Staff Writers

The disallowance motion over proposal to turn the long promised Great Koala National Park into a carbon offset project has been delayed until September 15, which, funnily enough, is same day as The Australia Institute’s Climate Integrity Summit to be held in NSW parliament

The vote will on the new carbon offset method called the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method, which would allow State Governments to include state native forests into Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCU) as part of the Safeguard Mechanism

Labor life member, and former NSW Environment Minister Bob Debus has already pointed out systemic flaws in the scheme, and that carbon offsets simply do not reduce emissions.

Richard Denniss has also highlighted how the Federal Government’s new IFM carbon credits method for temporarily ‘protecting’ native forests will allow fossil fuel companies to greenwash their climate pollution and expand coal and gas production on a recent episode of his What’s the Point? podcast.  

Meanwhile, Australia’s national environment and climate groups, and regional and grassroots forest organisations, are meeting in Canberra this week to collaborate on a national campaign to protect native forests by ending native forest logging and clearing, and ensure they are not turned into offsets for big polluters.

Tim Wilson is seconding the motion.

The government has a couple of moves here. It can delay the debate and vote to another time (which it has been doing lately), it can amend the motion to one more in line with what it wants said (which still means a vote on to move it) or it can end the debate. I think they’ll go with the delay.

Julian Leeser has jumped in ahead of all the government business to move a motion to suspend standing orders.

Leeser, who told the royal commission into antisemitism, any university course covering Israel-Palestine should be audited for anti-semitic materials (which in the context of Leeser’s views, is anti-Israel) and said:

I’ve been particularly unhappy with the responses that I’ve received [from vice-chancellors] in relation to their failure to … audit courses dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict to ensure that both sides are presented in the best way possible so that students are best prepared to make their own mind up.

has moved this motion:

House:

(1)notes:

(a)that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established following the Bondi terrorist attack, which was the inevitable result of an unprecedented rise of antisemitism in Australia;

(b)that the Royal Commission was supported by the Jewish community and prominent Australians from all walks of life, to provide for a full and forensic examination of antisemitism that led up to that attack;

(c)that the Government was initially opposed to the Royal Commission but relented after public pressure;

(d)that the Government determined both the Royal Commission’s terms of reference and the timetable within which it must complete its work;

(e)that timetable has imposed sever constraints on the Commission’s capacity to investigate the causes, perpetrators and enablers of antisemitism in Australia;

(f)many significant Australian voices have been left unheard and critical players not put on the stand, including:

(i)senior figures from Australia’s arts and cultural institutions;

(ii)university leaders who were in leadership positions during key periods;

(iii)organisers of antisemitic protests and other activists and social agitators;

(iv)representatives of the Australian Human Rights Commission;

(v)senior public servants and Commonwealth Ministers; and

(vi)other prominent Australians;

(g)Australians are entitled to know how antisemitism spiralled so badly, who was responsible and what must change to ensure that it can never happen again; and

(h)a Royal Commission cannot fully answers those questions if key people are never required to account for their actions;

(2)is concerned that the Royal Commission is not set up to deal adequaltely with those who mask antisemitism as anti-Zionism;

(3)calls on the Government to immediately extend the Royal Commission’s reporting date to allow the Commission to hear and test evidence from key witnesses and properly investigate the individuals and institutions responsible; and

(4)calls on the Prime Minister and his Ministers to keep faith with Australia’s Jewish community by appearing before the Royal Commission and accounting for the decisions of the Government on antisemitism in the years leading up to Bondi.

Richard Marles is meeting with his Japanese counterpart (about more than melons, would you believe) and Labor want to open the house with a move to second reading speeches on the gambling reform as quickly as possible.

There is some suggestion you might see some Coalition MPs cross the floor and vote with independents on this (not that it matters, the numbers are more than there for the government) but shows there is cross political upset over these weak laws.

Bill Browne

One of the ACT’s federal Labor MPs, David Smith, has written an op-ed in the Canberra Timeslooking at how democracy works (and doesn’t work) in the ACT.

The ACT is unique in having just two layers of government, because our Legislative Assembly combines the powers and responsibilities of a state government and a local government.

Compare that to Tasmania, of roughly the same population, which has 29 local councils and two state houses of Parliament while the ACT has one. Tasmanians also have more state politicians (50 to the ACT’s 25) and federal politicians (17 to the ACT’s 5).

Smith’s argument is that the ACT model leads to a lack of accountability. The merger of state and local functions means one level of government plays two roles and proportional representation means there is not one politician who is responsible for your local area, but five.

As evidence of dissatisfaction, Smith points to the surge in support for independents at the last territory election in 2024, with the two successful independents campaigning on “stronger local representation”. In turn, the major party vote fell.

Smith has some good ideas, like funding electorate offices for politicians.

But others would make the situation worse for Canberrans.

Smith raises the idea of single-member electorates, so each person has just one representative they can go to if they have a problem instead of five representatives. But this model would deliver more major party MPs and cost independents their seats – exactly the opposite of what Smith already established Canberrans want!

The ACT is growing and changing and there is no reason why its electoral and political systems have to stay the same. But we already have the best electoral system in the country: proportional representation so the diversity of views in the community is reflected in the Parliament and Robson rotation so voters can replace underperformers within a party without voting out the party as a whole. Fundamental changes risk worsening the problem they are supposed to fix.

Today the news is that One Nation wants to cut the tobacco excise by 75%. Tobacco excise, as Amy pointed out, is not a new topic. I wrote about it last year.

Essentially the issue is one of tax and consumption.

Right now the forecast for tobacco excise revenue is for it to fall to a level not seen this century

Now that should be a good thing – it should mean fewer people are smoking. The problem is unless in 2021 we had a pretty astonishing drop off in smoking rates then something is amiss.

And it is.

As the ABS found in June through analyzing wastewater, consumption of tobacco and nicotine has not fallen, but the consumption of legal tobacco has:

There is some debate over these figures – it may not mean that actual smoking rates have risen but that the level of nicotine in the cigarettes being smoked has increased.

So what has happened? Well over the past 15 years there has been a very strong increase in the tobacco excise taking it from 26 cents a stick to $1.53.

That’s 488% increase. Over the same period overall inflation has risen around 54%. It has meant that tobacco prices have gone up well beyond other things:

It has meant standard 25 pack of cigarettes has gone from around $12.95 in 2010 to now around $56 – an increase of more than 330%.

The issue though is that the increase in excise and thus prices while being excellent for reducing smoking rates, also got to a point where smokes were so expensive that those who were still smoking were more prepared than in the past to seek out illegal cigarettes.

The price had risen so high it had become in effect a financial prohibition, and as we know, prohibition always leads to black market operators.

And unfortunately illegal products are always going to be cheaper

So is the solution to cut the excise?

Tobacco companies would say so, and their history of caring about the health concerns of people is unimpeachable!

The problem is while it seems pretty clear that the excise raised the price of cigarettes too high so as to encourage the black market, cutting the excise essentially just means the government is trying to get into a price war with criminals. A war it likely won’t win – and which is likely not going to help reduce smoking rates.

But One Nation’s suggestion to cut the excise by 75% is utterly ludicrous. It would take the excise back to where it was in 2013 and in real terms back to where it was in 2001.

That isn’t a policy to reduce illegal smoking, it’s a policy to increase all smoking.

There’s a decent debate to be had about what to do about illegal smoking in Australia, but the issue always needs to be about reducing smoking and nicotine consumption.

One Nation have come up with a policy that would have tobacco companies absolutely cheering.

You can expect gambling to be first up – now the government has its deal with the Coalition, it wants to rush it through. They won’t accept any amendments they haven’t agreed to – which means the independents will be out of luck – and they want that through the House by 6pm.

Then we have media bargaining code, which only media companies really care about.

And the negotiations for NDIS are close but ongoing.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is urging the community to check for any super they may have lost track of, with new data showing over $21 billion is waiting to be claimed.

ATO Deputy Commissioner Ben Kelly said checking for lost super could be the most rewarding five-minutes of your life.

‘You always want to know where your wallet is. Lost super is much the same. It’s your hard-earned money, and a quick search can reconnect you with that money to make sure you are maximising your retirement savings.’

Super can become lost for a variety of reasons, mostly when an account is inactive from no contributions, and your contact details are not up to date. When a super fund is unable to contact an individual to reunite them with their super, it may be transferred to the ATO to hold and attempt to reunite.

‘We know life gets busy. If you change jobs, move house or switch phone numbers, this can leave super sitting in old or inactive accounts, or result in your super being transferred to the ATO,’ Mr Kelly said.

‘By updating your contact details with your super fund and the ATO, or letting us know your nominated super account, you may be reunited with money you had long forgotten about.’

‘Many individuals did not realise their super was lost. For all individuals, but especially at or approaching retirement age, every dollar counts. We are focused on reuniting people with what’s rightfully theirs to help bolster their nest egg and make the most out of retirement.’

Last year, the ATO returned more than $1.1 billion in unclaimed super through consolidations to super accounts and direct payments to eligible individuals.

This included the ATO visiting remote communities, where we contacted a number of individuals aged 56 years and over with significant amounts of lost super, as part of a targeted campaign.

These visits helped people reclaim life-changing amounts:

• In one case, the ATO reconnected a married couple approaching retirement with their super accounts valued at over $1 million – this significantly changed their retirement planning.

‘The average amount in lost super is around $41,000. Depending on your age, this could grow to hundreds of thousands of dollars if you put it to work for your retirement where you want it.’

‘Think of lost super as lost opportunities – finding it now could help maximise your savings in retirement.’

As at 30 June 2026, around 4 million people held 2 or more super accounts.

‘Holding multiple accounts might not sound like a problem, but it could mean you’re paying multiple sets of fees and insurance premiums, which can draw down your retirement savings over time,’ Mr Kelly said.

‘If you’re logging on to ATO Online via myGov to lodge your tax return, it is the perfect time for a quick super health check to help you find lost super, identify whether you have multiple accounts and decide whether consolidating your accounts is right for you.’

Visit the ATO website for information on how to find lost and unclaimed super.

Rod Campbell

As weak gambling reforms pass parliament soon, recall the billions that big gambling companies win from Australian punters without paying company tax.

In 2023-24, ZERO company tax was paid by Tabcorp, Pointsbet and bet365 (Hillside) despite taking over $2.5 billion from punters, as we covered in our recent report. Here’s the key chart:

These companies won $5.4 billion from Australian gamblers, yet claim to have made just $0.4 billion in profit. Bet365 has NEVER paid company tax in Australia, neither has Pointsbet.

Yep, I’m sure the major parties will “get the balance right” regulating these companies.

Bill Browne

Last month the eSafety Commission published an independent review of the effects of the Albanese Government’s social media age ban, after the ban was in place three months.

It’s based on surveying kids and their parents: first in November and December 2025 ahead of the ban coming into effect, and then again in March and April 2026 once the ban had been operating three months.

The number of kids (aged 10 to 15) using their own accounts on age-restricted platforms had decreased from 52% to 42% in the three months after the ban. But 82% of kids were still using age-restricted platforms. In fact, the number of kids not using age-restricted social media only increased from 14% to 18% after the ban was introduced.

The vast majority are still on age-restricted social media, about half of them under their own accounts and about half through some other means (perhaps using a friend, parent or sibling’s account). 

Parents are also less aware of their children’s social media use: ahead of the ban, 23% were in ignorance of their child using social media, and at the three-month mark that had risen to 33%.

Tech reporter Cam Wilson has a thoughtful piece on ABC News today about how many of these problems were actually anticipated by the parliamentary inquiry into the age ban – an inquiry the Albanese Government called “outrageous”:

It’s easy to say that we couldn’t have known how this world-first ban would play out.

But if you look back at the public submissions made before the ban was legislated, back in November 2024, some experts and groups concerned about the ban seemed to have a good idea.

His article identifies four submissions that anticipated some of these problems. We might be in a better position today if the Government had paid more attention to an inquiry it claimed didn’t need to exist.

Angus Blackman

If the United States government isn’t caring for its own military personnel, how could policymakers expect the US to come to Australia’s aid?

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss concerning reports about conditions on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, the impact of the Trump administration’s cuts to USAID, and the speculation over whether Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

Anara Watson

The Guardian reported today that 3M allegedly knew more than 50 years ago that its PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) products could be hazardous to health. Those allegations are contained in documents filed by the Commonwealth in its case against the American-based manufacturing company over contamination caused by its forever chemicals.

Exposure to such chemicals is associated with reduced kidney function, liver damage and cancer, among other health conditions.

PFAS contamination is widespread in Australia, as the chemicals are common in both industrial and household settings. In the case of 3M, it is alleged that firefighting foam manufactured and distributed by the company caused contamination at 28 Defence bases. It is alleged that the company withheld and misrepresented information about its firefighting products.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that a company has apparently manufactured and distributed PFAS products despite knowing that they could be harmful.

There have been legal proceedings concerning PFAS for at least two decades. That includes a class action brought in the US in the early 2000s, in which DuPont, the manufacturer of Teflon, was alleged to have known about the health risks associated with its products but failed to disclose them to the public. That fight inspired the 2019 movie Dark Waters.

It is expected that 3M will file its defence to the $2 billion lawsuit by 11 December.

Rod Campbell

Late last week, the large Mt Pleasant coal mine in the Hunter Valley was “modified” by the NSW Planning Department. (See coverage by legend local journo Louise Nichols in the Muswellbrook Chronicle and also by ABC Upper Hunter.)

The “modification” is really an extension, the kind that shouldn’t happen if major climate change is to be avoided.

But it’s called a “modification” because a major extension of this mine has been fought all the way to the High Court of Australia by local group, Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (DAMSHEG) and their lawyers Johnston Legal.

Keep an eagle eye out for this high court decision that will have big implications for how planning departments incorporate climate change into their decisions.

In parallel, the NSW Independent Planning Commission is considering the largest coal project in NSW, the extension of the Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) mines and the Queensland Land Court is considering the fate of Whitehaven’s Winchester mine.

Depending on these decisions, the legal landscape for fossil fuel projects in Australia could change considerably in the coming months.

Matt Grudnoff

Home prices have stopped rocketing up. There is light at the end of the housing affordability tunnel.

While everyone says they’re in favour of more affordable housing, there are people who have been making a lot of money from rapidly rising house prices. Chief among them are property investors, banks, and real estate agents.

And some of them are not happy that the heat has finally been taken out of the property market.

One Nation are now calling for first home buyers to be allowed to use their superannuation for a deposit on a home. This is a policy that the Coalition has taken to the last 2 elections.

Super for housing would act like the mother of all first home buyer grants. It would super charge house prices, making them more unaffordable and draining people’s super accounts in the process.

This would be madness for anyone concerned about housing affordability. Particularly as it is coming at exactly the moment that the heat has come out of market.

This really is a terrible idea.

AAP

The federal police has confirmed it will investigate the leaking of correspondence between Japanese and Australian diplomats over the prime minister’s controversial comments on melons.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese came under fire for comments made on the Bush Deep podcast released in July about two crown melons gifted to him by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.

“She brought two and they’re beautiful,” he said while making a gesture with both hands in front of his chest.

The prime minister has rejected calls to apologise over the comments, insisting the relationship between Australia and Japan remained strong.

Following controversy and media coverage in Australia of the melon comments, a letter from Japanese officials to their Australian counterparts noted there had been “sensationalise reporting” about the interview.

OK, so it is party room meeting day, which means the morning is a little bit quieter than usual and the sitting doesn’t start properly until midday.

So the big media political issues are:

The Coalition wanting Labor to fast track its solution for what has been dubbed ‘the widow’s tax’, which is an issue David Pocock identified very early on in the CGT debate, where he questioned what would happen for people fleeing violent or controlling relationships, or when their partner died. The government is working on a solution where they would be exempt, but because the legislation doesn’t actually come in until March 2027, it’s not rushing. For reasons that are mostly political, the Coalition want them to rush and has made that their price of entry to passing the NDIS cuts.

The government will give them this because they were already doing this and there are no changes until March 2027 so it doesn’t matter. And the Coalition is onboard with cutting the NDIS, because no one in either party is particularly concerned with the impact to the disability community.

One Nation want you to have easier access to your superannuation, when you want it, but can’t define how that would work, or how much, or when, but we are talking about it, because despite having one lower house MP and just a conspiracy of senators, the party is currently dictating what we talk about at a national level. The Coalition have been banging on about this for a while because they are ideologically opposed to superannuation in the first place, and One Nation and the Coalition tend to take from the same bucket when it comes to policy. Because he can’t explain what the policy is (because they don’t really have one – they are riffing off an issue that is in the media) Barnaby Joyce is jumping to THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE YOUR SUPER TO PAY NATIONAL DEBT which no one is suggesting, but Joyce is the king of the strawman argument and he also knows that if he keeps talking over you, you’ll stop and it looks like he won. So anyway, expect that to go into some crazy places.

Speaking of One Nation not actually knowing what its policy is, it has sparked a whole ass debate about migration, and now the government will be cutting migration for some of the most vulnerable cohort to try and head off people being angry about what One Nation has convinced them is true (in common parlance, we call that a lie, but in politics, we call it ‘misinformation’). It has now decided it wants a ‘net’ 130,000 migration intake, which means that it would be giving more visas out, and relying on more people leaving. But Pauline Hanson also doesn’t want people to leave Australia, because she thinks that people are leaving because of poor leadership (she means white people) and so she wants more people to stay, which makes ‘net’ figures very tricky, because you need people to leave, in order for more people to enter and for your ‘net’ figure to make sense. So it’s a mess, makes no sense and is based in absolutely no facts or data, but One Nation IS driving the national conversation on this and for that you can blame the media and the major parties who just go to water every time someone asks them to stand for something substantial.

Oh, and One Nation want to cut the tobacco excise to undercut the illegal market, which is an idea which has been floating around forever, but we are all going to forget we had this debate just last year and pretend it’s all new.

As Amy has reported Barnaby Joyce and One Nation have been having a bit of confusion about migration number and whether or not the 130,000 was net or gross.

This morning he moved to clarify it:

Q: Let’s move on to migration. There has been some confusion about One Nation’s migration target of 130,000. Can you clarify whether that target is for net migration or for permanent visas?

Joyce: It’s net. It’s net. Okay. So there you go.

This issue brings back the glorious 107 days from December 2009 to Feb 2010 he was “Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction”.

On 24 February 2010, Joyce was telling reporters about the horrors of Australia’s debt levels and referred to “Our net debt, gross, public and private“.

Then Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey was asked if he had heard of the term, he replied “Well, I did today.”

Joyce was dumped from his role the next day.

Matt Grudnoff

Dividing up the GST is a political hot potato.

On one side is the WA Government who are keen to keep the sweetest of sweet special deals that see them raking in extra money from the Federal Government. Oh, and in totally unrelated news, they also happen to be where a bunch of Labor marginal seats are.

On the other side is every other state and territory government and now the productivity Commission who have just released an interim report, saying the special WA deal should be scrapped.

What’s a PM to do?

Well, there is a solution that could keep everyone happy.

Top up the GST revenue with an additional tax. The GST is collected by the Federal Government, but all the money goes to the states. But there is nothing special about the GST. Any tax the Feds collect could be treated the same way.

So, why not add a new tax, for example a 25% tax on gas exports, to the GST revenue. This extra revenue could then top up all the other states and territories. This would restore the balance between the states, but WA would not lose a single cent of GST revenue.’

This would also funnel billions of extra dollars into health, education and all the other essential services that state governments provide.

Win/win.

Chris Bowen and Catherine King are pretty proud of themselves this morning, as they announce further fuel security for Australia.

Bowen:

Today, Catherine and I are announcing the next steps to do that. We’re releasing two papers which outline the next steps on two important matters. As you know, we’ve made it clear that we need to strengthen our own fuel security, liquid fuel security, by holding more fuel in Australia.

While we got through the last this crisis well internationally, it would have been better if we’d had more fuel in Australia. When we came to office, we had two refineries.

When we left office in 2013, there were six. When we came back, there were two, and of course our fuel stocks were held in Texas.

We’ve worked to improve that, and we want to improve it even more in the years to come.

In the budget, we announced that we would establish a Australian strategic fuel reserve, a government-owned reserve of a billion liters, to ensure that we have, in the ownership of the Australian people, a buffer to get us through difficult times. We also announced would increase the minimum stock obligation of the fuel that has to be held in Australia by Australian companies.

And today, I’m releasing a consultation paper about the final details, about how to implement that, about where the Australian strategic fuel reserve should be held, for example, at regional areas, proposing that we consider holding some in each part of Australia, how quickly we should build a reserve, who should manage it on behalf of the government, etc. and also how we increase the minimum stock obligation, what time frame, and also some consultation about the support mechanism for the two refineries that exist. And as you know, we’re working with states and prime ministers announced with Western Australia in particular, a feasibility study on expanding our refining capacity, and we’ll continue that work as well. Secondly, Catherine and I are releasing a discussion paper about low-carbon liquid fuels.

We’ve always had the view that it’s a two-pronged approach: increasing supply of existing fuels, the traditional fuels, petrol, diesel, crude oil, jet fuel, but also developing Australia’s great opportunity in the alternative industry of low-carbon liquid fuels, which is great for fuel security, great for emissions, and also great for Australian agriculture and industry.

These are two complementary approaches working together to ensure that our fuel security is strengthened while our emissions come down.

Alice Grundy

We’re reading this morning about a response from the Privacy Commission to Coles and Woolworths’ investigations of facial recognition technology.

This is following a review from the Privacy Commissioner into their 2024 decision on Bunnings’ use of facial recognition technology. 

According to the Financial Review, 

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said she may consider creating rules for how facial recognition technology is used ahead of plans to overhaul the country’s privacy laws, acknowledging that Australians were increasingly concerned about how the technology can be used.”

As with AI, datacentres and gambling advertising, Australians want government action, but we’re not seeing much so far. 

Shadow attorney-general Michaelia Cash was on the money when she said:

When technology like this touches almost every Australian who walks into a supermarket, people deserve to know exactly what rules apply and right now, thanks to Labor’s inaction, they don’t. That’s not good enough for a technology at this scale.”

Morgan Harrington

The gambling bill now set to pass parliament with the support of Labor and the Coalition makes no mention of a national regulator, which was perhaps the key to the Murphy Review. Of the 31 recommendations made by the Review, 20 urge some kind of action from the Australian Government, and 14 refer to a national regulator or national regulation. This included a call for a levy to be placed on online gambling companies to fund a national harm reduction strategy.

In an editorial in this week’s Saturday Paper, Chief Advocate for the Alliance for Gambling Reform Tim Costello asks a simple question: What do these largely foreign-owned bookmakers contribute to the community – a community on which they inflict havoc and pain?

New research from The Australia Institute shows that, in 2023-24, the five largest online wagering companies won over $5 billion from Australians, but reported just $0.4 billion in profit (taxable income) and paid $0.1 billion in company tax – that’s just 2% of their winnings. Three of these companies — Tabcorp, bet365 (Hillside), and Pointsbet — won $1.3 billion but paid zero company tax.

Australians have lost over $108 billion to gambling since the Murphy Review was released. That’s about $36 billion a year, which means that Australia has the highest per capita losses to gambling in the world. Until Australia has effective national regulation, as recommended by the Murphy Review (some 20 times) gambling companies will continue their winning streak.

Glenn Connley

A new submission from The Australia Institute argues that the scandal-plagued big four consulting businesses should be broken up in order to separate their audit and consulting arms. 

In recent years, a series of scandals have exposed serious ethical and governance failures in the big four consulting and accounting firms. 

These include PwC’s tax leaks scandal in 2023 and KPMG’s audit whistleblowing scandal this year.  

“ Conflicts of interest are baked into the big four by virtue of their structure, engendering an exploitative and unethical culture,” said Josh Bornstein, Director of Corporate Regulation at The Australia Institute.

“A structural problem demands a structural solution. Breaking up the big four will dramatically reduce the incidence of conflicts of interest and misconduct.”

The submission to Treasury’s inquiry into the regulation of accounting, auditing, and consulting firms in Australia also argues that the big four are poorly regulated and should be governed to the same standard as corporations.

“The big consulting firms look and act like companies, albeit badly behaved companies. It’s time to tax and regulate them like companies”. 

“ When big business is out of control and causing harm, voters expect their politicians to step in and say enough is enough, not just work around the edges. 

“Breaking up the big consulting firms is the only way to restore trust and prevent future scandals.”

Morgan Harrington

A broad coalition of industry groups, unions, NGOs and statutory bodies have published an open letter calling on the NSW Government to regulate the labour hire firms that employ large numbers of working holiday makers and PALM visa holders (temporary workers from the Pacific and Timor Leste).

New South Wales is one of three states in Australia in which labour hire firms are not regulated. This means that unscrupulous operators can still operate in NSW, even if they have been barred from doing business in other states. A NSW Parliamentary inquiry into the modern slavery risks faced by temporary migrant workers recently found that a “lack of labour hire regulation has left many of these workers vulnerable to the exploitative actions of unscrupulous employers.” It heard “extensive evidence” of “serious violations, amounting to modern slavery,” by some employers of temporary migrants.

In 2023, all of Australia’s states and territories formed a working group with the Commonwealth to develop a national scheme for regulating labour hire firms, but the process collapsed in 2025 with the withdrawal of support from Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania.

As national debate  maintains its narrow focus on the quantity of migrants, the evidence coming out of NSW shows the acute need for reforms to how temporary migrants – who are legally entitled to work in Australia – are treated by employers.

He could hear the host, but the host (and listeners) couldn’t hear him.

I’m not saying he hit the mute button with his cheek….. but I am not ruling it out.

He continues.

We have access. There is a form of access, and it requires, I think, 26 weeks of social security to get access. There is a really convoluted process to show stress on house payments, and if people want to go online and have a good look at it, you need letters from banks.

You need a sort of this whole sort of litany of a process which is basically designed so you don’t get access. And even if you do get access for payments, you only get a very limited access, and I believe it’s 25.

It’s 25% of the year that you can get access for payments. And so, in other areas, they just say that you can’t do principal and principal and interest repayments.

They’ll look at interest repayments, and you need letters of stress from the bank, and on and on and on it goes. And what we’re saying it should be simpler than that for a portion, for a portion of that to get access to it, and and this is also for other cost of living measures in the cost of living living crisis brought about by such things as the ridiculous frolic with intermittent power, which is put, which is absolutely smashing our economy.

Q: Let’s move on to migration. There has been some confusion about One Nation’s migration target of 130,000. Can you clarify whether that target is for net migration or for permanent visas?

Joyce:

It’s net. It’s net. Okay. So there you go.

(Which means it is more than 130,000 visas)

Q: Let’s move on to tobacco. According to the Australian newspaper, you’re today unveiling a tobacco policy to take to the next federal election. What is that?

Joyce:

Well, the thing is, what we have now is the stupidity that our the excise that the government is getting, and so that so your listeners are getting via their by tax has fallen from about 12 and a half billion dollars. I think back in 2223, to round about $4.1 billion in the last budget.

So this this is just absurd economics. That if you keep on putting up the price of cigarettes, you’re going to get more excise. Now, if you keep on putting up the price of cigarettes, you’re going to get more mafia. That’s what you’re getting more mafia, and that’s precisely what’s happening.

And the only way we can deal with the criminality, the mafia that also it underwrites so many other drugs, is to bring back the price of legal cigarettes into the same realm as where the illegal ones are.

And yet we this sort of counterintuitive idea that we put up the price of things, therefore a we get more revenue, and b people stop smoking.

Now, what happens is a you get less revenue, and b people start smoking illegal cigarettes.

And the statements of how much people are smoking and the actual analysis of such things as the sewage to see how much nicotine is in there, that one doesn’t correlate with the other. So, in fact, we’re making access to illegal cigarettes so that more children have access, or more young people have access to more affordable cigarettes, and we don’t want that. And we don’t know what on earth is in illegal cigarettes.

It is a it is a dangerous supply chain, and despite people saying, “Oh, we’re going to get harder on it and get rid of it. They haven’t. It’s there, and I don’t think any one of your listeners would deny for one second that if you look around at people who are smoking, I would say overwhelmingly, you look at their packet and say they’re illegal.

OK, this is a bit of a mess, but this is how the rest of that interview plays out (his line drops out)

Q: What evidence do you have that the government is specifically looking at superannuation or further taxing superannuation?

Joyce:

That they lie. See, they gave us evidence before the election. They weren’t going to change capital gains tax act.

(A reminder Joyce lied he was having an affair before he left his wife. And in 2021, said he had probably lied in public life. In 2022, a story emerged where he had said that Morrison was a ‘hypocrite and a liar’ so you know, none of this is new)

Joyce continues:

They said that they that the understanding of the issue with the Prime Minister of Japan was not an issue, and they didn’t. And it didn’t happen. When quite obviously it did.

They said the Prime Minister never fell off the stage. When he did.

They just whether it’s the big things or the little things, they’re all the same thing. They’re lies, and therefore you have to be cautious of liars because if they lie once, they’ll lie again.

Faustus and..Faustus and omnibus, and now to go to other things, they say how important this is.

$1.2 billion was stolen, stolen out of Super by First Shield and Guardian, and they, Mr. Charlton and his colleagues, have sat back and done nothing about it.

This money wasn’t reduced; they didn’t get access to it.

They had it stolen. They were teachers, nurses who woke up and basically, as good, decent people doing the right thing, found out that all their money was gone.

And I talked, and I basically had ASIC in and talking to the assistant treasurer, just carried to this, and said, “Well, have you checked the audit reports? Have you looked through the working papers? Have you gone to the audit partner of these firms? Have you seen the minutes of the of the meeting of where they were tabled? Like you can’t just lose $1.2 billion and say that it had nothing to do with ASIC.

And lo and behold, now Sally, they have, and we have three years of audit by I think audio audito, and if they just weren’t done, they were billed for.

They just weren’t done. There was no audit papers. There was no working papers. And these are the same people who earnestly put the Labor Party, earnestly put their hand on their heart and say this is such a precious asset, and the dulcet tones and marvelous dulce tones that we hear.

Yet when you actually put them to the test, they stand idly by and have workers find themselves completely bereft of all their savings because they just were blind to people not only getting access to this, but stealing someone else stealing from it even after the account was frozen and the actual superannuant couldn’t get access to it, it was still stolen.

Q: Let’s have a look at your superannuation policy. How does one nation want to change the rules to allow Australians to dip into their super? Do you want to expand the acceptable reasons for access to super early, for example, in order to pay for a house deposit.

Joyce:

Okay, now what we are seeing is people approaching us, and we’ve got two things: what they say and what is actually the truth. They say that people can get access to hardships so that they don’t lose a house. Not quite true. Actually, you can get you have you can’t get access for your regular repayments. There is an issue, and if you do get partial, I think for 25% of the year you can get access for for interest, but we are finding people who say to us, “If I don’t get access, I will lose my house, or if I don’t get access for rent, I get kicked out.’

So they’ve got a choice between two different assets: their house is an asset, which is one of your best assets, or super somewhere down the track as an asset. Now we’re not saying you take all superannuation, or we’re closing the super system, or as I say, they always put up these lies. Remember the other lie: we’re going to privatise that people are going to privatise Medicare. That was another lie, not the truth.

We’re not getting rid of compulsory super, and when they say that, that’s yet another lie…they don’t stop lying. People just whatever they say is just patently absurd and ridiculous because you just can’t trust them. And what we’re saying is, as we are approached by people about their money, not the national nation’s money. Their money in…

The line drops out.

Q: What are you suggesting that the government is looking to do in utilising the asset of superannuation? What are you suggesting?

Joyce:

I’m suggesting that they lied last time. I’m suggesting that they’ve had a sort of litany of lies. I’m suggesting that as they look for how they’re going to pay back the debt, they will look for where access to funds are, and quite obviously, with $4.5 trillion in super, we have to reaffirm: don’t look there.

Q: What’s your evidence that any of this is happening?

Joyce:

My evidence is is you can’t trust the government; they lie.

And when people are liars, it’s very hard to become unliars, and it’s really hard to get to a point where you say, “Oh, I’ll believe you this time. And when I hear Mr Charlton get on and say, “We are running around saying this is people’s assets, you’re dead right, Mr Charlton. We are. It is their asset, and it really concerns me that you would say something like that as a pejorative when it’s actually a statement of the fact.

What Charlton was saying is that the Liberals say something and the next week, One Nation is saying the same thing – he was saying they follow each other. I know Joyce is an accountant, but critical thinking and media literacy is something that is open to us all.

The member for New England is up next on ABC radio RN Breakfast and is asked about One Nation super policy:

Q: Your party wants to expand early access to superannuation for some Australians. Access is currently allowed in limited circumstances, with the tax office approving almost 68,000 applications for early access in 24/25, Do you think that number is too low?

Joyce:

Okay, I just want to go through three things on the back of Mr Charlton said*. He said, and I quote, and you can go back, that we are going around saying that superannuation is their money, people’s money, your listeners’ money. Well, Mr. Charlton, it actually is. It is actually their money, and then we hear the line of the national asset….

This starts to worry me when they start talking about the national assets. It’s actually people’s assets. It’s your listeners’ personal asset, and we know that the Labor government, just like they lied about the changes to the capital gains tax, are looking greedily at super and looking at their debt with with a near a trillion dollars in debt** and $4.5 trillion in super, and no matter what they say, we start to get concerned. So we’re reinforcing that this is your listeners.

*This is what Charlton said as he was making the point that the Thrup-olition was stealing lines from each other.

Last week, we had Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg say that superannuation was a failure. This week, Pauline Hanson saying it’s people’s money and they should have access to it. Increasingly, we’re seeing the Liberals and the nation and One Nation egging each other on.

**There is zero suggestion from anyone that superannuation will be used to pay government debt. This is a fantasy.

Joyce is asked to explain what he means there and says:

I’m suggesting that just like they lied about the changes to the capital gains tax that they said they wouldn’t do, and they did, that ultimately they will start heading down the path to changes in superannuation tax to try and get money out of that because they see that national asset as precisely that it’s the nationalising of an asset. It’s not private individuals’ assets, and we’ve got to reaffirm that this is the asset of your listeners.

(Which Charlton did)

Q: It is not the asset of the government. We just heard Andrew Charlton. He was talking about a national asset, but he was saying it is individual assets, which nationally is an asset. What do you suggest the government’s looking to do here?

Joyce:

I suggested exactly what he said. And if I go back to that interview, play it back. He said, “Where I think it was running around telling people it was their money’.

Q: On a separate issue, one nation wants to expand early access and easier access to superannuation, given there are already limited grounds to allow early access. Will the government consider making it easier for Australians to dip into their super.

Andrew Charlton:

Well, I thought this has been a very interesting week on this issue, Sally. I mean, we’ve got the Liberals in One Nation now teaming up to try to destroy the superannuation system. Last week, we had Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg say that superannuation was a failure. This week, Pauline Hanson saying it’s people’s money and they should have access to it. Increasingly, we’re seeing the Liberals and the nation and one nation egging each other on. We know that they can’t govern without one another, and I think this is a sign of things to come as they increasingly team up on these right-wing agendas.

The Labor Party has built and strengthened the superannuation system. We’re very proud of that system. It is an enormous national asset for Australia, and I think what people are learning is that it’s only Labor that will defend that superannuation system.

Q: Is it a national asset, or are these the assets of individual Australians?

Charlton:

These are the assets of individual Australians, but collectively, all of those things are a real strength in our economy, and in many cases, you know, I think a lot of countries around the world look at Australia’s superannuation system, and they see the positivity that delivers to our economy. And in that sense, it is a national asset, and it’s a national asset that’s held by individuals.

Q: Turning to the government’s tax changes, the NAB has today warned that gross rental yields for residential property will need to rise. We’ve also seen property prices falling since the budget. Neither of those things align with the treasury modeling featured in the budget. Do you still have confidence the housing market is playing out as the government intended?

Andrew Charlton:

Look, I’ve seen those reports on rental increases today, and they just don’t seem realistic to me, Sally. I mean, the first thing to say is that the tax changes only came in a few months ago, and so 99% of the properties that people will be in at the moment are grandfathered. There’s no change to the tax arrangements on existing properties. So, the idea that you would have a big changes to the properties that people are currently renting, when overwhelming majority of them are in grandfathered arrangements, just doesn’t seem to make sense.

Second thing to say about that is, you know, we have we have not just taken away the capital gains tax discount. We’ve replaced it with a different type of discount, and in some cases that will be more generous. In some cases, that will be less generous. But the idea that that would flow through to some massive impact on rents, I think, is overstating the case by a huge margin. In fact, what the government is doing is building more homes, and the growing supply in the rental market over time will put downward pressure on rents. In fact, that’s really the only sustainable long-term way to put downward pressure on rental prices. So that’s why I think the Treasury modeling is right, that there’ll be negligible impacts of our changes on rents.

Q: The Reserve Bank has identified the rising investment in data centers as an inflation risk, does the government have a role in ensuring that Australia gets productivity benefits from AI, so that the AI boom doesn’t simply fuel inflation?

Andrew Charlton:

Well, absolutely. You know, the big technologies advances that we’ve seen in artificial intelligence, we are certainly expecting those to flow through to productivity. Exactly how big that impact will be is uncertain, but artificial intelligence is one of the big productivity opportunities in front of Australia, and we need to grab those opportunities because that delivers us wages growth for working people, that delivers us a way out of the challenges we’ve had with low productivity, meaning that inflation pops up when growth emerges. So, artificial intelligence is one of the key opportunities to drive productivity, to strengthen our economy, and to build wages growth.

Andrew Charlton, who is known as the ‘AI whisperer’ in the caucus, because he is helping to develop the government’s tech policy, and who is also being touted as a future leader, has been getting a bit of attention lately.

He was asked about the gambling reforms on ABC radio RN Breakfast earlier and said:

Well, the government has made a commitment to engage with the parliament in good faith, and the minister is working through different elements of that. The minister announced yesterday that the government will establish a single opt-out register. This is a really important step.

This will be a one-stop shop to enable people to stop seeing gambling advertising online, and this will build on the previous reforms that the government implemented this term and last term, including BetStop, including the banning of betting with credit cards, the banning of jerseys, advertising, gambling, and having advertising gambling in stadiums. So this is another step in the government’s very significant reform to gambling advertising.

…I won’t speak to the internal party processes, particularly the Liberal Party processes, but I will say that the government has said that we are working with all parties in the parliament to seek to advance this legislation and deliver what will be a really important set of reforms on gambling.

The main game though is the speech he will be giving at ANU, where he will be talking about the dangers of foreign dependence on AI. On that he says:

Well, Australia has been a very successful nation. We’ve built one of the strongest economies in the world. Australians have one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, and we need to make sure that as the global economy changes, we remain a first-rank nation. So, building an Australian economy that maintains our success in the age of AI is a top priority for the government. And today, we’re outlining some of the ways that we are going to do that by using our national strengths in some of the areas of digital infrastructure, where we’re getting a lot of investment, and using that strength to leverage new capabilities up the stack in high-value areas. This is a really important part of the jobs and prosperity of Australia’s future.

Asked:

Another piece of legislation that the government is very keen to pass is the changes to the NDIS. Now, we have been told that the opposition’s written to the prime minister about this. Will you scrap the so-called widow tax in order to win over the coalition and get their support to pass the NDIS?

Chalmers:

Well, there’s a couple of important elements to your question. First of all, on the NDIS – this is all about saving the NDIS from itself, making it sustainable so it can continue to deliver a decent standard of care for Australians who need and deserve that*. That’s our motivation here. And it should be supported, our changes should be supported in the Senate in that light and on its merits. We’ve received a proposal from the opposition. We’re in negotiations with the other parties in the Senate. We don’t control any outcome in the Senate on our own. I have learned not to pre-empt outcomes there.

On the ‘widow’s tax’:

The opposition has put to us they would like to fast track the government’s legislation, the government’s proposal to make it clear that we will address the issues around inheritance and around divorce when it comes to the grandfathering of these negative gearing arrangements. The government made it clear we were addressing this. We already released draft legislation. We have consulted on that. We made it abundantly clear that this is a change that we’ll be making. Now, if the opposition wants to do that quicker, of course we’ll engage with them in good faith.

*Lots of ways to actually do that, without booting people off the scheme and cutting what therapies and assistance they can access.

Because Chalmers says, ‘reasons’.

These changes that we’re proposing are very substantial changes. And they will make it much easier for people to opt out of this advertising. At the same time, as we make it easier for the regulator to enforce the rules around inducements. So, in addition to the big steps the government was already taking, these are important additional steps and we’ll be seeking their passage through the Parliament in the coming days.

Who pays?

Well, the minister has outlined a way of cost recovery from industry. It won’t be Australian taxpayers who pay for the additional resources that we’re deploying in this very important area. This will be cost recovered from the gambling industry itself.

And what about the inducements?

There’s been a lot of calls to ban inducements completely.I understand people’s concern about inducements. And the minister and the government does as well. I think primarily there’s an important role for the regulator to crack down on and enforce these inducements. But, beyond that, this is not an area of policy that I’ve been intimately involved in. There will be negotiations and discussions between the government and other parties in the Senate. In the interests of passing these really important reforms. And action on inducements is part of it.

Jim Chalmers did his doctorate on Paul Keating. He is also very well across superannuation and is prepared to have whatever fight he has to over it. So he is pretty happy that the Coalition is picking another fight over super, because he feels on pretty solid ground here.

He is asked on News Breakfast: One Nation has brought this up. There’s been a lot of discussion over it. Do you think voters, do you think voters would like the super scheme to be more flexible so they can access their money earlier if they need it?in the last week

And says:

I think it’s been made abundantly clear by the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation they don’t support universal super.I don’t think that’s fair. IsEmma, it is. Let’s be really clear – that’s what Andrew Bragg said at the National Press Club. That’s what… The leader of the One Nation says.

Host: The coalition says it supports super.

Chalmers:

No, Jane Hume was asked about this yesterday, about universal super and preservation, they said they would make their position clearer later. Andrew Bragg, and Tim Wilson have made it clear in their comments they don’t support the universal superannuation system with preservation at its core. They don’t support superannuation because they don’t support workers.

Host: The next election will be a referendum on universal superannuation.Do you think it should be more flexible?

Chalmers:

Well, there are already quite tight and focused conditions for people to receive early access. But overwhelmingly I have support preservation as the fundamental principle of universal superannuation. And that’s because I believe in economic security and decent retirement incomes for Australian workers. Now our superannuation system is the envy of the world. It is a quarter of household wealth, we’ve got the fourth biggest retirement incomes pool in the world, for four decades now, this has been fundamental to providing dignity and security for workers in retirement. And our political opponents, all three of them, have made it clear they don’t support those arrangements and that means if any combination or coalition of Liberals, Nationals and One Nation win the next election, then universal superannuation is not safe.

One of One Nation’s new policies is to cut the tobacco excise, because smokes are too expensive (and also, because people have gone to the black market, which has exploded under the cost of cancer sticks).

Jim Chalmers is asked about it on ABC News Breakfast ands says:

Well, I’ve seen those stories. But I haven’t seen any of the detail of their policy. We have acknowledged on a number of occasions before today is a substantial challenge.

When it comes to enforcement and compliance of the laws around illegal tobacco. So for the government, our primary focus has been on providing hundreds of millions of dollars in extra resources for the police and other authorities to crack down on this big problem in our society and in local communities as well. Now, we’ve had some recent successes when it comes to that crackdown.

We’ve seen some raids and some busts when it comes to some of this illegal supply. That’s a good thing. We want to see more of that. That’s why we’re resourcing the authorities to go about their important work. 

Because primarily the government’s focus is on the law and order aspects of this spatial problem.

Hello and welcome to party room Tuesday, where the Coalition and Labor MPs will be told their leaders have come to an agreement on gambling advertising reform, that changes pretty much nothing for the gambling companies. Oh – and it took more than three years to do it. Huzzah!

Independent MP Sophie Scamps is furious, releasing this statement:

Weak. Piecemeal. Pathetic. That’s how I’d describe the deal the major parties have struck on gambling reform.

Australians are the biggest losers to gambling in the world and over 400 die by suicide each year linked to gambling addiction. Yet the major parties will crow about doing a deal that will be ineffective and which prioritises the profits of Gambling corporations over the wellbeing of Australians.

We deserve better.

The deal will allow Australians to ‘opt out’ of gambling advertising – but they have to do it themselves, and then they can also opt back in. Anyone in the grips of addiction can tell you why that doesn’t work. There will also be some bans around inducements (the little free things gambling companies offer you to gamble, like hospitality, or deposit matching, or as was testified (but denied strongly by the gambling companies) drugs), but not all of them.

So you know, weak, piecemeal, pathetic really does help sum it all up.

We’ll take you through that and everything else which goes down today. The Greens asked the Nationals to delay their disallowance motion over the carbon credits for the Great Koala National Park, so you we don’t have to pay attention to that now, until September 15. But the divide there is obviously not settled.

One Nation are still working out if the 130,000 migration figure on their website is ‘net’ or not – net is in and out, so the number of visas would be more than 130,000, which is where both Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce are getting confused. They say it’s net, but then say they are going to cut migration. but they can’t give a number, because they don’t know. That in itself isn’t unusual – they have no idea around policy at the best of times -but it is interesting that while the campaign around One Nation is a lot more sophisticated, the actual outputs are just as chaotic and confused as ever.

It’s going to be at least a three coffee morning (if my cat ever lets me get up) so strap in, and let’s get into this.