The Point Live: US no longer viewed as Australia's most important ally, Labor gets deal with Greens over tax bills. As it happened.

We just kept the blog open to see if anything else was going to happen…and it appears not.

The rumours remain that we will get the Teal party announcement tomorrow (which will not be all teals) so we will keep an eye out for that tonight (newspapers usually put their next day stories up around 10pm). We’ll also be keeping an eye on the other bits of legislation Labor is hoping to get through before the sitting fortnight is up.

So we hope to see you tomorrow – and that you get a nice little break in the mean time.

Take care of you. Ax

The Liberals’ is more of the same, today on Labor’s ’toxic tax agenda’.

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

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain why Australians are being forced to pay the price for Labor’s spending problem through a toxic tax agenda that punishes hard work, investment and ambition, while empowering Canberra bureaucrats to decide which businesses and Australians deserve relief and which do not

And then we’ll move to the Greens, who — presumably off the back of last night’s Four Corners — wants to talk about stopping public subsidies to native forest logging, and ending native forest logging all together.

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

The need for the Government to cease all public subsidies to the native forest logging industry, and to use all available Commonwealth powers to end native forest logging in Australia.

Skye Predavec

In her first speech since defecting to the Labor party last month, former Jacqui Lambie Network turned independent Senator Tammy Tyrrell appeared to take some jabs at her former party leader – as well as seemingly breaking the Senate’s rules by referring to Lambie and three other Senators by their first names.

The start and end of her speech are below:

“When I came into this place four and a half years ago, I said that I wanted to do politics differently. And I think I’ve proven that in the last couple years that I’m definitely doing politics differently. Well, and also leaving Jacqui Lambie and becoming an independent and discovering all the colours of politics.

It’s one of those things though, eventually you find a safe home and a place where you agree and you collaborate and cooperate holistically and I believe that’s what politics should be all about. Well, you know, that’s what Jacqui thought.

It’s one of those things where I want to do good for the people of Tasmania and I’ve found a place where I think that will happen.

…

And as I said the other week I do not apologise for backflipping and changing my colours. I’m proud to be a Senator for Tasmania, I’m proud to be a Labor Senator for Tasmania. And, you know what, come on down, join the party, it’s a great place to be, and, you know what, you’ve all encouraged me to be a bigger and better version of myself and this is the bigger better version: it’s loud, it’s proud, it’s Tasmanian, and it’s also a Labor Senator.

To the chair, I’m a proud Tasmanian and a proud Labor Senator – have I said that before? I might say it again but, thankyou for listening.

[Senator Henderson interjects]

Do you, Oh look, I disagree with you too Sarah [Henderson], I disagree with Ross, and Penny, but you know what, it makes a better Tasmanian Senator and I will be holistic and agreeable.

Alice Grundy

We’re still hearing the lines from the Coalition that the changes to the Capital Gains Tax discount are stopping young people with money in shares from saving up a deposit for a house. 

But my colleague Matt Grudnoff has run the numbers and says 

“If house prices level out, which is what most people are expecting, then young people looking to buy a house will be on average, $60,000 per year, better off.” 

You have to have a pretty impressive share portfolio to pay more than $60,000 a year in tax. Seems unlikely that students with part-time jobs are coming anywhere near that. 

So we have been taking a look at the coming Teals political party announcement (which I am expecting tomorrow just from the scuttlebutt flying around parliament) some of the blog secret squirrels have been playing guessing games with the name.

And Community Alliance dot com has been registered to a NSW owner. Now, Community Alliance already exists in Queensland and its a group of community groups. But Community Alliance isn’t in the political sphere that I can see. And the website domain is parked, with all identifiers, other than being registered to a NSW based person.

So, take from that what you will – but let’s see if Community Alliance ends up being the new Teal political party name (not for all the Teals of course – there are many who have already ruled themselves out, on the reasoning that the Teals were elected as independents, not parties. Plus, do we need another centre right party in this nation?)

Anara Watson

When the National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) was established in 2022, many Australians had high hopes. But, to date, the NACC has failed to live up to its promise.

That’s why it’s so important that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission is holding an inquiry into aspects of the NACC’s performance of its functions.

Its terms of reference are:

1. the timeliness of referral assessments;
2. protocols and practices relating to the timeliness and frequency of the Commission’s communications with referrers;
3. the availability of support mechanisms for people engaging with the Commission;
4. the Commission’s approach to public reporting and communication with the broader public about its role; and
5. the effectiveness of the Commission’s corruption prevention and education activities.

The Australia Institute’s submission is one of the 23 that have been received by the Committee.

Notably, the list of submitters includes groups like Australian Democracy Network, the Canberra Alliance for Participatory Democracy, Transparency International Australia, the Centre for Public Integrity and the Human Rights Law Centre. The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Commonwealth Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Senator Jacqui Lambie and Independent MP Monique Ryan also made submissions, as did academics from universities across Australia.

Central to many of the submissions are the missing whistleblower protections, the NACC’s failure to hold public hearings, and the need for improved education programs.

Journalist Elizabeth Minter and academic Michelle Fahy also used this as an opportunity to raise concerns over NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton and Robodebt.

The public hearing scheduled for this Friday, 26 June, will be an opportunity for groups to expand on those submissions.

The Committee’s report is due by 26 October 2026.

ABC has reported Ben Roberts-Smith, who has been charged with war crimes, will not be attending the opening of the War Memorial extension this evening. His attendance had been a right wing flash point, and has been the main debate behind the scenes of this event, but he will NOT be attending.

Jason Clare finishes on child care once again and then QT ends.

Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor both speak on indulgence about the opening of the War Memorial extension being held tonight.

So what have we learned?

Well, Labor has three basics it is going to fight One Nation on:

Affordability – backing all Australians instead of just some, as the main message

Supporting workers – as opposed to backing the bosses

Childcare and supporting women in work – as opposed to wanting to change paid maternity leave entitlements and de-regulate the early childhood education sector.

So you can see the fight shaping before your eyes – will they actually take it as far as it needs to go? Unclear at this stage.

Monique Ryan, who has made a habit of taking constituent concerns direct to the floor of QT asks Sam Rae:

The Kooyong community recently mourned the loss of Neale Daniher fought motor neurone disease with dignity and strength, I have another community member, Graham Crossan, also living with MND.

Graham’s 80, he’s ventilated dependent, and he needs 24 hour care. But your integrated assessment talk says he doesn’t qualify for the highest level of support. It’s a disgrace, Minister. How can you possibly justify your integrated assessment tool to Australians like Graham?

Rae is a bit gulpy as he gets up to answer this. He obviously knows the case, saying to Ryan:

I’m very familiar with Mr. Crossan’s case. It is indeed a very difficult situation that he and his family face. I also acknowledge his wife, Mrs. Crossan, and the care that she provides and the advocacy that she’s provided on his behalf throughout this difficult period for their family. Out of respect to their privacy, I am not going to go into the specific details of their case in the chamber, although as his representative,

Ryan said the family is happy to have it dealt with. Rae says he’ll do it in private with Ryan and the family if they wish.

He then moves on to:

The government has amended the aged care rules to recognize MND as a discrete, specific condition warranting urgent priority under our aged care system, and specifically under support at home. This change will give all older Australians with MND priority access to the Support at Home program. The change, the change applies retrospectively, meaning that older Australians with MND, who have been already assessed and were waiting for support at home place, as well as those approved in future, will be prioritized for urgent access to their funding.

This reflects our government’s willingness to listen and adjust where the evidence tells us to, we’re guided by people’s experiences of the aged care system, and will keep refining to ensure that the system is one that people can trust. I reiterate to the member for Kooyong my willingness immediately to meet with her and discuss in greater detail the situation facing Mr. Crossan and the Crossan family, and to continue to work to get the very best outcome for Mr. Crossan and for all sufferers of this horrible disease.

Senator David Pocock is asking Tim Ayres if the govt still intends to have no carve outs to AI or datacentres of Australia copyright or licencing extensions.

Senator Ayres says no, but also is bigging up datacentres as though they are somehow vital to future economic security and resilience. My god.

Senator Pocock says he has been told that he’s been told that the Government is going to announce they will carve out copyrights etc in return for more creative arts industry funding and this will be done by the PM on 15 July.

Senator Ayres says he’s not one for answering about things other senators have been told. There’s some interjections from Susan McDonald that appears to be about Andrew Charlton (which is the assistant minister on this topic), so Senator Ayres spends his time talking about that.

Pocock then asks if the government will rule out any carve outs. Senator Ayres does not but just reiterates current policy. So you know. Keep an eye of 15 July.  

There is another very similar question about ‘ramming’ through ‘toxic taxes’ and deals with the Greens from the opposition. Which then leads up to Angus Taylor’s big moment:

In March last year, the Prime Minister said, I don’t negotiate with the Greens. When will you stop lying?

He used his big boy voice so you know he is VERY proud of this performance.

Milton Dick is not. And he morphs into Dugald Dick (his cranky alter ego)

I’m going to demand that be withdrawn immediately, and I, I’m tempted to take further action, because this cannot – no, you’re not going to be able to with phrase or withdraw. I’ve made it crystal clear yesterday, and this time before, you are demeaning the dignity of this house.

For 125 years, those sorts of descriptors have not been used.
Traditions and conventions are important in this House of Representatives, and I will uphold them every single day of my time as speaker. I’m going to get the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw to assist the House (Taylor: “I withdraw”), and we’ll move to the next question. Out of respect for the leader of the opposition, he’s not been named, but if this continues, I’ll be left with no other choice. This is a deliberate defiance of the conventions and traditions of this house.

I believe in traditions and conventions and order and I want this house to uphold its principles and dignity. Language matters.

Every speaker has followed this tradition. I don’t know why those on the opposite benches cannot follow what every other person in this house has done.

He moves the questions on.

Senator Hodgins-May, who I have to say was pretty impressive in the Gas Taxation senate committee back before the budget, asks Penny Wong if the Govt will now put a 25% tax on gas exports given back during the committee the government said now is not the time while the Iran War is in place.

Senator Wong says… no. Basically she argues that the ructions from the war have yet to play out.

This is true, but oil prices are basically back where they were…

Senator Hodgins-May then asks why is the govt listening to the gas companies and Donald Trump and not the Australian public.

Penny, Wong, who only hates the Greens slightly less than poison, admonishes her for importuning the government’s motives, and talks up the gas reservation policy – a policy, which Senator Hodgins-May points out will not raise one dollar of tax.

As an aside had the government put a 25% tax on gas exports when it won office in 2022 it would now be up to $72.4bn raised.

Anthony Albanese’s answer there also points to an issue within the Labor party which UK Labour has also suffered from – and seen the inevitable decline.

Albanese spoke about his 30 year fight against the Greens (in his electorate but also more broadly) and was pointing out that fighting parties on your own side is important – meaning the Coalition should be fighting One Nation rather than joining with it.

But Labor, like UK Labour, have seen the Greens as a bigger enemy than the Tories over the last few decades, particularly the last decade, which has hampered their ability to actually move to more progressive positions. Instead, it has set about appealing to the right and their ideological rivals the conservatives. And so, we have a Labor government that has refused to take progressive positions and carry out its platform, while trying to appeal to the ‘sensible centre’ which is somewhere on the right. And we saw the extremes of that – centrist maxxing if you like – from Keir Starmer, who has seen the consequences earlier than Labor here – that standing for nothing other than appealing to the centre right, will ultimately lead to your destruction as a supposed centre left party. Starmer had a stonking majority too. If Albanese continues to mistake the rejection of the conservatives at the last two elections with endorsement for his incremental approach, he’ll be facing the same decision Starmer just had to make, in the same electoral circumstances (and no, this is not a new take – I have been writing this since before the last election)

Melissa McIntosh asks a very similar question to Anthony Albanese about ‘toxic taxes’ which is what the Opposition hopes will catch on and Anthony Albanese gives much the same answer.

The member for Nichols then asks a similar question (the Coalition is trying to set up a call and response) and asks:

The Prime Minister has changed his position again and done a dangerous deal with the Greens. Will the Prime Minister rule out agreeing to the Greens’ demand to abolish the diesel fuel rebate?

Albanese:

It strikes me as passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that those opposite say that the legislation that is before the Senate is so terrible that they had to rule out any support for it before they’d even seen it, and now they’re asking a series of questions about not things that are in the legislation but things that aren’t, Mr. Speaker…and then they have the hide to interject from the Chief Yapper over here, Mr. Speaker, hat we have, that we have made sure to get a majority in the house, in the Senate, that we have spoken to other people in the Senate, besides Labor senators, in order, in order to secure support.

But today, of course, today, of course, we did welcome our 30th senator, in Tammy Tyrrell into the caucus, and that was a good day.

What we have done, what we do is to draw a very big distinction between us and other political parties.

We’re prepared to cooperate, where people are prepared to engage, including the Greens, were engaged in constructive discussion over this legislation, but we have a very different political view, Mr. Speaker.

And I fought the Greens for the last 30 years, it must be said, Mr. Speaker. In my elected pretty successfully, it must be said, Mr. Speaker.

Dan Tehan has a point of order that seems like it took 100 chat bots working at full power to explain to him:

Speaker, the Prime Minister is “tax maxxing” with the Greens, and we want to know when….

For those not as terminally online, tax maxxing is an attempt to seem like you know what the yoof are talking about – male beauty influencers started the ‘looks maxxing’ trend, where young men spend all their money and time augmenting their appearance by both natural and unnatural ways, in order to become as attractive as a Ken doll (my take). This has spun out into ‘maxxing’ in general, where you go to the limits of something. Tehan is pretending he knows what this means.

Milton Dick (who would mug Tehan when it came to jawline and facial balance) is not having it:

If we’re going to go down that path with commentary in using points of order just to get TV grabs, we’re not going to allow you to. Simply get up and just ask the point of order, we’re not having a period where extra comments and that wasn’t part of the question, and he knows the manager knows that,
So I will revert back to what we were started to do, is I won’t take points of order if they’re going to abuse in such an egregious way, there just won’t be points of order, and we can go through the examples where the speakers have done that. I don’t wish to do that, but that is where this is heading, if those spurious points of order continues.

Albanese:

Prime Minister, thanks, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, they asked about the Greens political party. There’s now one of them over there, Mr. Speaker. One, there were four.

We knocked out three of the four at the last election because we took a very different position from the Greens political party, as we consistently do now.

My advice, my job isn’t to give advice to this bloke, but my advice is, How about you stand up to One Nation on something? How about you prepare? How about you prepare to follow this bloke’s leadership and not bend the knee when asked, when asked questions like, Do you support monoculturalism for Australia? Not a complex question, because we’ve never been in a monoculture, we have different people, different place, different different ethnicities, different backgrounds are what make up Australia, and it must be said, have made up Australia forever. This is a pining for a time that has never existed in this country, a pining for a time that has never existed. The first fleet had people in chains and people in charge, had Protestants and Catholics. It had, it had, it had a multicultural society, and it continues to happen.

Over in the Senate, Liberal Senator Claire Chandler is up asking a question that was asked yesterday in the House of Representatives to name a single country that had a higher capital gains tax rate. I guess a day late to things is kind of how the Liberal Senate operates..

Yesterday when Jim Chalmers was asked this he listed off all the countries who would pay a higher rate.

The list comes from Treasury, but it was also put in the AFR back in May, where it pointed out that “an investor in a company growing modestly at around the S&P/ASX 200 Index average of 5 per cent a year – excluding dividends – would face an effective CGT rate of between 23.5 per cent and 26.1 per cent, only marginally higher than the existing 23.5 per cent maximum.”

At that level many countries would pay a higher rate such as the UK, Germany, Canada, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Chile, Denmark.

Katy Gallagher essentially reads that out.

Senator Chandler then asks another question that was asked yesterday about the Albanese govt being the highest taxing government. Because that is false, Chandler added the crucial “on average”. Lulz. Clown car stuff.

And with that I probably should head over the house of reps to find out what questions Chandler will ask tomorrow

That was maybe one of Jim Chalmers best performances in QT lately – and also points to the slight shift in Labor – looks like they might FINALLY realise it is worth having the fight. At least in this case. (We all know there is so much more to be done)

This morning, Labor leaders have started taking on the ‘three right wing parties’ in all their answers, linking the Coalition with One Nation definitively. That’s not come out of nowhere – that is what the focus groups are telling them are working. That’s corresponded with Labor pointing out that One Nation is also against workers. Which is something the ACTU will be moving into gear with.

The press conference Chalmers was referring to was one held ahead of question time with Tim Wilson and Angus Taylor, where Mark Riley asked Taylor the same question he asked Albanese – about monoculture and whether he supported it.

Albanese gave an answer defending multiculturalism. Taylor tied himself up in knots – because he has been flirting and in some cases, going further than One Nation on the issue, so can’t defend multiculturalism in these new terms One Nation has created – that it is ‘monoculture’ or bust. Which is what Hanson was also talking about in 1996. You should be able to get an answer to that in three decades.

First, Bob Katter manages a sentence. Kind of.

Treasurer, some 900,000 student visa holders are now living in Australia.
The number of temporary visa holders is increasing at 1 million a year. Clearly, within 1013 years, the people that are not born in Australia will outnumber the people born in Australia. Treasurer, the cost when one considers that 92% of these people are going to Sydney and Melbourne, where there are no jobs. All industry has fled those cities.
Could you explain how you’re going to handle the financial situation arising from these appalling numbers?

Jim Chalmers:

Of course, in this country, the net overseas migration numbers have been coming down quite considerably. They were absolutely surging when we came to office. They’re now down about 45% from their peak, and in the most recent net overseas migration numbers, which were released last week, they were down once again, their lowest level in a few years, Mr. Speaker. And so those are the facts. I know that those opposite, as they’re desperately trying to cozy up to One Nation, dispute those facts, but those are the facts.

Now, when it comes to employment, including in our major cities, this government has seen lower average unemployment than any government in the last 50 years, and we’re proud of that record when it comes to the labor market, Mr. Speaker. And once again, those are facts.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, and I’m not accusing the member for Kennedy of this, but if you have a look at the quite ridiculous answer, for example, that the leader of the opposition gave to a very simple question about the monoculture today, you can see that what’s going on over there, one of the reasons why, one of the reasons why the Liberal Party is dying in his arms, Mr. Speaker, is because his efforts to out one nation, one nation are becoming increasingly pathetic

This hits a nerve with Dan Tehan who has to get up to try and stop Chalmers, who is on a roll with maybe one of his best performances. Dick rules there is no point of order (which Tehan knew, but his main aim was to stop the momentum of the answer). That doesn’t work either as Chalmers continues:

I’m responding to the interjection of the leader of the opposition, who’s chirping at me about Australian values.

Well, this side of the house understands that a key Australian value is a fair day’s paid for a fair day’s work.

This side of the house recogniSes the Australian value at the core of making it easier for people to buy their first home and not their 20th home. Mr. Speaker, this side of the house recognises in Australian values the vast and important contribution made by Multicultural Australia. Mr. Speaker.

Not for this side of the house, this rubbish playing footsie with the monoculture language being pushed around by the One Nation Party, Mr. Speaker.

He was asked again and again to define and defend basic Australian values, and he is unable, unwilling, incapable of doing that, Mr. Speaker.

And this is why the Liberal Party is dying in his arms and on his watch, Mr. Speaker, because everybody knows what’s going on. His efforts to out One Nation, One Nation are looking more and more pathetic with each passing day, and that’s what’s going on over there, Mr. Speaker, this right-wing party and that right-wing party and that right wing party are all the same. They’ve all got a divisive anti-worker agenda.

We think workers and young people and first home buyers are absolutely essential to Australian values, and our policies reflect that.

Skye Predavec

At her press club speech last week, Pauline Hanson asked “How can you generate social cohesion if people can’t speak the language? In [the 2021 census], 872,000 people self-reported, as speaking English “not well” or “not at all.”

On the face of it, Hanson is right that 872,000 people were marked down as speaking English either “Not well” or “not at all” in the 2021 Census. But that number hides details that make Hanson’s claim highly misleading.

First, there’s a pretty big difference between speaking a language badly and not speaking it at all, and over three quarters of that figure (657,000 people) comes from those who reported speaking English “not well”.

These aren’t the results of a rigorous language test either, but self-reporting, and the ABS encourages caution in interpreting these figures as a “definitive measure of [a person’s] ability” to speak English.

Zoning in on those who reported speaking no English proficiency reveals a larger problem with Hanson’s narrative.

Of those who reported speaking English “not at all”, most are Australian citizens. And about half of those have a pretty good reason for not speaking English – they’re babies.

All up, one in eight of the people included in Hanson’s figure are there not because of some refusal to assimilate, but because they’re more fluent in baby-talk than English.

Pauline Hanson’s wider complaint is that there are hundreds of thousands of migrants who have ‘failed’ to assimilate after arriving in Australia.

The first problem with this is that both permanent residency and Australian citizenship require proficiency with the English language. This means that, even among those who self-describe themselves as speaking English “not at all”, many are likely understating their ability to speak the language.

But even with that caveat, Hanson’s wider claim doesn’t line up with the data.

Even among those who arrived in Australia within six months of the last census, English language proficiency was high, with over 80% reporting they spoke English well, very well, or as their only language.

Just under 18% said they spoke English “not well” or “not at all”, but that share drops off quickly – down to 10% for those who arrived five years before the census, and less than 8% for those who arrived before 2010.

Less than one in twenty of those who arrived at least five years before the Census in 2021 reported speaking English “not at all” – or 56,000 people. That might sound high, but the same is true for 76,000 people who were born in Australia.

While Hanson is quoting the raw 872,000 figure accurately, her interpretation is highly misleading. But, if she did want to improve the language skills of the 105,000 babies included in her figure, she could start by reversing one of the other policies she announced in her press club speech, opposition to childcare funding.

Bill Browne

With Sir Keir Starmer resigning as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the country is on track for its seventh prime minister in 10 years.

Australia’s own political system draws heavily on the UK’s Westminster model of democracy (as it does on the United States’ Washington model).

Much has been made of the fact that Australia seemed to lead the way on PM churn with the Howard–Rudd–Gillard–Rudd–Abbott–Turnbull–Morrison succession across around 11 years.

An interesting history lesson from Australasian statistician Peter Ellis on the blog free range statistics, who looks at how many “prime ministers per decade” the UK has had.

Currently, the UK is on 6 and it will go up to 7 when Starmer is replaced. That’s the most since the 1830s, before women and many men had the right to vote. Then, they reached 9 prime ministers in 10 years.

Optimists and pessimists may interpret this differently: either as reassurance that the Westminster system of democracy has weathered much worse in the past or as proof that we live in unusually – although not uniquely – unstable times.

As Mr Ellis points out, many political commentators came of age during the unusually long Thatcher and Blair governments, and that might mean this decade’s rapid turnover comes as more of a surprise than it would to those with a longer perspective. 

Tim Wilson, the 3D print out of a Claude chat on tax in human form, wants to know:

To ram through Labor’s toxic taxes. The Treasurer has changed his position again and done a dangerous deal with the Greens in May last year. The Treasurer said the government had no intention of bowing to Greens’ demands to restrict self-managed superannuation funds investing in property. How can Australian people believe or ever trust another thing the treasurer says?

Chalmers had the answer to this question before Labor even said yes to the Greens demands.

Chalmers:

As we made it clear in the press conference earlier today, we’ve agreed to support this amendment to reduce the risk to retirement savings and to secure the passage of these really important reforms to make the tax system fairer. Now we know the member for Goldsdale doesn’t want to make it easier for first home buyers.

We know he doesn’t support our efforts to cut taxes for workers. He doesn’t support our efforts to make the tax system fairer, Mr. Speaker.

Our multiple inquiries have raised concerns about these arrangements that we are addressing in the amendments in the Senate, mr. Speaker. David Murray was appointed by those officers to look at these arrangements, and he said that direct borrowing by super funds is inconsistent with the objectives of superannuation to be a savings vehicle for retirement income.

The Murray inquiry said a prohibition would preserve the strengths and benefits of the super system as delivered to individuals the financial system and the economy and limit the risk to taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, and so we’ve made it clear that this is a relatively minor change, but an important change, not the same as has been proposed in earlier elections, but with a similar objective.

And this is all about extending the ban on borrowing, strengthening the ban on borrowing by superannuation funds, but in a way that ensures that people who are doing it now will be grandfathered, so that they can continue to do it.

There’s a responsible 45 day transition period for people who might be midstream in the process, mr. Speaker, and that’s important as well. So, these are responsible changes now, Mr. Speaker. I was also asked about trust in what people say in this place, Mr. Speaker, and so I draw the house’s attention. I draw the house’s attention to something…

Dan Tehan is on his feet because he knows what is coming, but Milton tells him to sit down.

Chalmers:

This government is cutting petrol taxes, we’re cutting income taxes, we’re making it easier for first-time buyers, we’re making the tax system fair.

I’m asked about trust in what people say in this place, and I draw the house’s attention to the shadow treasury, who said earlier today cheaper prices are not flowing through to the bowser in Australia, and I wanted to point out to the shadow treasuries to ask me about whether we can believe things that people say in this place, petrol prices in Sydney, since the end of March, are down $1 per liter, in Melbourne 99 cents, in Brisbane 97 cents, in Perth $1.03 in Adelaide $1.07 Canberra 89 cents, Hobart 94 cents, Darwin 97 cents, member four, and the same when it comes to diesel, Mr. Speaker, and so of all the people, of all the people that I would take a question from about accurate statements, the Shadow Treasurer would be at the very, very end of that list.

Oh dear. I think we all know this will be a mess.

First question – will people with self managed super funds be paying more tax.

Albanese (after a back and forth)

Those opposite move a point of order about relevance when they make themselves irrelevant, because what they do, what they do, whenever they see, before they even see legislation, before they see proposals, they reject them, they’re against them, and now they’ve said they’ll repeal the legislation.

Sound familiar, Mister Speaker? It’s exactly what, exactly what he said they would do if they were elected in May 2025 when they promised to repeal tax cuts. Well, what this legislation provides for is less tax and a working class tax cut for every single Australian worker.
Every single Australian worker will get a tax cut. Every single Australian worker will get a tax cut, but they’ll repeal it. That’s what they’ve said. They’ll repeal the legislation on day one, says Senator Cash.

Well, we’ll continue to advance the interests of Australians, whether it’s giving every worker a tax cut or whether it’s giving every Australian the opportunity to aspire to own their own home, not just some, but every Australian.

In the Senator’s statement in ‘2 minute statements’ time (what MPs in the House usually do in the Federation Chamber), Jordon Steele-John dons a Freo scarf and calls Fremantle to stop taking Woodside sponsorship dollars, “woodside’s logo is everywhere” and says he is proud to support the ‘Woodside get off my chest’ campaign.

Anara Watson

The ABC reported late last week that a Salmon Tasmania ad had been removed from online platforms, television and cinemas after the Ad Standards Community Panel determined it breached Australian advertising standards. Both versions of the ad – one 15 seconds long, the other, 90 seconds – contained misleading environmental claims. 

In its case report, the panel found that both videos breached the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ Environmental Claims Code, which states that environmental claims in advertising must be truthful and factual and not misleading or deceptive.

The panel found that the claims made in the ad were misleading because they created a false impression about the “typical reality of salmon farming in Tasmania” – and statements made about one region were portrayed to reflect the whole of the industry.

The Tasmanian salmon industry is harmful: Australia Institute research shows that Tasmanian salmon farms produce six times more pollution than Tasmanian sewage, and that it threatens the future of the endangered Maugean skate.

Similar standards apply to all forms of commercial advertising. So, just as the Tasmanian salmon industry cannot claim that a single site represents the whole of the industry, pharmaceutical companies cannot claim to have the cure for cancer, food companies cannot claim that sugary foods are good for kids, and lawyers cannot guarantee they will win every personal injury case.

But the same cannot be said for truth in political advertising. You cannot lie in an ad about salmon farming, but it is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad.

Bill Browne and James Watson

The Albanese Government is appealing an Administrative Review Tribunal decision to release a 2023 report on the handling of nuclear waste produced by submarines purchased under the AUKUS deal. In May, the Tribunal’s Deputy President Peter Britten-Jones decided that there “is a significant public interest in understanding policy decisions by Government in respect of nuclear management”, and that disclosing the report “would not interfere with consultation processes or the building of social licence”.

Now, the Government is appealing the decision in the Federal Court, and threatening to make former senator Rex Patrick, who initiated the FOI request, pay its costs if he keeps fighting for transparency. That flies in the face of the Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant and not abuse its endless (taxpayer funded) resources.

This appeal is a part of a broader culture of secrecy in the Albanese Government. In the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, it made a public interest claim for documents related to counterterror funding be kept secret.

Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell rejected the Commonwealth’s claim, ruling the documents were necessary for a “thorough examination of the issues raised”.

While in the Independent Inquiry into Military Sexual Violence in the Australian Defence Force, the Commonwealth waived non-disclosure agreements for ADF members for the inquiry, but has not offered permanent amnesty beyond the inquiry.

The Human Rights Law Centre and former RAAF airwoman Julia Delaforce, whose BantheNDA campaign was influential in this decision, have welcomed the waiving of NDAs, but are still urging the Commonwealth to “consider a permanent amnesty to ensure NDAs are not being used to unduly silence veteran victim-survivors”.

Even when the Albanese Government makes some concessions to transparency, there is still an instinct to keep the truth on a tight leash.

Here is how the day has looked for Mike Bowers:

Bill Browne

KPMG chair Martin Sheppard, former COO Eileen Hoggett and audit partner Paul Rogers are quitting the scandal-prone consulting firm. According to the ABC, Ms Hoggett and Mr Rogers are “being investigated by corporate watchdog ASIC over the audit scandal.”

It follows last week’s parliamentary hearings, where Labor, Greens and Liberal senators came together last week to criticise KPMG for its secrecy, contemptuous attitude towards parliament and two-faced treatment of whistleblowers.

Along with the resignations, KPMG has announced a so-called “governance overhaul”, including appointing an independent chair for once and creating board committees to oversee audit quality, ethics and whistleblower matters.

But KPMG cannot be trusted to self-police. Just look at the contemptuously small penalties they impose for misconduct – the hearings last week revealed that these penalties were something like 10% of the wrongdoer’s annual bonus, not even their entire salary.

The Albanese Government should stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on the consulting firm (enough to employ entire departments and bureaus) and start regulating these “partnerships” like the unaccountable for-profit conglomerates they actually are.

Greg Jericho

I have a bit more detail to follow up Jack’s post about the lies in the “Hands off our fuel” campaign being run by the Minerals Council of Australia.

Jack noted that Tania Constable, the head of the MCA, listed off a group of industries that would be hurt by the ending of the fuel tax credits:  list “farmers, freight operators, builders, fishers and tourism”. Jack noted she oddly forgot to mention miners.

The 2023-24 ATO taxation stats out last week gives us an update on which industries get how much money from the fuel tax credit scheme.

Mining companies received $4.6bn, well ahead of freight operators with $1.3bn and miles ahead of “farmers” with just $900m.

But when we look at the average amount of credit each entity received, the disparity is even greater. Mining companies received on average $1.2m in fuel tax credit, compared to farmers with just $12,671.

At our Revenue Summit last year, Deidre Willmott, Strategic Advisor at Fortescue Metals Group, called for a $50 million cap credit per company.

Such a policy would only capture mining companies, no one else would be touched. And that is why the MCA is desperate to make it sound like any changes to the fuel tax credit scheme will hurt farmers etc.

In reality there is no way the government would end the fuel tax credit scheme for farmers or fishers, but suggesting our more profitable industry needs $4.6bn in tax credits is pretty much the height of arrogance.

As per the Greens statements earlier, the deals are done. And just as the government said, the motions are going through to make it official official.

The Senate has just agreed (AYES 38, NOES 29) to Senator Jordon Steele-John’s motion to extend the deadline of the NDIS inquiry and for the final report to be tabled on 14 August.

And Senator Penny Wong has just successfully moved an hours motion (AYES 36, NOES 29) ensuring, in the first instance, that the Senate will sit until the successful passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, which are the CGT changes and income tax changes. 

The Senate has agreeing to sit until 10.30pm tomorrow night or until all the second reading speeches are complete (whichever is earlier), and for the bills to be guillotined (all remaining questions to be put to a vote) at 1.30pm Thursday.

There are a number of other time limitations (60 minutes) on a number of other budget bills through this week and next included in the motion to prevent any filibustering mischief on the part of the Coalition, so it looks like it’s all done and the Government will get its agenda through the Senate before the winter recess.

Senator Michaelia Cash has done the usual song and dance the Opposition does about the Government and the Greens doing a ‘dirty deal’, because strictly speaking, guillotining bills through the Senate is viewed as undemocratic. In reality it’s usually a tactic to bypass time-wasting tactics because the Government needs the numbers on its side to do it.

Rod Campbell

My favourite part of today’s AFR ‘Mining vs The Australia Institute’ story came right at the end.

Most of it was about whether mining emissions are going down (not really) and if carbon offsets are dodgy (they are).

You had to read all the way to the end to get to the good stuff, with Minerals Council CEO Tania Constable saying:

“We’ve never lost social licence. We are a highly regulated industry. We make sure we’re not just doing the bare minimum.”

Almost spat out my coffee at that! Let’s count the ways you’ve lost social licence, Tania:

• Mining companies dodge tax,
• steal wages,
• lie about carbon emissions,
• lie about jobs,
• screw Australian consumers
• undermine climate action.

For goodness sake, even black lung disease is back!!

At least there is no lack of chutzpah!

Jack Thrower

According to the AFR the head of the mining lobby was in Canberra yesterday ‘launching a “Hands off our Fuel” online messaging blitz’. Unsurprisingly, the ads are full of misleading or downright wrong claims. Let’s look at the example below.

Firstly, Fuel Tax Credits do not “simply refund a road tax on fuel that is not used on roads”. The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme (FTCS) fully or partially refunds fuel excise (tax) paid by certain businesses, costing over $10 billion a year. Fuel excise is not a ‘road tax’; the vast majority of fuel excise flows into general revenue rather than being tied to any road spending. Additionally, things like lorries that do drive on public roads also get a partial refund on their fuel tax.

Secondly, you might have noticed something weird about this list “farmers, freight operators, builders, fishers and tourism”, it’s missing mining companies. Mining companies claim far more in fuel tax credits than any other industry, three times as much as farmers, and almost half (47%) of all fuel tax credits. Additionally, unlike other industries, such as transport and agriculture, mining is dominated by a small number of big companies, many of which claim over $100 million in fuel tax credits. However, likely because they’re not as sympathetic as other industries, they’ve been conveniently left off this list.

Related is the scaremongering about reform fuel tax credits and impacts on businesses, costs and jobs. A lot of this doesn’t make sense, for one, these ads seem to imply that businesses will both go bust and also pass costs onto customers (which would presumably keep them afloat). It also completely ignores many of the actual reform proposals presented; for instance, one option would be to cap fuel tax credits at $50 million per company. This would predominantly impact huge mining companies, while leaving farmers, truckies and tradies unaffected.

This last question gets squeezed in to Chalmers:

Do you have an estimate for how much extra costs have been from the announcements this week on the fuel excise levy on the extension or the delay for the NDIS or the other things that we announced this week? How much is that changing the balance over the budget?

Chalmers:

Well, we announced yesterday when we introduced the legislation for the fuel excise tapering that it would be around $400 million Subsequent to that, the Prime Minister and the state and territory leaders have indicated that they will also kick in at 400 million. The NDIS minister, Minister Butler, has indicated the NDIS cost is in the order of a few 100 million dollars. We said last Thursday when it came to the implementation details and the amendments before the Senate that that would be about 1/17 of the total amount raised by our tax reforms.

And then the ministers leave, while journalists desperately call out “Starmer! Starmer!” because they just realised no one asked that question and the broadcasters don’t have the response on tape.

But I have a feeling there will be a mention of this in QT or ahead of QT or following QT where Albanese will do a ‘fare thee well, fourth UK prime minister’ speech. (As he previously has)

In Pauline Hanson’s diatribe last week as the National Press Club she made some pretty outlandish statement about capital gains

She said:

More than 40,000 18- to 24-year-olds will lose out to Chalmers Capital Gains Tax. In the last ten years, the number of young people making income out of assets, in an entrepreneurial way, buying an apartment, doing it up, selling it – there has been a 365 per cent increase in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who have done this. A 351 per cent increase in 25 to 29-year-olds.

A 246 per cent increase among 30 to 34-year-olds. So, the largest capital gains cohort is younger.

Last week we had the latest ATO Tax Stats for 2023-24 so we can run a bit of an eye over her claims.

I have no idea where her numbers come from but let’s compare 2013-14 to 2023-24

In 2023-24, there were 76,321 under 25 year olds who recorded a net capital gain compared to just 18,474 in 2013-13. So, Pauline is rather underplaying the total number, but the growth is roughly in line with her suggestion.

But if that sounds like a lot of people, remember that there were 2.2m under 25 year olds who earned an income in 2023-24 so that’s just 3.5% of all under 24 years old. But remember that is counting those who earned an income – there are a lot more under 25s who don’t. In total there were around 3.4m working aged people aged under 25, so that gets us down to a mere 2.3%.

When just 2 people in a room of 100 are doing something, I don’t think you really should be suggesting that’s the “largest capital gains cohort”, or one we should be focussing government attention on – especially when there were 307.587 people over 65 earning a capital gain.

That difference is even more stark when you look at how Australians generate their total income.

Capital gains made up around 0.5% of the total income of under 25s compared to around 2% for 35-44year olds and 10% for those over 65:

Capital gains and trusts are used mostly by the wealthy and older Australians. Suggesting reductions in the tax breaks of those two income streams will hurt younger Australians is ludicrous – especially given the biggest struggle for younger Australians (and those into their 40s) is buying a first home.

Suggesting we need to keep a distortion in the tax system to help people save to buy a house because they are too expensive due to that specific distortion in the tax system is some of the most whacked out logic I have heard in a very long time.

Katy Gallagher is asked about unintended consequences of the super investment property changes:

I’ve spoken to a financial advisor who says he uses this strategy is mainly for divorced women and middle-aged divorced women using a limited resource borrowing arrangement to buy a place where they may want to live, they’ll be able to live in retirement or sell by something else. They can live in retirement, he says.
They use their employer, have super contributions, and their rent to pay off, to pay off the mortgage. He said, “If you shut down this avenue, this will condemn them to a life of living, of renting and retirement. When you did this deal with the Greens, did you take into consideration any unintended consequences, which seems to be the story of this budget.
And do you envision having a mop up in the aftermath of this?

Gallagher:

Well, for a start, I think the Treasurer has taken through the percentage of residential properties that are you, which utilise limited recourse borrowing on the front, so it’s a very small percentage on the issue of women who are having to re-establish themselves post marriage breakdown.

I think have a look right across government at all the steps that we’ve put in place over the last four years to ensure that women’s economic security is the center of our decision making in the budget, in every single budget, we have done that, and you know we will continue to do that, because it is an issue for older women who are, who find themselves out of marriages, marriage breakdown, low assets, difficult relationships to navigate, but limited recourse borrowing hasn’t been the big element of that, when it’s been raised with me by women’s organisations, it’s been wages, it’s been super, it’s how do we ensure a good outcome through court processes, all of that has been raised as centered of their thinking.

In 1996, about six months after losing the election to John Howard, where Pauline Hanson was first elected, Paul Keating gave a speech on the same issues we are facing now.

Here is part of what he said:

The great tragedy of the shamelessly regressive politics of Pauline Hanson is not so much that it is rooted in ignorance, prejudice and fear, though it is; not so much that it projects the ugly face of racism, though it does; not so much that it is dangerously divisive and deeply hurtful to many of her fellow Australians, though it is; not even that it will cripple our efforts to enmesh ourselves in a region wherein lie the jobs and prosperity of future generations of young Australians, though it will—the great tragedy is that it perpetrates a myth, a fantasy, a lie.

The myth of the monoculture. The lie that we can retreat to it.

The changes are permanent and, while we may be going through a consequent period of general uncertainty and unease, they are, in my view, almost universally for the better.

It is not going to seem this way to everyone of course, but Australia simply is a richer place these days: a far more open, creative, dynamic, diverse and worldly place.

And I’m not just talking about Double Bay and Paddington.

Our integration with the rest of the world has made more than the streets and the arts and the food more interesting: it has created new opportunities in agriculture and horticulture, tourism and hospitality, education, manufacturing, retailing, science, arts and entertainment. It has changed the nature of work and workplaces—and if there is a general hankering to go back to the old ones it can only be because a lot of people have forgotten what they were like.

This is to say nothing more than that we have joined the modern world but we could not have joined it without the changes.

Now, we can embrace this new Australia or we can reject it. That, fundamentally, is the choice I mentioned at the beginning. We can engage with it, recognise its potential and accept the fact that nothing in this world comes easy. We can work to sustain the momentum and expand the opportunities for our kids.

Or we can regress. We can retreat. We can stop to have a scratch— amuse ourselves with sectional interests. We can say this is too hard for Australians. It’s not us. They are not us. In the best traditions of the old Australia we can call a national smoko. We can relax—and be comfortable.

The latter is folly, but it is an option. We can retreat to a past that never was, and create a future that never can be anything but third-rate. But if we do, we can be sure that the world will not be in a hurry to forgive us or bail us out. Even if they forgave our prejudice they could never forget our stupidity.

The prime minister is asked:

Prime Minister Pauline Hanson this morning again said she wanted Australia to become a monoculture, and she evidenced Japan as a successful example of a monoculture, I want to know what you think about Australia becoming a monoculture, using Japan as a template, and what that, what effect that might have on the nation.

Albanese:

Modern Australia is not a monoculture, and it never has been.
Indeed, under pre 17 70 and then 1788 there were many First Nations in this country and since then I think our diversity as a nation is a strength you know the fact that in the last month, yes, yesterday, Sunday, I was at an Assyrian function. It was a wonderful function in southwestern Sydney.
You know, should that be allowed to happen?
Should you know the functions that I’ve been at, and met with community organisations, including I’ll be meeting, I think, next week with again scheduled with members of the Chabad community who were here during the last parliamentary sittings, members of the Jewish Orthodox community who are here. Is that okay in Australia?

We had from the arrival of the First Fleet not everyone was as one.

There were some in chains and some who were in charge of the people in chains, Catholics and Protestants, we have had a rich culture, and when we look at the Socceroos, we see examples of that rich culture, people who are proud of their ethnicity, of who they are, but also who are proud Australians, and representing our great nation, the whole country will be cheering them on on Friday at 12 o’clock, and I hope that the country stops for a little bit during that time.

It’s who we are, so it’s really a nonsense argument to go back to something that was actually never there and I think that it’s an example of policies and a vision for the country that isn’t thought through that doesn’t represent who we are in 2026 and in 2026 what Australia needs, like the rest of the world needs, as governments that take us forward. There are big challenges in this country, like there are around the world, that the government’s grappling with artificial intelligence, what it means for the nature of work, what it means for how we move forward.

We won’t move forward if we get stuck in these cultural debates that are all aimed at dividing people. Let’s be clear, that’s what it’s aimed at. I aim to unite the country and to bring it forward.

It is pointed out that the ABC is about to get its third question in a row (half the CPH bureau is there at this press conference) so the rest of the press pack are told the order of the next few questions and a fourth ABC reporter is told maybe next time.

Question:

What’s the fiscal impact of the super change that you’ve agreed to today, and if this was such an important loophole that people were going to take advantage of, why didn’t you close it when you announced the budget package overnight?

Chalmers:

Yeah, a couple of things about that. This is a worthy change, an important change, but it also reflects the realities in the Senate. Nobody’s got a majority on their own, and so we engage in these negotiations again. I thank particularly Katie and Anthony [Chisholm] for that.
When it comes to the fiscal impact, we anticipate something like a $50 million positive impact over the forward estimates, but we will square that away properly in the usual way in the mid year budget update.
You would be aware, and others would be aware that we have supported different versions of this in the past. We took seriously the recommendation from David Murray, you know, hardly a kind of a scorched earth revolutionary, left-wing revolutionary, who said in 2014 that we should ban these.

We’ve examined those recommendations before, and from the Council of Financial Regulators, and so we think this is an important change in its own right.

It’s a little bit different to the proposal that we took to the 2019 election. In 2019 We were applying it more broadly on this occasion just to residential property, so a different proposal with similar objectives and a worthy proposal, which reflects the realities of the parliament.

Chalmers is then asked:

We are seeing auction clearance rates at the lowest they’ve been in years in Melbourne and Sydney. We’re seeing some property prices fall, that is concerning for older Australians who are looking to sell in the near term to fund their retirement, were you anticipating the property prices would fall, and what can you offer to those people looking to sell and retire on their earnings in the near term of assurances for them?

Chalmers:

The Treasury assumption in the budget is that house prices will continue to grow at about 2% more slowly than they would otherwise.
It’s important to remember that, whether you’re talking about house prices or about auction clearance rates, we were seeing some of them begin to soften even before the budget, and that’s because there are a number of factors at play when it comes to auctions and when it comes to house prices, including movements in interest rates, global and domestic economic conditions, and also tax settings, as well, and so some of that direction was already set before the budget. Our goal is to make sure that there are more affordable options for more people, particularly young people, to get a toehold in the housing market, which has been too difficult for too long.

We’re not targeting a particular percentage or a particular price outcome. Our goal, as the Prime Minister said, is to stop subsidizing people who go to auctions and compete and compete against and beat first home buyers. For too long now, first home buyers have been squeezed out of a market which is becoming more and more difficult for them, and that’s the motivation behind the contested and contentious changes that we will pass through the both houses of parliament this week,

Anthony Albanese was just asked what the median price was for a unit in Marrickville.

Here is what Real Estate dot com says.

Albanese:

I know is that prices in Merrickville have increased substantially, and right throughout my area, but right throughout the whole country that has occurred. But what we are doing here is I talked to someone last weekend, who was able to be successful at an auction that previously they’d almost given up on. That’s a fantastic thing. That’s what these reforms are aimed at doing. That’s what they’re aimed at.

He is then asked what those people paid and he said he wouldn’t disclose a private person’s business.

He is then asked if $1m is too much for a unit and whether he wants property prices to fall.

Well, it depends on what their income is. It depends on all of their status sale, which is there. So people are, you know, we want to give young people a fair crack at owning their own home. That is what these are aimed at doing. The evidence is people are coming forward, and indeed, through our caucus, countless examples of people saying we got a fair crack for the first time, that’s a good thing.

Which is not what advocates and think tanks like the Grattan Institute think. Butler:

As I’ve said before, the direction of travel here that I announced at the Press Club, I’m convinced is the right package of reforms. I mean, there are some minor changes at the at the edges that we’ve already announced over the course of this morning to particularly clarify our intention and to provide reassurance to people about what is going to change and what is not going to change, but I’m utterly convinced that the package of reform that we worked on for months, frankly, here in government, and through the expenditure review committee, led by the three colleagues with me, is the right package of changes.

…I get that this is hard change, and people are concerned about the impact it’s going to have on participants. Our job is to clarify exactly what that impact will be. There will be an impact in areas like social activity budgets. I’ve been upfront about that from the time I was there at the Press Club. It has been growing far too fast, from $4,000,000,000 5 years ago to $12 billion this year.

So, as much as we spend on the entire pharmaceutical benefit scheme projected to rise to close to $20 billion by the end of this decade, that is simply not a sustainable position for us to be in. So we’re going to focus on getting that back under control, return that budget to where it was last year in 2025 still about three times where it was five years ago, but allow us to protect those core supports that people do rely upon for their activities of daily living, their engagement with the health sector, their engagement with employment, and their safety. We have protected those core supports because we understand just how critical they are for participants.

The NDIS cuts are still terrible, but the government will be pushing through. Anthony Albanese rejects the criticism of the ‘reforms’

Albanese:

Labor created the NDIS, we support the NDIS, we want to strengthen and make sure that the NDIS is sustainable. That’s why we’re making these changes very clearly. When we came to office, the NDIS was growing at an annual rate of 22% That is not sustainable. What we want to make sure is that reform occurs, so that everyone who needs the support of the NDIS with a disability receives the support that they need, but so that we get rid of and deal with some of the waste and anomalies, which are there, which don’t assist people with disabilities, but which assist in some cases some unscrupulous people who have exploited the situation, we want to make sure that they get the support that they need.

Mark Butler:

Obviously our entire approach to the NDIS, including the reform package, has people with disability right at the center. I mean, that has been the central philosophy of this scheme, and while the inquiry is going on, Jenny McAllister, I, and many members of government are obviously engaging with people with disability to help to explain the government’s reasoning behind this package and to dispel some of the misapprehensions about what it’s going to mean for participants, and the extra eight weeks of the hearing will provide us with more opportunity to do that to your question about states, even though this inquiry will continue, and the bill won’t be dealt with in the parliament until August. We’re getting on with the job, we’re continuing to do work with states.

There was a disability ministers meeting on Friday that was very productive and very constructive. We’ll announce soon the membership of the technical advisory group that will advise not just the Commonwealth, but the states and territories as well, as well, about a new functional capacity assessment regime for eligibility. There’s a lot of work for us to continue to do, and we’ll start doing that now. We’ve already started it. We’re not going to sit on our hands while the other eight weeks of inquiry continues underway.

Mark Butler, Jim Chalmers, Katy Gallagher and Anthony Albanese are holding a press conference after a deal was made with the Greens to pass the CGT tax changes, in exchange for closing the loophole that would allow investors to use their self managed super funds to buy property and extend the NDIS cuts inquiry.

Chalmers:

SMSF, for example, are less than 1% of total residential property borrowing and less than half a percent of new residential borrowing each year. So, it’s a small part of the market. Now, this is an important change in its own right, but it also reflects the realities of a Senate, where nobody has the numbers on their own, and that’s why we are willing to support these arrangements today.

Butler:

It was obviously pretty clear to us as we came back to parliament that it was going to be next to impossible to have this bill dealt with over the course of this fortnight. The opposition had indicated, in spite of some encouraging comments from the leader of the opposition in his budget reply speech, that they were looking at a six month delay to this bill being dealt with in the parliament. Let me be clear, a six month extension would cost the budget billions of dollars, but would also delay our ability to get those cost blowouts under control, to clear up eligibility rules, and to crack down on the fraud and the integrity issues that the community knows are there with the NDIS, and that is why we have agreed to an extension of this inquiry that’s been underway for the last several weeks, for another eight weeks to report on the 14th of August.

Gallagher:

So, at 12 o’clock today, when the bells ring, we will move a motion, which basically facilitates the passage of a range of legislation, but including the tax reform bills that will pass, and we will have those bills finalised by the end of this sitting week.

(For business)

Hanson has said no paid maternity leave and now following backlash she is saying employers shouldn’t have to pay.

Stranger here lays out the problems – it also is the thin line between other attacks on workers, which includes annual leave entitlements.

And given Hanson’s flip flop on the issue (never forget – ‘I didn’t flip flop, I said no, then I said yes, then I said no again’) you can’t actually take ANYTHING she says as the final word.

This is also leads into what she has been fuelling as part of the politics of grievance:

There is an undercurrent of ‘well I didn’t have kids, so it’s not fair that my money is spent on this’ popping up in response (which is part of the astroturfing we are seeing in social media) which I get. Sure. But I also don’t drive on roads in central NSW, but I think people living there or passing through there deserve safe roads. I don’t go to dog parks but I think they should exist for the people who have community there. I’ll never step foot in most community halls and parks – but I am happy for federal and state grants to go towards building and maintaining them.

An earlier post mentioned that one sector to increase its profits was the by private medical health care services. A subsection of that industry, social assistance services, includes “Disabilities assistance” and so would include most NDIS suppliers. Social assistance services has been growing rapidly at 15% and its profit has grown even more rapidly at 67%.

The NDIS has become a honey pot for fraud and overservicing and, it seems, high profits are a symptom of that. The market model used to house the NDIS has been unsuitable, relying too heavily on market mechanisms to allocate services to patients. When the conditions for a market solution are not satisfied the problems found in the NDIS are inevitable. The conditions necessary for the market to work were outlined in the Australia Institute’s submission to the Senate committee examining Australia’s productivity. These conditions are not rocket science but ordinary economic theory that has been well known for decades.

Put simply, as the Australia Institute warned that ‘if the most profitable line of business is to dupe [clients], competitive pressure will induce [innovation] along that dimension’.  The NDIS needs reforms that address the scope for duping clients and government.

On the same day Minerals Council Chief executive Tania Constable claimed the Australia Institute’s criticisms of the government’s safeguard mechanism allowing fossil fuel producers to increase their emissions as “ridiculous,” it has been revealed that foreign owned gas giant and notorious tax avoider Shell has been paid $90 million in free carbon offsets despite increasing it’s emissions.

The AFR reported today that

“Shell’s Prelude offshore gas facility in Western Australia has received almost 2.5 million Safeguard Mechanism Credits (SMCs) since Labor overhauled Australia’s main carbon policy in 2022, while its overall emissions have shot up by 400,000 tonnes.”

The Safeguard Mechanism isn’t about safeguarding the climate, it’s about safeguarding the expansion of fossil fuel exports.

The mechanism enables foreign owned coal and gas giants to increase their exports using offsets that that are in many cases fraudulent. It only covers emissions occurring in Australia and not the vast bulk of missions from the huge new fossil fuel projects that it is designed to enable.

Every new fossil fuel project sucks up available carbon credits increasing the costs for manufacturers. It’s a system that enables big foreign owned fossil fuel export projects and shifts the carbon costs onto Australian manufacturers.

Matt Grudnoff

Investment in data centres is exploding in Australia. As this graph shows, info media and telco investment (mostly data centres) has boomed to massive levels.

Almost all of it has been happening in NSW and Victoria.

Leading this investment are the big tech companies like Mircosoft and Amazon. This is the same industry that have been at the forefront of tax minimisation.

When it comes to shifting money around the world, there is no industry that does it quite so well as the big tech sector. And for some strange reason, after all the money has settled in place, the profits seem to end up being earned in tax havens. The only other industry that comes close is mining.

This fact has not been missed by ACT independent Senator David Pocock. In an oped he wrote recently he points out that data centres have the potential to become the new gas industry.

That is an industry that extracts lots from Australia but pays very little tax.

Data centres certainly do extract from wherever they are located. They are prolific users of electricity and in many cases water for cooling.

They also have the potential to engage in profit shifting. Data centres process information but the requests for that can come from anywhere in the world. That makes it easy for tech companies to claim that the real value (and hence profit) was created in a place a long way from the data centre.

A solution to this is to put in place special tax rules early, before the industry becomes large and powerful. If we wait until after the explosion in data centres that the AI industry claims is coming, they will have more power to push back against any attempts to tax them fairly.

Anara Watson

The Antipoverty Centre, together with Economic Justice Australia and Anglicare, hosted a briefing at Parliament House this morning, calling for an end to Australia’s mutual obligations scheme.

This scheme applies to those on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment and the Disability Support Pension, who may be subject to compulsory activity requirements. Those activities are managed under a framework called the Targeted Compliance Framework (the Framework), which uses a point-based system to ensure that recipients meet these obligations. Where those obligations are not met, welfare payments can be suspended.

Cheyanne, a 25-year-old from Ballarat, is one of the 1 million people who are subject to such obligations – a system she describes as “dehumanising”.

But it isn’t just dehumanising; the cancellation of income support could be unlawful – that’s what the Commonwealth Ombudsman found in relation to the use of payment suspensions in his review into the Framework.

Yet, while Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Amanda Rishworth recently announced that the government’s reforms were “about ending the one‑size‑fits‑all approach and building a system that recognises people’s individual needs”, there has been no action by the government to pause the use of these penalties, nor the dubious practices that surround them.

And as Maiy Azize, Deputy Director of Anglicare Australia, explained in her article in The Point yesterday, this scheme won’t be fixed by tinkering around the edges. “Governments can no longer claim that people need fixing. The thing that isn’t working is the system itself.”

AAP

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s political demise is “hard to watch”, Australian politicians from the government and opposition say.

But the federal government is promising to plough on with the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal regardless of who next leads the UK.

Less than two years after ousting the Conservatives in a landslide election victory, Sir Keir announced plans to resign by September, making way for newly sworn in MP Andy Burnham to likely be Britain’s next leader.

Defence Minister Richard Marles said the Labour leader had been a great friend of Australia and said the circumstances of his departure were unique to the UK.

“At a human level, it’s hard to watch what occurred yesterday evening and it’s another reminder of how difficult these jobs are,” he said.

“We are very appreciative of his partnership across the relationship, but specifically in issues such as AUKUS and there’s been enormous progress in the relationship under his prime ministership.”

The AUKUS pact – a nuclear submarine deal between Australia, the US and UK – would continue “at pace” despite the prime minister’s departure, Mr Marles added.

Anthony Albanese should follow suit and also resign, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

“I’d love it and so would the Australian people,” she said.

Labor needed to learn lessons from the UK on national identity and “mass migration”, Senator Hanson added.

Sir Keir failed to address issues of immigration, energy and social cohesion, opposition industry spokesman Andrew Hastie told Sky News.

“It was tough to watch a UK prime minister torn down by his own party, so soon after a massive landslide victory back in 2024,” he said.

Mr Albanese said he considered the outgoing UK leader a friend and that he was thinking of him on “what must be a very tough day”.

“Serving in public life is a tremendous privilege but politics can also be a harsh business,” the prime minister said in a statement, praising Sir Keir’s work on AUKUS, supporting Ukraine and banning children from social media.

“When the time comes for Keir to leave Downing Street, he can be proud of the contribution he has made to the country he loves and to the Labour Party that he led back to government in 2024,” Mr Albanese said.

The Albanese Government is another step closer to delivering its tax reforms for workers, home buyers, and businesses. 

These reforms will make it easier for Australians to buy their first home, cut taxes for over 13 million workers, and better align the tax treatment of labour and asset income.

Today the Greens have confirmed they will support passage of the first tranche of tax reform legislation.

It is now a question for the rest of the Parliament whether they will get on board with tax cuts for workers and a fairer tax system for first home buyers.

The three right wing parties voted against these tax cuts and in favour of big tax breaks for property investors in the House, and now they’re planning to vote the same way in the Senate which will mean voting against tax concessions for small businesses as well.

Government amendments to the legislation will mean all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of all active businesses will be eligible for generous Capital Gains Tax (CGT) concessions.

The Government will make a number of additional amendments, in line with our announcement on 18 June, to provide as much certainty on the implementation details as possible.

The Government will also support amendments to the NDIS legislation to clarify the implementation of the reforms. 

In addition, the Government has agreed to support an amendment that will be moved by the Greens to ban future limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) for residential property by superannuation funds. 

Superannuation funds are generally prohibited from borrowing money to invest, with the exception of LRBAs that are used by SMSFs. 

Multiple inquiries have raised concerns that these arrangements raise risks for superannuation investors, including the 2014 Murray Financial System Inquiry conducted for the Coalition, and limiting new arrangements going forward will help protect people’s savings.

These arrangements constitute less than 1 per cent of total residential property borrowing and less than half a per cent of new residential borrowing each year.

These changes don’t in any way change the tax arrangements for superannuation, don’t impact any existing SMSF borrowing arrangements and provide time to finalise arrangements that are in train.

Labor built superannuation and we’ll always look to make it stronger and fairer, and agreeing to these changes will reduce the risks to retirement savings while also securing passage of these important reforms to make the tax system fairer.

Passage of this important legislation this fortnight will provide workers, businesses and investors certainty about the core tax settings that will apply from 1 July 2027.

The Government will continue to develop further tranches of legislation to implement the Budget tax reform package, consistent with the process for legislating other large tax reform packages in the past.
 

The deal has been made. The Greens have announced they will support the first tranche of tax changes in front of the senate.

From the statement:

The Greens secured an amendment to prevent wealthy property investors from exploiting a loophole to use Self-Managed Super Funds to buy up tax-advantaged investment properties, and removed ministerial discretions that would have allowed a Minister to wind back these reforms.

The Greens have criticised Labor’s tax package for locking in over $30 billion in tax handouts per year from Australia’s budget to the wealthy property investors. 

This grandfathering encourages property investors to hold on to properties that are eligible for tax breaks, and means 1.7 million properties will remain in the hands of property investors, not first homebuyers.

While Labor’s low ambition means that the inequality and housing crisis will be worse than it should be, for longer than it needs to be, the Greens will continue fighting to further restrict tax breaks for wealthy property investors.

The Greens have released this statement:

The Greens have secured an 8 week extension to the inquiry into the NDIS cuts until 14 August 2026, which will delay the bill and grant more time to build pressure on both Labor and the Liberals to withdraw their support for the Bill entirely.

With Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation currently supporting the NDIS cuts, the Bill has been widely expected to pass the parliament. However, support for the bill is flagging – with the Senate yesterday spending hours debating withdrawing the bill.

With support for this Bill collapsing and a growing public understanding that this Bill makes limited attempt to focus the cuts on rorting, the Greens will continue to press for the cuts Bill to be withdrawn.

As a precaution, the Greens have also secured changes to weaken some of the more outrageous provisions. The Greens and government-agreed amendments will:

• Limit ministerial powers to impose sweeping cuts to people’s supports budgets
• Ensure greater transparency on automated decision-making
• Provide greater protections for disabled people by ensuring that they cannot be forced to undergo harmful restrictive practices to gain access to the NDIS, and that any treatments required must be available in the public healthcare system. 

While these amendments reduce some of the most egregious harms of the bill, it remains a dangerous and callous threat to disabled people.

Regardless of amendments, the Greens will oppose the NDIS Bill if it comes to a vote.

This extended inquiry does not preclude additional future delays to the bill, and the Greens say that they will put as many roadblocks in front of these cuts as are needed to stop it once and for all.

This year’s figures cover the 2024-25 financial year. And the sector with the highest profits margin( by a sizeable margin!) was the gas sector.

Oil and gas extraction has a profit margin of 42.1% – well above the economy average of 12%.

Coming in second was Metal ore mining, then property operators and real estate services, followed by private medical health care services:

It’s interesting that when you think about what 5 sectors carry the most political heft those 5 spring right to the top of most lists.

Four of the sectors (private health is the exception, which does need to actually employ people to care for patients) are also largely light on for workers. The average sector across the economy makes around $7 profit for every $10 spent on wages and salaries. The oil and gas sector makes $94* profit for every $10 spent on wages.

*An earlier version of this post contained a typo – it is $94, not $940. Apologies

Matt Grudnoff

Most of the push back against the changes to capital gains tax has been that it affects all assets and not just residential property. This is a big admission that investors have been the ones driving up house prices and pushing them out of the market will make housing more affordable.

But one way to continue investing in existing housing using the old capital gains tax rules is through a self-managed super fund (SMFS). People can still access generous tax concessions on capital gains tax if they buy the property in their SMSF.

It is now being reported that the Greens are negotiating with Labor to try and have this loophole closed. The Greens want the same capital gains tax arrangements to apply inside self-managed super as apply outside super.

This makes sense. Tax rules should apply as equally as possible. This helps prevent distortions in the tax system. Or put another way, it stops rich people hiring smart accountants to come up with ways to reduce their tax.

If you don’t have a SMSF, don’t worry you’re not alone. Only about 8% of those with super have one. Despite this 25% of all super assets are held in SMSFs. This gives you an insight into the types of people who do have SMSFs. They are much more likely to be wealthy.

Hopefully, the government will agree to include SMSFs in the new capital gains tax arrangements and we can close a future tax loophole before it becomes a bigger problem.

Helen Haines, David Pocock and Monique Ryan have held a press conference on their petition calling for the practical payment to be extended to all allied health placements. The petition has received 43,000 signatures. The group showed data from Charles Sturt University and La Trobe University which looked at stress at students.

New data shows:

• In a recent survey of La Trobe students, 65% of respondents reported cost‑of‑living pressures are impacting their study, with 23% considering a study break. (La Trobe)
• 54% of respondents reported skipping meals or accessing food support. (La Trobe)
• Nearly half, 45%, of Charles Sturt University students say financial stress could force them to withdraw before completing their degree.

In 2024, Australia registered 9,072 new medical practitioners. Of these, just 45.5% were domestic registrants, while 55.5% were international registrants.

Haines said:

This is one of the most practical steps the Government can take right now to address cost-of-living pressures without fuelling inflation. It will help students stay enrolled, complete their qualifications, and move into the workforce in areas where Australia desperately needs them.”

Skye Predavec

Many of the questions asked of Pauline Hanson at her press club appearance last week have copped their fair share of criticism, including this one from the Canberra Times,

You launched a Canberra branch of One Nation in November, but I don’t believe it’s held a meeting and no members have been allowed to speak to media, I’m wondering whether you have an active supporter-base in the ACT. And Canberra cops a lot of criticism from conservatives; you’ve spent a lot of time here in your career, how do you rate our nation’s capital?

What hasn’t received adequate scrutiny, on the other hand, was Hanson’s response:

We have started a branch here and from what I heard, the first meeting they had over 200 people there, so it’s going extremely well in Canberra. …  we’ve got strong support in Canberra – go to the Kingo, I tell you, I get just so many people come up to me wanting a photo and take to me, and they’re really pleased to see me, so there is support in Canberra.

Much of the commentary surrounding Hanson’s response has focused on the second half of her answer, the suggestion that journalists attend the Kingo, a pub in Canberra’s inner-south. The Canberra Times did just that, publishing a strange piece where they interviewed pub-goers at lunchtime on a Thursday, hardly a representative sample of an electorate where most people work 9-5.

But the first part of Hanson’s answer has not received scrutiny. The Canberra Times appears correct that no branch meeting has taken place in the ACT. In fact, the only event that has been publicly advertised was a launch event in November. Unfortunately for Hanson’s 200-person claim, there are photos.

I count about 30 supporters, in a room that could probably fit about 50 at maximum. Perhaps the other 150 were just out of frame?

Alice Grundy

A right to information request for data from Queensland Police on firearms in the state shows just how worrying the current situation is. 

As Frank Noakes notes in his recent article for The Point, 

“Of great concern is the sharp decline in gun licences revoked in domestic violence cases. These cancelations tumbled from 58 in 2021 to only 11 in 2025 – all while domestic violence continues to be a serious problem accounting for 50% of all assaults in Queensland.”

The Crusafilli government so far has taken limited action on firearm legislation following National Cabinet’s meeting in the wake of the Bondi massacre. By contrast, NSW responded quickly with nation-leading legislation. And the reforms are already working with guns sales nosediving from January 2026. 

Other states are yet to act on a number of key recommendations from National Cabinet including caps on the number of firearms an individual can own. Polling repeatedly shows that Australians want strict firearm legislation. It’s time for governments to make that happen. 

It is party room meeting day and former Jacqui Lambie Network turned independent turned Labor senator Tammy Tyrrell was signing the caucus book in the Labor party room, which is the last official job of an incoming Labor member of parliament.

The gallery photographers, who tend to run their own show in the press gallery, turned up to take the photo, and were told only one of them could enter the room and they would have to ‘pool’ (which means one photographer gives their shot to all news agencies – but if you haven’t shot it yourself, you can not archieve the photo, or own it) the shot.

But in a show of solidarity, the photographers said it was all or nothing and began walking out. Mostly because they don’t believe politicians should be calling the shots and there has been a growing trend within Labor to try and manage access and limit the number of photographers allowed in to capture very normal political moments.

I can’t think of a time when there has been a pooled caucus shot, so for Labor to try and force one over someone signing the incoming book is not just unusual – it’s a sign of that increasing control.

But the photographers tend to be a more cohesive bunch than the journalists and all were willing to walk on principle.

Which is how it should be.

Karl Stefanovic, who has been among the highest paid people in Australian television, has continued his far right slide (there is a race on to become Australia’s Joe Rogan, and you don’t have to look too far to see who thinks they are in contention) with a trip to the UK, where he is interviewing…Tommy Robinson.

Birth name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, Robinson started the English Defence League which has been at the forefront of racial violence and riots and was previously a member of the BNP, which is a known fascist political party.

He has multiple convictions for assault, threats, fraud and contempt of court and has served five prison terms.

Stefanovic is interviewing him for his podcast, which has mainly platformed the far right.

It’s a new low.

On this episode of After America, Dr Lindsay Owens joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss World Cup ticket pricing, the consolidation of corporate power in Trump’s America, the impact of the war on Iran on the US economy, and fighting back against efforts to use misinformation about the economy to demonise migrants.

Helen Haines, Monique Ryan and David Pocock have created a petition urging the government to expand paid prac payments for students who have to complete practical education as part of their qualifications. Charle Sturt University has highlighted the case of third-year Medical Radiation Science student Audrey Keillor, from Queanbeyan and studying full-time in Wagga Wagga, who had to travel to Caboolture in Queensland to complete her four week placement. There was no where closer to home to do it, which made the 2,500km trip necessary if she wanted to continue her degree. She has another 44 weeks of practical placements to complete before she can graduate.

A calling for a expansion of the Australian Government’s Commonwealth Prac Payment (CPP) scheme, warning that the current arrangements create a two-teir system where some students are supported to complete compulsory placements while others are left to absorb the full cost. 

Charles Sturt University says regional students are being forced “to the brink” or are dropping out altogether because of the increased barriers to their education.

The current scheme assists students in nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work courses with a payment of of $338.60 per week while they are completing their placements, which are a requirement for professional accreditation.  Supporters of the petition want it expanded to include allied health and medicine degrees.

Charles Sturt supports this push and would also like to see the scheme extended to include students in veterinary sciences.   Students who have to complete practical work also have to work casual hours at paid jobs to try and make ends meet, as well as continue to study.

Ten Australians have lodged a new case with the UN Human Rights committee, arguing the government has violated their human rights by continuing to support fossil fuel production for export:

The claimants represent different experiences and perspectives and come from all around Australia: First Nations leaders, a firefighter, young people, and people living with disability. But they have all had their lives shaken by climate damage. 

They say Australia’s continued approval and subsidisation of new coal and gas projects breaches its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically the rights to life, family and home, and the rights of First Nations peoples to practice culture. 

It follows the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling that fossil fuel-exporting nations bear legal responsibility for the climate harm their exports cause. 

The world’s highest court ruled unanimously that states have binding obligations under international law to prevent significant harm to the climate system, and that fossil fuel production, export licensing and subsidies can constitute internationally wrongful acts. 

In May 2026, 141 countries at the United Nations General Assembly voted to endorse that ruling. Australia has welcomed the ICJ’s opinion while continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects.

Australia is the world’s second-largest coal exporter and third-largest exporter of Liquified Natural Gas.

The group will hold a press conference just after midday

Lucinda Garbutt-Young for APP

As the Australian War Memorial raises the curtain on a major new gallery and space, the presence of alleged war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith will cast a long shadow.

All living Victoria Cross recipients have been invited to attend Tuesday evening’s official opening of the memorial’s atrium and Anzac Hall, a gallery that focuses mainly on Australia’s commitments to the Middle East, Afghanistan and peacekeeping operations.

Judge Susan Horan earlier in June permitted Roberts-Smith to attend the opening, which required a bail variation.

The decorated soldier is accused of murdering or ordering the murders of five unarmed detainees while deployed in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.

Judge Horan barred Roberts-Smith from discussing the cases against himself or fellow accused war criminal Oliver Schulz.

Following the successful bail hearing Roberts-Smith told reporters outside it was “absolutely” appropriate he attend the opening as a Victoria Cross recipient.

He has categorically rejected the war crime allegations and has vowed to fight them in court.

Among attendees are expected to be politicians and veterans who have spoken out against Roberts-Smith, including several who he is not allowed to speak to under strict bail conditions.

Some of his supporters, including Pauline Hanson, are also expected to be in attendance.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will tell those gathered they are bonded by the power of “lest we forget.”

“That most unadorned of sentences that dwells within us like a heartbeat – we vow to keep the flame of memory burning so brightly that its glow reaches future generations,” he will say in a speech.

“Today we adjourned the parliament so that everyone who wished to could come mark the opening of this Atrium and Anzac Hall, an addition to the Australian War Memorial that makes that flame burns so much brighter.

“What a sublime and powerful addition it is. A bold vision turned into a reality that enhances the institution of which it is now part.”

The prime minister will implore those gathered at the event to “read all the words” about those who have gone before them.

“Look at the faces and get lost amid the smiles, the hope and camaraderie – the counterpoint to war’s relentless, inhuman arithmetic. They are its true cost,” he will say.

“Yet, amid this loss and sacrifice, what pulses so powerfully is life, and an abiding sense of what is worth fighting for.”

Anzac Hall and the memorial’s revamp will add more than 5000sqm of gallery space to the memorial when completed in 2028, totalling 15,000sqm.

More than $550 million in federal funding has underpinned the redevelopment.

The institution has consistently defended displaying an image of Roberts-Smith, from which the body of a dead man has been cropped out.

The picture of Roberts-Smith shows him standing in a field in Tizak in the Kandahar Province of Afghanistan.

A plaque under the image has been adjusted several times to reflect Roberts-Smith’s arrest and previous civil court cases.

The Antipoverty Centre has released this statement:

Today Cheyanne, a young woman from Ballarat who relies on the JobSeeker payment, is going to parliament to share her journey with “mutual” obligations and call on politicians to end the harm caused by more than 2.5 million Centrelink penalties issued each year to people with compulsory activities. Cheyanne features in a mini-documentary alongside Jesse, which will be screened at parliament at an event with additional speakers from the Antipoverty Centre, Anglicare Australia and Economic Justice Australia. Speakers will hold a press conference in the Mural Hall at 9:45am.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman was able to review Cheyanne’s records as part of his investigation into unlawful use of the Targeted Compliance Framework, which found significant problems with the use of payment suspensions. However, the government has not acted to pause the use of these penalties.

Cheyanne:

Getting my job agency and Centrelink records through FOI was so enlightening, because it showed 14 demerits, at least 9 of which were overturned purely because they applied them when they weren’t allowed to. They harassed me to sign a non-compulsory privacy waiver and used compulsory appointments to try and get my payslips, which they aren’t allowed to do.

Dealing with those payment suspensions and the mistreatment caused me so much stress and wasted my time.

Forcing people to do these compulsory activities doesn’t make sense, it’s not fair and they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. No one should have the power to stop our Centrelink payments when we rely on them to survive.”

Facing ongoing barriers to justice, Cheyanne and other welfare recipients are now raising awareness of how penalties are misused by private job agencies by using personal records accessed under FOI in an effort to get the government to intervene. Through this process she discovered a long history of inappropriate and potentially unlawful payment suspensions, which were documented but never acted on by the employment department, who oversee the system.

• The Ombudsman found that compulsory activity requirements have been unlawfully administered and raised concerns over the use of Centrelink payment suspensions.¹
• Around 1 million people on Centrelink payments – JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension and Parenting Payment – have compulsory activity requirements.²
• There are more than 2.5 million compliance actions issued each year.³
• The majority of compliance penalties are issued by outsourced employment services providers, a system which costs around $5 billion a year – the government’s second largest private procurement after defence.⁴

(You may notice the footnotes there – this is not something politicians have to do when presenting their cases – but it is a snapshot of the work advocates have to do to prove their case and their worth. Declarative sentences are a luxury of power. The rest of us have to show our work)

For the record, here are the reports:

1

Fairness in the Targeted Compliance Framework: when decisions are made beyond your control, Commonwealth Ombudsman. See: ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/323205/Fairness-in-the-Targeted-Compliance-Framework.pdf

2

Antipoverty Centre analysis of data published by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Department of Social Services and National Indigenous Australians Agency. See: theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/02/centrelink-payment-2025-payments-suspended-cancellations-mutual-obligation

3

Ibid.

4

Select Committee on Workforce Australia employment services inquiry report. See: aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Former_Committees/Workforce_Australia_Employment_Services/WorkforceAustralia/Report

For those following the senate yesterday – Senator David Pocock’s attempt to establish an inquiry on personal staffing of parliamentarians did not get up.

Presumably because Labor enjoy the status quo where they can determine numbers of personal staff at their discretion, and the Liberals think that in the foreseeable future they may once again be the party that provides the Prime Minister of the day.

Hello and welcome back to parliament, where things are all still a big ole mess.

Labor is looking to do a deal with the Greens to get the tax changes through the senate as close to its time table as possible (which is this sitting) which means Labor is looking to negotiate. And that might mean closing the loophole which allows people to continue buying investment property through their self managed super funds.

That will be treated as very normal I am sure by all the conservatives and Hughesy’s of the world who seem to have mistaken the right to own a home with their own right to make as much money from passive income as possible, while locking a generation out of the housing market.

Meanwhile, Anthony Albanese is playing the sad music for his friend, the empty vessel shaped as a political project, also known as Keir Starmer. Starmer has announced he will step down as prime minister (well Donald Trump beat him to announcing that) to make way for the UK’s fifth prime minister in as many years. Andy Burnham is the most likely candidate to step into that role. Strange as it seems, it appears that kowtowing to power and not actually doing anything to help vulnerable people and instead just working to destroy the left only ends up destroying you and opening the door for the hard right. WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS.

And Lowy has an interesting poll (for Lowy) which shows that for the first time in eight years, we are not all the way with the USA and instead have our eyes on China. Here is AAP’s quick take:

Australians have nominated the nation’s relationship with China as more important than its partnership with the US, as trust in Donald Trump hits a record low.

Some 51 per cent of respondents to the 2026 Lowy Institute Poll said Australia’s partnership with Beijing is more vital than the bond with Washington, marking an eight-point rise from the previous year.

Confidence in the US president to do the right thing in global affairs stands at 21 per cent, the lowest level for any American leader in the survey’s 22-year history.

Six in 10 Australians say they have “no confidence at all” in Mr Trump.

But support for the US alliance has endured and, despite experiencing a drop, almost three in four people say the relationship is important for the nation’s security.

And One Nation continues its march into mainstream permanence. What a great time to be living through all round.

I have coffee number two on, with about another eight to follow. Because of so many lovely people like you I will also have as much Russian Caravan tea to fuel a small Russian army to get me through the day. When people try to tell you community is dead, don’t believe them. You just have to find them.

Ready? Let’s get into it.