This blog is now closed.
The gremlin has taken a knock and I’ve received the pick up call, so I’ll be closing the blog off a little earlier than usual to go make sure he is all OK.
Thank you to everyone who joined along today, and to the team for all their amazing contributions. I’ll be back tomorrow bright and early with all the coffee to do it again.
Until then – take care of you. Ax
Here is how Mike Bowers saw QT
Luke Slawomirski
Back on pharmaceuticals … On Friday, Donald Trump was claiming credit for a sharp fall in US prescription drug prices. There was one problem: the experts cited in the Washington Post article he was brandishing said the fall was more likely due to Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
The IRA finally gave Medicare – America’s enormous federal health insurance program, which mainly covers people aged 65 and over – the power to negotiate prices for some of the drugs on which it spends the most. The first negotiated prices took effect this year.
It is perhaps unsurprising that Trump would take credit for someone else’s work. What’s more interesting is the difference between the IRA and Trump’s approach to lower drug prices taken by the IRA, as compared to Australia’s own Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
Linking a drug’s price to its effectiveness
The IRA gets lower drug prices through negotiation. It enables Medicare to look at what competing treatments are available, their comparative effectiveness, unmet clinical need and evidence of therapeutic advance, alongside factors such as manufacturing and R&D costs. It isn’t quite the same as Australia’s PBS system, where cost-effectiveness is built directly into decisions about whether, and at what price, a drug should be publicly funded. But the basic principle is similar: the price a government pays should bear some relationship to what a medicine actually does.
Making effectiveness central to funding decisions also sends a useful signal to drug companies. If you want insurers to pay more, develop medicines that produce better health outcomes.
Trump’s lazy alternative
Trump’s approach is very different. His ‘most-favoured-nation’ policy seeks to link American prices to the lower prices paid in other developed countries. His executive order goes further, directing US trade and commerce officials to challenge foreign policies that supposedly suppress drug prices below “fair market value”.
That’s now directly affecting the Australian pharmaceutical market.
If American prices are pegged to what companies charge here, pharmaceutical companies have a powerful new reason to push Australian prices up. Every extra dollar extracted from the PBS may help protect many more dollars of revenue in the much larger US market.
Rather than the US doing the hard work of deciding what drugs are worth, it free-rides on countries such as Australia that already do that work, only to turn around and pressure them to pay more. It’s the lazy option for an industry that already spends considerable energy fighting governments over prices.
Pharmaceutical companies should be competing to develop safe, effective drugs and vaccines that deliver meaningful improvements in health. That means rewarding them handsomely when they succeed, not for finding ever more elaborate ways to make taxpayers pay more.
LNP MP Phil Thompson has the matter of public importance and it is on the Veterans’ Coalition.
He criticises Matt Keogh for not meeting with any of the group and says:
…the minister, the minister couldn’t clear a diary schedule, couldn’t miss lunch for a day, couldn’t just change something to meet with these veterans.
There is nothing more important than making sure that our veterans, those that we’ve asked to serve can can get to see their minister. They they can stand there and say we don’t agree. Like the minister doesn’t have to agree, but he must he must listen. This is simply not good enough.
And you know my own experiences. I’ve I’ve spoken about my own mental illness in this place before, and I know how difficult it is when you’re going through it. When you’re, when those days turn into nights and you can’t remember the last time you’ve slept, when you don’t know when the pain medication you had or you didn’t have started or stopped, when you don’t know who to call, only thing you’re thinking about is about how tough it is and how the department’s not listening, and that next call determines whether you’re here or not.
That next call, because if they don’t answer, or you can’t get the support, or you can’t get the mental health treatment that you need, I know what happens next because I’ve carried the coffins of my friends. I know what happens next because I’ve been in that hole. I know what happens next because Julianne Finney in the gallery holding a photo of her son.
So what did we learn?
Well, Labor want you to focus on housing and superannuation, two areas where they think they have a win.
The Coalition are a bit of a hodge podge. Angus Taylor didn’t ask any of the questions, and other than the questions on notice from the Australian (or at least previewed by the Australian) there was no theme to the opposition’s questions. Instead, it seemed we had more freelancing from the MPs who were asking about their own particular interests.
That doesn’t bode well for Taylor – it’s a public display of losing control over his party room.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder — maybe. In exciting news from the Donald, he and Little Rocket Man are back together again after a long hiatus. On Truth Social, Trump announced that he wants to renege on military exercises with South Korea, on account of his “very good relationship with Kim Jong Un”.
According to the self-styled Stable Genius (except, evidently, on matters of tariffs, strategy and the conduct of war), the military exercises are too costly for the US and, what’s more, “totally inappropriate and hostile to a country that . . . has been unthreatening and respectful (sic)”. And, what’s more, South Korea refuses to join the US in smashing Iran in the interests of denuclearization. North Korea is a nuclear state, but hey! That’s of no strategic moment to anyone. All those Presidents since Ike just didn’t get it.
Trump’s post must’ve brought consolation to North Korea and China, and probably to Russia too. Japan, South Kore and Taiwan must be wondering just what “US protection” really means, and as for The Philippines — they’re on their own. And for those other allies of the US, obsequious protestations of eternal fealty are always welcome — maybe.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Zali Steggall asks:
Migrants fill critical workforce shortages across Australia, including doctors, nurses, agriculture, aged care, childcare, and construction, where migrants can make up to 30% or more of the workforce. What modeling has Treasury done on the economic and productivity damage from cuts to skilled migration and working holiday makers, and which sectors or essential services would need to be scoured backward shortages.
Jim Chalmers:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and to the honourable member. I want to thank her for the serious and considered way that she comes at this really important part of public policy in this country, and that is about migration and its contribution to the economy.
For a really long time now in this country, migrants have made an essential contribution, not just to our economy but to our society.
And it’s not always been the case that that’s been recognized by everyone in this Parliament, but it’s recognized by this side of the Parliament, and I believe that it’s recognized in that part of the Parliament as well.
There is a lot of work that goes into ensuring that we’re making the most of the economic benefit provided by migration.
The Treasury has the Center for Population Productivity Commission’s done a bunch of work. The OECD has, the Reserve Bank, and others.
And the consistent conclusion of all of that work over time is that migrants are more likely than not to make a big contribution to our economy. Often, they provide a big part of the dynamism and the innovation in our economy. I know that the small business minister, who I engage with on this regularly, understands that truth-that so much of the innovation, creativity, and dynamism, which is all about productivity, comes from migrant communities as well. And so our job, the responsibility that we embrace, is to make the most of that economic opportunity, fed by that considered methodical analysis that we get from all of those places, to make sure we’re making the most of this opportunity.
At the same time as we get net overseas migration down 45% below its peak, and with some further distance to travel as well. Now I’m conscious that the honorable member asked about the damage done to our economy about managing the migration system in the wrong way, and we have unfortunately heard in recent times, in particular, that there are some in our community and especially in our politics sitting over there, whose primary purpose, when it comes to thinking about and dealing with migration in this country, is to try and divide the community, and we reject that irresponsible approach.
The approach that they take in talking down our economy and our community is bad for our economy and it’s bad for our society as well. And so we will continue to work with anyone of goodwill who recognises you can get net overseas migration down as we are doing, at the same time as you can recognize and not diminish the really important role played by migrants in our economy and in our society as well.
Tony Burke takes a dixer on the gun buyback scheme to push back against the scare campaigns:
After the appalling anti-Semitic terror attack which occurred in Bondi, we had a special sitting of this house, an emergency sitting of this house, where we took action to act on both the motivation and the method that was used in that attack.
And the Royal Commission, in its interim report, called for the Commonwealth and states to be implementing the buyback. The government has provided to all the states and territories now, to all jurisdictions, a flexible system to allow them, because they’ve all implemented, or most of them have implemented in slightly different ways, but a flexible system to allow them to participate In the buyback, effectively, once they are part of once any state is part of the buyback, they can then choose to include what the price points are, what ammunition, accessories, dealer compensation would be, and wherever that lands within their compensation model, the cost is shared 50/50 with the Commonwealth.
Phase two of the New South Wales buyback scheme, for example, which starts in early 2027, will provide a pathway to compensation for eligible higher value firearms with an indicative market value above $3,000.
Now, I respect that when we establish the buyback scheme, it was not bipartisan across the Parliament, and part of what didn’t surprise me was that there would be a private members’ bill in the Senate that would look at undoing this.
But what stunned me, absolutely stunned me, was the private senators’ bill that is in the Senate right now, moved by Senator McKenzie, which I presume has the support of the National Party, the Liberal Party, and One Nation.
Is it doesn’t just go against the aspects of the government’s changes that deal with the number of firearms used at Bondi? Because we we all accept and we all know that the majority of gun owners are responsible people who use firearms for work, for sport, and for recreation?
But I’ll tell you what stuns me is that legislation in the Senate right now, supported by all three of those parties, calls for the undoing of the restrictions we did on 3D printed weapons.
Now these are the weapons where, if you get the software and the files, you can print firearms at home without regulation.
Something which is, I thought, only supported by organized crime. I thought only supported by the worst elements of our society, and to think there is right now on the notice paper in the Senate a piece of legislation that would undo that says everything about who that crowd are trying to appeal to.
Michael McCormack asks why Matt Keogh, the veteran affairs minister, won’t meet with the Veterans coalition which was formed to lobby for better treatment for veterans attempting to find help.
Keogh:
…as they were informed last week by my office, I was unable to meet with them today. But as I have continually said and engaged with many exodus organisations, we wish to engage with them and the practitioners in allied health services to make sure that we deliver a service that is available with no gap in service to allied health, while they are accessing the clinically required allied health services that are required.
We want to improve this access by paying allied health service providers more, by making it easier for veterans to access without having to continually go back to a GP, and we will continue to engage with the veteran sector. And I am sure, as part of those engagements, people that have visited today will participate in providing that feedback and engaging in the consultation forums that we will be running, so that we get these reforms right. And if the opposition continue to want to shout instead of actually engaging in the policy development process, it’s incredibly unhealthy to getting those positive outcomes.
Here is a bit of the background of question time, according to Mike Bowers lens:
Sophie Scamps asks Mark Butler:
My question is to the Minister for Health, Disability, and the NDIS. During the recent Senate inquiry, there were extensive warnings from disability advocates and state ministers that alternative foundational supports are not ready, fully funded, or guaranteed to be operational before participants are moved off the scheme. Understandably, parents and carers are terrified that their kids could be left without the supports they need and rely on. How will the government ensure that no NDIS participant is exited from the scheme until appropriate foundation supports are fully funded and operational?
Butler:
Well, the way we’ll ensure that is by making sure foundational supports are agreed by the 1st of January 2028. That is the agreement that all jurisdictions made with the prime minister through their heads of government, the premiers and the chief ministers. This is not something that came out of the blue earlier this year. It was a decision of national cabinet back in 2023 to accept and endorse the core recommendations of the NDIS review that Bruce Bonney and Lisa Paul conducted back then.
One of which, a central recommendation of which, was to build that second tier of disability supports that was always envisaged by the Productivity Commission when recommending that our government back then put in place an NDIS. The tragedy is that wasn’t put in place.
Those second tier supports, many of them did pre-exist the NDIS, as the member knows, and were either dismantled entirely by state governments or at least degraded to a significant group. Now, back in 2023, when heads of government were making that decision, there was also a commitment for $10 billion, half funded by the Commonwealth, half collectively by states and territories, to fund those what were called foundational supports, as recommended by the NDIS review. As the member knows, Thriving Kids is well underway. I’ve seen implementation plans.
I think by all state governments, with the exception of Queensland, we’re very satisfied with progress being made there. They start to ramp up from the 1st of October, with the expectation that they will be fully rolled out from the 1st of January 2028, when access and eligibility rules change for that cohort, which, as the member knows, is children under the age of nine. Now, for other participants or potential participants who would not satisfy the new substantially reduced functional capacity test that is currently being developed by the technical advisory group, and I had my second meeting with them before last. Yes, foundational support systems will have to be built for them as well.
Kids over the age of nine and adults who might not end up being on the NDIS as a result of that new test being introduced, and there’s a lot of work for state governments and the Commonwealth to do there, we’re committed to doing that work. The Minister for the NDIS, Senator McAllister, met with her disability minister colleagues again on Friday. That was reaffirmed as an agreed commitment by all state governments.
Now I understand people are nervous about these changes. I understand that they are significant changes about which we’ve had very constructive discussions with the opposition, which I want to acknowledge right now. And there’s a lot of work to do, but we are absolutely committed to doing that. And as the Prime Minister and I have made clear, obviously we will not let Australians fall within between two stalls without proper supports, but we will have them in place by the first of January.
Anara Watson
The first day of the Adelaide Parklands trial is currently underway in the Federal Court.
At issue is the Malinauskas state government’s $45 million taxpayer-funded North Adelaide Golf Course redevelopment, which would lead to the destruction of hundreds of trees in the heritage-listed Adelaide Parklands.
The redevelopment has been the subject of significant controversy, and the petition to “stop the chop” received over 13,000 signatures, automatically triggering an inquiry by the South Australian Parliament.
Edwin Kemp Atrill, a public servant, and Kaurna Traditional Owner Janette Milera brought the matter in early June, alleging that the state government failed to properly refer the redevelopment proposal to the federal environment minister for approval under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Almost $60,000 has been raised through GoFundMe donations to cover the costs of Attrill’s legal fees.
According to InDaily, “the government said it completed a self-assessment that did not need to be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for further planning checks”.
The trial will continue for the remainder of this week.
Photo Source: InDaily
Luke Slawomirski
In addition to last week’s 7.30 interview with Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks other recent salvos from big pharma against Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) have targeted the length of time taken for new drugs to be approved for listing.
Obviously, patients want access to new medicines as soon as possible. But many new therapies are trialled on relatively few, carefully selected subjects, which is a problem. Significant adverse effects sometimes sneak through undetected, only to emerge when a medicine is in routine clinical use.
Take Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory, which was found to cause heart attacks and strokes. It was linked to the deaths of about 300 Australians before it was withdrawn. In the US – where its approval was expedited – the toll was estimated at 50,000 deaths.
Similarly, US approval for leukaemia drug ponatinib (brand name iclusig) was based on a clinical trial that was underpowered (449 participants). Once in clinical use, ponatinib was found to cause serious adverse events in a considerable number of patients and was recalled. Australia ended up approving ponatinib, but with a prominent warning on the label to monitor patients for blood clotting.
Holding off approval can also mitigate the effects of deliberate malfeasance. The manufacturer of dabigatran, an anticoagulant, withheld safety information in its submission to the US regulator. Consequent mis-dosing in clinical use led to severe bleeding in some patients. Australian regulators had time to more recommend more conservative dosing, avoiding considerable patient harm.
The benefits of faster access must be carefully balanced against the potential harms. The examples above suggest that the PBS has got the balance right.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder — maybe. In exciting news from the Donald, he and Little Rocket Man are back together again after a long hiatus. On Truth Social, Trump announced that he wants to renege on military exercises with South Korea, on account of his “very good relationship with Kim Jong Un”.
According to the self-styled Stable Genius (except, evidently, on matters of tariffs, strategy and the conduct of war), the military exercises are too costly for the US and, what’s more, “totally inappropriate and hostile to a country that . . . has been unthreatening and respectful (sic)”. And, what’s more, South Korea refuses to join the US in smashing Iran in the interests of denuclearization. North Korea is a nuclear state, but hey! That’s of no strategic moment to anyone. All those Presidents since Ike just didn’t get it.
Trump’s post must’ve brought consolation to North Korea and China, and probably to Russia too. Japan, South Kore and Taiwan must be wondering just what “US protection” really means, and as for The Philippines — they’re on their own. And for those other allies of the US, obsequious protestations of eternal fealty are always welcome — maybe.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Skye Predavec
In response to a Dorothy Dixer from WA Labor Senator Ellie Whiteaker, the Minister for Disability took a hardline stance on “shonks and grifters” that “seek to drain” the NDIS through fraud.
Earlier today the Senate debated the “securing the NDIS for future generations” bill, which will see $36 billion cut from the NDIS, with those cuts going unmentioned.
Asked how the government is “cracking down on fraud and better protecting participants” in the NDIS, Disability Minister Jenny McAllister told the Senate:
“We have a very clear message for the people out there who think otherwise, and it is this. If you think that you can steal from the NDIS, we will come after you.
… if you seek to drain the plans of people with a disability, you do not belong in the NDIS, you belong in prison. And that is where you will end up, because our crackdown on NDIS fraud is ramping up and we are reviewing more claims and conducting more investigations and prosecuting more fraudsters than ever before.”
“There is a bill before this Senate which will give us more tools to protect participants, including the powers to issue warrants, issue fines, haul people in for questioning, request key data.”
While the cuts were not mentioned, a supplementary question referenced the Albanese Labor Government’s “record investments to protect participants and the NDIS from fraud.”
There is another attempt by the LNP to make the capacity investment scheme a thing.
Chris Bowen is asked:
Will the Minister just tell Australians how much Labor’s secret capacity investment scheme is costing taxpayers?
Bowen:
The capacity investment scheme is treated in the budget in a very similar way, in fact, identical way to previous government programs of a similar nature, including programs that were administered by the then Minister for Energy, Mr. Speaker, including the underwriting of new generation investments, Mr. Speaker, including Snowy Hydro Two business case that the Member for Hume was responsible for, including changes to the clean energy related that the member for Wannon was responsible for the Australian naval infrastructure that the member for Wannon was responsible for all of which are noted in commercial and confidence in budget measures number Two.
Mr. Speaker, the point is that these projects that are supported by the capacity investment scheme are all designed to bring more of the cheapest form of energy to the availability of Australians.
A fact, Mr. Speaker, that was recognised, credit where it’s due, credit where it’s due, was recognised by the member for Wannon last week. He issued a press release, and I must say I was touched. I don’t get emotional much, Mr. Speaker, but I was touched. It says the shadow minister for energy and emissions reduction, Dan Tehan, said Labor’s net zero agenda was delivering the cheap and affordable energy Australia requires. I mean, I mean. mean so eloquent, Mr. Speaker. I was very moved to read….
There is a point of order, but Bowen has finished his answer.
Dan Tehan is trying to be a big man and asks:
Minister, would you just cut the crap and tell Australians how much your capacity investment scheme is costing taxpayers?
There is a debate over the language. Milton Dick asks him to reword it and remember standards. This is despite Zali Steggall arguing that as the manager for opposition business, Tehan should be held to a higher standard.
Tehan does not read the room (timeless statement) and rewords to says:
My question is to the Minister for Climate and Energy. Will the minister just cut the fecal matter and tell Australians how much Labor’s secret capacity investment is costing taxpayers.
Dick is furious and kicks him out of the chamber.
Llew O’Brien asks Chris Bowen:
The minister has repeatedly refused to say how much taxpayer money has been handed to foreign companies under the capacity investment scheme. Today, we learned that CIS-backed companies have spent nearly 40 billion dollars on so-called social license commitments, including cash payments, opening ceremonies, and Indigenous artworks. Minister, how much money have you handed to foreign investors under the capacity investment scheme?
Bowen:
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the honorable member for the question, and I particularly appreciate the notice the opposition gave on the front page of the Australian today, Mr. Speaker, which says the Coalition on Monday will launch a parliamentary attack on Labor’s marquee scheme. I thought it was questions without notice, Mr. Speaker. But there you go, you learn something every day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I guess, given it’s the first time the opposition’s asked me a question since April, it’s a big deal, and you have to flag it on the front page of the national broadsheet. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it’s a big day for the opposition now.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on my left, it is the case, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with long-standing practice, when the government is running an auction, that those auction results are commercial and confidence, Mr. Speaker. That is, that was the result.
For example, when the Minister for Energy ran the Ungi scheme, if he had if he had released the documents which showed how many bids had been received, it would have been clear there had been none because no kilowatts were created, Mr. Speaker.
That would have been that would have been an suboptimal result, Mr. Speaker, because when you are when you are operating an auction. What you are doing is is calling on people to put forward bids, and if you if you reveal the outcome of those bids, you are undermining the position of the taxpayer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman criticises the fact that there was community benefit in projects supported by the capacity investment scheme.
That is a fundamental difference of approach because I happen to think that’s a good thing. I happen to think that if developers of renewable energy projects in regional Australia provide bill relief and rebates to regional Australia, I think that’s important.
…the honorable member referred to community benefits and complained that the community was receiving benefits projects. Now I can confirm that the same FOI document the coalition received confirmed that there were 65 projects announced that had that point committed to 35.5 billion dollars in Australian and New Zealand local content, including 1.1 billion dollars in local steel. I think that’s a good thing.
Those opposite think it’s a bad thing. And mr. Speaker, I also make no apologies for some First Nations communities receiving benefits from these programs, including the program in Wellington, which has negotiated 5% equity for local First Nations people, 5% ownership, Mr. Speaker, which I don’t think is a bad thing. I think is a good thing, and people on this side of the house are proud of, Mr. Speaker.
Tim Wilson got a question and asked about the number of first-home buyers. He wanted to know why the number of first-home buyers dropped “more than 6% this calender year.”
It’s a very weird question because he is comparing the June quarter to the December quarter. That is apples and oranges.
But it’s even worse. The December 2025 quarter saw a spike because it was the quarter the government announced the 5% deposit guarantee so OF COURSE it was going to be abnormally high!
But here’s the thing, in the year to June 2026 this year, the number of first-home buyers is 3.7% HIGHER THAN in the year to June 2025 last year.
And if Wilson wants more first-home buyers, then surely he would want house prices to be falling, but then oddly the LNP also seems to be against that.
Barnaby Joyce gets a question and he breaks
My question is to the manager of government business representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. Now, I’ve heard today you’ve been talking about your support for workers, so I put the challenge to you. We have 79 workers at Deniliquin and Leeton who’ve received their redundancy notice because of the peculiarity that you are unable to credit floodwaters as an environmental flow. This is merely a bureaucratic decision. Do you promise those workers, members of the United Workers Union, that you will change this decision and give them back their jobs before they get flushed down the river?
Joyce doesn’t mention it, but he is talking about Sunrice announcing it is cutting jobs.
Rice was identified as one of the industries which could potentially suffer from changes in the Murray-Darling basin plan, with more water being given to the river to KEEP IT ALIVE. But hey, inconvenient facts.
Tony Burke says:
Anything that goes to the condition of individual workers and the way that’s just been described, and I haven’t been briefed on what’s been described, but obviously the way the member has put it equates to a significant issue, particularly for those involved. I’m happy to find out about that, get briefed on it, and report directly to the member.
The LNP has for some reason decided to focus on house prices. Presumably they have some focus group that shows they can scare people by saying the housing market is collapsing.
The first question was to ask about negative equity – which is when the value of your house is less than the mortgage.
First off that is not something you need to worry about unless you suddenly need to sell you house. Most people when they buy a home do not buy it to then sell it, but TO LIVE IN IT. if you are worried about negative equity you are probably an investor, and sorry, but their are risks to investing.
Back in 1998 my wife and I bought our first home – a townhouse. It was in Cairns, a place very devoted to tourism By the end of 2001 after 9/11 and the collapse of Ansett, house prices in Cairns tanked and we were in negative equity. But we weren’t selling so it didn’t matter – WE HAD A HOME.
Anyway a lot of this comes off the back of the scares last week about house prices falling that the ANZ put out. But as you can see even if the forecasts of ANZ come true, housing will still be miles more expensive than it was 5 years ago
Tim Wilson is currently not the least popular member of the Liberal party room, after Andrew Bragg freelanced on policy so hard, he ended up needing an assist from George Brandis in the SMH today.
So Wilson is looking particularly smug as he asks Clare O’Neil:
Minister, why has the number of first home buyers dropped by more than 6% this calendar year?
Clare O’Neil can’t say it, so I will – gee, do we think INTEREST RATES INCREASING have anything to do with that?
Speaker, on average, there have been more first home buyers each and every year under our government than there have ever been under any other government in Australian history.
And you know what, Speaker? We’re actually really, really proud of that. And one of the main drivers of it, Speaker, is the 5% deposit program. This program has now helped 260,000 Australians get into a home of their own. And Speaker, of course, those landmark housing tax reforms that we made in the federal budget are going to provide even more opportunity for first home buyers around the country.
We’ll see 75,000 rental households get into their first home, which will reverse a decades worth of decline in the home ownership rate. Now, Speaker, I just want to provide a quick contrast with those opposite who want to rebreak the housing market. They want to wait, take away first home owner support…
There is a point of order battle over whether or not ministers can compare and contrast and then O’Neil gets to finish with:
We’re on the side of first home buyers, and I think we can see from those opposite they are the last man standing defending the broken housing market in this country. We’re making the real change that Australians are asking for on housing.
Skye Predavec
In two-minute statements, Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe used her speech to highlight West Papua’s struggle for independence since the 1962 New York agreement:
West Papuans have fought for their independence and self-determination and time and again they have paid the price with violence, oppression and their lives.
On Saturday, peaceful demonstrations were met with police violence, including beatings, firing of rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons, leaving demonstrators injured. The Labor government is silent on the oppression of West Papuans, while at the same time strengthening its partnership with the Indonesian military.
On the 64th anniversary of the New York Agreement, I stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in West Papua, who demand their sovereignty is recognised and their right to self-determination upheld and to live free from fear. Labor must end its military relationship with Indonesia and do everything it can to ensure an independent West Papua.
This was followed by statements from Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Michaelia Cash on the ties between Indonesia and Australia.
Wong spoke of how “there is no relationship more important for Australia than Indonesia” and highlighted the Lombok Treaty, “which enshrines an unwavering commitment to mutual respect for are the sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Cash highlighted Indonesia’s status as “one of the world’s great democracies”, saying the “friendship between Australia and Indonesia is one of enduring importance.”
Neither mentioned the status of West Papua, which has been denied self-determination since Indonesian rule began in 1963.
Anthony Albanese slights former Labor Griffith MP Terri Butler when welcoming a dixer from the current Griffith MP Renee Coffrey. He meant to slight Max Chandler-Mather from the Greens, who she replaced, but he said she was “the best member Griffith has had for some time. Since Kevin Rudd.”
Which is cool, except if you are Butler, who was the member for Griffith from 2014 to 2022.
The Liberal MP for Casey, Aaron Vivoli has the first question and he asks:
My question is to the Minister for Housing: $100,000 has been wiped off the value of homes in Melbourne’s Mount Waverley in the last 90 days, Minister.
How many homeowners in your electorate of Hotham are now in negative equity?
Numerous experts have said this isn’t an issue because remember – a house isn’t an instant turn around purpose and even a 10% drop in prices would only take us to 2023 in terms of house prices. Like be for real, for real.
Clare O’Neil answers:
the member for Casey asked me about the impact of the landmark housing tax reforms that our government has undertaken on our housing market in this country.
Speaker, we have made very significant changes to housing taxation in this country, and we’ve done that because we recognize that home ownership is the most important aspiration of most Australian families. Now, what the member for Casey has left out of his question, Speaker, is the fact that these changes will lead to a reverse of 10 years of decline of the home ownership rate in our country, Speaker, 75,000 households who are today stuck in a rent trap are going to get access to their own home because of these policies. Now, Speaker, isn’t it just so fascinating that those opposite have taken the first question of this question time today, when we have the young leaders of our country gathered up here in the parliament?
There is a point of order that is not a point of order.
O’Neil continues:
And I was asked about house prices in my electorate and around Australia, and I say again, I say again to those officers, Speaker, when are they going to stop and listen to what our country is telling us about what’s gone wrong for housing in Australia?
The reason that we have taken this significant step to address issues in our housing market is for the benefit of the young people who are sitting today in the public gallery. Speaker, now I say respectfully to those on the other side of the chamber that house prices have gone up 400% in the last 25 years in our country. 400% At what point are those opposite willing to accept that we have a significant problem with housing in our country, and if we allow this to continue for another generation, then opportunity and aspiration in our country are going to mean something fundamentally different? Now, Speaker, I’ll just finish by saying this: I was raised in an incredibly patriotic household, and I was raised to believe that the most important thing about our country is that it was equal and fair. That is changing about our nation because of our broken housing market. Speaker, we got home ownership rates for young people falling through the floor. A low-income young couple is half as likely to own their own home in Australia today than they were in the year that I was born, and they want to do absolutely nothing about it. Well, we have a different view, Speaker. We represent all Australians, especially those young people in the gallery.
There is about to be another objection, but O’Neil is sat down for not being relevant to the question by the Speaker.
First there is an acknowledgement of Indonesia’s independence day and condolences to Indonesia for the deadly earthquake which has killed more than 50 people (in an unfinished count)
Richard Marles is still away, and representatives of the first ever national youth parliament are in the house.
Milton Dick gives them a welcome.
Anna Chang
Chris Walsh in the NT Independent is today reporting that the CLP has announced a new private for-profit prison that will cost taxpayers over $1 billion. (The NT Independent really is the NT’s best news source, just quietly.)
As Independent MLA Justine Davis has said:
“if locking more people up made us safer, the Territory would already be the safest place in Australia.
“…the CLP is doubling down on imprisonment and handing a private company a financial incentive to keep people behind bars.”
The idea that prisons will be run by private companies, for profit is at best reckless, and at worst, will kill people. And we’ll spend over $1 billion to do it.
At a time when two separate Indigenous deaths in custody in Darwin in a single week in March are being investigated, and reporting Indigenous deaths in custody arguably requires a ‘correct at time of printing’ disclaimer, this is a truly alarming turn of events in the Northern Territory.
The Labor MP for Reid, Sally Sitou, is remembering the victims of the Strathfield Massacre:
Sitou:
We also remember the extraordinary courage shown that afternoon. Greg Read, a Vietnam War veteran, ran ahead of the gunman through the plaza and into the car park, warning people to take cover, even as shots were being fired around him. Police later estimated that his actions saved at least eight people, he was rightly awarded the Star of Courage, and we acknowledge the police, paramedics, and other first responders who ran towards danger to protect others, including then 19-year-old constable Liam Pagot, one of the first officers on the scene.
Thirty-five years on, the pain of that day remains part of Strathfield’s story, and we honour and remember those who were lost.
We are into the downhill slide into QT, so it is into the MPs airing of the grievances.
Andrew Gee is not happy with the gun buyback scheme:
Taxpayers are going to be slugged up to a billion dollars, all because the state and federal governments wanted to make a knee-jerk political point following the horrific Bondi terrorist attack. What we need to be doing is going after the illegal firearms that our streets are awash with, the crooks aren’t going to be handing in their guns under this buyback. When police do lock up lock up crimsons for illegal guns, the sentences are so weak they’re back on the street all too quickly. Let’s get to the bottom of the real issues behind this attack, including security and intelligence fails, and go after the real criminals. Bin this junk policy and leave honest, peace-loving Australians alone. Stop making them scapegoats for government failures.
Allegra Spender is pleased David McBride has been freed:
I send all my well wishes to David, his friend, and of course his dog, but the truth is David should never have gone to prison. A man who exposed alleged war crimes in Afghanistan was prosecuted by the Australian government and found guilty despite attempting to rely on the public interest defense, and then sentenced to five years and eight months in prison. David’s name is well known, so is Richard Boyles prosecuted after exposing aggressive debt collection tactics at the ATO? But for every name we know, there will be many more who saw wrongdoing and stayed silent because they watched and they saw what happened to people who spoke up.
Our world and our country is better off for having whistleblowers. They can be one of the strongest mechanisms of accountability that both the private public and private sector have, but they cannot exist if whistleblowers are not protected. We need strong whistleblower protection authority called for by successive governments and expert reviews.
We need whistleblower protections consolidated into one clear act instead of scattered across different pieces of legislation. This government, who says they want to rebuild trust, should be encouraging people to come forward instead of deterring them by making public examples of them.
We should not wait for another brave individual to expose gaps in our laws by sacrificing themselves, their career, or their freedom. We should be proactive in protecting them for the sake of our country.
Let’s see what’s going on with our, exceptional friend (as Emma Shortis would say):
The government wants to talk its university accords, but Monique Ryan and Helen Haines take the opportunity to remind the government it has done nothing to get rid of Morrison’s Job Ready Graduates, which lumps arts and humanities students with degrees in excess of $50,000.
This is what Ryan and Haines want the government to discuss:
hat all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)next year, university students will be paying over $54,000 for standard bachelor’s degrees; and
(b)this bill fails to address the unfair and punitive funding arrangements introduced under the Job-Ready Graduates Package; and
(2)calls on the Government to exercise powers under the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Act 2026 to:
(a)immediately advise the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) that reviewing the funding arrangements introduced under the Job-Ready Graduates Package is a short-term, urgent strategic priority; and
(b)immediately issue written directions, by legislative instrument, requiring the ATEC Commissioners, in carrying out the Commission’s functions, to prioritise providing advice and recommendations to the Minister on options for reforming the funding arrangements introduced under the Job-Ready Graduates Package”—
Skye Predavec
In a sign that the ANU may finally be on the road to recovery, the Australian National University has a new Chancellor, former senior public servant and academic Gordon de Brouwer.
This comes after years of turmoil for the ANU, which reached its peak with the resignation of Vice-Chancellor Genevieve Bell in September last year and Chancellor Julie Bishop in May.
The crisis went deeper than two individuals, however, part of sector-wide failures in governance, transparency and accountability.
Last year, acting Vice-Chancellor Rebekah Brown apologised to the ANU community for “Renew ANU”, a $250 million cost-cutting program that was approved in 2024 “without clear evidence it was needed”.
While the Chancellor of ANU is a mostly ceremonial position, de Brouwer is faced with restoring the ANU community’s trust in their university after years of scandals
Amy noted that the Administrative Appeal Tribunal “had become a favourite parking space for the Liberals for future MPs”.
She ain’t joking,
Back in 2022 Deb Wilkinson and Elizabeth Morison looked into what was going on with appointments to the AAT.
Their report, “Cronyism in appointments to the AAT” found a massive increase in political appointments under the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison years – and especially so from the time Morrison became Prime Minister
The system had become a joke, and the AAT had become so political it was beyond repair, which is why the Albanese government has replaced it with the Administrative Review Tribunal (and also given it a wider scope)
The chamber is whipping through its morning list. Now we are on to this.
Julian Leeser is not a fan of the changes Mark Dreyfus made to the AAT (which had become a favourite parking space for the Liberals for future MPs) and says:
So after the upheaval, after the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, after around a billion dollars was committed to the new system, there is a very simple question: Is this new Administrative Review Tribunal actually delivering the better system that Australians were promised?
The tribunal’s own figures answer that question, and they are damning.
As at the 31st of May this year, the tribunal had more than 131,000 cases on hand.
Five years ago, under the former coalition government, that figure was around 65,000. What an indictment on the Albanese government! The caseload has doubled. Over the same period, the median time to finalize an application has blown out by 22 weeks, and only 43% of the applications are now finalized within 12 months of lodgement, well below the tribunal’s own target. That is the record after around a billion dollars was committed by the former attorney. The test of an administrative review system is whether it actually works for the Australians who rely on it, not the press release, not the ministerial announcement, not the new name on the door.
On the tribunal’s own figures, the new system is an abysmal failure.
Which, OK. Yes. But that is also because the Administrative Review Tribunal is dealing with a lot more issues and has about eight major areas it covers – including migration and NDIS reviews, which is the bulk of the additional cases. As makes sense.
The chamber has moved on to the social security changes (which you can find in this bill) which don’t do away with mutual obligations, or private providers, but do divide up people on how hard the government thinks it will be for them to find a job.
In case you missed it, here is what the Antipoverty Centre (and other advocates) had to say late last week:
A group of welfare rights organisations say employment minister Amanda Rishworth should not be restarting parts of the penalty system applied to Centrelink recipients who have mutual obligations requirements, which has been found to operate unlawfully.
The system, known as the Targeted Compliance Framework, has been the subject of an investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and a series of penalties were progressively put on hold over the course of 2024 and 2025 as the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified new areas of concern about potentially unlawful cancellation of people’s Centrelink payments. Last week the department announced these penalties will begin to return in October this year, despite concerns from welfare groups who have urged the government to go further amid concerns that even more parts of the system are operating unlawfully.
Members of the DEWR’s Targeted Compliance Framework Reference Group include the Antipoverty Centre, Australian Council of Social Services, Economic Justice Australia and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services. In a joint statement, the groups have reiterated their strong opposition to compulsory activities for people on Centrelink payments, and the Government’s plans to restart some payment cancellations and suspensions under the problematic framework.
The TCF Reference Group members are calling on the government to:
– Remove the Targeted Compliance Framework immediately, including payment suspensions and financial penalties.
– Provide full back-pay and compensation to every person affected by unlawful decisions.
The groups say cutting off a person’s income for four weeks is unfair, disproportionate and serves no purpose other than punishment, especially when these decisions are being made as part of a system that has such a troubling history of unlawfulness.
Independent analysis by Economic Justice Australia found more than 300,000 people were potentially affected by unlawful payment cancellations, with DEWR recently admitting “It’s in the vicinity of that” during a Senate Estimates hearing. Throughout the period since unlawful cancellations were identified, most payment suspension penalties have remained in place and have been used millions of times to punish people.
On Friday the ABS released the June quarter housing finance figures.
They showed that the value of investor loans fell 10.2%.
Oh my, is Angus Talyor right?? I mean last week he told the PM: “Labor’s toxic taxes and 15 interest rate rises on his watch have completely tanked the housing market.”
Well no.
Yes, investor loans were down 10%, and owner occupier loans were down 2% but they are coming of very high highs.
Take a look at the level of investor loans and not that even with the 10% fall in June, they are still 8% higher than a year ago, and 187% higher than was the case in the middle of 2019:
It means that the average home loan in the June quarter was $741,514 – some 7.8% higher than the June 2025 quarter. While the average investor loan of $705,738 was still 5% higher than a year ago.
Now remember the June quarter includes April where investors were getting in before the budget changes and so won’t contain the full impact of the budget moves to remover the 50% discount for capital gain tax. And you might look at the average loan size and think there is little good news for affordability. But the growth in total amount of housing finance is a pretty good indicator of future dwelling prices.
So, these figures align with the stories that hose prices are slowing, and even falling in some places.
And yet as the size of the average home loan shows it is not like suddenly housing is cheap as chips.
Over in the house, the debate is about this motion put forward by the opposition’s Aaron Violi:
That this House:
(1)notes that:
(a)the My Aged Care system is broken, causing widespread hardship and distress for ageing Australians;
(b)the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing recently confirmed that the current wait time for an older person of standard priority for a Support at Home package is between 300 to 330 days;
(c)a recent report by KPMG found that 96,709 people are still waiting in the National Priority System for a Home Care Package at their approved level; and
(d)residents in rural and regional parts of Australia are finding that once they finally get services approved, there are no available service providers to deliver the required supports; and
(2)requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to:
(a)immediately explain and address the ongoing and increasing delays with the My Aged Care and Support at Home programs; and
(b)outline what specific measures the Government will take to address provider scarcity and workforce issues in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates, where approved funding is currently failing to translate into actual bedside care and support at home.
The opposition will lose on the numbers, but Labor usually lets these debates happen (as the ones who control the numbers) outside of things like QT.
These debates are also interesting for what oppositions try to link to the issue at hand (aged care funding is at the centre of Four Corners tonight, and the Four Corners effect usually means these things, which have been floating around for ages, suddenly becomes a major issue). Nationals MP Anne Webster has brought it back to the private health subsidy cut for seniors:
We’re talking about support at home, just to be you know confusing for everybody to understand. And then, of course the end of the road is residential aged care.
By the end of the road, I mean most Australians want to age safely in their home. That is not unreasonable, but what we have is a government who is slow to act, slow to implement, and even when they do implement, it might be a 60% actual package that is delivered. So a person may be assessed for a package, and the government thinks they’re playing very cute by providing only 60% of that package.
So people might be able to have an occupational therapist comes to their home. They might be able to go to a physiotherapist, but that funding is going to run out. And then the pressure that has been put on those elderly to pay additional out-of-pocket costs is frankly outrageous. So we have a government who is happy to spend additional dollars. In fact, rip out funding from those in private health insurance, so they can apparently spend an additional 11 billion dollars on residential aged care that people largely don’t want to go to, and if they were provided with the care they could have at home, would not need, and therefore costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
Every aged care bed in a residential aged care facility costs a whole lot more than a Commonwealth home support package or support at home.
So we have a government and a minister who is flailing around the edges, pretending that they’re acting and dealing with the wait times, pretending they are dealing with algorithm assessments that mean people are not getting the care they need, and then the delays between being assessed and having their package approved can mean they go from a level two, which is some support, and their actual need becomes level four. Guess what?
They have to go through the assessment process again.
Webster is not wrong about the impacts of funding running out and the on-going assessments either. But the thing is, this also applies to the NDIS and the Coalition SUPPORTS those cuts. Which will do the same thing.
AAP
A third state-wide public school teacher strike has been called off after unionised educators voted to endorse a sweetened pay and conditions offer.
Unionised teachers and education staff voted in favour of the Victorian government’s offer of a 28.3 per cent to 32.4 per cent pay rise over four years, the Australian Education Union announced on Monday.
The deal brings to a close a year-long industrial dispute and ends the need for a third state-wide strike, which had been scheduled for Wednesday.
“Well done to every AEU member for the pressure you put on the government,” the union’s Victorian branch president Justin Mullaly said in a statement on social media on Monday.
The offer was backed by 79 per cent of union members and will now proceed to a vote of all employees as required under the Fair Work Act.
Public school teachers and other education staff had been locked in a dispute with the Labor state government for more than a year as the union pushed for a 35 per cent pay rise over four years.
Before the deal, Victorian graduate teachers were the worst paid in the country, while experienced teachers earned about $12,000 less per year than those in NSW.
Educators were also pushing for better working conditions, citing unmanageable workloads, regular unpaid work and poor work-life balance.
The latest offer, which included a one-off $2000 bonus and a one per cent annual lump sum payment for staff at the top of their pay scales, was put to the union by Education Minister Gabrielle Williams a week earlier.
It also featured a cap on face-to-face teaching hours and maintained a reduction in annual meeting commitments from 80 hours to 40 hours.
The negotiations have boiled over into two strikes, with teachers and staff walking off the job for 24 hours.
An estimated 35,000 protesters marched through Melbourne’s city centre in March, the first action of its kind of 13 years.
It was followed by a second strike in July, which drew an estimated 20,000 protesters into central Melbourne.
The latest offer was the first put to the union since Ms Williams took over as education minister, replacing now-premier Ben Carroll.
Mr Carroll’s previous offer, put to the union in July, was only narrowly shot down after 51 per cent of members voted to reject it.
David Richardson
Today the National Australia Bank announced increases in its net profit up 9% on the same time last year on net interest income up 4% to $4.6 billion.
It is worth comparing the 9% increase in profit with the income changes other groups have experienced over the same period.
Let’s take wages, the ABS figure for all employees average weekly total earnings went up 2.4%; if you had a full-time job your average weekly ordinary time earnings went up 3.7%. Meanwhile general inflation over the same period went up 3.9%.
These figures show that, on average, workers are not keeping up with inflation but NAB’s profit certainly is! And more.
NAB announced an increase in the number of loans it closely watches “reflecting current and potential stress impacting…customers”. That was evident in home lending applications down 15% compared with the previous quarter. New loans may have fallen off but apparently the old outstanding home loans are more than enough to generate ever higher profits.
All in all today’s figures confirm our earlier analysis showing that the big banks are enormously profitable. We estimated that the big four banks make $229,000 in profit on the average 30-year home loan for owner-occupiers. All up profit before tax of all banks in Australia was $58.3 billion in the year to March 2026 based on APRA figures. These profits were produced on total interest paid to banks of $312.6 billion.
While bank profits come at the expense of ordinary Australians their impact on Australian’s living costs is hidden because the official inflation figures do not include mortgage interest rates. Hence we can refer to bank profits as coming from the hidden cost-of-living increases.
Skye Predavec
As the Senate debates the government’s NDIS cuts, Jordon Steele-John, one of Australia’s few disabled parliamentarians, has told senators who back the bill that “The blood and the lives of those who will suffer and die will be on your hands, and will live in your consciences forever.”
The so-called “securing the NDIS for future generations” bill was introduced by Labor and is backed by the Liberal-National Coalition. If passed, it will cut $36 billion from the NDIS over the next four years. For comparison, a 25% tax on gas exports could raise $68 billion over the same period.
You can read the final part of Jordon Steele-John’s speech in opposition to the bill below:
This is not a joke to the disabled community, this is not a political moment; this is our lives on the line.
These cuts are not needed. They are not needed.
This Parliament, this government, can choose in this moment to turn back, to find courage; To tax the gas exporters and the billionaires, rather than cut the supports needed by a disabled family to live. You can choose to do that.
The community is looking and watching you in this moment.
You can choose to listen and to act.
If you do not, if you decide to complete your betrayal, if the Australian Labor Party decides to have the back of the gas industry and the billionaires instead of the backs of disabled people and our families, then shame on you.
Then shame on you, you betray not only this community, but the national character.
You will be condemned by history.
The blood and the lives of those who will suffer and die will be on your hands, and will live in your consciences forever. And disabled people will not let you forget, any of you.
And come the next election we will consider what to do with our votes, and we will remember who backed us up, who fought in our corner in this moment and who decided to turn away.
And between now and then we will ensure that every single life, every single cooked decision, every single automated nightmare created by this Bill, is laid directly at your door.
You will find no peace from us.
You will understand what is being done to us.
And you will hear our voices grow louder and louder on the streets, in every platform we can gain.
We will not be silent or go back into the dark.
There is a new Liberal senator in the house (well, chamber)
Chris Gatenby has been sworn in. He is replacing Wendy Askew who announced her retirement in June.
Gatenby is a former advisor to Liberal Tasmanian leader, Jeremy Rockcliff.
Everyone is just thrilled.
Jordon Steele-John is trying to suspend standing orders to debate the NDIS cuts (the numbers are not there)
Matt Canavan and Penny Wong are having little side chats:
And Pauline Hanson is having a whinge about something (timeless statement)
AAP
South Australia has refused to join a planned national gun buyback, warning it will not spend state funds on a scheme it says should be paid for entirely by Canberra.
Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis says SA is not interested in signing up to a model that relies on state co‑funding rather than being fully funded by the Commonwealth.
South Australia cannot divert money from essential services and cost‑of‑living priorities into a program driven by federal politics, he said.
“We think we’ve got the balance right here in South Australia, but if the Commonwealth government want to embark on a buyback scheme under the same process that John Howard did, they’re more than welcome to,” Mr Koutsantonis told ABC Radio.
“The John Howard buyback was fully funded by the Commonwealth government, so they funded it in its entirety.”
Mr Koutsantonis said all states faced broader funding pressures to keep up with demand for health, disability and other frontline services.
On Sunday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns announced details of the state’s buyback, due to begin in November.
NSW is currently the only jurisdiction participating in the national scheme, which was promised after last December’s Bondi terror attack in which 15 people were killed.
Conservative governments in Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have also declined to sign up to the buyback.
Western Australia has already run its own gun buyback and has no plans for a second scheme linked to the Bondi attack.
In Victoria, regionally based former premier Jacinta Allan had previously baulked at joining the national buyback, denting Canberra’s hopes of broad state participation.
Her resignation and replacement by Ben Carroll has created uncertainty ahead of the November 28 election as the new premier weighs how far to go on firearms.
The stand-off has revived comparisons with former Liberal prime minister John Howard’s 1996 post‑Port Arthur buyback, funded entirely by the Commonwealth through a temporary Medicare levy.
Gun‑rights advocates say Mr Albanese’s approach falls short of that standard and unfairly targets law‑abiding shooters while failing to address extremism and radicalisation.
Sporting shooters are among a broad range of pro‑gun groups attacking the post‑Bondi reforms at federal and state level, alongside the coalition and One Nation.
In regional NSW, independent Barwon MP Roy Butler said the Minns government’s approach unfairly targeted farmers and sporting shooters in his vast western electorate.
“The idea that taking firearms away from law‑abiding people, farmers, sporting shooters, target shooters – that somehow that’s going to stop terrorism or impact terrorism and extremism and radicalisation is just nuts,” Mr Butler told ABC Radio.
Anti‑violence organisations, including the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, have welcomed the NSW buyback and continue to lobby other states to tighten their firearms laws.
Anara Watson
Last week, I wrote about six stories from Australian states that we know thanks to FOI. Here are seven we can thank national FOI laws for:
Every day, Australians use FOI laws to learn about the internal dealings of government. In doing so, they strengthen Australian democracy.
The Coalition has joined the push to have veterans’ treated as individuals and humans in their quest for medical care which can assist them in living a normal life. Which should be the base standard. And applied consistently. Across all groups.
The Coalition is also about to join Labor in cutting NDIS supports and access to treatments for people with a disability under the false guise of ‘economic sensibility’.
But we have another very current example of what that does – Four Corners is looking at the systems which decide how much care an elderly person is allowed to continue living at home.
The Greens say its time for a re-think:
Comments Attributable to Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Greens Spokesperson for Older People
The Four Corners investigation is yet another damning indictment of Labor’s reckless aged care reforms.
Labor’s aged care assessment tool is broken, and the problems go beyond a simple fix. The IAT needs to be scrapped.
This is the same tool that has denied essential funding to older Australians with lifelong degenerative conditions like MND and dementia.
This tool was untested, fatally flawed and implemented with the absolute minimum accountability – all in the name of cutting costs.
Labor must replace the IAT with a new assessment tool that centres the human rights and care needs of older people.
Instead of penny-pinching from older people and withholding essential care, Labor could choose to properly fund aged care by taxing gas corporations and making billionaires and the 1% pay their fair share.”
I am not sure how many more examples we need to show that what the government wants to do with NDIS only ever causes more harm. As Grogs said this morning, we will be having a royal commission into the harm in the early 2030s when it becomes obvious what the failures have led to. The Coalition have the power to stop what is happening with the NDIS, for all the same reasons they are pushing to have changes to veterans care reversed.
Well, there are already very well considered and long established mechanisms for people in genuine hardship to access their super early, but for good reason, those arrangements are limited and those arrangements are very focused, and that has been the case for some time now.
Now, preservation in the superannuation system is the absolute key. You know, that’s why we got super to 12%. We’re paying super on paid parental leave, we’re boosting super for low income earners, we’re paying super on payday, because compulsory super, and preservation is an important element of that, they are absolutely key to giving Australian workers the retirement incomes and economic security that they need and deserve after a lifetime of working.
Now, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are all the same when it comes to coming after workers and superannuation, unfortunately, is just their latest attack on the wages and living standards of Australia’s working people.
Jim Chalmers is feeling like there is about to be a fight he can win:
The stakes are high at the next election for a whole range of reasons and one of them now is the future of Australia’s world leading compulsory superannuation system. Last week the Liberals, yesterday One Nation, and again this morning the Liberals via Jane Hume put the future of compulsory super in doubt.
If any coalition or combination of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation win the next election, their policy and their ideology on super would absolutely decimate the economic security and retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers. They share a dangerous and divisive anti-worker, anti-super ideology and if this plays out after the next election, Australian workers will be much worse off.
The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation would end compulsory superannuation as we know it. Jane Hume said this morning that compulsory super was up for grabs. Yesterday, One Nation said that they don’t support a broken system of compulsory super. Last week, Andrew Bragg at the Press Club compared super for younger workers as akin to super for cats and dogs. Their dangerous anti-worker, anti-super agenda would leave millions of Australian workers worse off as a consequence.
Labor built Australia’s superannuation system and we will defend it forever from the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation who want to destroy it. If they win the next election it will be the end of compulsory super as we know it, and Australian workers will be worse off as a consequence.
A new group has had its first launch in Canberra today, uniting around three demands:
Scrap the $5,000 annual cap on allied health services for veterans (which was introduced in the May budget)
Restore veterans’ right to choose their own accredited assessment provider
Support an independent inquiry into the DVA claims processing, with a mandate for transparent, binding performance standards.
The Coalition are behind this, despite having dropped the ball while in government (a timeless tale) and Julie-Ann Finney, who helped lead the fight for a royal commission into veterans’ suicide and mental health after the death of her son David, while the Coalition were in government, has also joined this coalition.
AAP
Superannuation is the latest political battleground for Labor to fight One Nation on, as fresh polling shows voter disapproval on the federal government’s handling of immigration.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met with Opposition Leader Angus Taylor as parliament returned after a five-week winter break, in an attempt to make a breakthrough on three key pieces of legislation including reform of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and gambling rules.
The latest Resolve Political Monitor, published in the Nine Newspapers, shows a clear majority agrees the government is managing migration policy in an “unplanned way”.
But it found 60 per cent of participants backed lower house prices, following the government’s change to tax concessions.
Almost twice as many people supported the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing changes.
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson reignited the debate surrounding superannuation when she labelled the scheme “broken” on Sunday.
She called for a relaxation of rules that would allow people to withdraw their retirement savings to help them pay off their own homes.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Liberals and One Nation had put the future of compulsory super at doubt but the government would “defend” it against them.
“Their policy and their ideology on super would absolutely decimate the economic security and retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers,” he told reporters on Monday.
“They share a dangerous and divisive anti-worker, anti-super ideology, and if this plays out after the next election, Australian workers will be much worse off.”
Asked about the latest polling, Dr Chalmers said the substantial housing issues had led to the government taking “politically difficult steps” to address those challenges.
Deputy opposition leader Jane Hume said maintaining the nation’s superannuation system was profoundly important.
“We also know that the biggest indicator of economic security in retirement isn’t how much superannuation you have, it’s whether you own a home,” she told News24.
“That’s why it’s so important that we allow Australians the opportunity to get into a home should they want to buy one.”
The recommendations from a Labor-led inquiry into the NDIS reform on Friday urged the immediate passage of the proposed changes despite significant backlash from disability advocates.
The coalition has flagged the need for further measures to crack down on dodgy operators within the scheme, but voiced support for the attempted funding cut of about $38 billion over four years.
All jurisdictions except Queensland have agreed to roll out the first state-based support, Thriving Kids, in October.
Adjustments to the News Bargaining Incentive announced at the end of the last sitting week are due to reach the Senate on Wednesday.
The changes will see major tech companies face an additional tax if they fail to agree to funding agreements with at least eight news companies.
The path of gambling reforms is less clear after reports the coalition is divided over its approach.
Any deal to pass the changes is likely to be announced after a Senate inquiry reports on Monday.
Anara Watson
On Thursday last week, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie introduced the Firearms Legislation Amendment (Repealing Unfair Gun Laws) Bill 2026 to the Senate.
You can probably guess what it’s about.
Senator McKenzie wants to remove every change that was made to Australia’s gun laws in the wake of the Bondi attack. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, she wants to get rid of:
She also isn’t happy with the amendments made to public safety tests and “the transmission of firearms information and other information to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission”.
When she introduced the Bill, she said that her second reading speech was “excellent reading” – so, let’s have a look.
First, she claims that “On January 20 this year a great injustice was done to Australia’s law-abiding firearm owners.”
Others claim that reform was a reasonable and proportionate response to a horrific attack on the Australian Jewish community.
After outlining the various types of gun-users – the “farmers, sporting shooters, hunters, recreational users, collectors and Olympians” – she says:
“One of the often-used arguments about the Government’s legislation was to get guns “off our streets”.
But the guns that are ‘on the streets’ in the hands of bikie gangs or criminal gangs are the illegal guns.”
Australia Institute research shows that theft of legal guns is now the single biggest source of new guns on the black market in Australia.
Both before and after Bondi, the majority of Australians have supported tighter gun laws.
Owning a gun in Australia is not a right; it is “a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety”.
Alice Grundy
Last night at the Logies, ABC’s Hannah Story quoted the team from A Country Practice comments on the need for more Australian drama.
As she wrote, “According to Screen Australia’s latest Drama Report, 7 and 10 made two dramas last year. That’s it. Nothing from 9. It’s a huge decline in investment compared to years past.”
It’s been a little while since The Australia Institute has done polling on this but in 2021 we found three in five Australians supported a requirement for services like Netflix to spend at least 20% of their revenue on local content.
Quotas are one way to ensure that Australians get the chance to watch Australian content.
Barnaby Joyce last week declared One Nation was one of the “gayest” parties in Australia (this from a man who had a child in an extra-marital affair, and voted against marriage equality and all the other things Joyce has done) because Australia is doomed to have the most ridiculous political conversations while the world burns.
This morning he was on the Seven network where he said he would not be going to Mardi Gras, after his party leaders reiterated comments last week that she did not like it, and sexuality should be kept ‘behind closed doors’ (like I said – the most ridiculous conversations).
Joyce said “you can absolutely bet I would not go to the Mardi Gras. But that’s my business, and we just want you to live your own life, but it’s your life. It’s not so much as something that other people have to stop the traffic for.”
Joyce has been part of plenty of convos against climate action, so you know, he’s not against stopping traffic. But not sure why anyone thinks he would be invited to attend Mardi Gras?
Last week Andrew Bragg was talking about cutting government spending and said “Bob Hawke and Peter Walsh managed to cut federal spending from 27.5% to 22.9% in just 5 years. This remains the benchmark.” We can be fairly sure he picked Labor Government years for a purpose! But is that the whole story?
The chart shows the official figures for the period Bragg is talking about. The chart also includes the average unemployment rate in each of the years shown. Unemployment rates give us a bit of a clue about the impact of the state of the economy on government spending.
Bragg has chosen the peak and the trough to illustrate his point. But he has failed to mention the economic context behind the changes in government spending.
In 1983-84 and for a few more years the economy was severely hit as a result of the previous Fraser Coalition Government’s mismanagement of the economy. Unemployment peaked at 11.3% in 1983 as result of the huge appreciation of the Australian dollar and reflected in then Treasury Secretary John Stone telling us we all had to import more.
Much of the increase in spending under the Hawke Government was a Keynesian reaction to mass unemployment which was able to be eased back as the economy recovered (ie when the private sector economy slows, governments need to increase spending to in effect “fill the gap”).
But part of it was also due to relative decline in GDP which increased the ratio of government spending to GDP – ie the economy actually shrunk (a recession) and govt spending increased so the combination makes government spending as a “percent of GDP” look quite big.
By the end of the 1980s the bust had turned into a boom so automatically reducing the spending to GDP ratio while also reducing spending on the remaining unemployed.
But then in the 1989-90 and on we had a rapid increase in unemployment as the Reserve Bank overreacted to the boom and gave us interest rates in the high teens.
Again, the state of the economy shows up in government spending figures as can be seen in the chart. During this period Finance Minister, Sen Peter Walsh and others were indeed pursuing savings options, partly to finance new initiatives such as the cash boost to families on low incomes. But an inspection of the record would show these were a relatively small part of the reduction in government spending.
Bragg doesn’t exactly say a Coalition Government would repeat that fall in spending but says “This remains the benchmark”. Today a fall of that magnitude, 4.6% of GDP, would imply spending lower by $147 billion. The Australian economy would not handle such a massive austerity program raising the prospect of mass unemployment.
Almost all of the large historic changes in spending to GDP reflect either automatic reactions to the state of the economy or government responses to the state of the economy.
In his speech at the National Press club, Bragg stated:
As someone who was a backbencher in the Morrison government, I am sorry I didn’t do more to stop the madness. …
The madness started when Canberra gave up on the Budget.”
Bragg, rather extraordinarily is saying that if the need ever arose for increasing spending to stimulate the economy he would not support that, unlike the Morrison Government during the pandemic.
Madness, indeed.
The new minimum standards for food delivery workers begin today – that will create an ‘earnings floor’ for workers, which is a minimum hourly rate for workers engaged time – from when they accept a delivery and complete the delivery – for pedal/e-bikes that will be $31.30 an hour, for motorcycles, $31.80 an hour and for car deliveries, $32 an hour.
If at the end of a 21-day period, if a worker has been paid (on average) less than the earnings, floor, then the delivery platform has to top up their earnings to meet it.
While delivery workers have to take out their own third party insurance, platforms have to include a ‘reasonable minimum level’ of personal accident cover.
There are also clearer procedure for resolving disputes, a right to unpaid time away from work and clearer access to feedback forums, including where to ask questions.
Q: This interim report from the Productivity Commission it’s found that the the deal has cost the federal budget $23 billion in its first six years, 22 billion of which has flowed to to WA. Where’s the unfairness then?
Mathias Cormann:
Well, we need to unpack a bit what happened here. So, firstly, I mean, the Productivity Commission needs to be much more upfront on what has actually driven the cost blowout, as I call it, and and and what the counterfactual would have been so. I mean, the reason why the arrangement or why the reformed GST distribution arrangements cost more than anticipated back in 2018 is because iron ore, the cost, the price of iron ore remained stronger for much longer than anticipated at the time. Now there were two impacts of that. Yes, it would have continued to drive WA’s GST relatively down for longer and further, but it also created a very significant revenue windfall for the Commonwealth based on increased personal and personal income tax and company tax receipts.
In fact, the the budget, the fiscal impact on the budget, on the federal budget, was overwhelmingly positive, despite the increased cost. But like, if if if the reforms had not been in place, what happened to iron ore prices since 2018, as I say, would have driven WA’s GST down to below 10 cents in the dollar. And in no federation, nobody can say that that is a fair or sustainable level of equalisation in a in a federation.
…What I’m trying to do is make a contribution to the public policy conversation, and you know, I mean, the Productivity Commission provided a report into horizontal fiscal equalization back in 2019, they actually made the recommendation that reforms should be introduced, no longer equalising to the fiscally stronger state, which is what our reforms did. I mean, we established the floor at 75 cents $1, and with that sort of floor, Western Australia still, you know, currently, you know, at 75 cents, there’s still a very substantial level of equalisation and support to other states that flows from Western Australia in those circumstances.
Also taken out with the trash on Friday was the Productivity Commission report into the GST deal that gave WA all of the lollies. All of them. (Or in this case, a $23bn cost to the federal government, of which $22bn went to WA.
Roger Cook, the WA premier had some words for anyone who wanted to change the deal”
The interim report from the Productivity Commission, released on Friday, found the deal had cost the federal budget $23 billion in its first six years, $22 billion of which had flowed to WA, calling it a “costly mistake”.
But West Australian Premier Roger Cook defends the arrangement.
It’s a sign that these East Coast clowns simply do not understand Western Australia.
(Reading from the report) ‘Every state and every territory, with the exception of Western Australia, wants change. It was unfair. It’s made Australia unfairer, and it’s made Western Australia richer. It’s cost a lot more, and it hasn’t delivered the benefits that we thought it might at the time’.
The idea that you would penalise a state for economic success undermines the national economic argument, but also would undermine the national fiscal bottom line too.
The changes they have proposed will rip up to $6 billion out of the Western Australian economy, I assure Western Australians of this: you will get your fair share. Anthony Albanese, who backtracked on negative gearing, who backtracked on capital gains tax. How can any West Australian trust that he is not going to backtrack on what is right for West Australians? I hope he will now have the fortitude to break a promise that he shouldn’t have made to keep shoveling money across the Nullarbor. This interim report is just that-an interim report.
We’ll wait and see what they say at the end of the year.
Cook has a friend in Mathias Cormann who helped put the deal together as a WA senator and Liberal finance minister. He is now secretary-general with the OECD, but put that hat aside to speak to RN Breakfast this morning in a ‘personal capacity’. Asked about the Productivity Report, Cormann said:
Well, I fundamentally disagree with them. I mean, it was a very important reform to federal financial relations, addressing a very significant unfairness for the state of Western Australia, and also a real problem when it comes to the incentive arrangements in our federation, in relation to state economic development, in particular of the resources and mining sector.
I mean, you know, I find it quite surprising that the Productivity Commission, at the same time, acknowledges the deep unfairness that previous arrangements, you know, imposed on Western Australia, with Western Australia’s share of GST down to 30 cents in $1, and under the previous arrangement would have gone below 10 cents in $1.
That is, for every dollar of GST less than 10 cents, would have gone back to Western Australia if reforms hadn’t been applied. So they acknowledge the deep unfairness and the extreme outcomes of the previous arrangements, but then recommend going back to the old system. But based on arguments, quite frankly, that I don’t believe withstand scrutiny.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie is continuing her mis-information campaign around the gun buy backs, after the Nationals led the Coalition split against supporting the legislation.
She was on ABC RN Breakfast earlier continuing with the same misinformation. Asked:
Why were Tim Fisher and John Howard right to back a gun buyback after the Port Arthur massacre, but it’s not right to back one now after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack.
McKenzie:
Well, the nearly a million law-abiding firearm owners who’ve lived under John Howard and Tim Fisher’s National Firearms Agreement for the last 30 years exist under one of the strictest firearm regulation systems in the world, and we all need to be very comfortable and confident in that.
I think what’s disturbing post the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack is that somehow it’s the almost a million law-abiding firearm owners in this country and their families who are the target of the Labor government, rather than the Islamic terrorists themselves, or as the Prime Minister says, getting you know guns off our street. It’s not law-abiding firearm owners that are walking around with firearms on our streets. It’s crime gangs and the criminal elements in our society that need to be focused on. Back in 1996, there was an acceptance that fewer guns in the community was a good thing, and it wasn’t about licensed firearm owners doing the wrong thing. It was about having fewer guns in the community. So I’d argue that there seems to be this assumption that less lawfully purchased, lawfully housed, lawfully used firearms means Australians are safer, and that’s actually a false argument.
Let’s go to the evidence on that shall we?
To get a firearm licence in Australia requires having a “genuine reason” to own a gun. In most jurisdictions, this requirement can be satisfied by being a paid-up member of a sports shooting club. Shooting groups promote this fact, advertising that you can join “from the comfort of home”. This may explain why up to 253,000 NSW firearms licences list shooting sports or recreational hunting as a reason for gun ownership, but fewer than 36,000 people in NSW participated in either activity in 2025.
Ever since the Port Arthur massacre, Australia has been united behind the principle that strict firearm controls are important for public safety. The thin practical requirements for getting a firearm licence are not in the spirit of that principle and allow for a worrying erosion of Australia’s gun control regime.
One of the Bondi shooters had a basic gun licence and was able to legally purchase multiple fire arms. Bridget McKenzie’s argument to that is that they shouldn’t have had the licence or guns. She falls back on the lines the government isn’ targeting suspected terrorists (which they are) and are once again targeting legal gun owners (which one of the Bondi shooters were)
I have for a while been monitoring Australians travel to the USA.
It’s been pretty clear for nearly a year now that Australians have taken a look at what Trump and his ICE goons are doing, and have decided that ain’t the place for them.
Last Friday the ABS released the latest travel figures for the month of June. And given this included the World Cup I expected there to be a bit of a bump – after all that is what happened when Brazil and Russia hosted the World Cup:
But no. No spike at all.
Now ok, for some reason fewer Australians every year travel to the USA in June than in May, so maybe this is just a normal thing (aside from the very unnormal World Cup being held), and the figures also count residents returning, so I suspect a few are staying until July.
But if we look at the growth in travel destinations among the top 20 destinations, the USA has suffered the biggest fall (I have used the combined SE and NW Europe categories, because travelers generally visit more than one country when they go to those areas, unlike other nations):
And it is instructive that Canada has seen rather a boom in people travelling from Australia.
Since Trump took office in January 2025, annual travel to the USA has fallen 8%, while visits to Canada are up 9.5%.
It would seem Australians are not against travelling to North America, just that they’re choosing more and more to travel to the USA less and less.
NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister’s interview on Insiders was a master class example of why political interviews are mostly just an exercise in how well can a politician keep on message, and why voters are sick of such things.
Reality? Pfft. The actual impact of politician’s decisions? lulz.
David Speers attempted to get McAllister to admit that given the government wants the states to take up large parts of the funding that will cut be the Albanese government if that is not in place, people will be without care .
He asked:
What supports will be available for those who are kicked off the NDIS? Will you delay removing anyone from the scheme until the states have put these so-called foundational supports in place?
McAllister replied:
So we’ve been really clear that we do want to see alternative supports in place at the same time as we bring access changes into play. We don’t anticipate making any changes to access until 2028.
Speers rightly pointed out that Queensland is not on board, so would she consider delaying until all state funding was in place.
This what we got:
I’m really confident that this is in the interests of Queensland population, and I think the Queensland residents will want to see their government take the next step.
Oh confident. How wonderful. Speers kept pressing. McAllister kept dodging:
I don’t think we need to contemplate delay at this point
And then again after Speers kept going:
I’m not contemplating delay…
And again:
What I’m saying is that I don’t think we need to contemplate delay at this point …
Because, why would you want a Minister to contemplate what the government might have to do should it wishes and hopes not come true?
Speers then asked a very good question about the “Thriving Kids” funding which is notionally meant to replace the funding that is being cut for many neurodivergent kids who will no longer have access to the NDIS.
The entire exchange is pretty instructive about how rushed and farcical this bill is:
DAVID SPEERS: Thriving Kids is only available for kids up to the age of eight. What happens to a nine-year-old who’s removed from the NDIS?
JENNY MCALLISTER: We will need to work through the additional foundational supports. There’s $10 billion that premiers and the Prime Minister have agreed ought to be applied to standing up foundational supports. We started with children, but we know that we’ll need to stand up additional, make additional arrangements.
DAVID SPEERS: So, for a nine-year-old though, or a 10-year-old, is it still not clear what supports they’ll get?
JENNY MCALLISTER: A couple of things here, David. We do need to be clear about eligibility for the scheme, and we’ve sought advice from a technical advisory group that includes a whole lot of people that have deep expertise in all sorts of disability, including paediatrics. There. advice will shape what changes we are going to make to access for the scheme, and we haven’t received that yet. But we know that we do want to stand up supports outside the scheme that will likely include supports for children as well.
Later in the interview Speers asked her about the impact of the cuts to the Community and Social Participation program.
DAVID SPEERS: Should families, parents in particular, expect to do more unpaid caring as a result of those cuts?
JENNY MCALLISTER: We think that these supports can be managed safely for people who use them, and I’ll give you this example. Our proposal, under our proposal, we would see average expenditure reduced from what it is at the moment, which is around $31,000 a year, to around $26,000 a year. So it is a reduction, and we don’t deny that it will have impacts on people with disability and their families. But it is in a context where the scheme is growing very, very quickly. We do think that it needs to be fiscally sustainable, and so this is a measure we think we can take in a way that supports people with disability, continues to allow them to access supports of this kind because we know how important they are in people’s lives, but actually just starts to rein in some of the cost growth, which is unexpected, and ultimately puts the scheme on an unsustainable trajectory.
You will notice she did not say yes or no. In fact she didn’t even address the issue.
Our research estimates that the just under $17bn worth of cuts in 2029-30 alone are equivalent to around 94m hours of paid care.
Let me tell you, someone is going to need to do that care, and it will be families. And if it is not, most likely it will involve great neglect.
I’ll just note that when my wife recently rang the NDIA to ask about our daughter plan, a bloke on the phone wondered if we could not just go part-time and do some of the care instead.
Thankfully we were assigned a case worker who regarded that suggestion with horror.
Anyway. I hope you all enjoy the next Royal Commission into abuses of people with disability. 2031 seems like a likely date.
In her interview on Insiders, NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister made some pretty extraordinary claims about having listened to the concerns of the disability community.
The reality is the government has ignored them.
When host David Speers asked:
Are you going to listen to any of that, or are you not going to budge on things like eligibility, who’s going to be kicked off the scheme, the community and social participation plans, and so on? Is there any movement on any of the concerns that were raised at the actual Senate inquiry.
She replied:
You’ll have seen in the House of Representatives when we debated this, we made a series of amendments to the bill, really to clarify policy intent in response to some of the concerns we’ve been hearing from disability advocates, and we continue to talk to them.
The problem is those changes did little more than acknowledge the concerns but did not actually address them.
The big thing here is that the bill gives the minister discretion to cut certain sections of NDIS by up to 99%.
No need for further legislation, no need regulation. The minister just makes determination.
The main target is funding for a segment known (as Speers mentions) “Social, Economic and Community Participation” plans.
My daughter with Down Syndrome is on this – she attends such care 5 days a week from 9am-3pm. She learns some basic work skills (not that she will ever be able to do paid work), but also community and life skills – from the basic like getting used to going on public transport, or even just going to a shop and choosing what she would like to buy and taking the money to the counter. They also do things like yoga, and exercise and some community activities that enable her to have a… gee what to call it… yeah “life”.
The bill is looking to cut this program by as much as 50%.
How it will work is that the Minister makes a determination that Social, Economic and Community Participation funding is to be cut by X% (let’s say 25%). That will mean everyone’s funding for those plans will be cut by that amount.
The explanatory memorandum gives a specific example:
Omar has an old framework plan with $40,000 in the Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation budget. The Minister could make a determination that the funding component for Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation will be reduced by for example 25 per cent. The Minister would have to consider participant safety when setting the determination. After the determination is made nothing will change for Omar until his plan is next reassessed or renewed. If Omar’s plan is renewed, the amount that he can spend on community participation supports under his new plan will be the funding amount set in the new plan for community participation reduced by 25 per cent. This means he will have $30,000 in his Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation budget.
Notice how there is no mention of “Omar’s” disability. No mention of a review by the NDIA, no mention of anything other than the Minister decided everyone’s plan should be cut by 25%.
That is what this legislation will do.
So what is the “clarify policy intent” that Jenny McAllister talks about?
This was added to the explanatory memorandum to “clarify” the purpose of the minister ability to make a determination to cut funding:
It is not intended to affect supports that are essential to a participant’s health, safety or continuous care needs. The application of a support determination is confined to specified support categories, such as social, economic and community participation and improved daily living skills.
Yep. The government has decided that care that occurs for the best part of the working day, and which improves someone’s daily living skills does not improve their health, wellbeing or safety and is not “continuous care”.
But hey at least McAlistter says she will “keep talking to” the disability community. Won’t be listening to them, but they will talk to them…
Late last Friday afternoon, at the time when most people’s attention is diverted by thoughts of the weekend, and which is traditionally the “take out the trash” time of the week for the government to dump stuff it doesn’t want to much media attention, the government released the final report of the Senate committee’s inquiry into the changes to the NDIS.
As expected, the report, which had a majority of Government members, ignored the vast number of submissions by the disability community and recommended the bill be passed.
Myself and Luke Slawomirski last week released a report into the changes and it was cited numerous times in the Greens dissenting report.
Yesterday NDIS minister, Jenny McAllister went on ABC’s Insiders to defend the bill.
It was a performance that was extremely telling about what is required to be a government minister — slavish ability to stick to talking points and devotion to a reality that is not experienced by others.
McAllister was interviewed by host David Speers, and after praising the “extremely constructive” discussion with the coalition, she quickly mention fraud.
There’s a reason fraud is always mentioned by the government when talking about the NDIS changes – they focus grouped it.
As Monique Ryan noted when she put forward some amendments last month:
“We all know that, during 2024-25 budget estimates, it was revealed that the NDIA had awarded two contracts—one in February 2023 and one in September 2023—with a total value of $400,000 to the Redbridge Group. The purpose of those contracts was to conduct focus groups and message testing to identify how to best frame the changes proposed in the NDIS bill. Redbridge polling found that, while the NDIS is loved by the general public of Australia, the general public and participants would show qualified tolerance for funding cuts and stricter eligibility criteria were these austerity measures positioned as a necessary crackdown on NDIS fraud and rorting.”
This is also why they keep mentioning suggestions that fraud is as much as 20% (these are based pretty much on just “vibes”)
But here’s the kicker: the changes to the NDIS will cut around $38bn from the scheme over the next 4 years. How much do you think will be from cracking down on fraud? $7bn? Lulz. Sure that would be 20% fo the total, but no. $5bn? $3bn? $2bn? $1bn???
Nope – just $900m.
The changes are not about reducing fraud at all.
And the reality while there is some actual criminal fraud involved with the NDIS, most of the “fraud” is inherent in the system that allows private operators to fatten profits in much the same way as every single other example of privatised public services.
The NDIS was conceived essentially by the Productivty Commission back in 2011. It even gave a handy pictograph that explained how it would work. I have highlighted a bit of a flaw.
Oddly the PC has been pretty bloody quiet about the NDIS changes. That’s one of the joys of being a body that never has to face any consequences.
But former PC head, Gary Banks admitted back in 2024:
“In retrospect, the commission clearly underestimated the incentives for ‘overservicing’ that such a scheme presents and, in particular, was too optimistic about the prospects of an eventual payback to the economy,”
Gee who could ever have for seen that for-profit providers would seek to maximise their profits.
And none of the cuts in the NDIS bill will changes any of that.
Glenn Connley
Major gambling companies won $5 billion from Australian punters in 2023-24, yet told the Australian Taxation Office that they made next-to-no profit, according to New research released by The Australia Institute today.
Three major gambling companies — Tabcorp, bet365 (Hillside), and Pointsbet — won $1.3 billion dollars from Australian gamblers in 2023-24, yet paid zero company tax.
bet365 (Hillside) and Pointsbet have never paid company tax in Australia despite winning over $2 billion. bet365 lists numerous subsidiaries in secrecy jurisdictions such as Delaware, Malta and Alderney in the English Channel.
These findings underscore the Murphy Review’s call for a federal levy on online wagering revenues to fund gambling harm reduction measures.
Key points:
“The Murphy Review recommended a federal levy on online betting and now we know why,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.
“Online betting companies are very good winning money and very good at convincing the ATO that they don’t make any profit and shouldn’t pay any tax.
“Funding gambling harm reduction measures clearly can’t depend on existing tax measures and how clever these companies’ accountants have been this year.
“The companies claim that the taxes they pay to the states are sufficient. But much of this money goes straight to the racing industry that ploughs it back into promoting gambling.
“This report also exposes the lie of companies’ “contributions” to sporting organisations. The vast bulk of this money goes to the horse racing industry, not to little leagues and community sport.
“A simple levy on wagering revenue specifically to address gambling harm is badly needed if Australia is to do anything about our world-leading gambling losses.
“We have long known the harm these companies cause in Australian communities – causing bankruptcies, health and mental health issues, exacerbating domestic violence and also leading some people to suicide – but now to hear that they give so little back through their tax minimisation schemes is appalling,” said Martin Thomas, CEO of the Alliance for Gambling Reform.
“The Federal Government must do more to crackdown on these companies, to make sure they pay their fair share, rather than continuing to let our nation be a wildwest for foreign owned gambling companies.”
Hello and welcome to another day of parliament, as the second sitting gets underway.
You have Amy Remeikis with you, with a whole bunch of people waiting to drop in and let you know what you need.
Everyone is still waiting to see what the government will do about migration, after it announced plans to change the migration flow, in response to One Nation. Yes, One Nation, with one MP in the house and a conspiracy of senators, One Nation is managing to control both Coalition AND government policy. GOOD TIMES.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre responded to those reports yesterday:
Over 160 community, charity, multicultural and migrant organisations have written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese warning that reported plans to remove work rights from people seeking asylum would force thousands of people into destitution and place enormous new pressure on already overstretched charities and community organisations.
Media reports have alleged that the Albanese Government is considering removing work rights from people seeking asylum after the initial stage of their application, even while they are lawfully exercising their rights to independent review. This could see tens of thousands of people who are currently working, paying rent, buying food and supporting their families suddenly lose their only source of income and be left with no way to meet their most basic needs.
People seeking asylum are generally unable to access Centrelink, while only a very small proportion (around 3%) can access limited government-funded income support. For many people, the right to work is therefore the difference between being able to support themselves and being unable to pay for food, rent and other essentials.
If the Albanese Government pursues this policy, the charities say the consequences will fall directly on them, and that they are already overstretched. They say that removing the right to work would also push people towards cash-in-hand employment and make them more vulnerable to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, exploitation and abuse.
We will keep an eye on that. And in less public news, the Greens are having a bit of a moment about whether or not they can allow the NSW government to break a promise and save Koalas. At the last election, the NSW government promised to save the Great Koala Park. It’s now claiming it can only do that if it can monetise the park, through carbon credits. The federal government would need to make a regulation change for that to happen, and they are all on-board with carbon credits (the exceptionally very scientific idea that not cutting down trees which are choking on present carbon, you can offset fossil fuel emissions without actually having to cut them at the source, because the choking trees will somehow continue to harvest carbon) so the feds aren’t overly upset.
The Nationals have put in a disallowance motion (which is just a parliamentary instrument to say ‘we don’t allow this change’) and the Liberals will probably support that, but the Greens are a little split over….reasons.
The Nationals don’t want the change because they think that will impact forestry but a disallowance motion doesn’t do anything other than not allow the regulatory change. So the Greens won’t be saying they want more forestry if they support it, just that they won’t allow national and state forest to be used for carbon credits. But there is a split over whether or not they make this stand, which is very strange, because the NSW government went to the election to say they would save the koalas, no ifs, buts or maybes. So it seems an easy win, but politics is always a strange beast.
That’s coming up tomorrow, but party room meeting is today, so we’ll see where they land.
Coffee number two is on the stove, so I’m going to go grab that and then get into all of this with you.
Ready?
Comments (8)
-
Robert Moylan
Mon, 17.08.26
14.49 AEST
Question on notice via the Australian front page Llew O'Brien asks Chris Bowen: The minister has repeatedly refused to say how much taxpayer money has been handed to foreign companies under the capacity... The Point Live
-
Michael Cowan
Mon, 17.08.26
14.24 AEST
Questions get underway The Liberal MP for Casey, Aaron Vivoli has the first question and he asks: My question is to the Minister for Housing: $100,000 has been... The Point Live
-
Richard
Mon, 17.08.26
12.44 AEST
And on to the Administrative review legislation The chamber is whipping through its morning list. Now we are on to this. Julian Leeser is not a fan of the changes Mark Dreyfus... The Point Live
-
Sheila Jarmain
Mon, 17.08.26
10.57 AEST
-
Sarah
Mon, 17.08.26
08.54 AEST
More mis-information over gun buybacks Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie is continuing her mis-information campaign around the gun buy backs, after the Nationals led the Coalition split against supporting the legislation.... The Point Live
-
Pageboi
Mon, 17.08.26
08.15 AEST
-
Rob Bebrouth
Mon, 17.08.26
07.46 AEST
-
Gregory Shearman
Mon, 17.08.26
07.42 AEST
USA down, down, down Greg Jericho I have for a while been monitoring Australians travel to the USA. It's been pretty clear for nearly a year now that Australians have taken a look... The Point Live
Join the conversation
The Youth Parliament rep from Wannen is probably copping a lot from his/her fellow attendees because Dan Tehan decided to be an idiot and defy the Speaker. What an embarrassment he is
As a matter of interest, the median price in Mt. Waverley for a unit is $1.096m & a house is $1.6m.
I’m not sure if a short term decline in price values is going to be felt by those with loans in the suburb.
Julian Leeser' has torn up his credibility as a fair and impartial MP with his trenchant lack of criticism of the Israeli genocidal activity. Turns out, he is just a Liberal after all.
So it is not really any wonder that he condemns the revised AAT on numerical grounds, when the overwhelming problem with the AAT previously was the fact that it was as objectively fair and just as the US Supreme Court is today. Or in simple terms, it was stacked to the gills with neocons implanted as yet another facet of Coalition traducery of impartiality in the business of government - for which see also John Winston Howard.
And to our general disgust, being followed up by the mongrel element in Labor, that includes (now) every government Leader most of the time.
If I recall correctly the Howard government gun buy back was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy
Bridgie just hs to throw in some bigotry to go with the lies
A conspiracy of senators - that's absolute GOLD Amy :-)
I wonder what the AUS numbers visiting the USA would be if you stripped out Hawaii - safe from ICE agents & warm weather in our coldest months...
I can't make head nor tail of the graphics in your contribution. They seem to be about weekly earnings of Australians and not travel to the USA.