‘Hold him to account': Warning to Albo
The Prime Minister commands a massive 94-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate is another matter.
Labor will need to work with either the Greens or the Coalition to pass legislation through the chamber – a task far easier said than done.
For many of the Albanese government's more progressive items, such as legislating penalty rates, the Greens are more natural partners, but Senator Nick McKim said on Monday his party would hold Mr Albanese 'to account'.
'The results were pretty clear in the Senate and I wasn't that happy with the PM telling the Senate and the Greens to get out of the way shortly after the election,' Senator McKim told Nine's Today.
'We haven't been put into the Australian parliament to get out of the Prime Minister's way.
'We've been put in there to hold him to account.
'And we do expect him to deliver, and we expect him to engage in some of the really meaningful issues, whether it's climate change, whether it's protecting nature, whether it's the housing crisis in Australia.'
He went on to say the Greens needed 'to see solutions that are commensurate with the scale of the challenges facing the country'.
'We're here to work constructively and cooperatively with Labor,' Senator McKim said.
'We hope that they would take the same approach to us.'
Meanwhile, demoted Liberal senator Jane Hume took a similar line.
She was opposition finance spokeswoman under Peter Dutton and championed some of the Coalition's most controversial policies.
Senator Hume was booted from the frontbench after Labor's federal election landslide decimated the Liberal Party.
Acknowledging the Coalition had 'hit a low point in their primary vote', she pledged to 'work every day' to claw back support.
'We're going to work every day to rebuild trust with the Australian people, to make sure that they know that we're listening to their concerns and responding to them, sticking with our values,' Senator Hume told Sky News.
'Of course, those important values of reward for effort, lower taxes, growing the economy, managing the budget responsibly.
'But at the same time, we have to make sure that this three years we are holding this very bad government to account, because the last three years delivered nothing other than a cost of living crisis where people saw their standard of living go backwards and economic growth stagnating.
'The last thing we need is another talk fest – we need an economic plan.'
More to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
The AI law moratorium isn't dead yet: Congress cannot backtrack now
Despite the recent and overwhelming Senate vote to defeat a proposed decade-long ban on state AI safety laws, some in Congress are preparing to undermine the will of four in five Americans and reverse this achievement. After outcry from conservatives and liberals, state and federal lawmakers, and parents across the country, the Senate voted 99-1 to defeat the proposed ban, which was buried in the 'one big beautiful' budget bill. Their uproar was justified. A moratorium on state AI safety legislation would be a dream come true for AI companies. It would mean no rules, no accountability and total control — and a nightmare for families. While Congress is failing to address urgent issues around AI, states are enacting laws that allow for industry growth while also protecting consumers at the same time. Yet, despite the Senate's July 1 vote to protect states' rights to keep residents safe, a moratorium is expected to once again rear its ugly head, either as new legislation or language snuck into some other large bill. This is an irresponsible and indefensible policy approach, and it is a direct threat to the safety and well-being of consumers, especially children. There are multiple signs that the push for a moratorium is not dead. A draft document has been circulated in D.C. that President Trump will supposedly reveal for an AI action plan that could withhold federal funds from states with 'restrictive' AI regulations. The House Energy and Commerce Committee posted on social media last week against 'burdensome AI regulations.' Tech industry lobbyists, arguing against the alleged threat from multiple state laws, are talking up revising the failed moratorium provision. And tech policy observers are keeping their eye out for a vehicle to block state regulation, such as a stand-alone bill, an amendment in a must-pass bill (like the National Defense Authorization Act) or an end-of-year appropriations bill. AI's risks to kids are well-documented and, in the worst cases, deadly. AI has supercharged kids' exposure to misinformation. AI-generated child sexual abuse material is also flooding online spaces. But perhaps the most alarming trend is the rapid rise of social AI companions. Research released earlier this year by my organization, Common Sense Media, shows that three-quarters of teens have used AI companions, and many are regularly turning to them for emotional support. Our Social AI Companions Risk Assessments demonstrated that AI companions will readily produce inappropriate responses, including those involving sexual role-play, offensive stereotypes and dangerous 'advice' that, if followed, could have life-threatening consequences. In our test cases, AI companions shared a recipe for napalm, misled users with claims of 'realness,' and increased mental health risks for already vulnerable teens. Based on our findings, we concluded that no one under 18 should use AI companions. In response, states have moved swiftly to address these threats. New York adopted new safeguards for AI companions and the largest, most advanced generative AI models. In California, bills are advancing to ban AI companions for minors, codify AI industry whistleblower protections and require greater transparency by AI companion platforms for all users. Kentucky enacted a law to protect residents from AI-enabled discrimination by state agencies. The Maryland legislature is considering a bill to establish AI bias auditing requirements. And last year, Tennessee's Republican governor signed first-in-the-nation legislation to protect music artists from unauthorized AI-enabled voice cloning. These laws aren't radical overreaches. They are common-sense guardrails rooted in federalism. Supporters of the proposed moratorium — AI industry lobbyists chief among them — argue that state laws will deter innovation. But that's not how American governance works. States have always served as laboratories of democracy, and many of today's strongest federal consumer protections began as state laws. If Connecticut hadn't led the way, you might still be breathing in cigarette smoke at restaurants. And if not for a New York law, your car might not have seatbelts today. Smoking restrictions didn't bankrupt Big Tobacco, and seatbelt laws didn't kill the car industry. AI safety laws aren't stopping America from leading on AI. But they will make the technology safer, smarter and more sustainable. That ethos has always been core to tech policy advocates' mission. We believe in the power of technology, including AI, to do good, and we support well-crafted policy that protects kids without sacrificing innovation. What we don't support is letting tech companies use kids as guinea pigs — like what was allowed with the rise of social media — with AI. And while we commend both red and blue states for protecting kids from unsafe AI, we also recognize that there's a need for national leadership that enables both safety and growth. These aren't opposing goals — in fact, the former makes the latter sustainable. Congress ought to recognize that. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. Lawmakers at all levels must play an active role in ensuring that the AI revolution helps our kids thrive. And our polling shows that voters overwhelmingly want all levels of government involved. That means crafting intelligent policies that support safe AI development, including risk-based audits, transparency and whistleblower protections. It means expanding data privacy protections, especially for kids. And it means ensuring that AI products impacting kids are built with safety and accountability in mind. Congress made the right call last month, even if they had to be nudged, and it must do so again. U.S. senators and representatives, as well as the president, must reject new attempts to ban or restrict states from protecting residents from the known risks of new technology. Their constituents demand it. The next generation demands it. Our AI future demands it.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Emmer confident Senate will pass crypto market structure bill
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said at an Axios News Shapers event Wednesday that he's confident the Senate will take up a sweeping market structure bill. Why it matters: Emmer has been one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for the crypto industry and has been pushing the Senate to take up House-passed crypto bills. "This is a non-partisan issue," Emmer told Axios' Hans Nichols. Catch up quick: The House passed three major cryptocurrency bills as part of "Crypto Week" earlier this month, including Emmer's Anti- CBDC bill. The Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday released its own draft version of the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, that also passed the House this month. What's next: Emmer said he leaves it up to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on how the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act, but he sees "no reason" why the bill can't pass on it's own.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Senate votes to consider former Trump lawyer for lifetime as appeals court judge
The Senate narrowly voted to move forward with considering the nomination of former Trump lawyer Emil Bove to a federal court of appeals on Tuesday. The 50-48 vote saw one Republican break ranks and vote against his nomination, while Democrats have done everything in their power to slow down the nomination. Bove, who currently works at the Justice Department, is nominated to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats have argued that Bove, a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, is unfit for the role, pointing to allegations that he proposed behind closed doors that the Trump administration could simply ignore judicial orders. Bove denies those allegations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted with Republicans to move forward but said in a statement that she will oppose Bove's confirmation on a final vote. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the lone Republican to vote against moving forward with Bove's nomination. "We have to have judges who will adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution and do so regardless of what their personal views may be," Collins said in a statement. "Mr. Bove's political profile and some of the actions he has taken in his leadership roles at the Department of Justice cause me to conclude he would not serve as an impartial jurist." Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee stormed out of the meeting where the committee approved Bove last week. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., attempted to push for more debate time, but Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pushed forward with the vote. "What are you afraid of?" Booker erupted, after Grassley tried to speak over him and hold the vote. "Debating this [nomination], putting things on the record — Dear God," he said, "that's what we are here for." "What are they saying to you," he said, referring to the Trump administration, "that is making you do something to violate the decorum, the decency and the respect of this committee to at least hear each other out?" Booker ended the sharp exchange with Grassley by saying simply, "This is wrong, sir, and I join with my colleagues in leaving," before streaming out of the committee room. It comes as Trump administration officials have taken aim at "activist" judges they argue are blocking the president's agenda and preventing him from enacting his sweeping policy goals, including the administration's crackdown on border security and immigration.
