‘Modern day Robin Hood': Treasurer Jim Chalmers set to get backing from Greens on super tax as Coalition rip the reforms as ‘immoral'
Treasurer Jim Chalmers is set to negotiate superannuation tax reforms with the Greens for a Senate victory as the Coalition continue to rip into the "immoral" overhaul, labelling the Treasurer a 'modern day Robin Hood'.
Mr Chalmers argued that proponents of abstract tax reforms 'very rarely' support it in reality.
The Treasurer has suggested the government will push on with its tax reforms regardless of the Coalition's concerns with aspects of the proposal.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese suggested a compromise with Coalition was still on the cards.
'The Greens usually don't have good points, and I will allow them to put forward whatever they want to do, as the Liberal Party will, as will other senators, no doubt,' Mr Albanese told journalists in Melbourne.
'We'll put forward our position. That was before the senate for some time.
'It did not receive support prior to the election, but then again, the Greens and the Liberals joined to form the 'No-alition', and to vote against public housing, to vote against a whole range of projects, we'll wait and see."
Deputy Liberal Leader Ted O'Brien said the Labor government was not indexing the super tax for balances over $3 million which would lead to younger Australians and 'everyday Aussies' getting 'caught in the net over time'.
'Every aspect of this is looking awful, and it certainly does not align with our values as a Liberal Party or indeed a Liberal-National Coalition,' Mr O'Brien told the ABC on Thursday.
'The Treasurer is not being upfront about that and the reason he's not is he's wanting to pretend he's sort of some modern-day Robin Hood, taking from the fat cats with multi-million dollar portfolios to fund the good deeds of government.'
On Wednesday evening, the Treasurer said he was 'not convinced' the opposition were 'fair dinkum' about making superannuation tax concessions fairer.
'We'll obviously have discussions with other parties in the Senate to do what we can to pass that legislation. It's a change that we announced almost two and a half years ago. It is modest, it is methodical, but it makes a meaningful difference to the budget,' he said.
'In a world where the budget is not sustainable enough when it comes to the pressures that the ageing of our population, pressures on the health system, the NDIS and all the rest of it. It's an important budget repair measure and we intend to proceed with it.'
Mr Chalmers explained the tax concession before the change on balances over $3 million was about $14 thousand, with the new reform still offering a tax saving, but a more 'modest' one of $13 thousand.
The Treasurer said his political opponents have 'latched onto' the earning method proposed by the Treasury for earning more than $3 million.
'I'm obviously aware of the campaign that some of our political opponents and others have been running, but nobody's come forward with a better way to do it. And so we're proposing to go with what the Treasury has recommended to us,' he said.
Mr O'Brien said it was 'not right' because the measure lacked an indexing framework which meant a young person today, earning an average salary, would hit the threshold at some point.
'The Australian workforce today is around 14 million, so for the Treasurer to say it only takes a few Australians on with this, no, it's not. That's not the truth at all. If it were true, he would have indexed this but he hasn't indexed it because he wants it to grow,' Mr O'Brien said.
'He wants more Australians to be taxed. We are against Australians having to cop higher taxes … if he wants to hurt Australians with higher taxes at this stage, well, that's on him.'
Speaking to Sky News First Edition host Pete Stefanovic on Thursday morning, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said her party had not talked with the government about the super reforms but wanted to see reform to the system to make it 'fairer and stronger'.
Ms Hanson-Young said the Greens wanted to see the threshold lowered to $2 million, and indexed.
'The ball is in the government's court. We're not going to negotiate through the media with all due respect, Peter, but it's quite clear that the Coalition are in an absolute mess on this,' she said.
'Only a day or so ago we saw Ted O'Brien putting out the feelers saying he wanted to deal with Jim Chalmers and government. He's clearly been pulled back into line, you know, whipped back in place… someone's told him to pull his head in.'
Ms Hanson-Young continued to chide the Coalition and said the opposition was 'all over the place' and 'desperate for a scare campaign' rather than a real critique of Labor's new tax proposal.
'It's going to be a circus going forward,' she said.
Joining the conversation, Nationals MP Kevin Hogan said there was never going to be a negotiation on taxing unrealised gains, labelling the proposal 'immoral'.
'Obviously non-indexing that is not okay either because obviously the amount of people that would get affected by that would be enormous,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Hearing voices: why the Nats should be watching their backs
The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The billion-dollar industry with scant consumer protections
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Ex-defence chief tells muted ABC journo 'it'll be over' by 2028 in bizarre climate change rant, as same reporter throws 'misinformation' barb at Tim Wilson
THE LATEST NINE'S JAMES MASSOLA'S STATE OF CONFUSION ABOUT TREASURER JIM CHALMERS' Ph.D. THESIS ON PAUL KEATING James Massola is the chief political correspondent for Nine's The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. His column on Friday 6 June is titled 'Deal or no deal: Chalmers' mistake'. It's about Treasurer Jim Chalmers' proposed tax changes to superannuation – but refers to former Labor Party treasurer and later prime minister Paul Keating. Here is what Comrade Massola had to say: Chalmers' Ph.D., Brawler Statesman , was written about Labor's legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating, and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade. What a load of absolute tosh. One of MWD 's avid readers has studied Chalmers' Ph.D. thesis and knows that the full title is: Brawler Statesman: Paul Keating and Prime Ministerial Leadership in Australia . In short, the thesis is primarily about how Paul Keating wielded power as prime minister. Here is a paragraph from the thesis' abstract to Chalmers' Brawler Statesman : This thesis utilises new material and an interactionist framework to re-examine the prime ministerial power debate and conclude that powerful leadership relies heavily on a willingness of others to be led. Paul Keating's stores of immense authority and influence relied on his personal approach but also, most importantly, on the compliance of his colleagues in the cabinet and caucus. MWD believes that readers would like to know this. CAN YOU BEAR IT? There are not many Australians who have reached the position of Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) and apparently hold the belief that climate change is a greater threat to Australian security than, say, China under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CCP). No wonder, then, that Admiral Chris Barrie is something of a fave at the ABC. From which he receives lots of invitations to be interviewed. A bit like Malcolm Turnbull's open door to criticise the Liberal Party on the ABC any time he likes. Needless to say, Admiral Barrie was sailing on calm seas when interviewed by Sally Sara on ABC Radio National Breakfast on 5 June. He indicated that there was no reason for Australia to increase its level of defence spending at this time. Throwing the switch to alarmism, the former CDF had this to say: Chris Barrie: Now you look around the country and ask yourselves – what would you think if you were living in Taree now, or the Northern Rivers, or the east coast of South East Queensland and in other parts of our country, when the scientists are now telling us, forget 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming? It's already 1.6 degrees Celsius of warming. And we're not headed for 2 degrees anymore. It's now 3 degrees by 2050. And I think the planet is fighting back in ways that we weren't able to predict, and certainly doing it more quickly than we ever thought. Which suggests that your man Barrie believes that virtually every flood and bushfire in contemporary Australia is due to global warming (as it used to be called). It's a big call – which Comrade Sara did not challenge. And then there was this as the Admiral opposed the development of a gas field in the North West Shelf along with emissions-free nuclear energy. Let's go to the transcript: Sally Sara: But the opponents say we need gas for the transition. Chris Barrie: I've heard that argument about nuclear power, too. There are all sorts of options, but frankly, there's got to be a plan. And we've got to come clean and what that plan really looks like. And if we're serious about it, it's got to lay out objectives for each year of this government. This term of the parliament is the most important we've ever faced in dealing with climate change. Because by 2028 at the next election, it'll be over. Sally Sara: Chris Barrie, thank you for coming into the studio this morning. Yes, many thanks indeed. So, there you have it. According to Chris Barrie, if Australia does not develop a climate plan to his liking by 2028 'it'll be all over'. Presumably, he was talking about the planet – despite the fact that Australia produces just one per cent of global emissions. And what did Sally Sara say when Admiral Barrie set sail on the HMAS The-End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh frigate? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Can You Bear It? It appears that the love-in between the ABC and the Teals has continued beyond the election. On 2 June 2025, it was confirmed by the Australian Electoral Commission that the Liberal Party candidate Tim Wilson had defeated the Teal Independent Zoe Daniel to win the seat of Goldstein in inner metropolitan Melbourne. This was a great result for Wilson – who had been defeated by Daniel at the 2022 election – and a very poor result for Daniel who lost her seat despite a big swing against the Liberal Party. Comrade Daniel, who had claimed victory on election night (when there were still 26,000 votes to be counted) and danced and sang the night away, was the only Teal to lose her seat. As Media Watch Dog has documented, the Teals got very soft coverage on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster before and during the election campaign. This included Daniel, who is a former high-profile ABC presenter. On Tuesday 3 June, Sally Sara interviewed Tim Wilson on ABC Radio National Breakfast . Let's go to the transcript towards the end of the interview when Comrade Sara raised the issue of Tim Wilson's campaign tactics: Sally Sara: Can you say that your, unequivocally, that your campaign did not spread any misinformation about Zoe Daniel? Tim Wilson: I'm not aware of any misinformation that was spread at all, but that's – are you making some allegation? Sally Sara: No, not at all. Just there's, it was a very, very tense campaign, and just to ask from your side that it was clean. Tim Wilson: Oh, I'm absolutely confident that we absolutely stood up and spoke to the ambitions…. Sally Sara: Thank you…. How about that? Comrade Sara's demand that Tim Wilson declare 'unequivocally' that his campaign had not spread 'misinformation' with respect to Teal Daniel implied that he had done so. Sara produced no evidence to justify the query. It appears that she was channelling the line of the Zoe Daniel team that Wilson's campaign was not clean. Is this the new acceptable journalism on the ABC? And here's another question: Can You Bear It? While on the topic of the love affair between the taxpayer funded public broadcaster and the Simon Holmes à Court partly-funded Teals – thanks to the Media Watch Dog reader who drew attention to the ABC TV 7.30 program on 28 May. Titled 'Polling Booth Abuse' and presented by 7.30's (then) political editor Laura Tingle, this is how the segment was introduced: Laura Tingle: Australians like to celebrate polling day as a democracy party, complete with ubiquitous democracy sausage and cake stalls. International media reports follow the same script, but 2025 has been different. For a lot of volunteers and AEC workers, it wasn't fun at all. And here's a list of those who spoke to 7.30 with their 7.30 description attached: Leonie Bird [Volunteer for Monique Ryan] Rod Cunlich [Volunteer for Allegra Spender] Here's how La Tingle described this duo: Laura Tingle: Leonie Bird and Rod Cunlich represent some of the everyday Australians who came out to support candidates in the recent federal election. Across the political spectrum, volunteers tell similar stories of abuse, aggression and bullying at pre-polling stations and on election day, of voters being harassed, AEC officials being abused and police being called out. Whatever the impact on the outcome of the election, it has left volunteers shocked and sometimes traumatised. The seats being contested by some of the sitting Teals were the subject of particularly intense campaigning and harassment, and it didn't necessarily just affect people who were handing out how to vote cards. 7.30 also heard from: Peter Dawson [Volunteer for Monique Ryan] John Hooper [Goldstein resident] – Note he volunteered for Zoe Daniel. Malakai King [Greens Volunteer] Carolyn Bryden [Volunteer for Zoe Daniel] – who made a specific reference to 'Tim Wilson's t-shirt wearing supporters'. The focus of the 7.30 report was bad behaviour towards the Teals in the seats of Goldstein (Zoe Daniel), Kooyong (Monique Ryan) and Wentworth (Allegra Spender). Tingle also made reference to outside movements – mainly from the right but occasionally from the left. But this was not the focus of her report. No evidence was provided to support the view that Tim Wilson or the Liberal Party in Goldstein had been involved in unprofessional or threatening behaviour. Yet this was the proposition that Tim Wilson was asked to defend on RN Breakfast – with the implied suggestion from Laura Tingle's report that the Teals were victims. By the way, no reference was made on 7.30 to the fact that Monique Ryan's husband Peter Jordan removed a corflute belonging to the Liberal Party. And 7.30 made no reference to the fact that Comrade Bryden was more than just a 'volunteer' since he was listed as a member of Zoe Daniel's staff with an official parliamentary house email address. Can You Bear It? The ABC's favourable coverage of the Simon Holmes à Court backed Climate 200 Teals continued on Wednesday 4 June when Sarah Ferguson interviewed Nicolette Boele on 7.30 . This is how the (soft) interview commenced: Sarah Ferguson: A month and a day after we all went to the polls, Independent Nicolette Boele has defeated Liberal Gisele Kapterian in Bradfield. The final piece in the Teal puzzle that covers the former Liberal heartland of Sydney's North Shore…. A recount has now seen Boele win by a margin of only 26 votes. She joins me now. Nicolette Boele, welcome to the program. Nicolette Boele: Great to be here. Sarah Ferguson: First woman to win Bradfield. First independent after being a Liberal seat for 75 years. What does this moment mean? And so it went on – more free publicity for the Climate 200 Teals on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. Comrade Ferguson made no mention of the fact that Ms Boele has one vote out of 150 MPs in the House of Representatives where the Albanese Labor government has a majority of 38 seats (94 Labor to 56 the rest). In short, like the other Teals, she will have scant political influence since the Teals are not in a balance of power situation. This is the second time Teal Boele has been interviewed on 7.30 – she was interviewed before the election, on 30 April. On neither occasion did Ferguson raise the matter of Boele's comment during the campaign when, after having her hair washed, she said to a young female hairdresser in the seat of Bradfield: 'That was amazing and I didn't even have sex with you.' She later apologised saying that her comment was 'a poor attempt at humour'. [You can say that again. – MWD Editor.] Imagine how Comrade Ferguson would have conducted the interview if, say, Tony Abbott had made such a statement to a hairdresser. Yet, to the Teal-friendly crew at the ABC, embarrassing comments by Teals are quickly dispatched down what George Orwell called the memory hole. Can You Bear It? FIVE PAWS AWARD Media Watch Dog's Five Paws Award was inaugurated in Issue Number 26 (4 September 2009) during the time of Nancy (2004-2017). The first winner was ABC TV presenter Emma Alberici. Ms Alberici scored for remembering the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 whereby Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union. And for stating that the Nazi-Soviet Pact had effectively started the Second World War, since it was immediately followed by Germany's invasion of Poland (at a time when the Soviet Union had become an ally of Germany). Over the years, the late Nancy's Five Paws Award has become one of the world's most prestigious gongs – rating just below the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards. It was just after Gin & Tonic time on the evening of Thursday 5 June when Ellie's (male) co-owner noticed this article by the oh-so-zany Samantha Maiden titled 'Sydney University newspaper uninvites Political Editor Samantha Maiden from speaking at event'. It was drawn to MWD's attention by a female comedian reader: It turns out that Ms Maiden – a former editor of the Adelaide University student newspaper On Dit – was invited by a comrade at the University of Sydney student newspaper Honi Soit to take part in a student newspaper conference at Sydney University. [Don't you mean Hanoi Soit? – MWD Editor ]. MWD fave David Marr was also invited. It turned out that Ms Maiden was cancelled due to her position on Palestine – this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that she has a stated position on Palestine, the Israel-Hamas War and so on. The editorial team at Honi Soit wrote that Maiden's views were not consistent with the position of a left-wing newspaper. In her witty article, Samantha Maiden had this to say about her censors: …The more I thought about [it] I reflected on how troubling it is that these sensitive petals at Sydney University, a good proportion of whom come from wealthy families, private schools and the world of mummy and daddy paying for their rent, are in such a froth about people that they think may think differently to them. Another panellist, the ABC broadcaster David Marr, kindly wrote a letter in support of free speech in solidarity. It turned out that your man Marr wrote to Honi Soit protesting at its censorship and concluded his missive with 'I'm out'. Well done Mr Marr. By the way, MWD just loves the pics supplied by Samantha Maiden in the piece – including one with her and a can of beer and another one with a glass of wine in hand. And, oh yes, there is one pic without Ms Maiden but containing a pic of Adelaide-based journalist David Penberthy channelling Dracula. Samantha Maiden – Five Paws for standing up in an irreverent way for free speech. Feel free to give a couple of these paws to David Marr. AN ABC UPDATE DAVID SPEERS APOLOGISES FOR ABC POLITICAL REPORTER CLAUDIA LONG'S HOWLER ABOUT THE TWO NATIONALS MPS – WITHOUT MENTIONING THE ABC OR THE NAME 'LONG' There was enormous interest in last week's (hugely popular) 'Can You Bear It?' segment which covered ABC political reporter Claudia Long's false claim on the ABC TV's Insiders program. The date was Sunday 25 May. Comrade Long claimed that National MPs Alison Penfold and Pat Conaghan were not in their north-east NSW electorates when the floods were at their most severe and five people died. The statement was totally false – due to the fact that Ms Long made the allegation without checking with either Ms Penfold or Mr Conaghan. How's that for unprofessional and lazy journalism? The ABC's Corrections and Clarifications website acknowledged the error. But Claudia Long was not named – nor was it acknowledged that the journalist who made the howler was the ABC's Canberra-based political reporter. Convenient, eh? In last week's MWD the following comment was made: These Corrections/Clarifications are all very well. But they are no substitute for an on-air correction on the same program – in this case, an apology read out by Comrade Speers on Insiders next Sunday. Media Watch Dog will be watching. Believe it or not, Insiders did make an on-air apology – a rare occasion indeed for the taxpayer funded ABC. Let's go to the transcript: David Speers: Now, just before we hear some 'Final Observations' – on last week's program, there was a suggestion two Nationals MPs had left their electorates during the floods in New South Wales. Alison Penfold and Pat Conaghan were, in fact, in their electorates helping their communities. We apologise for this error. It's always important to admit when you've got something wrong. This apology was better than no apology. But it did fudge the issue. Claudia Long did not make a 'suggestion' – rather her rant presented her criticism of the Nationals MPs as a statement of fact. Moreover, Comrade Long was not named – leaving the impression that the howler might have been made by one of the other panellists – Jennifer Hewett or Jason Koutsoukis or by David Speers himself. Then the apology was placed at the end of Insiders by executive producer Samuel Clark – not towards the start of the program where Claudia Long had made her false allegations the previous week. In the past, Insiders was known for sacking a panellist who made a serious on-air error. But the person in question did not work for the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. In view of this, it would be no surprise if the ABC's political reporter returned to the couch in the not too distant future. YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS 'You Must Remember This' is based on the chorus line in the song As Time Goes By which was popularised by the film Casablanca . It is devoted to reminding the usual suspects (living or dead) of what they and/or those they supported once wrote or said or did. Or, indeed, what they failed to write or say. NINE'S GOOD WEEKEND NEGLECTS TO QUERY AUSTRALIA'S (ALLEGED) 'LEADING DEFENCE AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST' HUGH WHITE ABOUT HIS FALSE PREDICTIONS IN THE PAST Did anyone read the 'Conversations' section of Nine Newspapers' Good Weekend Magazine last Sunday? Headed '18 Questions…with Hugh White', it involved interviewer Greg Callaghan and a flattering photo of your man White by Peter Tarasiuk. The left-hand side of White's (bearded) face was lit – but the right side faded to dark. The subheading was as follows: Our leading defence and intelligence analyst on the new world order, the folly of AUKUS, what we need to know about Indonesia – and why our leaders need to be frank with the Australian people. Needless to say, the questions were on the soft side. Along the lines of, say, 'Why is it that you are always right when speaking about Australian foreign policy?' For what it is worth [Not much, I anticipate. – MWD Editor], here are a few questions that Ellie's (male) co-owner would like to ask White, if given a chance: Q 19: How's your crystal ball these days? Any better than when you wrote this in the Sydney Morning Herald in March 2005?: 'We may face…a naval battle this year…between the US and Chinese navies, ostensibly over Taiwan's independence, but in reality over which power would emerge pre-eminent in Asia in the 21st century.' Q 20: And what about when you wrote in The Age in December 2012 that we should 'not be too surprised if the US and Japan go to war with China in 2013'. Q 21: And do you still hold this as a possibility? You know, the issue you raised in answer to this question on ABC TV Lateline in November 2014: 'Are we going to see war in our region?' – with your answer 'Look, I think that's a possibility we can't rule out' since the situation was a 'little like what happened in 1914'. Q 22: And why do you continue to use the word 'will' about the future? – which no one can predict. The reference is to your comment to Comrade Callaghan: Many people fear that if America steps back from leadership in Asia, the whole region would be oppressed by an all-powerful China. But that will not happen. [How does he know this? Is he a born-again Nostradamus? – MWD Editor.] Q 23: In view of your crystal ball malfunctions in the past, do you endorse the Good Weekend report of your interview last Saturday? Namely, 'it is hard to overstate Hugh White's standing on issues relating to Australia's national security?' MWD will let avid readers know if Hugh White answers any Questions 19 to 23. In the meantime, it is appropriate to state with reference to who Good Weekend regards as Australia's leading defence and intelligence analyst: You Must Remember This. THE CLICHÉ IN THE ROOM – AN ELEPHANT'S PERSPECTIVE IAN DUNT USES MEANINGLESS CLICHÉ SUGGESTING THAT, UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE US MIGHT JOIN PUTIN'S RUSSIA IN GOING TO WAR WITH EUROPE ABC's Radio National Late Night Live is a manifestation of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster as a Conservative Free Zone. Look at the political commentators. Every Monday there was the left-of-centre Laura Tingle replaced – it would seem, by the left-of-centre Bernard Keane of the left-of-centre Crikey fame – discussing Australian politics. Then every second Tuesday the left-of-centre Bruce Shapiro of the left-of-centre The Nation fame discusses United States politics. Then every other Tuesday the left-of-centre Ian Dunt of the left-of-centre The i Paper discusses British politics – or something like that. You get the picture. On 3 June, Comrade Dunt discussed Britain's recently released Strategic Defence Review . Having described the Trump administration's relationship with NATO as 'The Elephant in the Room' your man Dunt went on to say this: Ian Dunt: I mean, the Defence Review is really quite vacuous because it can't say the thing that it must say in order to start planning sensibly for the future. Which is, you cannot rely on the US anymore. The US will not come to the assistance of Europe. But also, more frighteningly, it could easily find itself in a position where it penalises Europe for fighting against Russia. Or could even conceivably be on the side of Russia in a conflict against Europe. And because of that, because Britain's plans for military strategy have always relied on the idea the US would be leading in Europe. It leaves a black hole in the middle of its defence review. What a load of absolute tosh. Sure, Britain and NATO cannot rely on the US at the time of President Donald J. Trump, in the way it has done in the past. However, Comrade Dunt's assertion that the US 'could even conceivably be on the side of Russia in a conflict against Europe' seems, well, nuts. Does he really believe that Trump would support Putin bombing Buckingham Palace? MWD does not want to see your man Dunt lose his gig on Late Night Left. But a bit of viewpoint diversity would not go amiss on the program. Perhaps LNL could find a right-of-centre political commentator every now and then – preferably one devoid of both clichés and an interest in elephants. THE [BORING] SATURDAY PAPER The Saturday Paper (Morry Schwartz proprietor, Erik Jensen editor-in-chief) is the only newspaper in Australia that contains no news. It is printed on Thursday evenings and arrives in inner-city coffee shops on a Saturday morning. Ellie's (male) co-owner reads it on Mondays at Gin & Tonic Time. What's the hurry? THE SATURDAY PAPER'S JASON KOUTSOUKIS CALLS FOR AUSTRALIA TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS Wasn't it great to see Jason Koutsoukis on ABC TV Insiders on Sunday 1 June? He is the special correspondent of the leftist Saturday Paper and appears on Insiders in this capacity. Let's go to the transcript when Comrade Koutsoukis discussed Australia's emissions: David Speers (Presenter): But Jason, this gets to, I guess there's often a confusion around, there's a lot of gas, but it's shipped off to Japan and South Korea, and it's used there, and it's that that doesn't count in our domestic emissions. That counts in, you know, those third countries, Japan or South Korea, those countries. What does count in our emissions profile is the emissions caused by actually extracting the gas, turning it into LNG and so on. Jason Koutsoukis: That's right. And, and I think there is an argument, though, that Australia should start taking responsibility for the fossil fuels that it exports overseas. David Speers: Scope 3 emissions. Jason Koutsoukis: Indeed. But yes, and whether or not it adds to it, the production adds to our own greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, that's, that's part of it. But I think in the long term, Australia has to start thinking about the impact that its fossil fuels do have on the rest of the world. And so there's sort of a little bit of, the government is kind of weaselling out of this a little bit there by trying to absolve themselves. David Speers: It's only one planet, right, at the end of the day. Many thanks to David ('Please call me Speersy') Speers for telling viewers that there is only one planet. Who would have previously known this? [Funny that. An avid sub-continent reader told me that there are eight planets in the solar system but we only live on one of them. – MWD Editor.] As to Comrade Koutsoukis' view that Australia should take responsibility for fossil fuels that are exported – this overlooks the fact that the likes of Japan, South Korea, India, China and so on would obtain fossil fuels from other countries which may well produce more emissions than the fossil fuels they import from Australia. Australia is responsible for one per cent of global emissions. Add Scope 3 emissions and the Australian contribution to global emissions would remain very low. Perhaps TSP's editor-in-chief Erik Jensen should try to get more of his newspapers to China, India, Indonesia, Russia and the US where someone could act on Speers' message that there is only one planet. [Interesting. If Erik Jensen's special correspondent is so concerned about emissions – why is The [Boring] Saturday Paper published as a printed product. Just a thought. – MWD Editor.] HISTORY CORNER JUDITH BRETT'S ANTAGONISM TO THE LIBERAL PARTY IN GENERAL AND ROBERT MENZIES IN PARTICULAR DOCUMENTED An avid (but not uncritical) Media Watch Dog reader has challenged the comment on 16 May that – contrary to Laura Tingle's claim on ABC TV's 7.30 that Judith Brett is 'a Liberal Party historian' – in reality she is a left-wing academic critical of the Liberal Party in general and its founder Robert Menzies in particular. This is what MWD said on 16 May 2025: Judith Brett is not a 'Liberal Party historian'. Sure, she has written about the Liberal Party of Australia. Most notably her 1992 book Robert Menzies' Forgotten People . As Gerard Henderson documents in his Menzies Child: the Liberal Party of Australia (HarperCollins 1998), Brett was highly critical of the Liberal Party's founder. This is not understood by those who have not read Brett's work from cover to cover. In fact, Judith Brett is a left-of-centre academic. For example, in the early 1980s she co-edited the avowedly leftist Arena Magazine . Here are some facts. In Robert Menzies' Forgotten People , Brett argued that Menzies' anti-communism was a manifestation of his alleged homophobia. Here is what she wrote: The social anthropologist Mary Douglas has looked at the way different societies represent the social whole and the boundary between what is inside and what is outside society. The human body is a particularly rich source of imagery for the understanding and organisation of social life. The body's margins and internal divisions, along with images of bodily pollution and integrity, provide ways of thinking about threats to the social order – the body politic – and means of combating them. Much anti-communist rhetoric has drawn on bodily imagery: the imagery of sickness and disease (a social cancer) and the anal erotic imagery of the attack from behind (rooting rats out of holes). There are occasional uses of such imagery by mainstream Australian non-labour politicians like Menzies, but they are surprisingly few. Brett did not provide any evidence of Menzies' referring to 'the anal erotic imagery of the attack from behind'. But there you go. And this is what Comrade Brett wrote about Menzies' (unsuccessful) attempt to ban the Communist Party of Australia in 1951: Menzies took longer to be convinced of the need to ban the Communist Party than many of his colleagues. Once convinced, however, he was quickly able to reorient his arguments towards the urgent need to rid society of 'this alien and foreign pest'. He drew, as did his colleagues, on the anti-communist ideology already established in Australia. This ideology shared in the general preoccupation of pre-war Australia with keeping foreign, impure and corrupting influences out of the country, whether they were the darker skinned people of Asia, dangerous foreign pests and diseases, seditious literature or communist agitators. The anti-communist discourse which Menzies took up after his decision to ban the Communist Party, was a public discourse shaped to maintain social harmony and order by isolating and expelling threats to the social order. In taking it up, however, Menzies gave it a distinctive shape. Exploring this, we are drawn deep into Menzies' own view of social order and the sorts of threats he most needed to keep it at bay. Brett failed to acknowledge that, whatever the merits of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, Menzies was right about communism. He understood that the Communist Party was intent on obtaining power in Australia and elsewhere. And he understood that Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and the like were murderous, totalitarian dictators. Some of the strongest anti-communists circa 1950 and later in Australia and elsewhere were former members of the Communist Party. Also, Brett's hostility to Menzies is evident in her claim that the former prime minister wanted to keep 'foreign, impure and corrupting influences out of the country…such as the darker skinned people of Asia'. The fact is that the White Australia Policy enjoyed bipartisan support during Menzies' time in Australian politics. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party and its affiliated trade unions led the opposition to Asian immigration. What's more, the White Australia Policy was administered with greater flexibility from December 1949 when the Menzies government came to office – than it was by the Chifley Labor government from the end of the Second World War until its defeat at the December 1949 election. The above are just a few examples that Judith Brett is a Menzies antagonist. She deserves to be heard in the public debate – but Brett should not be presented as anything but a consistent critic of the Liberal Party. **** Until Next Time ****
