logo
Power plays, tax fights and lost voices: PVO reveals what the first week of new parliament tells us

Power plays, tax fights and lost voices: PVO reveals what the first week of new parliament tells us

Daily Mail​24-07-2025
Parliament returned this week not with a bang, but with a calculated rhythm.
No drama in the numbers, no early leadership tension, and no surprise legislative ambushes.
And yet beneath the calm surface, the first full sitting week of this new term - which only included two days of Question Time - revealed a lot.
The government was keen to look measured but quietly ruthless, an opposition still licking its electoral wounds was slowly finding its voice, while the crossbenchers immediately discovered just how little leverage they now have, other than the Greens who hold the balance of power in the Senate in their own right.
There was strategy at play on all sides: defensive, offensive and performative. And with tax policy fast becoming the next political battlefield during this parliamentary term, the tone may already have been set.
What were Anthony Albanese 's priorities?
Labor returned to Canberra laser-focused. Top of the list: pushing the HECS‑HELP cut to student debts through the parliament. Their signature pre-election promise - a 20 percent wipe-off for roughly 3 million Australians - was formally introduced in the House on Wednesday.
But beyond policy, optics mattered too. Labor deliberately dialled down the triumphalism. The tone was 'steady hand', not swagger. Ministers fronted the media emphasising unity and focus, a calculated effort to sidestep hubris.
Welcoming new MPs added another layer to the week. Ali France, Sarah Witty and others delivered first speeches: personal, grounded and in contrast to the Coalition's more familiar faces (those few who survived the electorate's cull).
Labor also took the chance to underscore the Coalition's troubles on the floor of parliament. Their failure to back a modest income tax cut before the election got plenty of Question Time airplay. So too the divisions over net zero. And a depleted number of Liberal women in the opposition's party room took away from its first female leader strutting her stuff.
The Nationals remain publicly split on 2050 emissions targets, with Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack pushing to scrap them entirely. It's hard not to think that at some point sooner or later there will be another challenge Nats leader David Littleproud will need to navigate.
Then came trade. Australia lifted biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports, widely seen as a move to smooth tensions with Washington and hopefully negotiate down the Trump trade tariffs.
Labor tried to claim the timing of the policy change was a coincidence, but the Coalition isn't buying that. It wants the decision reviewed, using the final Question Time to push its case that biosecurity standards have been sacrificed to the interests of trade.
There was no policy switch on beer tax, as Labor went ahead with its election promise to freeze the excise for the next two years. Cheers! A nice win for the outgoing CEO of the Brewers Association, John Preston, who had long advocated for an end to the continual hikes which have given Australia some of the highest beer taxes in the world. With pressure on the government to ease the cost of living, it will be interesting to see if the industry can successfully lobby to make the freeze permanent.
If the Coalition looked fractured and reactive, Labor appeared focused and composed. Less interested in gloating, more committed to governing, or at least projecting that impression.
How did the new Opposition leader perform?
Taking on what's often called the toughest job in politics, Sussan Ley managed her first full week with steadiness and restraint. It wasn't flashy, to be sure, but she avoided missteps.
Ley anchored her messaging to one issue: Labor's plan to tax unrealised super gains. It was a deliberate pitch to older Australians and SMSF holders. Her lines in Question Time were clear and targeted. She even ventured briefly into housing, territory the government prefers to control.
Ley didn't bite at the attempts to reignite the net zero wars. She stayed out of the mess, refusing to endorse or criticise the move, thus avoiding inflaming an already unstable internal debate. That said, it's likely this issue will explode within the Coalition sooner rather than later.
Away from the chamber, Ley focused on authenticity. Her 60 Minutes appearance on the Sunday before the sitting week commenced - speaking about the death of her mother and her reasons for taking the job - struck the right tone: restrained and sincere. It didn't prevent the first Newspoll of her leadership revealing that the opposition starts this term further down in the polls than the poor election showing in May.
Commentary on Ley's performance in her first parliamentary sitting week was mixed. Some accused her of lacking ideological edge. Others noted her improved recognition and clearer messaging. Her approval ratings remain low but she has time to turn that around.
Behind the scenes, Ley began rebuilding with internal reviews, outreach to business and community groups, and a reshaped shadow team. It's too soon to judge, but she made it through her first test without slipping. She even met with former long term Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop during the sitting week, no doubt receiving some tips on how to navigate the male-dominated shadow cabinet she leads.
Does anyone remember the crossbench?
The crossbench went to the 2025 election with high hopes. A hung parliament was on the cards, and the independents and Teals saw themselves as likely policy shapers and kingmakers. But Labor's outright majority removed that possibility in an instant.
In the lower house, the crossbench is now politically irrelevant. Their speeches will still be heartfelt, and they'll get a sizeable share of questions given how small the opposition party room now is. But without leverage anything they do is largely symbolic.
The Senate, however, is a different story, but only for the Greens. With eleven seats, they hold the balance of power and have made clear they intend to use it. Most of what's passed so far hasn't been contentious, but that won't last.
Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi ensured the crossbench wasn't entirely invisible. During the Governor-General's address, she stood mid-speech and unfurled a sign reading: 'Gaza is starving… Sanction Israel.' It drew formal censure and headlines, but no policy traction. Still, it was a reminder that the Greens won't fade quietly despite their poor performance in lower house electorates.
The rest of the crossbench? Watching from the sidelines, for at least the next three years. That includes ACT Senator David Pocock who made such a splash in his first term. The team of four One Nation senators led by Pauline Hanson also has little power, but their enlarged party room is a lead indicator that they will be in the running to share the balance of power after the next election.
What debates will we hear more about in the coming weeks?
The biggest issue emerging from this week is the looming political fight over taxing unrealised gains in superannuation. The government's Division 296 proposal (a 15 percent tax on earnings for super balances over $3 million, including on gains not yet realised) has become the central line of Coalition attack.
Ley and her deputy and shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien are already framing it as a broader tax threat. 'Will Labor now tax unrealised gains on everything?' was the line floated in Parliament, designed to create unease among all Australians, not just the rich few with huge super balances.
Labor maintains that the tax hits only 0.5 percent of people and will raise over $40 billion in the next decade. But there's disquiet, even internally. Some Labor MPs reportedly 'hate' the idea of taxing paper profits, even if they accept the budget imperative. Whatever way you cut it, the policy is badly designed, even if the goal of restricting super tax concessions for the wealthy has some merit.
The industry pushback is already intense, precisely because the design is so poor. SMSF groups warn they'll bear the brunt of what's coming. Hostplus wants indexation to avoid younger savers being caught by the tax in the future.
Then there's the politics. Anthony Albanese joked in Question Time: 'The time to run a scare campaign is just before an election, not after one.' A wry line, but from a man who well knows how effective a scare campaign can be.
Chalmers is framing the debate in class terms: 'This side of the House is cutting taxes for 14 million Australians. That side is going to the wall for 0.5 percent.' That may resonate, but it won't silence critics, and it gives away the Treasurer's penchant for class warfare, which might cripple his efforts to embrace serious tax reform. If indeed he is even serious about that looming debate.
The August tax summit will keep the issue of super in the headlines at the same time as broadening the discussion. Whether it resolves anything is another matter.
The noise around Division 296 will therefore carry into August, but it won't be the only game in town. What this week showed (quietly but clearly) is how each player plans to operate in the new political reality. Labor in control and careful not to overreach. The opposition disciplined, for now at least, despite Joyce and McCormack's best efforts. The crossbench adjusting to irrelevance.
The curtain has only just gone up, but the tone of the new parliamentary term is already taking shape.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Families of murder victims 'relieved' as Government backs parole ban for killers who hide bodies
Families of murder victims 'relieved' as Government backs parole ban for killers who hide bodies

Daily Record

timean hour ago

  • Daily Record

Families of murder victims 'relieved' as Government backs parole ban for killers who hide bodies

Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser's families met with Justice Secretary Angela Constance to press for an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill. The families of Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser say they feel 'relieved' after the Scottish Government signalled support for changes to the parole system targeting killers who refuse to reveal where their victims are buried. ‌ Speaking in Glasgow on Wednesday following a meeting with Justice Secretary Angela Constance, the families issued a joint statement welcoming the move. ‌ They also urged the minister to push ahead with the reforms without delay. ‌ The meeting was requested by the families to discuss an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament. The amendment would mean that when a convicted murderer r efuses to reveal the location of their victims remains, this 'must' be taken into account when considering parole. ‌ Under current legislation, the parole board rules dictate that this 'may' be taken into account. The changes have sometimes been referred to as 'Suzanne's Law' – named after Suzanne Pilley, who was murdered by her colleague David Gilroy in 2010. However, the Scottish Government has not used this term and says decisions on parole are for the independent parole board. Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Suzanne Pilley, and her mother Sylvia Pilley were joined by Carol Gillies – who is Arlene Fraser's sister – in Glasgow on Wednesday. ‌ Arlene Fraser vanished in 1998, with her husband Nat Fraser being convicted of her murder in 2012. The joint statement said: 'Today we met with Justice Secretary Angela Constance to seek assurances that this important amendment will go through in the Bill. ‌ 'We are relieved that she reaffirmed her support of the amendment and spoke of her commitment for the intent and substantive content of amendment 260 to remain unaltered. 'We'd like to thank her for meeting with us and discussing the impact that this change will have. 'We hope that this change in law will provide not only us, but with other families in our position, with a measure of comfort and confidence that they can get the justice that we all so badly deserve.' ‌ It continued: 'With the next stage due on return from summer recess, we urge ministers to ensure that this legislation is enacted as soon as possible – we have already been under unimaginable strain and pressure for so many years leading up to this moment.' The SNP minister said: 'I am grateful to the families of Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser for meeting with me today. ‌ 'They have suffered heartbreaking losses, compounded by not knowing the final resting place of their loved ones. My deepest sympathies remain with them. 'In March, I supported an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill that will mean the Parole Board, when making decisions about release, must take account of whether a prisoner has information about the disposal of a victim's remains, but has not disclosed it. 'At today's meeting, I reiterated my firm commitment to this change, which will become law if the Bill is passed in Parliament.' Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.

Families say murderers should reveal where bodies are hidden to get parole
Families say murderers should reveal where bodies are hidden to get parole

STV News

time3 hours ago

  • STV News

Families say murderers should reveal where bodies are hidden to get parole

The families of two murder victims have said killers should reveal where their victims' remains are if they are to be given parole. The bodies of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley have never been found, and their families say that should be taken into consideration when convicted criminals face the parole board. A new amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill, which will be considered by MSPs after the Scottish Parliament reconvenes in September, could make that a reality. The close relatives of both women had a 'very positive' meeting on Wednesday with the Scottish justice secretary, Angela Constance, who reaffirmed her commitment to the amendment being passed as it currently stands. Grampian Police 33-year-old Arlene Fraser vanished from her family bungalow in Elgin after waving her two young children off to school. The changes would force independent parole boards to consider whether people convicted of murder have not shared information about the location of their victims' remains. 'We are relieved that she reaffirmed her support of the amendment and spoke of her commitment for the intent and substantive content of amendment 260 to remain unaltered,' the families of Ms Fraser and Ms Pilley said in a joint statement. We'd like to thank her for meeting with us and discussing the impact that this change will have. 'We hope that this change in law will provide not only us, but with other families in our position, with a measure of comfort and confidence that they can get the justice that we all so badly deserve. Police Scotland Suzanne Pilley. 'With the next stage due on return from summer recess, we urge ministers to ensure that this legislation is enacted as soon as possible – we have already been under unimaginable strain and pressure for so many years leading up to this moment.' Kate Wallace, chief executive of Victim Support Scotland, said the 'simple change' to the legislation would 'enormous' for victims and their families. Arlene Fraser's husband, Nat Fraser, was convicted of murdering his wife after a retrial in 2012, 14 years after her disappearance. He has never revealed her body's whereabouts, and Ms Fraser's family believes he never will. He sister Carole Gilles has described the ordeal as 'mental torture'. 'I think I sometimes feel guilty that I had a life,' she said. 'She was only 33, and she was taken. She would have wanted me to live my life, but she has missed out on so much.' Suzanne Pilley's former partner, David Gilroy, was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum jail term of 18 years in 2012 for her murder. Ms Pilley, 38, disappeared on her way to work in Edinburgh in May 2010. Gilroy has never revealed the whereabouts of her body. Her sister Gail Fairgrieve said: 'We are still dealing with this every day. You go into a card shop but can't buy anything for your sister. 'It's there constantly and he has information which could put us at ease and bring Suzanne home. 'This ruling means that he is not fully rehabilitated if he is still withholding information; otherwise, life imprisonment means life imprisonment.' In Scotland, a guilty verdict for murder necessitates a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term set before parole can be considered. Under current legislation, Nat Fraser will be eligible for parole in October 2028, and David Gilroy in March 2030. Currently, if the panel believes an offender has information about where or how the victim's remains were disposed of, which they have not disclosed, they 'may' take this into account when coming to a final decision. If the amendment is voted through, the panel 'must' consider the offenders' decision not to disclose the information when they are up for parole. Ms Wallace said: 'While she cannot guarantee it herself, we are pleased that Angela Constance has reassured the family of her steadfast support of the amendment. 'It is a simple change of one word, but the impact on the families who have lost a loved one in this way will be enormous.' Legislatively, Ms Wallace said the amendment would bring Scotland in line with England and Wales, where Helen's Law is in place. It follows successful campaigning by Helen McCourt's mother following her disappearance in 1988. Ian Simms, a local pub landlord, was convicted of her murder. Her body was never found. Similar legislation has been proposed in Northern Ireland, named Charlotte's Law, following the murder of Charlotte Murray. Her former partner, John Miller, was convicted of her murder. Her body was never found. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Qantas has devalued its frequent flyer points. What should you do now?
Qantas has devalued its frequent flyer points. What should you do now?

The Guardian

time3 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Qantas has devalued its frequent flyer points. What should you do now?

Qantas was back in the spotlight this week with news that affected members of its frequent flyer program. The airline has made significant changes to its loyalty program, effectively devaluing its frequent flyer points. While we don't know the full extent or the specifics of the changes, airline loyalty program experts estimate a 20% average increase in the number of points needed to redeem a seat. Qantas has given us a few examples, including that a Classic Rewards economy seat on a Sydney-Melbourne flight has risen to 9,200 points plus $55 in fees, from 8,000 points plus $55 in fees. So, will the Qantas promise of more rewards seats available to flyers make the additional expense worth it? Or are people better off spending their points on shopping instead of flights? Flagging the changes in January, the chief executive officer of the frequent flyer program, Andrew Glance, said: 'A lot has changed in the last six years.' He suggested the changes would mean the airline could increase the number of Classic Rewards and Classic Plus Rewards seats available to be booked with frequent flyer points. Qantas has for some time fielded complaints about the scarcity of Classic Rewards seats in general, especially in premium classes. The airline has acknowledged the changes would force many members to spend more points and more cash on fees. However, Qantas said it hadn't adjusted the value of its loyalty scheme since 2019, and that the August changes were only the second since 2004. Daniel Sciberras, who works for the guide website Point Hacks, says the latest increase is 'relatively reasonable', even if customers aren't happy about it, because the program 'needs to remain viable'. In his view, this is because the average 15% to 20% jump in the number of points needed to book flights works out to about a 2% to 3% rise a year since 2019 – roughly in line with inflation. The specifics of what each Classic Rewards seat will cost under the new scheme have not yet been revealed. However, Sciberras says his tips for consumers in general haven't changed. He says there's no difference to 'the general rule' – that redeeming points for premium seats on long-haul fights is the 'best bang for your point'. 'So, you're still going to get great value when it comes to flights, especially in those long-haul premium cabins.' He says people are generally better off redeeming points on business-class seats than paying for an economy seat and using points to get an upgrade. His advice remains the same when it comes to domestic bookings too: use your points on routes with less competition. Sciberras says this is because busy domestic routes with lots of competition – such as flights between Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide – generally have lower ticket prices. The amount of points needed to redeem a seat is fixed, and based on distance, he says. This means you're better off using points to book domestic flights that would otherwise be more expensive, such as to destinations like Hamilton Island, Uluru or Broome. Not if you want to get the best value for money, Sciberras says. 'You're always going to get more value by redeeming your points for flights than other things: accommodation, car hire, anything from the shopping mall,' he says. This is because points – when worked out in dollar terms – end up being worth more when used to book flights, he says. Sciberras says points usually work out to be about 1c in value when used to book flights. 'But … if you want to get a $50 gift card, it'll be like 10,000 points, right? That gives you half a cent in value,' he says. 'Short-haul domestic might be only around 0.7c per point, so it's not much more. But if you're going international first class, you could get 4c or 5c in value, or even more per point.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store