Energy Minister Chris Bowen says Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack's net zero protest a ‘dream ticket' to turf David Littleproud
With the opposition stalled on a recommitment to Australia reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 until a policy review, Mr McCormack has issued a warning shot to party leaders, saying he would unite with his unlikely ally Mr Joyce on opposing the goal.
Two pair had tussled for the regional party's top job, taking turns at the Nationals leadership before current leader David Littleproud ascended in 2022.
The pair's position on net zero has raised questions over Mr Littleproud's leadership.
Speaking to Sky News moments before the first question time of the 48th parliament, Mr McCormack hit back at comments put forward by the Coalition's energy spokesman.
'Dan Tehan this morning calling me a steer and Barnaby a steer – we're not gelded, we're not emasculated,' he said.
'We're very much virile and out there.'
A mere few hours later, Mr Bowen took aim from the dispatch box during question time.
'The member for Riverina said on the Kieran Gilbert show, 'We're virile and we're out there,' the member for New England and member for Riverina,' Mr Bowen said.
'That this is not his Tinder profile, this is his dream ticket. He's not looking to swipe right, he's looking to swipe out the member for Maranoa, is what he's trying to do.
'But they're … really betraying people in rural and regional Australia, they are the ones who pay the price of drought and flood which will be more common and severe under climate change.'
Mr Bowen's comments was one of the more noteworthy moments from the hour-long display of political theatre, formally known as question time.
It was also Sussan Ley first as Opposition Leader, with the Coalition attempting to lob knives poised for Labor's ailing 1.2 million housing target and controversial superannuation tax.
Dressed in a powder pink pants suit, Ms Ley stared down the Prime Minister and his army of 94 Labor MPs who spilt onto chamber benches normally reserved for the crossbench.
The National Housing Accords were in her sights, with the promise to build 1.2 million homes by mid-2029 already lagging by about 55,000 following its first year.
'The Liberal Party I lead will always champion policies to help more Australians into a home of their own but under Labor the homeownership dream has never been further out of reach,' she said, asking the first question.
'With leaked Treasury advice confirming this is a broken promise, will the Prime Minister abandon his failing policies and work constructively with the Coalition to address Labor's housing crisis?'
Criticism of Labor's plan to hit superannuation balances of more than $3m with a 30 per cent tax was also prosecuted, with the Coalition attacking the government over the proposal to hit unrealised capital gains.
However, Mr Albanese, wearing a dark suit and dark blue tie, returned fire saying the tax would rebalance the superannuation system and only affect 0.5 per cent of accounts, while also quipping: 'The time to launch a scare campaign is before an election'.
Elsewhere, Labor's majority was on full display.
In an unsubtle but effective reminder to the Coalition and the Greens' sole lower house stalwart, Ryan MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown, Labor's Dorothy Dixers – the questions asked by government MPs to ministers – were all delivered by the MPs who turfed out a sitting Liberal or Greens MP.
In order of appearance, they included Dickson's Ali France, Melbourne's Sarah Witty, Griffith's Renee Coffey, Emma Comer of Petrie, Gabriel Ng in Menzies, Hughes MP David Moncrieff, Jess Teesdale from Bass, Sturt's Claire Clutterham, Banks MP Zhi Soon, Deakin's Matt Greg, and Braddon's Anne Urquhart.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Thousands of pro-Palestinian supporters expected for 'historic' march across Sydney Harbour Bridge
Sydney Harbour Bridge will be closed for hours on Sunday for a pro-Palestinian march which organisers have described as "historic", after they won a legal battle against police over the plans. Authorities have warned of disruptions in the CBD from as early as 11:30am, when the bridge closure will begin. There could also be delays on arterial roads into the city and impacts on public transport. The outcome of the police-initiated court case means that participants will be afforded a level of protection against some acts that could otherwise constitute criminal offences. But senior police leaders have said hundreds of officers will be around to facilitate a safe protest, warning that they won't hesitate to act if there's any antisocial behaviour or risks to public safety. Justice Belinda Rigg, NSW Supreme Court judge, refused an application by NSW Police for court prohibition orders, which means the event is an authorised public assembly. The key piece of legislation here is the Summary Offences Act. Saturday's judgement said a section of that act provides that an attendee of an authorised assembly "will not, by reason of that participation, be guilty of any offence relating to participating in an unlawful assembly, or the obstruction of any person, vehicle or vessel in a public place". It means participants will have a kind of immunity from being charged with potential offences like obstructing roads or traffic during the event. But there are other sources of police powers within the law. Justice Rigg said: "The police have other extensive powers to direct people, if necessary, for public safety, or in connection with possible criminal offending that are not affected by whether the assembly is authorised or not." Acting Deputy Commissioner Peter McKenna was asked to clarify what powers police would have for the march. "They're not exempt from malicious damage, they're not exempt from assaults, they're not exempt from hate speeches, hate crime, that sort of thing," he said. "So, we will be closely monitoring to make sure this goes as well as possible, as safe as possible. But we call upon all the people coming … to listen to us, to act peacefully and respectfully." The Palestine Action Group has regularly held marches in the CBD for nearly two years. Part of the evidence that helped decide the case was that the group had experienced marshals and a commitment to "prosocial" protests. One of their organisers, Josh Lees, has said they will again have marshals and medics on Sunday, and that "everyone can feel very confident to come out … in huge numbers". One word keeps coming up on this: significant. While the march has been scheduled for 1pm, the bridge shutdown will begin about 11:30am, according to Craig Moran from Transport for NSW. It may not reopen until 4pm or later. The Harbour Tunnel will remain open, but will likely be busy. Mr Moran said there will be flow-on consequences for arterial roads into the CBD and for the public transport system. Buses may terminate at places they normally wouldn't, and the rail system will be "very busy", he said, although trains will still run across the bridge. People have been urged to avoid non-essential travel on public transport where possible. Organisers of the march had planned to start the event around Lang Park in the CBD. But plans changed on Saturday afternoon because police expressed concerns about that location. Part of the fluidity here — and also part of how police tried to argue for a prohibition order — means uncertainty about the number of attendees. According to Acting Deputy Commissioner McKenna, "the whole gambit of police" will be in attendance and they'll be "right along the route" of the march. That includes the public order and riot squad, mounted police, traffic and highway patrol and general duties officers. He said their aim will be to make sure the event is as safe and peaceful as possible. He reiterated that "[if] anyone thinks they're going to come along and hijack this protest or do the wrong thing, police will take swift action".
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Why Hannah Ferguson and Maria Ressa are sounding the alarm about social media disinformation
When Hannah Ferguson started Cheek Media five years ago, she wanted to create space for young Australians to engage with the deeply fun and the deeply serious. Like many gen zs, she felt let down by legacy media, and believed there was a better way to connect young people with politics and news. Fast forward to the present, Hannah Ferguson's biting political commentary and social media prowess have helped her amass a following of more 290,000 across her Cheek Media and personal Instagram accounts. Before Australia's 2025 federal election, more than 4 million people viewed Ms Ferguson's content, with thousands watching a "get ready with me" reel before her interview with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. "[Social media has] been an incredible tool for change and starting social impact conversations around politics, education and media literacy," she tells ABC TV's Compass. While Ms Ferguson is proud of organically building an online community — and one that cares deeply about social, political and feminist issues — she says that being a social media commentator has come at a cost. "Trying to lead hopeful conversations [has] come with threats to my life, threats to my safety, threats to my family," she says. She is also wary of the broader implications of social media. "The algorithms push inflammatory material, and we are so used to that," she says. Despite her online success, Ms Ferguson says there have been times when she's looked in the mirror and asked: "Is this doing more harm than good?" "The way that information is spreading right now is so volatile and so inflammatory and divided that we do not have a sense of a shared truth," she says. Ms Ferguson points to how social media has helped fuel political instability in places such as the United States. "Our system of compulsory preferential voting is inherently different to the United States, but to say [Trump-style politics] couldn't happen here is naïve," she says. "We need to be aware about what we're consuming and how that can look in Australia." Like Ms Ferguson, Philippines-based investigative journalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa is alarmed by the pollution of our information ecosystem. She's reported from war zones, written about terrorism and online radicalisation, and risked her life fighting for press freedom. For her, social media poses an existential threat because of the way it proliferates lies. Ms Ressa's fears are not unfounded. A MIT study from 2018 found that lies travelled six times faster than the facts on Twitter. That was before Elon Musk took over the platform and fired moderators tracking hate and other harmful content. As the co-founder of the Philippines' first digital news outlet, Rappler, Ms Ressa knows the real-world consequences of disinformation. Back in 2016, she and her team witnessed how social media was weaponised after the election of "strongman" president Rodrigo Duterte. Rappler uncovered an online network of bots, fake accounts and influencers that supported Duterte and his anti-drug campaign that killed thousands of Filipinos. When Ms Ressa published the story, both she and Rappler were viciously attacked online. She says a smear campaign was launched against the news group, and she was bombarded with an average of 90 hate messages per hour. This spilled into the real-world, when Ms Ressa was arrested for various charges, including tax evasion and cyber libel. She faced cumulative jail sentences of up to 100 years, with Amnesty International calling it "brazenly politically motivated". While Ms Ressa has been acquitted of most charges, her speaking out still comes with risk. And yet, she remains a vocal critic of big tech and its sustained role in the undermining of modern democracies. Experts and whistleblowers from social media companies have raised similar concerns. Online algorithms can manipulate our emotions, stoke division, and set the stage for violence and political unrest. Last year, riots erupted across England after social media posts falsely accused a Muslim asylum seeker of stabbing three young girls in Southport. It exemplified how platforms can amplify hate and fracture social cohesion. These problems are surfacing on Australian shores, too. National technology reporter Ange Lavoipierre and ABC NEWS Verify discovered that a Pro-Russian news website attempted to "poison" AI chatbots with propaganda in this lead up to the 2025 federal election. An audit found that 16.66 per cent of the chatbots' answers amplified the false narrative they were fed. This included disinformation related to Australian politics. For instance, when asked about an "Australian Muslim Party" — which does not exist — two AI models returned answers suggesting it did. The Australian government attempted to address this issue through the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024, but it failed to pass through Parliament. Criticism of the bill came from all sides. It ranged from fears over the suppression of free speech to concerns about poor implementation and government overreach. But there is some social media legislation coming into effect. From December, Australians under the age of 16 will be banned from accessing social media, now including YouTube. Maria Ressa supports regulation, but says more can be done. She wants to see the design of social media platforms overhauled, and new restrictions on the collection of users' data. Working alongside her Nobel Peace Prize counterpart Dmitry Muratov, she has devised an ambitious 10-point plan to tackle this. She also believes journalists, institutions and governments need to work together to protect the integrity of facts and the future of democracy. "Without facts, you can't have truth, without truth, you can't have trust," she warns. "Without these three things, you can't have a shared reality. Watch All Eyes On Big Tech on Compass tonight at 6:30pm on ABC TV and iview.
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Gen Z grew up on YouTube. They say a ban is a blow to culture and community
Without YouTube, Leo Puglisi's life may have looked very different. The 17-year-old launched an online news channel on the video-sharing site in 2011. And by the ripe age of 14, he was interviewing the Australian prime minister. Today, 6 News Australia boasts more than 35,000 YouTube subscribers and Puglisi has made a name for himself across the media landscape. "It really was the only site where I was able to do this when I started out," Puglisi told the ABC. Puglisi has raised concerns that young people will be "cut off" from those opportunities with YouTube being roped into Australia's social media bans for under-16s. He argues that the government lacks understanding of the diverse and widespread use of the platform. "It's not as simple as scrolling through brain rot videos," he said. But other young Australians say the platform has become largely toxic and addictive, and they are ready for change. Few generation Z Australians have known life without YouTube. The video platform turned 20 this year, and is the second most visited website globally after Google. "A lot of people my age, including myself, remember early YouTube videos and there will be a nostalgia," Puglisi said. Eighteen-year-old Callum has been a big YouTube user since about age six. "It has been a very, very constant presence in my life," the Melbourne teenager said. Callum remembers waking up early to watch YouTube gaming clips on the smart TV while the rest of the family was asleep. Although his experiences have been largely positive, Callum admitted he would have become addicted if it were not for his parents' strict screen-time rules. When he was about 14, he also started being fed extremist content through YouTube's algorithms. "It's very easy to fall into the far-right rabbit role," Callum told the ABC. "I was watching YouTube, and I started seeing more videos of Matt Walsh and I nearly got into that." Matt Walsh is an American far-right commentator who regularly posts anti-LGBTQ+ videos. "I started asking questions to people around me, and then I got pushed back on," Callum said. "I realised, 'oh, this is happening to me'. And I made sure to try and remove that from my feed and block those kinds of videos." This week, the government announced that YouTube would no longer be exempt from the national social media bans for under-16s. The platform had initially been spared based on its educational uses. The U-turn came after eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant sounded the alarm. She cited research that found young people used YouTube more than any other social media platform and it was where they were most likely to experience harm online. "Overall, I think it is good that YouTube doesn't get an exemption from the ban," Callum said. Audrey was already barred from using YouTube unless it was for schoolwork. The 11-year-old was mainly using the platform to watch shorts, YouTube's short-form videos, similar to TikToks or Instagram reels. "My parents banned YouTube from me because they said it had a negative effect on my attitude," Audrey said. Not having access to YouTube was not a huge concern for the young Sydneysider. But she had been looking forward to interacting with friends on other social media platforms. "I think it's a good way to communicate and have fun," she said. The federal government says the ban is needed to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children and teens. Under the new laws, social media companies will face fines of up to almost $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to bar under-16s from their platforms. Thirteen-year-old Abby said growing up in the social media age could be stressful, but it also had its benefits. "I feel like at times I enjoy it. I like how it's an easy way to speak to friends, and you can sometimes learn new things," she told the ABC. "But I feel at other times I wish that I never got it, because I'd be spending my time on things that are more important." She said generally the bans were not a big topic of conversation among her friends. And when they do come into effect, she suspects many of her peers will find ways around it. "In order for it to really work, no one should have it," she said. "I feel like we need to work hard on making sure it's either not used at all, or parents are checking it." From December 10, children will not be allowed to have YouTube accounts that allow users to watch age-restricted videos. But they will still have access to YouTube Kids. Audrey said some young people — even at age 11 — were already finding ways to bypass age verification technologies. YouTube has been testing facial analysis tools to prevent under-18s from viewing unsuitable content. "I feel like it's quite easy to break that code," Audrey said. The Man Cave — a Melbourne-based organisation that helps support the mental health of young men — spoke to 4,293 teenage boys about the social media bans. About 46 per cent said losing social media would disconnect them from society, not just from entertainment, but from friends, learning and support. And 62 per cent admitted that they would actively find ways to bypass the proposed ban. Man Cave CEO Ben Vasiliou said the teens were aware that social media could be harmful, but it was also an important place for connection, particularly for those from rural or marginalised communities. "We are not for or against the ban, but we are about designing policies with young people, not for them," Mr Vasiliou said. Although the approach was "drastic", 16-year-old Tom King respected that the government was taking action. "The idea of Australia taking an active and prolonged stance against billion-dollar US corporations, I would absolutely support that any day of the week," he said. "Whether that's the right action, I don't know." The Melbourne teenager said there was a time when YouTube felt "innocent", filled with how-to videos that "complemented life". But it had shifted in recent years towards largely toxic and addictive content. "It truly is just about how far can you disengage a child to the point where they're just completely reliant on this really cheap dopamine," he said. YouTube has argued that it is a video streaming platform, rather than a social media site, and therefore should not be captured by the ban, citing evidence that it is widely used in classrooms and by parents. Educator Matthew Fyfield conducted research with Monash University into the use of instructional videos in the age of algorithmically driven streaming platforms. He found that YouTube was a valuable educational resource, and was the go-to platform for most teachers streaming videos in class. "But it's not the kind of platform you want to put in the hands of young people when they're trying to do their homework," Dr Fyfield said. "We've found some really troubling realities with the YouTube algorithm in particular." He said the platform was designed to optimise session length, and used infinite scrolling to distract you from whatever you were doing. "It's the novelty of what's coming next, and that kind of dopamine addiction is why we find ourselves an hour and a half after we started watching YouTube saying, 'Why am I still here?'" he said. Educators can continue to use school-approved educational YouTube content through their own accounts. And young people can still watch videos without logging into an account. Leo Puglisi is calling for better consultation with young people, saying the government had missed the crucial point. "A blanket ban doesn't actually tackle what the government says it's tackling," he said. "YouTube is an important communications tool for young people. Restricting it doesn't really solve the problem of the harmful content and the impact that can have and in relation to staying safe online."
