Headline from the AFR "Time to end welfare for the wealthy, says big business"

You mean the superannuation tax breaks? No?
You mean the CGT discount? No?
You mean the fossil fuel subsidies? No?
You mean the free gas for multinationals? No?
You mean the failure of the PRRT? No?
You mean the tax dodging trusts? No?
You mean the lack of a wealth tax? No?

No you mean the NDIS FFS

Inquiry into the 2025 federal election On 3 September 2025, the Committee adopted an inquiry into all aspects of the conduct of the 2025 federal election. Written submissions can be lodged via the inquiry webpage. Submissions in other form...

Hi Issy, I haven't heard of movement on it recently -- but I suspect it will come up again in the JSCEM report on the 2025 election, which hasn't concluded yet.

I also haven't heard of independent candidates doing postal vote campaigns, but I may have missed them. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...

Compared to the cost of protesting, buying time with a minister is very cheap In Australia today, corporate lobbyists can cheaply access politicians in private while peaceful public protestors face draconian penalties.

But of course these welcome victories are only part of the story -- state governments across the country have been chipping away at protest rights, even while its cheap for interest groups to pay for exclusive access to politicians. australiainstitute.org.au/post/compare...

NSW premier told to resign after protest laws struck down by top court The laws, rushed through parliament after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, have been found to be unconstitutional by the state's highest court.

NSW's expanded police powers, brought in on Christmas Eve, are unconstitutional under the freedom of political communication that all Australians enjoy.

If protest didn't work, they wouldn't try so hard to ban it.

www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04...

High Court shines a light on how major parties have stacked the system in their favour The High Court has confirmed what Australia Institute research has shown for years: Victoria’s election spending and donation rules are undemocratic, and key provisions are unconstitutional. Further, ...

The particular Victorian loophole, the "nominated entities" exception, is just one way in which the electoral system has been stacked in favour of major parties and incumbents.

The same loophole exists in new South Australian and federal laws. thepoint.com.au/opinions/260...

Good week for freedom of speech in Australia, bad one for imperious governments and lazy legislators --

On Wed, High Court voided Victoria's unfair donation cap scheme because of major party loopholes.

Yesterday, High Court knocked back the latest round of NSW's restrictions on protest rights.

I don't believe so -- but the laws would have to be changed for the next.

"Nominated entities" not the only loophole in Victoria's laws.

Bringing back the donation cap without closing its other loopholes just sets up another constitutional challenge.

Transparency is uncontroversial -- reintroducing that first would buy time to get the rest right.

High Court shines a light on how major parties have stacked the system in their favour The High Court has confirmed what Australia Institute research has shown for years: Victoria’s election spending and donation rules are undemocratic, and key provisions are unconstitutional. Further, ...

The worst thing Vic pollies could do is repeat the error that got the state into this mess: scrambling to pass self-interested election "reforms" without proper consultation.

The whole donation cap/public funding system needs a rethink. thepoint.com.au/opinions/260...

The High Court has confirmed what Australia Institute research has shown for years: Victoria’s election spending and donation rules are undemocratic, and key provisions are unconstitutional. Further, the High Court decision demonstrates how commonplace slipshod and self-interested democratic “reform” has become in Australia – not just in Victoria.

The High Court has confirmed what Australia Institute research has shown for years: Victoria’s election spending and donation rules are undemocratic, and key provisions are unconstitutional.

Question now is how Victorian Parliament responds.

Popular policies would be a better revenue raiser than taking fossil fuel and gambling donations Australians are naturally suspicious of corporate donations, especially when they come from vested interests with everything to gain from influencing government decision-making. But are these donation...

2025 election got Labor $37 million, LNP $33 million, Greens $13 million, One Nation $6 million.

It pays to be popular. Winning +1% vote (about 160,000 people) is worth $1.1 million, set to rise from next year to $1.6 million.

More on @thepointau.bsky.social thepoint.com.au/off-the-char...

Australians are naturally suspicious of corporate donations, especially when they come from vested interests with everything to gain from influencing government decision-making. But are these donations large enough to explain why politicians act the way they do? The reality is that political donations from harmful industries are small relative to the payments parties receive from you, the voter.

Since Kevin Rudd flubbed "great moral challenge" of climate change, major parties have lost 18% of the vote -- costing them far more in per-vote public funding than they receive from fossil fuel political donations.

Lack of political will, not political donations, explains lack of progress.

Securing transparency and diversity in political finance Targeted reforms are needed to introduce transparency and diversity into federal political finance: disclosing political contributions in real time, publishing ministers’ diaries, stopping the very we...

There are better ways to regulate money in politics -- in line with the principles of fair political finance reform.

Mega-donor caps to stop undue influence. Public funding in the hands of voters.

More from @australiainstitute.org.au on our website: australiainstitute.org.au/report/secur...

Labor Govts also added "nominated entities" to SA and federal laws ... those federal laws are already subject to a constitutional challenge.

These expensive and undemocratic laws should never have been rushed. Now Australians are paying the price. www.theage.com.au/politics/vic...

Huge -- the High Court has struck down a big loophole for the major parties in Victoria's donation laws.

The "nominated entities" loophole let the major parties receive uncapped donations from their fundraising vehicles, while everyone else was strictly limited.

Conflict Vs. Mistake Jacobite – which is apparently still a real magazine and not a one-off gag making fun of Jacobin – summarizes their article Under-Theorizing Government as “You’ll never hear…

I have problems with the details, but I strongly recommend reading Scott Alexander's original piece because it teases out real but usually unspoken differences in political approach, strategy and mindset: slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/c...

If a tax on Artificial Intelligence is “inevitable” - it will never happen The head of Artificial Intelligence firm Anthropic said at the beginning of this month that a tax on Artificial Intelligence (AI) is “inevitable”. Ironically, his comment makes it less likely that suc...

Draws on @astralcodexten.com.web.brid.gy "mistake theory versus conflict theory", i.e. can we find win–win solutions to the evils of the world or do these problems exist because powerful people benefit from them?

On @thepointau.bsky.social thepoint.com.au/opinions/260...

The head of Artificial Intelligence firm Anthropic said at the beginning of this month that a tax on Artificial Intelligence (AI) is “inevitable”. Ironically, his comment makes it less likely that such a tax will ever happen. In politics, calling something "inevitable" implies that nobody needs to fight to make it happen.

Anthropic head Dario Amodei says a tax on Artificial Intelligence will be "inevitable" after years are spent working out details.

He ignores the role of power in policy-making and politics.

The graveyard of policy is littered with great ideas that people worked on for years.

They have been given more electorate staff -- these have roughly kept up with population.

Electorate staff cannot fill ministries, vote in parliament, ask questions in Estimates, choose the party leader or cross the floor; nor are they answerable to voters.

Thanks for a stimulating piece Bill. I think a lot about inclusive patriotism in relation to education. If loving our country means anything, it has to mean lifting our gaze beyond just helping our own kids get ahead & committing to giving every Australian child the chance to flourish in life.

Max Chandler-Mather says Greens can use ‘progressive populism’ to win voters deserting major parties for One Nation The new head of the Greens Institute will organise thousands of volunteers for a major survey of economic and social life around Australia

Since I wrote the piece, Max Chandler-Mathers has said "progressive patriotism" could win the Greens voters otherwise leaving the major parties for One Nation. www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...

Australian politicians are defending and defining patriotism Patriotism has long been seen, particularly among left-wingers, as nationalism with better PR: narrow and short-sighted at best; racist, tribal, and isolationist at worst. But in recent years, Austra...

But whereas Anthony Albanese talked about housing, Medicare, childcare, his colleagues have talked up AUKUS and missiles.

More from me on @thepointau.bsky.social: thepoint.com.au/opinions/260...

Patriotism has long been seen, particularly among left-wingers, as nationalism with better PR: narrow and short-sighted at best; racist, tribal, and isolationist at worst. But in recent years, Australian politicians have articulated a positive patriotism: one that cares about the Australian people, recognises Australia’s strengths and good qualities, and allows the country to reach its full potential.

Australian politicians and thinkers aren't ceding "patriotism" to the far-right.

In recent months Anthony Albanese, indie Allegra Spender and Senator Jacqui Lambie have considered what an Australian or inclusive patriotism might look like.

Full report on Australian Policy Online apo.org.au/node/332660

'Perfectly legal to lie': report exposes gaps in political ad laws The Australian Ad Observatory report has warned that online political messaging in Australia “remains murky territory, lacking in transparency and accountability.”

“both the ALP and LNP used misleading and decontextualised claims about the other’s policies ... Minor political parties also contributed to misinformation, though their ads made up a very small %age.

Full article on @thepointau.bsky.social thepoint.com.au/news/260410-...

The Australian Ad Observatory report into last year's federal election finds that online political messaging in Australia “remains murky territory, lacking in transparency and accountability.”

Top recommendation: truth in political advertising laws.

Factcheck: Angus Taylor’s claim that expanding Parliament “could cost $620 million” is misleading Liberal leader Angus Taylor claims that expanding Parliament “could cost taxpayers more than $620 million”. This figure is misleading, relying on unclear assumptions and omitting important context.

In same vein, @skyelark.bsky.social on @thepointau.bsky.social fact checks Opposition Leader Angus Taylor's sensational claim that an expanded parliament would cost $620 million.

Verdict: Misleading
thepoint.com.au/factchecks/2...

Electoral Reform Bill analysis Late last year, the Albanese Government introduced the Electoral Reform Bill, with plans to pass it into law less than two weeks after it became public.

One correction: Adam Creighton assumes Aus Institute would support more taxpayer funding for parties.

We were very critical of this self-interested change by the major parties. A better public funding model would put power back in the hands of voters. australiainstitute.org.au/report/elect...

When Institute of Public Affairs and @australiainstitute.org.au "agree on a policy, it’s likely a meritorious one that deserves consideration."

Smaller electorates and larger parliament are not a left/right issue -- they make democracy stronger for everyone. www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/w...

"the number of voters per federal seat – almost 121,000 – has become absurdly large, making a mockery of the idea that MPs share a deep connection with constituents."

Clear arguments for an expanded parliament from Adam Creighton in The Australian.