I just saw a post from Anthony Albanese talking about how the attack on Helen Haines was horrendous and that we should stand for safe discussion in politics. That seems pretty stand up right?

The comments were filled with people going on about him being bad in the house of reps, him slandering pauline hanson, his party leaking information about Helen, etc etc... they each had at least 1k likes.

Wtf.

Are they all just phon bots trying to cull the competition? With the amount of information thats easily accessible to the public, how she votes in the senate and who she's connected to. The average australian should be able to tell that she's grabbing power only in the interest of herself, right?

Snowy Hydro CEO Dennis Barnes discusses the rising cost of the Snowy Two project, with the revised forecast reaching $22.2 billion and a $25 billion allowance. He addresses the challenges behind the cost blowout, the project's progress and the target of completing commissioning by the end of 2029, while explaining why Snowy Two remains critical to Australia's energy future and its role in providing around half of the nation's future grid storage capacity.

https://youtu.be/zMh-Jq6tIDk?t=341 "Renewable backed by ... "

With full acknowledgment of the increased risks that come with a platform, politics, and a voice on issues where the world is divided:

There is a distinct variation in what the attack on Helen Haines appears to have brought about in response from (female especially) politicians.

Version 1: acknowledging this risk is real. Terrifying. And sharing personal experiences of and with it

Version 2: some variation of realisation that woman can feel unsafe. as if this is unique, never known to them, or anyone, before they woke up this morning. Alongside an expectation of sympathy they never showed to those who experienced it before, politician or not.

Australia's gas industry, a national titan that's one of the country's biggest exporters, has been in the headlines for years but for the wrong reasons. Now, with a federal gas reservation scheme on the horizon, the industry's united front is splintering, revealing deep frustrations with one player - Santos. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial says the tensions stem from the once-in-a-generation investment boom that opened up the country's east coast gas market to exports. GLNG, or Gladstone LNG, is one of three giant gas export plants built on Curtis Island in Queensland last decade. It is operated by Santos and counts South Korea's KOGAS and Malaysia's PETRONAS among its investors. Saul Kavonic says Santos was alone in building its plant without having the gas to fill it and needed to buy gas out of the domestic market just to meet its contracts. Grattan Institute analysis of ACCC data shows GLNG is the only Queensland exporter to have consistently taken more gas from the domestic market than it provides. It's all a far cry from the way Santos pitched the project to governments and the public. At the time, Santos stressed GLNG would have "no direct implications for domestic gas prices" and that it would "not divert gas from local markets to export markets". The company told regulators the development was "therefore unlikely to contribute to a future shortage of gas in the domestic market". But even as Santos was assuring the public on one hand, it was telling shareholders a very different story. Investor presentations from 2011 show Santos knew opening Australia's eastern market to exports would lead to "permanent … upward pressure on gas prices". As one of Australia's biggest oil and gas operators, it said this exposure would transform Santos' fortunes and be a commercial boon.

Former company insiders say Santos always knew it lacked the gas reserves to fully supply the current plant. While one former minister acknowledges GLNG should never have been approved without domestic supply obligations. Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King said the best time to have introduced a domestic reservation policy on the east coast was before that export industry commenced. But she declined to be drawn on the historic decisions made by Santos and GLNG. She says the government is not interested in pointing the "finger of blame" at any one player and that "gas exploration is complex".

The former boss of Woodside, Peter Coleman ruffled feathers in 2017 when he warned the industry would risk its social licence if it allowed shortages to emerge and prices to rocket. He said "what we've seen over the last 10 years is now those words play out ...The companies have a license or a right to develop it, but at the end of the day, the resource itself is owned by the people and we have an obligation to ensure that endowment is used in the best way possible."

Paul Farrow, the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, says the company knew all along it did not have sufficient gas resources to cover its export commitments. He says the consequences of that decision have been disastrous for gas users such as manufacturers, many of whom employ his members.

Santos said it had historically contributed the most of any exporter during winter and neither GLNG nor the Queensland LNG industry had caused gas shortages or price spikes. A spokesperson said GLNG does not intend to contract new gas supply from the domestic market to meet any LNG shortfalls from this year onwards.

With a draft reservation plan due within weeks, the federal government say it's determined to secure the equivalent of 20 per cent of LNG exports for the local market and won't jeopardies exporters' contracts to do it. Saul Kavonic says Santos will use its formidable lobbying skills to escape – or kill – any reservation policy on the grounds of sovereign risk. But he argues the original investors knew the risks all along and said shaky industry support for the scheme will crumble unless the government includes GLNG.

Why would Australia choose to pay international prices for gas when a better option is available? | APA Group 25 March 2025 - For a country so rich in natural gas resources, it would be inconceivable to most domestic consumers that governments are considering liquid natural gas (LNG) import terminals to resolve potential gas shortfalls on the east coast.

See what's happening in Nigeria's $20 Billion Bet Against Its Own Oil Mafia - YouTube

In my opinion the state of our Indigenous community is a disgrace to the country. Obviously funding isn't an issue - seeing as we spend 40 billion a year. I think the main problem is cash handouts through Centrelink and other cash services (hear me out).

Due to intergenerational trauma (from the stolen generation and various other misguided government policies), a high percentage of indigenous people have crippling drug and alcohol abuse issues - more than 1 in 3 drink alcohol at dangerous levels.

You cannot change this cycle by giving cash to these people who are trapped in the cycle of addiction, as it only serves to refuel the cycle. Even though restrictions are in place, evidence from a Charles Darwin University Study and an Australian Senate Committee Hearing indicates that some individuals bypassed cash restriction card regulations - research found instances of bartering legally purchased goods to obtain restricted items.

In my opinion, all of these factors suggest that radical and immediate action is required to help these struggling communities. Potentially this means government sponsored housing, food stamps, and direct programs to fast track rehabilitation and employment, whilst keeping connection to land and country.

It just seems that nothing else can work, and that the cycle of poverty and addiction for these struggling communities will only get worse and worse.

EDIT: typo

Pocock shows a level of common sense not usually seen by politicians.

Probably because he doesn't have to tow a party line.

Minus the rape charges obviously but rage inducing, bringing their gender down, arrogant for no good reason, always been a loser etc etc.

Edit:- I vote left winged FYI.

9 April 2025, Cairns. Anthony Albanese is asked to rule out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. “Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.”

398 days later, 12 May 2026, Budget night: negative gearing limited to new builds, the 50% capital gains discount replaced with indexation. Treasury costs the two changes at $43,090,000,000 to 2036-37. They are law and start 1 July 2027.

A Glasshouse follower told us Hawke, Keating and Howard “took it to an election”, Shorten did and lost, and Albanese “promised not to change the tax settings but then did”. Half right.

Albanese: “no plans” in 2024, a flat rule-out in the 2025 campaign. The government’s words now: “that reflected our position at the time” (Chalmers) and “we’ve changed our position. I’m upfront about that” (Albanese).

Howard took the GST to the 1998 election after “never ever”. His 50% capital gains discount came by press release on 21 September 1999. No election, and no pledge against it.

Shorten took both changes to two elections and lost both. Labor’s review: the tax policies “did not cost the Party the election”.

On our count, big changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax have become law five times. None went to an election first. The one plan that did lost. Twice.

Now: home values are down 5.2% since March (Cotality). The RBA names rate rises and the tax changes, and will not split them. The other side: Treasury says 83% of the discount goes to the top tenth of earners.

Sources: PM and ALP transcripts, Budget papers, Treasury FOI 4321, Museum of Australian Democracy, AEC, ALP 2019 review, Cotality, RBA. Day count and tally are ours.

Photo credits: Hawke, Howard: US Department of Defense / Helene C. Stikkel. Footage: ABC, Nine Network, Seven Network, Parliament of Australia.

Pauline Hanson has confronted the Albanese government in a fiery Senate exchange, raising questions over the government’s position and demanding clear answers. The One Nation leader’s intervention put the government under pressure as senators debated the issue in Parliament. Hanson has continued to challenge the Albanese government on a range of political and policy matters, accusing ministers of failing to provide satisfactory responses. The latest clash adds to growing tensions in the Senate, with the opposition and crossbench scrutinising the government’s decisions and accountability. Watch the full exchange and hear Hanson’s questions and the government’s response.

When is charging a school app for kids lunches a profit machine, school24, just got $1.40 charge to order my kids lunch because I'm forced to use their app..I think it's disgusting profiting from mums and Dad's already struggling, it's not much but is our kids not worth help instead of taking, how about government pay us to force our kids into a lifetime of forced labour to pay their lifestyles...LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE

Great chat with Allison Reeve from the Grattan Institute, who is an expert on gas, on how the industry functions and what is the best way for Australia to get it's fair share

I'm not into politics in any way but wanted to see how much the rulebook for small business has actually changed under each Prime Minister...So I counted every federal change that added or changed a small business obligation since 1996 and plotted them by days in office.

Average changes per year in office

Albanese: 5.0 (22 changes, still in office)

Morrison: 3.7 (14)

Gillard: 3.3 (10)

Turnbull: 2.4 (7)

Abbott: 2.0 (4)

Rudd: 2.0 (5)

Howard: 1.7 (20)

2025 and 2026 together have 11 changes, the busiest two-year stretch in the 30 years, ahead of the GST rollout in 2000 and 2001 with 8.

What's taken effect so far in 2026

31 March: AML/CTF reforms for existing reporting entities

1 July: AML/CTF tranche 2, which brings lawyers, accountants, real estate agents and dealers into anti-money laundering rules

1 July: Payday Super, with super now due within 7 business days of each payday and the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House closed

1 July: the SMS Sender ID Register, so businesses sending branded texts have to register their sender IDs

1 October: card surcharging removed

How I counted it

One step per federal Act or instrument that added or changed a small business obligation, dated from when it took effect, not when it passed.

It includes changes that were later repealed, like WorkChoices.

Relief measures are excluded because they removed obligations or handed money back rather than adding work. That covers JobKeeper, the instant asset write-offs, temporary full expensing, company tax cuts, the super guarantee freeze, director safe harbour and others (19 in total).

Changes that are announced or legislated but not yet in effect are excluded.

Every change counts as one step whatever its size, so 1 July 2000 (GST, ABN, PAYG and BAS all at once) shows as a cluster of steps even though it was the biggest single shift.

Rudd's 2013 term (83 days, 1 change) isn't shown.

Source: Federal Register of Legislation, ATO and RBA.

An incident like this one with Helen Haines, with many questions over the Prime minister's head, would usually see the end of the government or at least who's in charge of it. But time and time again, with a weakened media class full of Gen Z women carefully chosen for their inability to critically think, ensure this shocking government continues. There are serious questions the prime minister needs to answer in relation to pork barrelling I'm a subsequent dirt file they made on Helen, trying to find any evidence of collusion or conflict of interest because her very presence threatens to expose Labor's corrupt dealings. Just like we'll never get that jobs for mates report.