Federal Labor MP Luke Gosling has declared that he will not stand aside and intends to continue serving after speaking with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as a Darwin court varied bail conditions imposed over two alleged assaults on Northern Territory Administrator David Connolly.

The Member for Solomon appeared before Judge Stephen Geary in the Darwin Local Court on Friday, one day after being arrested and charged with two counts of assault on the Administrator or judges arising from alleged incidents at the NT Grand Thai Festival on July 18.

Mr Gosling strenuously denies both allegations and has indicated that the charges will be contested.

Speaking after the hearing, Mr Gosling said he had spoken with the Prime Minister and made clear that he intended to remain at work rather than relinquish his public responsibilities while the case proceeded.

“I have spoken with the Prime Minister,” Mr Gosling said.

“I’m going to contest these allegations and I will continue to serve.”

The remainder of this article—including the revised bail conditions, allegations outlined in court and political implications—is available to Inside Canberra subscribers.

The post Gosling will not stand aside after speaking with Albanese as bail conditions varied appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

Assistant Resources Minister Anthony Chisholm says coal will remain integral to regional energy security and steelmaking, although government forecasts point to increasingly divergent trajectories for Australia’s thermal and metallurgical coal exports.

The Albanese Government has delivered one of its clearest recent assurances to Australia’s coal sector, with Assistant Minister for Resources Anthony Chisholm declaring that Labor stands behind the industry and expects coal to remain consequential to regional energy systems for decades.

Addressing the Coal Australia Industry Dinner in Brisbane on Thursday evening, Senator Chisholm sought to reconcile three increasingly interdependent policy imperatives: sustaining a major export industry, reducing emissions from mining operations and strengthening Australia’s resilience against disruption to international energy supply chains.

“The Albanese Government stands with our resources sector, including the coal industry,” he said.

The speech amounted to an explicit assurance to producers, workers and coal-dependent regional communities that the government does not regard the energy transition as synonymous with the immediate displacement of Australian coal.

Rather, Chisholm presented the sector as an enduring component of Australia’s economic and strategic architecture—particularly through Queensland’s pre-eminence in metallurgical coal, which remains essential to conventional steelmaking.

Peak Downs tragedy casts shadow over industry gathering

Before addressing the industry’s economic contribution, Chisholm paid tribute to the worker killed at the Peak Downs mine near Moranbah on 24 July.

Resources Safety and Health Queensland said the worker was a passenger in a light vehicle involved in a collision with a haul truck at approximately 4.38am. The light-vehicle driver was injured and taken to hospital, while the haul-truck driver was uninjured.

Investigations remain underway.

Chisholm also acknowledged the seriously injured worker and a first responder who suffered a medical episode while attending the scene, while commending the Moranbah community for gathering to observe a minute’s silence.

“I know that as an industry, we can do better,” he said, promising to follow the investigation and any steps required to prevent similar fatalities.

The remarks placed mine safety at the forefront of an address otherwise intended to celebrate the industry’s economic contribution and reassure it of continued federal support.

Coal framed as an economic and strategic asset

Chisholm traced Queensland’s coal industry from small-scale extraction around Ipswich in the 1840s to the development of the Bowen Basin, which transformed the state into one of the world’s principal metallurgical coal suppliers.

Queensland accounts for a substantial share of internationally traded metallurgical coal, providing the state with a position of particular importance in Asian steel supply chains.

Chisholm told the dinner that Australian coal exports were worth approximately $90 billion in 2024–25 and supported about 50,000 jobs.

The export figure in the prepared speech appears, however, to contain a financial-year discrepancy. The federal government’s June 2026 Resources and Energy Quarterly records 2024–25 thermal coal exports of approximately $32 billion and metallurgical coal exports of $39.3 billion—a combined nominal value of about $71.3 billion.

The figure of approximately $90 billion more closely corresponds with 2023–24, when the two categories generated a combined $91.4 billion.

The distinction does not diminish coal’s importance as an export industry, but it illustrates the extent to which earnings fluctuate with international commodity prices even when underlying volumes remain comparatively resilient.

Global record masks a more complicated outlook

Chisholm pointed to global coal demand reaching a record 8.845 billion tonnes in 2025 as evidence that international demand has not disappeared.

That figure accords with the International Energy Agency’s Coal 2025 analysis, although the agency’s medium-term outlook is more qualified. It expects total demand to plateau before easing towards the end of the decade, with continued expansion in India and South-East Asia offset by contractions in advanced economies and China’s gradually changing energy system.

For Australia, the outlook differs markedly between thermal coal used principally for electricity generation and metallurgical coal used in steelmaking.

The Resources and Energy Quarterly forecasts Australian metallurgical coal exports to rise from 150 million tonnes in 2025–26 to 163 million tonnes in 2028–29, before easing to 157 million tonnes by 2030–31. Growth in Indian and South-East Asian steel production is expected to support demand.

Thermal coal exports, by contrast, are forecast to decline gradually from 213 million tonnes in 2025–26 to 197 million tonnes by 2030–31 as major customers expand renewable generation and place greater emphasis on domestic energy security.

The forecasts suggest that coal will remain commercially significant throughout the decade, but not that every part of the industry faces the same trajectory.

Japan and India central to export strategy

Japan remains Australia’s largest thermal coal customer. Chisholm said Australia exported 73 million tonnes to Japan in 2024–25, worth approximately $14.1 billion and accounting for 36 per cent of Australian thermal coal exports.

While Japanese coal consumption is expected to decline over time, Chisholm argued that the country would continue to require both thermal and metallurgical coal for decades.

India presents a different proposition. Its expanding steel industry is expected to make it an increasingly important destination for Australian metallurgical coal, while the broader bilateral relationship is acquiring a stronger energy-security dimension.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed an Australia–India Joint Statement on Energy Security on 9 July.

The statement committed both countries to maintaining stable and reliable supplies of energy products, specifically including coal, diesel, natural gas and other liquid fuels. It simultaneously endorsed renewable energy, electrification and cooperation on low-carbon fuels.

Chisholm cast the agreement as evidence of continuing Indian demand and Australia’s determination to remain a reliable regional supplier.

Methane abatement enters the policy equation

The minister also acknowledged that continued government support would be accompanied by greater attention to the emissions intensity of coal production.

He praised work being undertaken on methane abatement and decarbonisation, referring to a roundtable with coal companies earlier in the week at which emerging technologies and industry initiatives were discussed.

Chisholm indicated that he wanted those efforts recognised in future government policy, opening a potentially important conversation over how emissions reductions at operating mines will be measured, credited and encouraged.

Methane is a particularly consequential issue for underground coal operations. The government’s resources-sector emissions plan identifies fugitive methane as the predominant source of fugitive emissions from coal mining, making abatement one of the few areas in which substantial operational emissions reductions may be possible without immediately curtailing production.

The policy challenge will be to distinguish demonstrable abatement from merely aspirational commitments while ensuring that regulatory settings do not discourage investment in technologies capable of delivering measurable reductions.

Diesel security elevated by Middle East disruption

Chisholm concluded by placing coal within a wider argument about sovereign capability and supply-chain resilience.

Mining accounts for about one-quarter of Australia’s diesel consumption, according to figures cited in the speech, with coal operations responsible for almost half the mining sector’s total diesel use.

The minister commended major operators for maintaining private fuel-supply and storage arrangements, which allow mines to continue operating without drawing disproportionately upon supplies required by surrounding communities.

He said the government would continue working to maintain diesel availability, with particular attention to smaller operators that lack the storage capacity and contractual arrangements of the multinational producers.

The emphasis reflects a wider recalibration of energy policy as instability in the Middle East exposes Australia’s dependence on imported liquid fuels and vulnerable maritime supply routes.

Chisholm’s message was therefore broader than a conventional defence of coal. It presented the industry as simultaneously an export earner, employer, steelmaking supplier and contributor to Australia’s sovereign resilience.

The speech did not repudiate the energy transition. Instead, it advanced the argument that the transition will be protracted, uneven and dependent upon existing resources while alternative technologies and industrial processes develop.

For the Albanese Government, the enduring political test will be whether it can sustain the confidence of coal-producing communities and international customers while meeting its emissions commitments. Chisholm has now made clear that, within that balancing exercise, the government sees Australian coal as retaining a substantial place.

The post Chisholm pledges Labor support for coal as Asian demand endures appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

Australia’s workforce has become less mobile, with the proportion of employed people changing employer or business falling to 7.2 per cent in the year to February 2026.

New figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show just over one million employed Australians changed jobs during the period, compared with a mobility rate of 7.7 per cent in the preceding year.

The measure captures people who changed employer or business during the year as a proportion of all those employed in February 2026. It therefore provides a broader indication of labour-market movement than redundancies, resignations or monthly employment figures considered separately.

“Just over 1.0 million employed people, or 7.2 per cent, changed their employer or business,” ABS head of labour statistics Robert Long said.

The latest decline extends a long-term reduction in job mobility dating back to the 1970s, notwithstanding pronounced periods of movement around major economic disruptions. The ABS said notable peaks had occurred near the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The result suggests the exceptional labour-market churn that accompanied Australia’s post-pandemic reopening has continued to dissipate.

A strong workforce with fewer opportunities to move

The mobility figures do not, in isolation, indicate that the labour market has become weak.

Australia added 76,300 employed people in June, taking total seasonally adjusted employment to 14.82 million, while the unemployment rate remained at 4.4 per cent, according to the ABS’s latest Labour Force figures.

However, the number of available positions has retreated considerably from its post-pandemic peak. There were 329,500 job vacancies in May 2026, down 2.1 per cent over the quarter and 30.3 per cent below the record level reached in May 2022.

Taken together, the figures depict a labour market that continues to generate employment but offers workers fewer opportunities to move than during the acute labour shortages of 2021 and 2022.

Lower mobility can reflect several conditions, including fewer suitable vacancies, greater caution among employees, improved satisfaction with existing roles or a reduced financial incentive to accept the risks associated with changing employers. The ABS data do not establish which of these factors predominates.

Mobility falls more sharply among women

The decline was considerably larger among women.

Women’s job mobility fell by 0.8 percentage points to 7.1 per cent in the year to February. The male rate declined by a more modest 0.2 percentage points to 7.4 per cent.

Employees remained substantially more likely to move than self-employed Australians, recording respective mobility rates of 8 per cent and 3 per cent.

Age also produced a pronounced disparity. Australians aged between 15 and 24 recorded a mobility rate of 12 per cent, making them the group most likely to change jobs. At the other end of the workforce, only 1.2 per cent of employed people aged 65 and over changed employer or business.

The difference partly reflects the established nature of later-career employment, while younger workers are more likely to be entering occupations, acquiring qualifications and searching for roles better suited to their skills or circumstances.

Property, mining and construction record highest rates

Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services recorded the country’s highest industry mobility rate at 10.8 per cent.

Mining followed at 9.3 per cent, narrowly ahead of Construction at 9.2 per cent. Accommodation and Food Services recorded a rate of 8.8 per cent, while Wholesale Trade stood at 8.4 per cent.

At the other end of the table, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing had the lowest rate at 4.5 per cent, followed by Education and Training at 4.6 per cent.

Public Administration and Safety recorded a mobility rate of 6.6 per cent, below the national result. That figure is a national industry measure rather than an ACT-specific reading, but it provides a useful benchmark for Canberra’s large public-sector workforce.

The figures also reveal whether people remained within their existing industries when they moved.

Among those leaving jobs in Arts and Recreation Services, 86 per cent entered a different industry. The corresponding proportion was 83 per cent in Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services.

Construction displayed the greatest degree of industry retention: 74 per cent of construction workers who changed jobs remained within the sector. Health Care and Social Assistance followed, with 65 per cent remaining in the industry.

Consequences for wages and productivity

Job mobility matters beyond the number of people changing employers.

Reserve Bank research has found that workers who move generally receive larger wage increases than those who remain with the same employer. Greater mobility can also encourage businesses to raise salaries to retain existing staff when competition for labour is intense.

Movement between employers can improve the allocation of labour by allowing people to find positions better suited to their skills and by transferring workers towards more productive enterprises.

Lower mobility is not necessarily undesirable. Longer tenure can produce greater stability, institutional knowledge and professional development, while some job changes are involuntary. Nevertheless, a prolonged reduction can weaken competitive pressure on employers and impede the movement of labour towards expanding industries.

Annual growth in the Wage Price Index moderated to 3.3 per cent in the March quarter of 2026, compared with 3.4 per cent a year earlier. The different reference periods mean the two sets of figures should not be treated as demonstrating causation, although both are consistent with an economy moving beyond the unusually tight conditions of the immediate post-pandemic period.

For policymakers, the emerging question is whether lower mobility principally represents welcome stability or diminishing economic dynamism.

The distinction will matter for wage growth, productivity and the capacity of the Australian workforce to adjust as demand shifts between industries. The latest figures suggest that, despite continued employment growth, Australian workers are becoming less inclined—or less able—to seek their next opportunity elsewhere.

The post Job mobility falls to 7.2 per cent as Australia’s post-pandemic churn recedes appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

At Canberra’s Throne Day reception, Ambassador Wassane Zailachi called for a more ambitious commercial and strategic relationship, presenting Morocco’s industrial expansion and continental reach as a platform for deeper Australian engagement with Africa.

Morocco has used the fiftieth anniversary of diplomatic relations with Australia to make a concerted case for a more expansive bilateral partnership, offering itself as a commercial and strategic bridge between Australian expertise and the opportunities of the African continent.

Speaking at a reception in Canberra on Thursday marking the 27th anniversary of King Mohammed VI’s accession to the throne, Morocco’s Ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Mrs Wassane Zailachi, framed the relationship around three numbers: 12, 50 and one.

The first represented more than 12 centuries of Moroccan statehood; the second marked five decades of formal relations with Australia; and the final number denoted what she described as the shared future the two countries could construct together.

“Distance is measured in kilometres, but potential is measured in our ambition,” the Ambassador said.

The reception was hosted by Ambassador Zailachi and Mr Hamid Mernissi at the Moroccan Embassy in O’Malley. Jonathan Muir, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Chief of Protocol, proposed a toast to King Mohammed VI and the people of Morocco, before the Ambassador offered a reciprocal toast to King Charles III and the Australian people.

While the occasion carried the traditional ceremonial features of Throne Day, the substance of the Ambassador’s address was decidedly economic and strategic. Her argument was that contemporary Morocco should be regarded not merely through the prism of its history and geography, but as an increasingly sophisticated industrial economy capable of connecting Australian enterprise with markets across Africa, Europe and the Atlantic.

An industrial proposition

Ambassador Zailachi pointed to the rapid development of Morocco’s automotive, aerospace, renewable energy and logistics industries as evidence of an economy increasingly oriented towards higher-value production.

The African Development Bank’s 2025 Africa Industrialisation Index placed Morocco first on the continent for industrial performance. The country has also developed an annual automotive production capacity approaching one million vehicles, supported by the presence of manufacturers including Renault and Stellantis and an expanding electric-vehicle supply chain.

Morocco’s logistics infrastructure has been central to that transformation. Official results show that the Tanger Med port complex handled more than 11.1 million twenty-foot equivalent container units in 2025, an increase of 8.4 per cent on the preceding year. The port has consequently become both a major Mediterranean transshipment centre and a critical conduit between African production and international markets.

The Ambassador presented these achievements as components of a broader economic doctrine: Morocco should not be content simply to export raw resources, but should convert its natural endowments into industrial capability, skilled employment and strategic influence.

That philosophy is particularly evident in the phosphate industry. Morocco holds the majority of the world’s known phosphate reserves, but has sought to move beyond extraction through fertiliser production, agricultural research, soil mapping and engagement with African farmers.

Renewable energy formed another important element of the address. Ambassador Zailachi said renewable sources now constituted about 45 per cent of Morocco’s installed electricity capacity, with the Kingdom pursuing a target of 52 per cent by 2030. The expansion encompasses solar, wind and hydroelectricity, alongside developing ambitions in green hydrogen and green ammonia.

The existing partnership between Morocco’s OCP Group and Australia’s Fortescue, directed towards renewable energy, green hydrogen and green fertiliser production, was cited as an example of the sort of bilateral undertaking that could be replicated.

A gateway to African markets

The Ambassador’s central proposition was that Morocco’s network of commercial, diplomatic and transport connections could provide Australia with a more effective point of entry into Africa.

“Morocco can be Australia’s bridge to Africa,” she said. “Australia can help Morocco build a greener, more advanced and more resilient economy.”

Morocco has progressively deepened its economic presence across the continent, particularly in banking, telecommunications, fertilisers, insurance and infrastructure. Ambassador Zailachi said more than 100 Moroccan companies were now operating elsewhere in Africa, while almost 20,000 African students were studying in Moroccan institutions.

She also highlighted the African Atlantic Gas Pipeline, the proposed energy corridor linking Nigeria with Morocco through West Africa. The ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government welcomed the signing of an intergovernmental agreement for the project at its July summit, describing it as a strategic initiative for regional energy security, industrialisation and economic integration.

The pipeline’s significance extends beyond energy supply. If realised, it would help integrate a succession of West African economies, provide new infrastructure to coastal and landlocked countries and strengthen connections between African and European energy markets.

For Australia, the Ambassador identified a complementary alignment between Australian capability in mining, critical minerals, water management and agricultural science, and Moroccan expertise in manufacturing, renewable energy and access to African markets.

She drew particular attention to Australia’s participation at the 2026 International Agricultural Show in Meknes and expressed the hope that Australia might become a future country of honour at the event.

The 2026 gathering was the exhibition’s 18th edition and attracted more than 1.1 million visitors, almost 1,600 exhibitors and representatives from 76 countries. Ambassador Zailachi argued that an enhanced Australian presence would bring together researchers, farmers and businesses confronting common problems of water scarcity, food security and sustainable agricultural production.

Security and foreign policy

The address also situated Morocco as a security partner. Ambassador Zailachi referred to the Kingdom’s contribution of more than 1,300 personnel to United Nations peace operations, its counterterrorism cooperation and the United Nations counterterrorism training office in Rabat.

Australia has previously contributed $500,000 to training delivered through that office, and the two countries share an interest in countering violent extremism through law enforcement, institutional capacity and prevention. Those areas were among the priorities identified when Australia opened its new embassy building in Rabat in 2022.

The Ambassador also set out Morocco’s position on Western Sahara, citing United Nations Security Council Resolution 2797, adopted in October 2025.

The resolution supports negotiations based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal while preserving the objective of a just, durable and mutually acceptable settlement consistent with the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination. Australia’s public guidance continues to describe Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, making this an area where careful diplomatic engagement remains necessary.

On the Middle East, Ambassador Zailachi said Morocco had formalised its participation in the proposed International Stabilization Force for Gaza, including humanitarian assistance, police training and a military field hospital. She reaffirmed Morocco’s support for an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, alongside Israel under a negotiated two-state settlement.

Turning an anniversary into an agenda

The Canberra reception demonstrated that Morocco regards the fiftieth anniversary as more than a commemorative occasion. Its objective is to translate a durable but comparatively underdeveloped diplomatic relationship into a more consequential program of trade, investment, research and strategic cooperation.

Australia and Morocco remain separated by considerable geography and their bilateral economic relationship has not yet reached the scale available to it. Nevertheless, their capabilities are unusually complementary: both possess extensive mineral resources, significant agricultural sectors, ambitious renewable-energy agendas and strong interests in stable international trade.

Morocco’s argument is that it can supply the industrial base, regional relationships and geographic connectivity through which Australian expertise can reach a wider African market.

As Ambassador Zailachi concluded, the next 50 years will be determined less by the distance already travelled than by what the two countries now choose to undertake together.

The post Morocco pitches itself as Australia’s bridge to Africa at 50-year milestone appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

The CSIRO chief says a sharper research focus, domestic technological capability and greater public accountability will be essential as Australia confronts artificial intelligence, change and a more precarious global order.

CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Doug Hilton has defended the national science agency’s contentious restructuring as an unavoidable response to decades of deteriorating infrastructure and increasingly diffuse research priorities, while outlining a broader doctrine of “sovereign science” for Australia’s next decade.

Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, Dr Hilton argued that Australia could no longer assume unfettered access to technologies, data and international supply chains developed elsewhere.

Instead, he called for greater domestic capability across artificial intelligence, biosecurity, clean energy, critical minerals and climate science — underpinned by Australian data being used for Australian benefit.

In a more uncertain international environment, Dr Hilton said supply chains had become less dependable and technological advantage was increasingly being wielded as an instrument of national power. Australia was therefore being compelled to reconsider its sovereign scientific capability, biosecurity preparedness and place within the global research system.

The speech, delivered during CSIRO’s centenary year, combined an expansive account of Australia’s scientific possibilities with a robust defence of the difficult institutional decisions made under his leadership.

A sharper mission for CSIRO

Dr Hilton said the agency’s challenge was not a shortage of worthwhile scientific ideas, but the necessity of deciding which research CSIRO was uniquely positioned to conduct at sufficient scale.

He pointed to the agency’s role in identifying the Hendra virus, developing cotton varieties that underpin Australia’s industry and producing technology foundational to modern Wi-Fi as examples of research that united audacity, collaboration and national impact.

The question confronting CSIRO now, he argued, was whether those attributes could be applied with comparable discipline to Australia’s contemporary economic and strategic problems.

After reviewing the agency’s research portfolio, CSIRO elected to leave some fields and narrow its work in others rather than distribute increasingly constrained resources across too many programs.

“The greatest risk for CSIRO was not making the wrong decision; it was making no decision,” Dr Hilton said.

That philosophy has had substantial human consequences. CSIRO confirmed after the May Budget that previously announced changes involving an estimated reduction of between 300 and 350 full-time-equivalent positions would proceed, notwithstanding an additional $387.4 million over the forward estimates.

Dr Hilton acknowledged the effect upon researchers who had devoted much of their professional lives to particular scientific disciplines, describing the consequences for staff, their teams and their families as profound.

His argument, however, was that institutional leadership could not preserve every existing activity merely because it was worthwhile. CSIRO was required to determine where its research could assist an entire industry, benefit communities at scale or alter the national trajectory, rather than produce only incremental gains.

Decades of deterioration

The restructuring was presented not merely as a savings exercise, but as an attempt to arrest a sustainability problem Dr Hilton said had accumulated over approximately 50 years.

CSIRO operates 45 sites, down from 106 during the 1990s, and receives an annual Commonwealth appropriation of about $1 billion. Yet more than 80 per cent of its approximately 800 buildings had reached their technical end of life by the end of 2025, according to Dr Hilton.

Ageing laboratories, an insufficient capital budget, outdated information technology and the rising cost of conducting research had progressively reduced the organisation’s room to manoeuvre.

The Albanese Government provided an additional $233 million through the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook before committing a further $387.4 million in the Budget. Dr Hilton said the funding placed CSIRO on a pathway to renewal for the first time in decades.

It will support repairs, scientific equipment, cyber protection and modernised technology, as well as the approximately $1 billion refurbishment of the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness in Geelong.

The high-containment facility has assumed renewed significance following the arrival of H5N1 avian influenza in Australia.

The Budget also provides the centre with ongoing annual funding from 2030–31. Broader organisational certainty, however, remains concentrated within the forward estimates, leaving future governments with responsibility for sustaining the renewal program.

Climate restructuring tests the boundary between science and policy

The most searching questions following the address concerned reductions within CSIRO’s Environment Research Unit, including positions associated with climate modelling.

The final changes involve 92 positions, including scientists connected with the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator, or ACCESS. Critics have warned that Australia could lose specialist expertise that would be difficult to reconstruct and which informs agriculture, disaster preparedness, insurance, infrastructure planning and Pacific climate adaptation.

Science & Technology Australia has argued that Australia carries a national and regional responsibility to preserve this capability. Researchers associated with ACCESS have similarly warned that reductions could weaken the only global climate model developed in the Southern Hemisphere.

Those concerns deserve consideration, but the restructuring should not automatically be characterised as an abandonment of climate science.

A dedicated organisational structure is not synonymous with scientific capability. There is also a legitimate distinction between undertaking rigorous research into climatic conditions and maintaining an institutional area whose work may become entwined with contested political prescriptions.

CSIRO is a research institution, not a policy advocacy body. Climate observation, modelling and the assessment of environmental change properly belong within its scientific remit. Decisions about emissions targets, energy systems, taxation and the distribution of economic costs ultimately belong to elected governments.

On that interpretation, reducing or reorganising a dedicated climate area may represent an attempt to restore clearer institutional boundaries rather than diminish the importance of the underlying science.

Dr Hilton said more than two-thirds of CSIRO’s research contributed in some way to addressing climate change. Relevant work would continue across environment, energy, minerals, agriculture and biosecurity, with greater emphasis placed upon adaptation, resilience and practical technological responses.

CSIRO’s account of its revised research direction identifies climate adaptation and resilience among its principal priorities and confirms that the Environment Research Unit will remain one of the agency’s two largest research units.

This approach could strengthen CSIRO if it produces research that is empirical, applicable and accessible across political divisions. A national science agency maintains public confidence most effectively when it supplies governments and communities with reliable evidence without appearing to prescribe a particular political program.

The remaining question is therefore not whether CSIRO retains a particular organisational label, but whether Australia preserves the scientific capabilities it genuinely requires.

CSIRO has said responsibility for the continued stewardship of ACCESS has been transferred into sustained national research infrastructure through ACCESS-NRI. Nevertheless, specialist modelling expertise can be lost even when formal responsibility is dispersed across several institutions, and Dr Hilton stopped short of guaranteeing that CSIRO itself would maintain precisely the same modelling output with fewer personnel.

The restructuring should consequently be judged by its results: whether it preserves indispensable scientific capability, removes unnecessary duplication and directs more resources towards research with demonstrable national value.

Australian AI rather than an unwinnable race

Artificial intelligence formed the other principal component of Dr Hilton’s sovereign science argument.

He described AI as possessing enormous potential to lift productivity and accelerate discovery, but warned that Australia should not become wholly dependent upon foreign technology, models and data infrastructure.

Australia, he argued, needed a course that built domestic capability and resilience, harnessed Australian data for Australian benefit and protected human creativity and social cohesion.

Dr Hilton also rejected the proposition that CSIRO was simply closing its Data61 digital research capability.

Data61 and CSIRO’s manufacturing research operations are being brought together within a new Technology Research Unit. Dr Hilton said the objective was to embed AI and computational expertise across research into agriculture, energy, biosecurity and critical minerals, rather than retain digital capability within a comparatively isolated institutional structure.

He conceded that Australia could not match the expenditure of American technology companies or China across the entire spectrum of large language models.

A more credible strategy would concentrate resources where Australia possessed distinctive datasets and scientific strengths. These could include specialised foundation models for geoscience, Earth observation, biodiversity and environmental monitoring, together with continued expertise in cybersecurity and cyber resilience.

Asked whether the Commonwealth should secure a national reserve of computing power for public researchers, Dr Hilton confirmed that the Government was actively considering Australia’s future supercomputing requirements and that CSIRO was contributing technical advice.

He also suggested Australia could deepen collaboration with countries facing similar technological dependencies, including Britain, Canada, Japan, South Korea and European nations.

Such partnerships would not amount to complete technological self-sufficiency. They could, however, reduce the risks of excessive dependence upon a small number of foreign technology companies and strengthen Australia’s bargaining position within international research networks.

Science asked to demonstrate its value

Dr Hilton’s address carried a message not only for government, but for universities and the wider research establishment.

Australia’s total research and development expenditure has fallen to about 1.7 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with an OECD average of approximately 2.7 per cent. The Government’s Ambitious Australia review has called for substantial changes to research incentives, commercialisation, institutional collaboration and private-sector investment.

While supporting an ambition to lift Australia’s research expenditure, Dr Hilton argued that the scientific community first needed to demonstrate that it was making the best possible use of its existing resources.

He nominated three principles: focus, collaboration and accountability.

Institutions should be clearer about their comparative strengths, funding should encourage collaboration rather than institutional competition, and researchers should explain the public value of their work in terms accessible to communities beyond the scientific establishment.

Dr Hilton warned against scientific institutions becoming self-referential or treating sceptical sections of the public with disdain. Researchers, he argued, could not expect continuing public investment without engaging seriously with the people whose taxes sustained their work.

He also placed responsibility upon politicians and the media, criticising the selective use of evidence in public debate and warning that persistent polarisation could further erode confidence in scientific institutions.

The argument is particularly relevant to climate research. Public confidence is unlikely to be strengthened by blurring the distinction between empirical findings and political prescriptions. It is more likely to endure when scientific institutions explain what the evidence establishes, acknowledge uncertainty and leave elected governments accountable for policy choices.

A doctrine born of constraint

The central tension in Dr Hilton’s address was unmistakable.

CSIRO is being asked to strengthen Australia’s sovereign capability at precisely the moment it is reducing staff, consolidating research units and withdrawing from fields its leadership considers insufficiently distinctive or influential.

Dr Hilton’s case is that concentration, modern infrastructure and strategic collaboration will ultimately produce greater national capacity than attempting to preserve every existing program.

His critics contend that expertise lost through redundancies may prove difficult to reconstruct when it is next required. That concern is especially acute in highly specialised areas where capability depends upon small teams developed over decades rather than equipment or funding alone.

His defence, however, is stronger than a simple appeal to financial necessity.

CSIRO is a research institution, not an advocacy organisation. Concentrating its resources upon empirical science, technological development and practical national problems may reinforce both its institutional purpose and its public legitimacy.

The distinction is consequential. Preserving a program because it conducts necessary research is one thing; preserving a bureaucratic structure because its subject has acquired political prominence is another. A national science agency must be capable of evaluating the difference.

The latest funding injection will not settle that argument.

What Dr Hilton has now provided is a clearer account of the institutional philosophy behind the decisions: CSIRO will seek to do fewer things at greater scale, deploy digital capability across its scientific portfolio and measure research against its contribution to industry, communities and national objectives.

It is an approach born of financial and institutional constraint, but also one that seeks to redefine Australian scientific sovereignty in more practical terms.

As Australia confronts technological dependency, geopolitical instability and a comparatively weak record of converting research into economic complexity, the consequences of those choices will extend well beyond CSIRO.

The post Hilton defends CSIRO cuts while setting out sovereign science agenda appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

Robert Gregory’s call for stronger police liaison and a review of licensed security guards’ protective capabilities deserves serious consideration.

Australia’s response to antisemitism should ultimately be measured not only by the strength of official condemnations or the severity of criminal penalties, but by whether Jewish Australians can continue to participate openly and confidently in the civic life of the nation.

That was the practical question at the centre of Australian Jewish Association president Robert Gregory’s evidence to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

Appearing during the Commission’s security-focused fifth hearing block in Sydney on Monday, Gregory advanced two principal recommendations: more streamlined engagement between Jewish organisations and law-enforcement agencies, and a government review of the protective capabilities available to properly licensed security guards.

Both proposals merit serious consideration.

They are neither a demand for the state to relinquish its policing responsibilities nor an invitation to establish unregulated communal militias. Properly understood, they amount to an argument for clearer accountability, more consistent threat assessment and the judicious use of trained security personnel where police cannot maintain a continuous presence.

When a threat report depends on publicity

Gregory’s evidence illustrated why a dependable escalation pathway is needed.

He told the Commission that the AJA and its representatives had received repeated abuse, intimidation and threats. Before Gregory and then-AJA president Dr David Adler appeared at a Senate committee examining proposed misinformation laws in 2024, the organisation received messages including a hangman’s noose and a warning that they would die if they gave evidence.

Gregory characterised the episode as more than personal intimidation. It was, he said, an attempt to interfere with Australia’s democratic process.

The matter later received renewed attention after the AFP established Operation Avalite, resulting in an arrest and conviction, according to Gregory’s evidence.

More recently, the AJA reported another serious threat to the AFP. Gregory said the organisation was initially informed that the communication did not meet the threshold for a Commonwealth offence. Only after the AJA approached the media did the matter receive further attention, with the AFP Commissioner’s chief of staff contacting Gregory and advising that it would be reconsidered.

Gregory acknowledged his gratitude for that reconsideration. His larger concern, however, was compelling: a nationally recognised organisation can attract media scrutiny and secure a second examination, but an ordinary Jewish Australian receiving the same initial response may have no comparable avenue of escalation.

A dedicated and sufficiently senior law-enforcement contact would not mean that every report automatically resulted in prosecution. It would ensure that reports involving antisemitic threats, organised intimidation or possible interference with democratic participation were assessed consistently, referred to the correct jurisdiction and not lost between agencies.

The Commission’s own interim report has already recommended extending the procedures used by NSW Police for the Jewish High Holy Days to other high-risk Jewish festivals and public-facing events. Gregory’s liaison proposal would complement that approach by providing continuity between event planning, threat reporting and operational response.

A review is not a blank cheque

The more contentious AJA recommendation concerns the protective capabilities of licensed security guards.

Gregory told the Commission that police protection remained preferable but could not be continuously available at every Jewish function.

“If the police can be there, that’s great, but they can’t be all the time,” he said.

The practical alternative, in his view, was to consider whether trained and licensed personnel already entrusted to provide armed protection at Jewish schools and synagogues should be permitted to provide comparable protection at other high-risk communal events.

This proposal should not be misrepresented as a call to place firearms in the hands of untrained volunteers. NSW already has an extensive regulatory system for armed guards. Its framework includes security-industry licensing, Category H firearms licences, employer approval, formal safety testing, training and annual accreditation requirements, as detailed by NSW Police.

The question raised by Gregory is therefore narrower: whether the locations and circumstances in which appropriately qualified personnel may exercise those capabilities remain adequate for the contemporary threat environment.

Security-risk consultant Dr Gavriel Schneider presented a broadly complementary case to the Commission, arguing that professionally regulated private security could help close the critical interval between an attack beginning and specialist police arriving. Any expanded role, he said, would require demanding training, independent oversight and close coordination with law enforcement.

Permissions could be event-specific, time-limited and conditional upon prior police notification. Clear uniforms, communications protocols and stringent “deconfliction” arrangements would be essential so responding officers could immediately distinguish licensed guards from an attacker. Police would retain operational primacy.

Such a model would make expanded protection an instrument of general public-safety policy rather than a communal privilege.

Avoiding a retreat behind closed doors

Gregory also supplied an important caution against imposing indiscriminate new duties upon venues and event organisers.

He described a joint Jewish-Iranian event for which organisers sought greater police or private-security protection. Police indicated that officers might attend but did not commit to a continuous presence, while the council venue would not permit armed guards. Organisers were left attempting to reconcile their own assessment of the risk with limited resources and conflicting institutional requirements.

Gregory warned that excessively onerous legal duties could encourage venues to refuse Jewish bookings altogether.

That danger should not be underestimated. A regulatory system intended to protect vulnerable communities would have failed if its principal effect were to make those communities commercially or legally inconvenient to host.

The objective must be to help venues manage credible risks, not create an incentive to avoid them. Government guidance, accessible security assessments, proportionate requirements and properly resourced protective options would be preferable to blunt liabilities that cause risk-averse operators simply to close their doors.

“The Jewish community shouldn’t have to live behind walls all the time,” Gregory told the Commission.

That observation goes to the heart of the issue. Security is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to preserve the freedom to worship, meet, debate, celebrate and participate in public life.

Gregory said the pressures had become sufficiently severe that his predecessor, Dr Adler, had recently moved to Israel, citing antisemitism among his reasons. Whatever conclusions are reached about individual migration decisions, Australia should be concerned when accomplished citizens begin to regard withdrawal or departure as the rational response to sustained intimidation.

A measured agenda for government

Gregory also argued that security measures alone could not counteract the broader drivers of antisemitism and criticised aspects of federal government rhetoric and policy. A Commonwealth representative formally noted that the government did not accept Gregory’s broader contention that it had “egged on” antisemitism.

That political disagreement should not obscure the practical value of the AJA’s recommendations.

A workable reform package could include:

• a clearly identified senior law-enforcement contact for Jewish community organisations;
• a transparent escalation and referral pathway for threats crossing state, territory and Commonwealth jurisdictions;
• structured information-sharing between police, event organisers and recognised community-security bodies;
• a government review of the circumstances in which appropriately licensed armed guards may protect high-risk public events;
• event-specific permissions based on independent threat assessments, professional competence and police coordination;
• nationally consistent minimum standards for training, oversight, identification and incident reporting; and
• safeguards ensuring that equivalent protection is available to any community facing a comparable assessed threat.

The AJA’s proposal is especially noteworthy because the organisation does not receive government funding and, according to Gregory, has paid its own security expenses. Its submission is therefore principally a request for more coherent engagement and access to lawful protective capabilities, rather than an appeal to transfer every cost to the taxpayer.

The Royal Commission should take that request seriously.

Australia should not become accustomed to Jewish schools, synagogues and community events operating as permanently besieged institutions. Nor should it accept a situation in which people abandon public gatherings because adequate police protection cannot be guaranteed and suitably qualified private personnel are prevented from filling a carefully defined gap.

A regulated review of licensed security capabilities, coupled with a reliable law-enforcement liaison system, represents a proportionate response to an abnormal security environment. With firm safeguards and continued police primacy, Gregory’s proposals could help protect not only physical safety, but the open and confident Jewish communal life that security policy is ultimately meant to preserve.

The post AJA’s security proposals offer a practical path to keeping Jewish life open appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

Responding to Inside Canberra in the National Situation Room, Minister for Emergency Management Kristy McBain said Australia would embrace proven cell-broadcast technology—but would not permit its powerful reach to be diluted through routine departmental messaging.

Australia’s new national emergency-warning system will not become a general communications channel for Commonwealth departments and agencies, Minister for Emergency Management the Hon Kristy McBain MP has declared following the first nationwide test of AusAlert.

Responding to a question from Inside Canberra at Monday’s press conference in the National Situation Room, McBain ruled out employing the underlying cell-broadcast capability for routine government communications, including administrative messages of the kind ordinarily sent by agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office.

“We would never want to dilute the effectiveness of a system like AusAlert by sending out messages that aren’t alert or aren’t critical,” McBain said.

“It is incredibly important for us that this technology remains for the context it’s required in, and that is for emergencies.”

The exchange addressed a consequential question extending beyond the immediate performance of Monday’s test.

AusAlert gives authorised public authorities the ability to command the attention of almost every compatible mobile device within a selected geographical area. During a Critical Alert, the system can override silent and “do not disturb” settings, activate a distinctive siren and place an emergency message directly on the recipient’s screen.

McBain emphasised that cell broadcast was an established international capability rather than a technology developed by the Australian Government.

“We didn’t create the technology, but we absolutely want to take advantage of it in the Australian context,” she said.

That distinction is important. Australia is not experimenting with an untested communications concept; it is incorporating an established technology into its emergency-management architecture.

The more substantial domestic policy question is therefore not simply whether the technology works, but who may use it, under what circumstances and subject to what safeguards.

A boundary around a powerful capability

The question put by Inside Canberra concerned whether cell-broadcast technology, once embedded within national infrastructure, could subsequently be made available to other departments and agencies for purposes beyond emergency management.

McBain’s answer established a clear ministerial position: AusAlert is not intended to become an alternative channel for taxation notices, administrative reminders, compliance messages, public-information campaigns or other routine government communications.

That limitation is central to the system’s effectiveness.

An alert capable of interrupting a person’s activity, producing an unmistakable siren and overriding the ordinary settings of a mobile device derives much of its authority from rarity.

If Australians were repeatedly interrupted by messages that did not concern an immediate or developing danger, familiarity could diminish the urgency that the warning is intended to convey.

Alert fatigue is not merely an inconvenience. It can encourage recipients to disregard warnings or become less responsive when rapid public action is genuinely required.

McBain’s undertaking therefore recognises that the technological capacity to reach millions of devices should not, by itself, become an argument for expanding governmental access.

She said state and territory emergency authorities would initiate the overwhelming majority of warnings.

“At the end of the day, 99 per cent of the time, states and territories will be using this system,” she said.

The relevant emergency authority will determine whether an alert is required, define the affected area and provide information about the nature and severity of the incident, the action recipients should take and where further advice can be obtained.

Commonwealth agencies may retain emergency access

Although routine departmental use has been ruled out, AusAlert’s prospective remit extends beyond natural disasters such as bushfires, floods and cyclones.

Information published by the National Emergency Management Agency says authorised emergency-service organisations and “some Australian Government agencies” will be able to issue warnings.

The system may be employed during serious public-safety and national-security threats, terrorist incidents, biosecurity events and public-health emergencies, as well as natural hazards.

Commonwealth involvement is therefore contemplated, but the relevant distinction is the purpose of the communication rather than simply the identity of the agency issuing it.

A health authority warning Australians about an acute public-health emergency, or a national-security agency directing people away from an immediate threat, could fall within AusAlert’s stated remit. A taxation reminder, policy announcement or ordinary departmental communication would not.

The Government has not yet published a definitive list of Commonwealth bodies that will be authorised to originate warnings or the complete approval framework governing federally initiated alerts.

As AusAlert becomes operational, the adequacy and transparency of those arrangements will warrant scrutiny. The Government’s stated boundary is clear, but its durability will ultimately depend upon the authorisation controls, operating procedures and auditing arrangements established around the system.

How cell-broadcast technology works

AusAlert uses cell broadcast to transmit a single warning simultaneously from selected mobile towers to compatible devices within their coverage areas.

It differs fundamentally from Australia’s existing Emergency Alert service, which principally relies upon location-based SMS messages and automated calls to landlines.

An SMS is addressed and sent to an individual mobile number. Delivering warnings separately to hundreds of thousands of recipients can create queues and delays, particularly when telecommunications networks are experiencing unusually heavy demand.

Cell broadcast instead operates as a one-to-many transmission.

An authorised emergency organisation identifies the affected geographical area and prepares the warning. Participating telecommunications networks are then directed to broadcast the message from the mobile-network cells serving that area.

Compatible devices listening for the designated emergency-warning channel can receive the transmission almost simultaneously. Authorities do not need to compile a list of telephone numbers or send a separate message to each subscriber.

Because the warning is broadcast to devices rather than delivered to individual accounts, compatible phones do not require an active SIM card. They must, however, be switched on, connected to an operating network and within active 4G or 5G mobile coverage.

The technology can also continue broadcasting for a specified period. A compatible device entering an affected area after the original warning was issued may therefore still receive it.

This is why the capability offers greater speed and resilience than an emergency system dependent upon individually addressed messages—and why McBain said the Government wanted to take advantage of the technology in an Australian context.

Privacy and performance measurement

NEMA says AusAlert does not collect or store recipients’ telephone numbers or locations. Users do not need to register, provide personal information or download a dedicated application.

The warning is transmitted from selected towers to every compatible device capable of receiving the relevant broadcast channel. It is therefore a one-way public-warning mechanism rather than a system for identifying or tracking individual recipients.

That privacy-preserving architecture creates an important operational limitation: authorities do not receive an ordinary delivery receipt from every handset.

They can establish whether the selected towers successfully transmitted an alert, but they cannot use that result to determine precisely how many individual devices displayed it.

This distinction is essential to interpreting the Government’s preliminary result from Monday’s test.

McBain said approximately 94 per cent of targeted mobile towers successfully transmitted the warning, exceeding NEMA’s benchmark of 90 per cent.

“We’ve already exceeded the target that we set,” she said.

“The benchmark that the National Emergency Management Agency set was for 90 per cent of towers. We’ve reached nearly 94 per cent of towers across the country.”

The result does not mean that 94 per cent of Australians—or 94 per cent of mobile phones—received the alert. It measures the proportion of towers included in the test that successfully carried the transmission.

The remaining six per cent included towers that were offline for maintenance, undergoing upgrades or otherwise unavailable at the time.

NEMA begins detailed assessment

Interim NEMA Coordinator-General Patrick Hetherington said the national exercise was intended to demonstrate how the system performed “at scale across millions of devices and in hundreds of different environments”.

“NEMA will now assess all of the data, including reports from our technical and operational partners, jurisdictions and community feedback,” Hetherington said.

The agency will conduct a detailed examination of the results and make any necessary modifications before AusAlert becomes available to governments and emergency-service organisations from October 2026.

Hetherington’s remarks supplied the operational counterpart to McBain’s policy undertaking. While the Minister addressed who should be permitted to use the capability and for what purpose, NEMA must now determine how reliably it performed across different networks, locations, devices and operating systems.

Some Australians did not receive Monday’s warning because their devices were incompatible, their software had not been updated, they were outside active coverage or they were connected to a tower that did not successfully transmit the test.

Different results among people in the same location do not necessarily indicate a systemic failure. Nearby devices may use different telecommunications providers, connect to different towers or operate with different hardware and software.

The official guidance for the national test says understanding these real-world variations is one of the reasons AusAlert is being tested before it becomes operational.

McBain cautioned that the system could not replace every existing communication channel.

“There is no silver bullet in emergency management communication,” she said.

AusAlert will supplement emergency-service websites, mobile applications, radio, television, social media and direct community contact.

Geographic precision—and its limitations

NEMA says AusAlert can target areas with accuracy of up to 160 metres and may, in appropriate circumstances, be directed towards a limited precinct or individual building.

This could allow authorities to issue more precise evacuation instructions, warn people on one side of a jurisdictional border or avoid unnecessarily alarming communities outside an affected area.

The practical reach of a warning will nevertheless depend upon the configuration and coverage patterns of the selected mobile cells, surrounding terrain, network conditions and the tower to which each device is connected.

Cell broadcast does not rely upon the GPS location of every handset to draw a perfectly impermeable boundary around a property.

A person close to the edge of the selected area may receive an alert while technically outside it. Conversely, somebody within the intended area could miss the warning if their device is incompatible, its software has not been updated or a relevant tower is unavailable.

The technology consequently represents a substantial improvement in geographical targeting rather than a guarantee that every person within a precisely drawn perimeter will receive a warning.

Critical and Priority Alerts

AusAlert will employ two principal warning levels.

A Critical Alert indicates an immediate threat to life or property. It produces a siren-like sound and vibration for approximately ten seconds, overrides silent and “do not disturb” settings and cannot be disabled through ordinary device preferences.

A Priority Alert applies to serious but less immediate circumstances, including deteriorating conditions or a heightened threat. It can be disabled by the device user and will not override silent or “do not disturb” settings.

Monday’s nationwide exercise used a Critical Alert. During the 15-minute testing window beginning at 2pm AEST, compatible devices emitted the warning sound and displayed a message identifying the transmission as a test.

Government compatibility guidance says AusAlert is expected to operate on iPhone 11 and subsequent models running iOS 26.4 or later, selected Apple Watches and Android devices running Android 12 or later.

Some older devices and phones using alternative operating systems may also receive alerts, although the headings displayed can differ. Apple iPads are not supported.

October launch and staged transition

AusAlert is scheduled to become available from 1 October, subject to agreements with individual states and territories and the operational readiness of their emergency authorities.

The existing SMS-based Emergency Alert system will initially remain available, allowing jurisdictions to use one or both platforms through the forthcoming higher-risk weather season while personnel are trained and operating procedures refined.

The new system emerged from recommendations made by the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements following the Black Summer bushfires.

McBain, whose electorate of Eden-Monaro was heavily affected, recalled that some residents and visitors received emergency text messages only after leaving the disaster area several days later.

Cell broadcast offers a significant improvement in speed, resilience and geographical precision. As the Minister observed, Australia did not create the technology—but its incorporation into the national warning system presents distinctly Australian questions about access, authority and public trust.

Monday’s exchange with Inside Canberra in the National Situation Room provided the Government’s clearest answer to one of those questions: AusAlert will remain an emergency-warning system, not a universal channel through which departments and agencies routinely command the attention of Australians’ mobile devices.

Maintaining that boundary will be essential to preserving the credibility—and therefore the effectiveness—of the system when a warning truly matters.m provided the Government’s clearest answer to one of them: AusAlert will remain an emergency-warning system, not a universal channel through which departments and agencies routinely command the attention of Australians’ mobile devices.

Maintaining that boundary will be essential to preserving the credibility—and therefore the effectiveness—of the system when a warning truly matters.

The post McBain rules out wider government use of AusAlert technology appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

The Hon Angus Taylor MP has ruled out forming a coalition with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, moving quickly to extinguish speculation generated by one of his own frontbenchers.

Speaking at Brookfield in Brisbane’s western suburbs on Monday, the Leader of the Opposition declared that the Liberal and National parties’ longstanding partnership would remain the Coalition’s exclusive governing arrangement.

“There will be no coalition with One Nation,” Mr Taylor said.

“Our coalition is with the National Party, and that’s the coalition that can deliver the strong plan and the strong team to get this country back to where it needs to be.”

The unequivocal intervention followed remarks by Shadow Minister for Housing and Productivity Senator Andrew Bragg, who had declined during a breakfast television interview to foreclose the possibility of a future agreement with One Nation.

“We would definitely like to work out whoever would be interested in being in a coalition with us if that’s what the numbers were. Of course. We’re not crazy,” Senator Bragg said.

He subsequently argued that the Liberal Party would need to be “pragmatic” when confronted with the parliamentary arithmetic produced by the next federal election.

Asked whether Senator Bragg had misspoken, Mr Taylor avoided directly rebuking his colleague but reiterated the official position.

“What is very clear is we’re not going to form a coalition with One Nation, and I know Andrew knows that,” he said.

Senator James Paterson also sought to contain the dispute, maintaining that Senator Bragg had principally been discussing preference arrangements and that the Liberal Party was “not in the market for any other coalition partners”.

Coalition’s strategic fault line exposed

The exchange illustrates the increasingly difficult distinction between electoral co-operation and political repudiation as One Nation competes with the Coalition for a substantial portion of the conservative vote.

Mr Taylor has spent recent weeks attempting to establish that distinction in emphatic terms. He previously described One Nation as a “one-person show” that was “not fit to govern” and argued that its economic program would exacerbate inflation, expand government expenditure and expose households to higher interest rates.

Senator Bragg’s comments, however, demonstrate that the matter is not entirely settled within Liberal ranks. Even if a formal coalition remains prohibited, questions concerning preferences, minority-government support and post-election negotiations are likely to recur while the two parties compete over an increasingly fragmented centre-right constituency.

The predicament is sharpened by polling. A July Newspoll placed Labor and One Nation level on 30 per cent of the primary vote, with the Coalition on 19 per cent. Other surveys have produced a less dramatic result, but collectively indicate that One Nation is no longer merely drawing protest votes at the political periphery; it is contesting constituencies that the Liberal and National parties have historically regarded as their own.

Mr Taylor’s response was therefore more than an exercise in internal discipline. It sought to reassure voters that the Coalition remained a coherent prospective government while denying One Nation the institutional legitimacy that would accompany recognition as a possible governing partner.

Forrest returns for Ryan

The press conference also marked the return of Maggie Forrest as the Liberal National Party’s candidate for Ryan.

Ms Forrest contested the inner-Brisbane electorate at the 2025 federal election, receiving 34.61 per cent of the primary vote before losing to Greens incumbent Elizabeth Watson-Brown by 53.27 to 46.73 per cent after preferences, according to the Australian Electoral Commission.

Mr Taylor praised Ms Forrest’s legal and private-sector experience, presenting her re-endorsement as representative of a broader Coalition effort to recruit candidates with careers beyond party and union structures.

Ms Forrest framed her candidacy around parental autonomy and childcare choice.

“Parents know their children best and know what’s best for their children, and they should be in the driver’s seat when it comes to childcare,” she said.

Her selection provides the LNP with an experienced candidate in a seat that remains electorally complex. Ryan was once a dependable Liberal electorate but has become a contest between the LNP, Labor and the Greens, with preference flows proving decisive.

Taylor demands further childcare safeguards

Joined by Maddie Simmons, co-founder of Child Care Choices, Mr Taylor used the appearance to press the Government over childcare regulation and worker screening.

He called for a nationally consistent Working with Children Check system and proposed a publicly accessible “perpetrator register”, arguing that parents required greater transparency about those employed in early childhood settings.

“Parents need to know what they’re getting when they take their kids to childcare, and right now that is not the case with this government,” he said.

The Opposition Leader accused the Government of failing to complete reforms it had said would be advanced by the end of 2025. The institutional position is, however, more developed than his criticism alone might suggest.

Commonwealth, state and territory governments endorsed a National Agreement on Working with Children Checks in November 2025. That agreement included mutual recognition of adverse decisions and a National Continuous Checking Capability intended to provide near-real-time monitoring of changes to workers’ criminal histories.

Separately, the National Early Childhood Worker Register became operational in February 2026. Providers are required to record who works at their services, enabling regulators to identify where workers are employed and respond to emerging risks.

Those initiatives do not amount to the completely uniform national Working with Children Check regime advocated by Mr Taylor. Nor is the regulator-facing worker register equivalent to his proposed publicly accessible perpetrator register. The latter would require careful consideration of evidentiary thresholds, privacy, procedural fairness and the distinction between criminal convictions, regulatory findings and untested allegations.

Mr Taylor did not provide detailed design parameters for the proposal during the press conference.

Conditional support for extending fuel relief

Mr Taylor was also pressed on whether the Government should extend the temporary reduction in fuel excise, which is scheduled to expire on 2 August.

The existing measure reduces excise on petrol and diesel by 16 cents a litre. Its expiration comes as renewed international instability places upward pressure on oil and transport costs.

Mr Taylor stopped short of giving unconditional support to an extension but said the Coalition would work constructively with the Government on any proposal.

“It cannot be inflationary,” he said, arguing that additional relief should be offset by reductions in what the Opposition regards as wasteful government expenditure.

The formulation gives the Coalition room to support continued relief while maintaining its wider contention that fiscal policy has contributed to persistent domestic inflation. It also transfers the immediate burden of producing a fully costed proposal to the Government.

Albanese urged to confront Trump over tariffs

On trade, Mr Taylor said Prime Minister the Hon Anthony Albanese MP should seek a direct meeting with United States President Donald Trump following the imposition of a new 12.5 per cent tariff on many Australian imports.

The levy, which took effect on 24 July, followed a United States investigation alleging that Australia and dozens of other economies had not done enough to prevent goods produced with forced labour from entering their supply chains. Several important product exemptions remain, but the measure nevertheless represents a deterioration in Australia’s trading position.

Mr Taylor described the tariff as unjustified and incompatible with the expectations of a longstanding strategic ally.

“We’ve fought alongside the United States in every major war since Federation,” he said. “He needs to sit down with the President and get an exemption for Australia.”

The Government has also rejected the tariff and continues to advocate for its removal. The substantive political disagreement is therefore less about whether the levy is warranted than whether the Prime Minister’s diplomatic approach has been sufficiently forceful and personally engaged.

Opposition consolidates its electoral argument

Mr Taylor ranged across the economy, migration, energy policy and the Labor National Conference, but the unifying purpose of the appearance was political definition.

He portrayed Labor as managerial but ineffective, One Nation as electorally potent but unsuitable for government, and the Coalition as the only opposition force capable of translating public dissatisfaction into an administratively credible alternative.

That argument will become progressively harder to sustain if Liberal frontbenchers continue to speculate publicly about accommodation with the very party their leader is attempting to disqualify.

Mr Taylor has now stated the position without qualification: the Nationals remain the Coalition’s sole partner, and One Nation will not be invited inside the governing arrangement.

Whether all Liberal parliamentarians regard that prohibition as permanently settled is another matter.

The post Taylor shuts door on One Nation coalition after Bragg opens it appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

Australia’s tobacco-control orthodoxy came under sustained assault at the National Press Club on Wednesday, as three speakers contended that punitive taxation and prohibition had produced a vast criminal market which enforcement alone could no longer suppress.

Respiratory and infectious diseases physician Dr Nick Coatsworth, Federal Liberal Member for Monash Mary Aldred MP and former Australian Border Force investigator Rohan Pike converged on a common diagnosis: Australia’s historic success in reducing smoking cannot obscure the increasingly perverse consequences of its present policy settings.

Their intervention was not an argument that smoking had become less lethal, nor an exoneration of tobacco companies. It was a contention that the machinery built to discourage smoking — excise, restrictions and prohibition — now operates largely within the shrinking legal market, while organised crime supplies cheaper cigarettes and unregulated nicotine products beyond those safeguards.

“Australia’s approach to tobacco control has lost its way,” Dr Coatsworth told the Club.

“We’ve conflated nicotine with smoke. We’ve driven people to more dangerous products through price and prohibition, and we’ve allowed a triumphal narrative to substitute for balanced policy contribution.”

The address, promoted by the National Press Club under the title Illicit tobacco — It is costing Australia heaps, placed two sharply divergent accounts of Australia’s smoking trajectory at the centre of the debate.

One market, two statistical pictures

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2025 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that 5.6 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over smoked daily, down from 8.3 per cent in 2022–23 and 19.5 per cent in 2001.

That is an important public-health achievement and places Australia within reach of its national target of reducing adult daily smoking to five per cent or less by 2030.

The same survey, however, found that 34 per cent of people who currently smoke had recently used illicit tobacco, more than double the 16.7 per cent recorded in 2022–23.

Dr Coatsworth welcomed the reported decline in daily smoking but disputed the certainty with which some public-health advocates had treated the national estimate. He pointed to higher results from recent state surveys and argued that differences in sample populations, age thresholds, response rates and the willingness of illicit-market consumers to disclose their behaviour required cautious interpretation.

Surveys, he said, produced estimates rather than an unimpeachable account of reality.

“It seems that last Friday, at least a few professors of public health became professors of public relations,” he said.

His criticism was directed less at the survey itself than at what he described as a “triumphal narrative” surrounding its release. In his view, declaring the 5.6 per cent figure decisive without adequately examining discordant evidence risked diminishing public trust.

The statistical tension is genuine, although it does not necessarily mean either dataset is wrong.

An experimental Australian Bureau of Statistics analysis, drawing substantially upon wastewater and import data, estimated that the quantity of nicotine consumed increased by almost 40 per cent between 2017 and 2025. It found that illicit sources accounted for 80 per cent of total nicotine consumption in 2025, compared with 12 per cent in 2017.

That 80 per cent estimate is broader than the cigarette market alone. It encompasses illicit cigarettes, e-cigarettes and other nicotine products, while the ABS methodology also considers legal nicotine-replacement products. On a scope and period comparable with the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s earlier analysis, the ABS put the illicit share at 69 per cent.

The household survey measures how many people report using products; the ABS exercise estimates the aggregate quantity of nicotine consumed. A smaller number of consumers using more nicotine, or moving between cigarettes, vapes and pouches, could therefore contribute to apparently divergent results.

Dr Coatsworth acknowledged that wastewater could not distinguish between those products, but argued that the most plausible interpretation was that smoking and vaping consumption had increased.

From public-health instrument to criminal price signal

Ms Aldred framed the excise debate through the Laffer curve: the proposition that a tax can reach a point at which further increases diminish rather than enlarge revenue, while also distorting behaviour.

“The early increases in the tobacco excise make a strong case for behavioural economics,” she said. “The emergence of the illegal market does too.”

“There’s a point at which continued excise increases stop deterring people from smoking and start driving them to an illegal market.”

The Member for Monash said tobacco excise had increased by 282 per cent since 2012 and argued that the price disparity between legal and illicit cigarettes was now directing otherwise law-abiding consumers towards criminal suppliers.

Her involvement began after a grocery store at Longwarry in her Gippsland electorate was ram-raided. She recounted the continuing fear experienced by the owner and staff, as well as the consequences for legitimate businesses situated beside suspected illicit tobacco retailers targeted in arson attacks.

The costs, she argued, were no longer confined to foregone Commonwealth revenue or smoking-related illness. They included higher insurance premiums, security guards, bollards, damaged premises, interrupted trade and teenage retail employees confronted by armed offenders.

Ms Aldred called for the excise rate to be revisited but declined to nominate the reduction the Coalition’s Illegal Tobacco Taskforce might ultimately recommend.

She cited Oxford Economics modelling which suggested that an excise reduction accompanied by stronger enforcement could return billions of dollars to the legal market. The modelling was commissioned by Ritchies IGA, a major legal tobacco retailer. A published summary of the research forecast that restoring the 2019 excise rate could increase revenue by $3.1 billion over the forward estimates and substantially reduce illicit consumption.

The assumptions behind such modelling will inevitably be contested, particularly whether consumers who have become accustomed to substantially cheaper contraband would return to legal products following a tax reduction.

Ms Aldred nevertheless rejected the Government’s contention that the criminal market had become too entrenched for excise changes to make a material difference.

“The Federal Government says they don’t want to outsource the tobacco market to crime gangs,” she said. “Newsflash — they already have.”

She urged the Prime Minister to convene an emergency meeting of National Cabinet, arguing that inconsistent state and Commonwealth laws, licensing arrangements and enforcement capabilities had produced an incoherent response.

A ‘war on nicotine’

Dr Coatsworth’s contribution extended beyond excise to the more fundamental distinction between combustible tobacco and non-combustible nicotine.

Australia, he argued, had replaced a war on tobacco with a war on nicotine, refusing to acknowledge sufficiently that vaping products and nicotine pouches, while neither harmless nor desirable for non-smokers, were less dangerous than combustible cigarettes.

“We have made cigarettes easy and cheap to buy illegally, and we have made the less harmful alternative difficult to buy legally,” he said.

Under Australia’s current vaping laws, all vapes may be sold only by participating pharmacies for smoking cessation or the management of nicotine dependence. Adults can obtain therapeutic vapes containing no more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per millilitre without a prescription, subject to consultation with a pharmacist and applicable state law. Higher-strength products and supply to minors require a prescription.

Dr Coatsworth argued that the legal pathway remained poorly used because many doctors did not recommend therapeutic vaping and many pharmacies did not stock the products.

He acknowledged concerns about youth nicotine addiction, potential carcinogenic substances in e-cigarette vapour and the tobacco industry’s history of obscuring evidence and engineering addiction. Harm reduction, he insisted, did not require the industry to be trusted.

Rather, it required policymakers to distinguish between the relative risks of different products and decide whether established smokers were more likely to reduce their harm within a regulated legal market or an uncontrolled criminal one.

“The test for this Government is not whether it can sound tough on tobacco and vapes,” he said.

“The test is to restore balance in tobacco-control policy — to reclaim the legal market from organised crime, to embrace evidence-based harm reduction, to continue to drive down smoking and nicotine use in Australia.”

“In this epidemiology exam, Australia is barely making the grade.”

Enforcement ‘futile’ without policy change

Mr Pike, who founded the Australian Border Force’s Tobacco Strike Team, delivered the most uncompromising criticism of the existing settlement.

He accused health authorities of suppressing the scale of the illicit market and argued that successive governments had persisted with excise increases long after organised crime had demonstrated its capacity to undercut legal prices.

“Police did not create this market,” he said. “Even the criminal gangs did not create the market; government policy did.”

Mr Pike described record seizures as an inadequate measure of success when illicit cigarettes remained readily available. Enforcement agencies, he argued, would require many times their present resources to dismantle a criminal industry whose enormous margins allowed syndicates to absorb intercepted shipments as a cost of doing business.

He called for a substantial excise reduction and more permissive access to regulated alternatives, including vapes and nicotine pouches.

During questions, Mr Pike was pressed about his listing as a “focal point” for the Global Institute for Novel Nicotine, an international association representing manufacturers and distributors of alternative nicotine products.

He initially characterised his involvement as participation in a group chat, before saying he had agreed several years ago to act as a nominal adviser on illicit trade when the organisation was formed. Mr Pike said he had provided no advice, held no contract and had never accepted payment from tobacco or nicotine companies.

Government insists enforcement is beginning to bite

The Albanese Government rejects the proposition that its tobacco policy has failed or that reducing excise would reclaim the market.

Following the release of the household survey, Minister for Health and Ageing the Hon Mark Butler MP described the AIHW figures as the authoritative measure of smoking prevalence and evidence that Australians were continuing to quit in record numbers.

Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs Julian Hill MP said the Commonwealth had committed more than $365 million to combat illicit tobacco since early 2024, including funding for state and territory enforcement.

The Government says authorities have closed more than 1,000 suspected illegal retailers, seized or restrained almost $50 million in assets and disrupted hundreds of financial accounts and service points associated with the trade. It argues that stronger pre-border intelligence, seizures, shop closures and financial disruption are beginning to raise illicit prices in some jurisdictions.

Mr Hill has acknowledged that high excise helped create the price differential exploited by criminal groups. He nevertheless maintains that cigarettes can be produced overseas so cheaply that no politically or medically realistic tax reduction would eliminate the black market’s price advantage.

That is now the central policy contest.

The Government believes Australia can preserve its high-excise public-health model while progressively constricting criminal supply. Wednesday’s Press Club panel argued that the scale of the illicit market has already invalidated that premise — and that enforcement is being asked to rescue a policy architecture whose incentives are working against it.

The Coalition taskforce’s eventual recommendations will reveal how far the Opposition is prepared to carry that critique into formal policy. Ms Aldred would not commit to an excise figure or pre-empt its position on nicotine pouches.

Yet the political direction was unmistakable. A substantial part of the Coalition is moving beyond demands for a tougher crackdown and towards a challenge to the intellectual foundations of Australia’s tobacco settlement.

The argument is no longer simply about how vigorously the law should be enforced. It is about whether the law, the tax system and the public-health establishment have together created a market that only criminals can efficiently serve.

The post ‘Australia is barely making the grade’: Press Club trio demands tobacco policy reset appeared first on insidecanberra.com.

The Albanese Government is directing tens of millions of dollars into private news organisations as the Labor Party considers empowering ACMA to act against undefined “media bias”. Each policy may be defensible in isolation. Together, they raise questions about competition, editorial independence and the proper distance between government and the press.

The Australian Government is now subsidising the wages of more than 2,000 journalists employed by private news organisations—while the Australian Labor Party considers giving the national media regulator new powers to prevent “media bias”.

That conjunction deserves considerably more scrutiny than either policy has so far received.

Under the Commonwealth’s $67.6 million Journalism Assistance Fund, 185 successful applicants will receive taxpayer support over the three financial years ending in June 2028. The money is calculated principally by reference to journalistic employment: $13,000 annually for each eligible full-time-equivalent journalist, or $39,000 over the life of the program. 

The Government says the scheme will preserve public-interest journalism, support digital news production and arrest the deterioration of a commercially disrupted industry. Those objectives are not frivolous. Regional newspapers have contracted, local reporting has disappeared from some communities and the business model that once financed journalism through classified advertising has been dismantled by digital platforms.

Yet the distribution figures reveal that the fund is not merely a narrowly targeted rescue package for fragile community publications.

According to the publicly disclosed allocations cited by Sky News, Nine Entertainment received $16,126,110; Seven received $11,329,890; Australian Community Media received $6,224,933; and the Star News Group received $5,868,291.

Together, those four groups account for approximately $39.55 million, or 58.5 per cent of the entire $67.6 million fund.

Nine’s reported allocation alone represents about 23.9 per cent of the fund. Seven accounts for another 16.8 per cent, Australian Community Media 9.2 per cent, and Star News Group 8.7 per cent.

The list extends well beyond the large commercial networks. The Conversation received $1,033,890, Private Media—the publisher of Crikey—received $737,022, The Daily Aus received $549,120 and Mamamia received $268,125. Other reported recipients include Capital Brief, The Saturday Paper and Michael West Media. 

There is no evidence in the published material that these organisations were selected because of their editorial outlook. The fund was structured as an employment-based program available to qualifying publishers of digitally distributed core news. Nor should receiving a grant, by itself, be presented as proof that a newsroom has surrendered its independence.

Nevertheless, the result is that taxpayers are now contributing to the employment costs of news organisations across the editorial spectrum, including several publications generally associated with progressive or centre-left commentary.

That matters because the Government is not participating in the media market solely as a neutral source of financial assistance.

It is simultaneously developing a broader architecture of media subsidies, bargaining arrangements, regulatory reform and government-directed industry support.

A rapidly expanding system of media assistance

The Journalism Assistance Fund forms only one part of the News Media Assistance Program.

The Commonwealth says News MAP includes $99.1 million in grants for the news sector, alongside $33 million over three years for Australian Associated Press, a minimum Commonwealth commitment of $3 million annually for regional newspaper advertising, $10.5 million for the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s Media Diversity Measurement Framework, and the development of a National Media Literacy Strategy. 

The Journalism Assistance Fund itself opened on 21 November 2025 and closed on 19 December—less than a month later—because it had become fully subscribed. The Government says its 185 grants support more than 2,000 journalists across 93 regional, 23 culturally and linguistically diverse, 22 suburban and two First Nations publishers. 

A further $31.5 million News Innovation Fund has subsequently been offered, with individual grants ranging from $10,000 to $9 million. Eligible activities include increasing journalism production, expanding digital distribution, developing subscription and newsletter products, acquiring production equipment and improving publishers’ commercial capabilities. 

The 2026–27 Budget also provides $15 million for AAP and $6.4 million to modernise media regulation and support structural changes in the market. It suspends the Commercial Broadcasting Tax for two years, at an estimated cost to revenue of $111.3 million over five years, and proposes a formula-based system for distributing money collected through the News Bargaining Incentive. 

The Commonwealth is therefore becoming a substantial financier, rule-maker and market architect within Australian journalism.

That may reflect the depth of the industry’s economic difficulties. It also means the safeguards separating public support from political influence must be unusually strong—and visibly so.

The conference proposal that changes the context

The most consequential passage in Labor’s 2026 Draft National Platform appears under the reassuring heading “Healthy public debate”.

The platform promises a “strong, healthy, diverse and independent media operating in the public interest”. It supports continued public ownership of the ABC and SBS, community broadcasting, local news and free coverage of nationally significant events.

It then proposes something markedly more contentious:

“Labor will consider changes to regulation of media across all media to avoid bias and ensure the existing regulator ACMA has the appropriate tools to act to prevent media bias.”

The provision does not define bias. It does not identify the legal test ACMA would apply, the evidentiary threshold that would be required, the sanctions that might follow, or how legitimate editorial judgement would be distinguished from prohibited partiality. 

Nor does the draft explain how a government regulator should determine bias without itself becoming an arbiter of acceptable political framing.

These omissions are not incidental.

Bias is not equivalent to factual error, unlawful vilification, undisclosed commercial influence or a failure to correct demonstrably false reporting. It can reside in story selection, prominence, language, choice of interviewees, contextual emphasis and the weight assigned to competing arguments. Reasonable people frequently disagree about whether such decisions constitute bias or merely editorial judgement.

A statutory power to “prevent media bias” could therefore reach significantly further than conventional broadcasting standards or rules requiring accuracy and fairness.

The proposal also appears to extend across “all media”, potentially taking regulation beyond traditional broadcasters and into newspapers, digital publishers, podcasts and other forms of online journalism.

That would represent a major alteration to Australia’s media settlement.

Funding does not purchase loyalty—but dependency can alter incentives

The strongest argument for the Journalism Assistance Fund is straightforward: journalism has characteristics of a public good, and the market no longer produces enough of it—particularly in regional and specialist fields.

There is considerable merit in that proposition. Courts, councils, parliaments and public agencies cannot be held accountable where no reporter is present. Small communities are not necessarily commercially capable of sustaining the journalism they need.

Public funding is not automatically inimical to independence. The ABC is publicly financed but operates under statutory arrangements intended to protect editorial autonomy. Several democracies support private news organisations through tax concessions, public-interest grants, postal assistance or arms-length media funds.

The problem is not the existence of assistance. It is the design of the relationship.

Direct wage subsidies reduce the employment costs of selected businesses while their unsubsidised competitors must finance the same work entirely through subscriptions, advertising, sponsorship or private capital.

For smaller publishers, $13,000 per journalist per year is material. A newsroom employing ten qualifying journalists can receive $130,000 annually. A competing publisher operating without the grant must either absorb that cost disadvantage or reduce its staffing, prices or investment.

The program can therefore influence market structure even where the Commonwealth exercises no editorial control.

Larger recipients also receive the greatest nominal benefits because the formula rewards the number of qualifying journalists already employed. That explains why major groups dominate the allocations, but it also creates a policy tension: a fund presented partly as a diversity measure has concentrated most of its money among a handful of established companies.

Scale has effectively generated subsidy.

The disclosure gap

A central weakness is the apparent absence of prominent, routine disclosure to audiences.

Grant recipients are publicly identifiable through the Commonwealth grants system, but readers should not be expected to search government databases to discover whether a publication receives taxpayer support.

A straightforward disclosure could accompany an outlet’s masthead, “about” page or editorial standards statement:

This publication receives support through the Australian Government’s Journalism Assistance Fund. The funding does not confer editorial control.

Such wording would not stigmatise recipients. It would enhance transparency and allow readers to assess possible institutional interests for themselves.

The principle is familiar. Journalists routinely expect political parties, lobby groups, research organisations and advocacy bodies to disclose financial relationships capable of creating a perceived conflict. Media organisations should not claim a lower standard for themselves.

Disclosure becomes particularly important when a funded publication reports on the government responsible for maintaining, replacing or expanding the program.

The issue is not necessarily actual interference. It is whether the structure creates a reasonable perception of dependency.

Were new entrants placed at a disadvantage?

The fund’s short application window also warrants examination.

Applications opened on 21 November and closed on 19 December 2025 because the scheme was fully subscribed. 

A program exhausted within four weeks will naturally favour organisations with established administrative capacity, dedicated finance teams and immediate awareness of government grant processes. Smaller publishers, start-ups and journalist-led ventures may be less able to prepare an application at speed.

That risk is compounded by an employment-based formula. New entrants generally have fewer existing employees precisely because they lack the capital enjoyed by incumbent organisations. A mechanism based on current headcount can entrench existing market positions rather than produce new competition.

The separate News Innovation Fund may assist emerging operations, but grants of up to $9 million again raise questions about whether a small number of sophisticated applicants could secure a disproportionate share.

A genuinely pro-diversity model would reserve meaningful funding for new entrants, underserved markets and publishers below specified revenue or staffing thresholds.

A question of ideological balance

It would be misleading to portray the Journalism Assistance Fund as exclusively financing centre-left media.

The largest recipients are major commercial organisations with varied editorial products, and the broader list encompasses regional, suburban, multicultural and specialist outlets. The allocation methodology appears to have been based primarily on eligibility and journalist numbers, not an assessment of political orientation.

Even so, public concern will understandably arise when strongly opinionated publications receive government support while the governing party proposes regulatory action against “bias”.

The answer is not for Canberra to classify publishers as left, right or centrist and allocate money according to a contrived ideological quota. That would make the state’s involvement more—not less—political.

The answer is to maintain viewpoint neutrality, publish complete assessment information, disclose funding clearly, separate ministers from decisions and confine regulation to objectively defined harms.

The Government should also disclose:

• every applicant, including unsuccessful applicants where legally permissible;
• the number of eligible journalists claimed by each recipient;
• the methodology used to aggregate related corporate entities;
• the total public support each ownership group receives across all media programs;
• any compliance findings or repayments;
• the measures used to assess whether funded positions were genuinely preserved; and
• whether recipients must notify readers of Commonwealth support.

Without those details, the public can see who received money but cannot fully evaluate how the scheme altered the market.

What safeguards are required?

At a minimum, Australia needs a clear firewall between media assistance and media regulation.

Funding decisions should be administered by an independent statutory body or genuinely arms-length panel operating under published, viewpoint-neutral criteria. Ministers should neither select recipients nor possess discretion to reward or penalise particular editorial organisations.

Future assistance should contain stronger concentration limits. A diversity program should not permit most funding to accumulate among several ownership groups unless the Government can demonstrate that this is indispensable to the scheme’s public-interest purpose.

Recipient disclosure should be mandatory and easily visible.

Most importantly, Labor should abandon—or substantially rewrite—the proposal empowering ACMA to act against “media bias”.

Regulators can enforce accuracy obligations, ownership rules, classification standards, advertising requirements and protections against specified harms. They should not be commissioned to determine which political narratives are sufficiently balanced.

An undefined prohibition on bias is especially problematic where the state is simultaneously subsidising many of the organisations it may later regulate.

The democratic danger lies in the combination

There is a respectable case for public assistance to journalism. There is also a respectable case for modernising regulation in response to technological convergence and the declining distinction between broadcasting, publishing and social media.

But policy cannot be assessed only in isolated compartments.

A government that finances private newsrooms, distributes media-industry revenue, purchases advertising, funds public broadcasters and appoints the regulator already occupies a powerful position within the information ecosystem.

If the governing party then proposes that the regulator be empowered to decide and prevent “bias”, the cumulative effect becomes constitutionally and democratically significant.

The threat is not necessarily that journalists will be instructed what to write. Influence is rarely so crude.

The more plausible danger is gradual institutional dependence: publishers structure their operations around public money; future funding becomes part of commercial planning; regulatory exposure increases; and the distance between government and those reporting upon it quietly narrows.

A free press must be economically viable. It must also remain capable of scrutinising government without seeking its approval, fearing its definition of bias or depending upon its continuing financial favour.

Labor’s conference delegates should recognise that the credibility of public-interest journalism depends not merely on keeping newsrooms open, but on ensuring the state cannot become simultaneously their benefactor, regulator and judge.

The post Labor’s media paradox: subsidising newsrooms while proposing powers to police ‘bias’ appeared first on insidecanberra.com.