The Canberra press pack is outside the Iranian embassy, where there is not a lot of movement, other than the journalists looking for some sort of movement.

So we are going to wrap it up for today and come back ready to go tomorrow morning. Tomorrow is going to be a weird day – if they aren’t already there, there will be a lot of media bosses floating around ahead of the Midwinter Ball being held Wednesday night. I would rather spend an evening stabbing myself with a rusty spoon than attend the ball, but each to their own I suppose.

Thank you to everyone who joined along for today – it went places didn’t it? No doubt there will be more fall out tomorrow, so I hope to see you back here. Thank you so much for joining us. We know you have choices, so it truly does mean the world.

Until then, take care of you. Ax

The Australian Jewish Council has responded to the announcement the Australia government was blaming Iran for some high profile anti-Semitic attacks:

Greens senator David Shoebridge says the home affairs amendment Tony Burke tabled this morning (without any fanfare, as you would expect) is a “cruel attack on refugees and migrants” aimed at stripping people of “the right to natural justice”.

This law is designed so that people can be forcibly removed to Nauru without having any right to
even see the application the government is making. It also removes their right to make
representations about why their removal would be unsafe, or explain to the Nauru government
why they should not be deported there.

When rights of natural justice are removed, critical matters like health concerns, family
connections and basic human decency get overridden, while damaging mistakes of fact are not
identified.

This legislation is even being made retrospective to address likely failures of natural justice that
have been raised in two separate court challenges to Labor’s efforts to forcibly remove people to
Nauru.

Shoebridge said Australia knows how dangerous this is for people because while Australia won’t deport someone back to a country where they could face torture or death, Nauru will:

Everyone should be equal under the law, no matter where they are born, but that can only
happen if people are given the right to be heard before decisions are made about them.
We know there are active court cases on this issue and by making this law retrospective Labor
is trying to validate past illegal practices by Home Affairs and defeat these cases with another
legislative deal with the Coalition.

Nauruan President Adeang made it clear last year that he intends to send anyone Australia
deports there back to the country from which they originally fled.

People rightfully don’t want to go to Nauru because they know they will face the very real risk of
being forcibly returned to danger, and they surely have the right to be heard before that happens
to them.”

The Human Rights Law Centre’s Whistleblower Project has just released a new report showing the distinct challenges women face when speaking out, and called for a Whistleblower Protection Authority to protect women whistleblowers.

The research analyses a year of client data from the Whistleblower Project, Australia’s first specialist legal service for whistleblowers. It finds women whistleblowers expose wrongdoing from across the public and private sectors, but speak up most commonly in healthcare, government, and education. In comparison to their men counterparts, they are more likely to speak up about the endangerment and mistreatment of others, making their voices critical in safeguarding against human rights abuses, sexual misconduct, and discrimination.

The majority of whistleblowers experienced retaliation for their actions, with women being more likely than men to report being bullied and harassed. In the healthcare sector, every single whistleblower — all of them women — faced retaliation for speaking up.

A Whistleblower Protection Authority is critical for supporting, empowering and protecting women whistleblowers, and all who dare who speak up. From the public who depend on ethical and accessible healthcare, to parents who entrust educational institutions with their children, a Whistleblower Protection Authority stands not only to protect our women whistleblowers, but also those who benefit from the wrongdoing they expose.

The Coalition’s party room climate spat has been covered by Kat Wong from AAP here:

A coalition quarrel over emissions reduction has been labelled a “collegiate discussion” by the opposition leader, while the party’s climate stance continues to unravel.

During a partyroom meeting on Tuesday, a group of coalition MPs called for a position on a 2035 emissions reduction target, a day after a Nationals push to scrap Australia’s net zero emissions goal returned to parliament.

The development highlights the deepening schisms between the coalition’s more conservative members, who back efforts to repeal the target, and moderate Liberals, who believe it must be retained to show the opposition is taking climate change seriously.

But Opposition Leader Sussan Ley insisted she would continue to welcome a “diversity of views”.

“I can 100 per cent guarantee that it was a collegiate discussion,” she told reporters in Canberra.

“We do need to take the time to get our energy policy right.

“I acknowledge that there is a diversity of views, and I respect them all – we will bring them all together.”

Asked if the opposition would hold a partyroom debate on emissions reduction targets, similar to that held on same-sex marriage in the 2010s, Ms Ley said she was “sure the opportunity and circumstances will deliver exactly that”.

The coalition has set up an energy working group that will decide on its policy, but the opposition leader said it must guarantee affordable power for households and families and ensure Australia plays its role in reducing emissions.

Liberal backbencher Simon Kennedy dismissed Labor’s net zero commitment as a “slogan” and not a policy.

But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hit back during his own partyroom meeting.

“You only reject net zero if you think climate change isn’t real,” he told the caucus.

The Climate Change Authority, which advises the government, is preparing advice on a 2035 emissions target between 65 and 75 per cent as Labor prepares to set its goal.

Analysis from Deloitte Access Economics has revealed a stronger 75 per cent target would offer comparatively “huge” benefits.

“Australia is in a race to secure the global capital required to establish green industries,” Deloitte Access Economics lead partner Pradeep Philip said.

“Setting a lower target today comes at the cost of lower business investment.

“Achieving a strong target creates the foundation for Australia’s economy to grow and compete in a decarbonised world.”

Under a 75 per cent emissions reduction goal, Australia’s GDP would be $370 billion greater by 2035 compared to current projections.

About 69,000 additional jobs would be supported each year over the next decade through the 75 per cent target, and it would drive $190 billion more in export revenue.

More than 350 businesses including Atlassian, IKEA, Ben & Jerry’s and Canva have signed an open letter urging the government to commit to at least a 75 per cent goal.

Data released by Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen found Australia is tracking well to meet its 2030 goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels.

Emissions have fallen by 1.4 per cent in the year to March 2025, meaning about 440.2 million tonnes were released in that period – about 28 per cent below 2005 levels

Labor is expected to set its 2035 target in the coming months, with more information to be revealed in September.

“We do want to have ambitious targets to make sure that we secure that energy transition that will deliver the cheaper and cleaner energy that our industry needs and that all Australians need,” Environment Minister Murray Watt told Sky News.

“Having those targets is a really key.”

The Greens have urged Labor to go further and implement a net zero by 2035 target.

“Net zero by 2035 is what the science tells us we need to keep warming at manageable levels … anything above that will be a green light for yet more damage to our communities and to nature,” Greens leader Larissa Waters told reporters.

Anika Wells said a little earlier that she hopes that Australia Post is able to work out “a solution with US authorities” so packages can once again be sent from Australia to the US.

But then, Australia is not alone here.

Over in the senate and independent senator David Pocock has some things to say about ANU’s statement to the education regulator and the man is not impressed:

Having read the self assurance report the ANU Vice-Chancellor has provided to the higher education regulator TEQSA it is more clear to me than ever how manifestly inadequate the response is given the extraordinarily serious allegations that have been made.

I find particularly offensive the attempt to gaslight staff by citing letters and votes of no confidence as evidence of staff not being afraid to voice their concerns.

The report acknowledges that the ANU does not have sufficient or appropriate processes for complaints made against senior leadership.

I fail to see how a process overseen by Council can in any way be construed as independent given the clear conflicts of interest.

I maintain that following not one but two resignations from Council and corroborated testimony to a senate committee inquiry, it is not only appropriate but the responsibility of Council to require the Chancellor to step aside while these matters are investigated by a truly independent third party.

Question time saw the issue of trusts raised, with the opposition trying to paint the government as about to crack down on trusts in order to raise more revenue.

First, lets hope this is the case. There has been a rapid increase in discretionary trusts. Outside of reducing tax, discretionary trusts have no real purpose.

They are complicated tax structures used by high income earners to avoid paying tax. But even if you don’t think the government should be raising more revenue, as the opposition does, there are still very good reasons why you would want to get rid of them.

The opposition could agree that we get rid of discretionary trusts and use the additional revenue to cut income taxes. At the moment it is the wealthy who take the biggest advantage of discretionary trusts. Most people can’t use them. Why set up a tax system where only a small group can avoid tax. It would be better, even if you didn’t want to raise more revenue, to have a simpler tax system with lower tax rates.

Both sides of politics talk about simpler taxation. Trusts are the very opposite of simple.

The opposition often call for taxes to be lower, simpler, and fairer. You could achieve all three if you scrapped discretionary trusts.

Mike Bowers has been busy running around for The New Daily, and I have liberated some of his work for you, here:

We are not made to endure as much as yesterday, which was just an OUTRAGEOUS ask from all of us.

Thank Dolly.