I missed this, so thank you very much to a friend of the blog who directed my attention to a bill that Tony Burke introduced earlier this morning.

The amendment to the Home Affairs act aims to give the government more leeway in dealing with the cohort of people the High Court ordered be freed from indefinite detention.

The High Court ruled that the government could not act as the judiciary and impose indefinite detention sentences on people who either had their visas cancelled, or who were unable to be returned to their home countries after having an asylum claim rejected (or the people Australia refused to process because of how they arrived in Australia – but a reminder, it is not illegal to seek asylum under international law conventions Australia is a party to). This wasn’t a new problem – it has been an issue successive governments ignored until the high court ruling meant that Labor was forced to comply.

Attempts to set up two different sets of law also failed – turns out you can’t just write laws for one cohort of people. WHO KNEW (anyone with a working understanding of the law is the answer).

The new amendments Burke has put up seek to make it easier for the government to deport people who fall into this cohort. Australia doesn’t deport people back to countries where they may face death (although this has to be proven) which means third countries tend to be the answer. That’s been tricky under existing protections, so this amendment seeks to remove those:

The amendments in Division 1 of Part 1 of the Schedule to the Bill will insert new
section 198AHAA into the Migration Act to provide that the rules of natural justice do not
apply to:

• an exercise of executive power of the Commonwealth to:
• enter into a third country reception arrangement with a foreign country; or
• do anything preparatory to entering a third country reception arrangement
  with a foreign country; and
• the doing of a thing in relation to a third country reception arrangement with a
  foreign country, including in relation to the third country reception functions of a
  foreign country.
  The Migration Act will also be amended to provide that the rules of natural justice do not
  apply to the following:
• the exercise of a power under section 198AAA of the Migration Act to collect, use,
  or disclose to the government of a foreign country information (including personal
  information) about a removal pathway non-citizen or certain former removal
  pathway non-citizens; and
• the giving of removal pathway directions under section 199C of the Migration Act;
  and
• the collection, use or disclosure of criminal history information under 501M of the
  Migration Act

I’ll bring you some of Anika Wells short doorstop on Australia Post suspending parcel deliveries to the US in just a moment.

(Short version; we are keeping an eye on it, this is about protecting Australians from unintended consequences etc)

But let’s take a look at some more of the unhinged demands from the US president today, again thanks to AAP:

US President Donald Trump has threatened countries that have digital taxes with “subsequent additional tariffs” on their goods if those nations do not remove such legislation.

Sources said earlier on Monday that the Trump administration was considering imposing sanctions on European Union or member state officials responsible for implementing the bloc’s landmark Digital Services Act.

Many countries, particularly in Europe, have levied taxes on the sales revenue of digital service providers, including Alphabet’s Google, Meta’s Facebook, Apple and Amazon. The issue has been a longstanding trade irritant for multiple US administrations.

“With this TRUTH, I put all Countries with Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations, on notice that unless these discriminatory actions are removed, I, as President of the United States, will impose substantial additional Tariffs on that Country’s Exports to the USA., and institute Export restrictions on our Highly Protected Technology and Chips,” Trump said in a social media post.

In the post, Trump claimed that such legislation was “designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology” and that it gave a pass to firms from US tech rival China.

Trump has also previously threatened to impose tariffs on countries like Canada and France over differences related to the digital services taxes.

Trump in February ordered his trade chief to revive investigations aimed at imposing tariffs on imports from countries that levy digital service taxes on US technology companies.

Sky News is reporting there has been a bit of a flare up in the Coalition joint-party room meeting with MPs demanding that the net zero policy be resolved.

It is allegedly under review, but I think we all know what direction it is heading in.

Andrew Clennell reports that Alex Antic, Matt Canavan, Tony Pasin, Rick Wilson and Simon Kennedy all pushed for the issue to be resolved through a debate,

Michaelia Cash, who is firming up her position as one of the WA hard right conservatives, also demanded the matter be settled.

Sussan Ley is still trying to pretend she has any authority over the partyroom and that the backbench review of the policy positions needs to play out.

But you have to wonder why, at this point. The party is already making its views known, those views don’t matter in terms of the national debate and it has no bearing on actual policy – all it does is make it increasingly likely the Coalition will lose more seats at the next election.

So, ok, go off.

The Australian Conservation Foundation says Coles has become the last of the big three supermarkets to commit to stop bulldozing forest for the beef its uses in its supermarkets – but slowly.

Releasing its 2025 sustainability report on Tuesday, the supermarket said it will stop
sourcing beef linked to deforestation for all the beef it directly sources, up to 85% of its own‐
branded product, by the end of 2025, in accordance with the Science‐based Targets Initiative.

But they will take the partial commitment because of the size of the supermarket industry. But the ACF says the same can’t be said of Hungry Jacks which is yet to commit to a deforestation policy, and McDonalds permits it in its supply chain until 2030.

ACF’s nature and business lead Nathaniel Pelle said part of the reason Coles hasn’t done a 100% commitment is “due to Australia’s flawed traceability system and recalcitrant processors”.

Privately, the supermarkets say Australia’s big meat processors, dominated by
controversial Brazilian giant JBS and US‐based Cargill, are the main barrier to traceability, as
they withhold data. It shows why the Albanese government needs to take steps to ensure public funding of the national traceability system (NLIS) is conditional on the system being transparent

The bells are ringing which means the business of the day is about to get underway.

You can find the house here and the senate here.

An imperial revival is occurring under the second Trump presidency.

On this episode of After America, Allan Behm joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Democrat-voting cities, what the Trump-Putin talks mean for Netanyahu, and how a collapse of American democracy might impact Australia.

Sussan Ley has addressed the AI Group where she continued her pattern of saying a lot of words without actually adding any meaning to the debate (for context productivity was an issue under the Coalition which also had a deliberate policy of stamping down on wage growth. So what exactly does Ley mean by any of this?

Over the past week, the Treasurer convened a national Economic Reform Roundtable. 

It was a welcome conversation. 

But let’s be clear: after three years in office, Labor has only just started talking about the importance of productivity and meanwhile, much damage has already been done. 

Australia’s productivity has gone backwards. 

In fact, in just the last three years our productivity under this government has fallen by more than 5 per cent. 

Why does that matter? 

Because productivity is not just a line on a graph, it is the foundation of rising incomes, better services, and a stronger future. 

When productivity stalls, living standards fall. 

Since the Coalition left office living standards have plummeted by around 6 per cent. 

Australians are working harder, but getting less in return. 

The cost of living is rising and home ownership is slipping out of reach. 

Too many people feel like they’re running harder just to stand still.

That Australian promise – if you work hard, play by the rules and do your best for your family, you can build a better life – feels distant for many. 

We must do better, and we can do better.

Under my leadership the Coalition will be constructive where we can and critical where we must. 

We will back genuine reforms that lift national productivity and prosperity. 

But we will not accept empty gestures or policy drift. 

Where has Murray Watt landed on whether it should be the minister making the final decision when it comes to environmental protections/approvals or an independent body?

Watt told the ABC earlier today:

Well, I’m still consulting, so I guess once we’ve landed that position I’ll ensure that you and the rest of the world know. But there’s a small number of issues, including this one, where there are still some issues to work through with stakeholders.

But I’ve now undertaken more than 40 different meetings, roundtables, forums with everyone from mining groups to business groups to environment groups to the states and territories. We’ll keep consulting until we land these reforms because I think we need to remember, you know, it’s one thing to say that Graeme [Samuel’s] report came down nearly five years ago, but it’s been nearly 20 years since there’s been any proper overhaul of these laws. They’re not working for business. They’re not working for environment. If we don’t fix these laws we won’t get the housing we need. We won’t get the renewables we need and we certainly will continue to see the environment suffer.

Oh yes, but bipartisanship is important.

For the second time in as many years, Tasmanians elected a parliament in which no one party holds a majority of seats. The numbers are: 14 Liberal, 10 Labor, 5 Greens, 5 independents and 1 Shooter Party parliamentarian.  

This gave either Labor or Liberal the opportunity to govern. Labor needed the Greens and three other crossbenchers. The Liberals needed either the Greens or any four others.  

Negotiations ran for about a month after the 19 July election, concluding last week when the Labor Opposition’s no-confidence motion in the Rockliff Liberal Government failed. Not one crossbencher voted for Labor’s motion, nor have any made formal confidence and supply agreements with the Government.  

What happens now?  

Jeremy Rockliff remains Liberal Premier of Tasmania.  

The Government does not need a formal agreement with crossbenchers. They have the confidence of the Parliament unless they lose it.  

Nor are formal agreements any guarantee of stability; Rockliff made formal agreements with some crossbenchers after the 2024 state election, but that did not save him from a motion of no confidence in June 2025.  

In other words, agreements are neither necessary nor sufficient for stable government.  

How did negotiations play out? 

Labor were the favourites to form government, particularly after Rockliff rushed decisions on the TT-Line (a ferry operator seeking bigger loans) and the Marinus Link (an underwater power cable) – in possible breach of caretaker conventions. 

But Rockliff was prepared to compromise on environmental and animal welfare issues: 

• Pausing the expansion of salmon farming until an independent review takes place 

• Phasing out the greyhound racing industry  

• Backtracking on opening 40,000 hectares of native forest for logging  

• Legislating marine protections, in line with New South Wales and Victoria 

The Liberals also made an independent, Tania Rattray, the leader for the government in the upper house. This is a return to earlier practice.  

By contrast, Labor Opposition Leader Dean Winter let the perfect be the enemy of the good. He needed the Greens’ support to form government, but refused to do a deal and called them “the enemy of working people”. After Labor’s no-confidence motion failed, the party claimed “Tasmanians have just witnessed the coronation of a Liberal–Green government”, even though the motion would have failed regardless of how the Greens voted.  

Labor did propose:  

• Making an independent upper house MP, Ruth Forrest, the Treasurer. Forrest has had a long-standing interest in budget repair.  

• A suite of election and integrity reforms, described as a “framework” rather than a formal deal, including fixed four-year terms, truth in political advertising, right to information reform and replacement of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission with an anti-corruption commission. These were only published at the last minute, with an earlier preliminary version criticised as “integrity-lite”. 

Journalist Lucy Macdonald reflected on Labor’s approach:  

Not only did the opposition fail to gain the support of the Greens, who until recently appeared almost desperate to work with Labor, it could not convince a single other member of the crossbench that it was worthy of government. 

Could Labor take government by winning over the crossbench?  

It is possible to replace one government with another part-way through a parliamentary term. The Greens proposed this to Labor after the June motion of no confidence, but Labor declined.   

Labor has since changed leaders. It is possible that if the Tasmanian Parliament subsequently loses confidence in the Rockliff Government, they could get behind an alternative premier – including a Labor premier.  

This happened in 1941, during World War 2. The United Australia Party (precursor to the Liberal Party) was in power, with Robert Menzies as Prime Minister. Menzies lost the confidence of independent crossbenchers, and ultimately Labor’s John Curtin became Prime Minister.  

However, such a change in Tasmania seems unlikely in the short-term. 

What are the opportunities?  

Labor, the Greens and progressive independents have a majority in the Tasmanian House of Assembly, and the independent-dominated Legislative Council has proven amenable to reform.  

There have been examples of Opposition- or crossbench-led reform in the past, including industrial manslaughter laws, voluntary assisted dying and transgender rights. 

So even under Liberal Government, Parliament can legislate Labor and crossbench priorities. This term, those could include truth in political advertising laws, an anti-corruption watchdog with teeth and right to information laws that actually work.  

Voting for these laws would prove that Labor supports reform, something it asked the crossbench to accept on faith.  

This term of government could prove the best of both worlds: a progressive Parliament that legislates for integrity and transparency, with government ministers on notice on environment and budget issues.