The federal government is about to be forced to release a draft response to a landmark gambling reform report, which has been left untouched for more than two years.

Communications Minister Anika Wells, who picked up the portfolio after Labor’s May 3 election win, has flagged upcoming changes to gambling advertising.

Her first meeting outside of department briefings was with Rod Glover, the husband of late Labor MP Peta Murphy, who championed a ban on gambling ads.

A draft response by the communications department to the “you win some, you lose more” report handed down by a bipartisan parliamentary committee was prepared for the previous minister in November 2024.

But the department refused to release the 32-page document under freedom of information laws.

The Murphy report’s key recommendation was to phase out gambling advertising on television and online, which received unanimous support from Labor, coalition and crossbench MPs on the committee.

Labor’s draft policy, which was never formally released but briefed to stakeholders in mid-2024, included banning betting ads during, before and after live sports broadcasts and limiting them to two an hour outside of that parameter.

Independent senator David Pocock is pushing to have the draft recommendations and ministerial briefings released under a Senate order for the production of documents, after freedom of information requests were similarly rejected.

The Liberals and the Greens have given their support, meaning his order is set to pass the Senate on Wednesday, giving Labor until the end of the month to comply or explain why they will continue to keep the documents secret.

A third order requests correspondence between the prime minister and gambling sector representatives and lobbying efforts from sporting codes after he intervened to shelve any action before the election.

Labor’s inaction was “one of the biggest failures of the last parliament and a wrong I hope we can right this time”, Senator Pocock told AAP.

Reform advocates are keen to find a middle ground, arguing the longer the status quo goes on, the more people are being hurt as there are few restrictions on gambling advertising.

While stakeholders are pushing for a blanket ban, there is an openness to compromise on restricting when betting ads can be broadcast on live TV.

They’re also pushing hard for a complete advertising ban on social media and on inducements, which is when gambling companies entice people to bet more by offering incentives such as bonus bets.

But the gambling lobby is strongly against a blanket social media ban, instead saying technology could be used to avoid targeting children.

The sector is similarly opposed to stopping inducements.

There is a willingness to discuss stopping broad inducement advertising, but gambling companies want to retain the right to push advertising to people signed up to their platforms

The Murphy review recommended that the government immediately prohibit online gambling inducements and their advertising.

Commercial broadcasters and sports codes argued they needed advertising revenue to stay viable, while gambling companies warned a blanket ban would push Australians into using illegal overseas wagering sites.

The AFL and NRL receive tens of millions of dollars a year as a cut from gambling agencies.

Some advocates are hopeful there will be an announcement on the next steps before the end of the year, with the federal government yet to respond to the landmark report 25 months after it was handed down.

National Gambling Helpline 1800 858 858

Today there has been some pretty credulous reporting around the traps by journalists who should know better about a Centre for Independent Studies report that suggest government spending is out of control.

I don’t really want to get into a think tank war, but this report got big coverage in the AFR and might spur some debate so I thought it worth running a comb through the pages and see if we find any lice.

And yeah we do. A lot.

I know some of you are stretched for time, so here’s a quick summary of the paper:

1. Police, teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters, defence personnel and anyone working in care are unproductive because they get money via the govt (just trust us this must be true)
2. Relying on public health is less productive than… errr what happens in the USA (oh dear)
3. Australia has a big public sector (if you exclude the biggest spending nations and also ignore the data that shows we actually have a very small govt)
4. Countries with big public sectors are inefficient (but please don’t ask us to provide any evidence of this) 
5. If we have more govt spending then we will have less charity and philanthropy (seriously)

Ok, So now you know the big strokes, let’s get into it.

First off the report was given a cosy run in the AFR with the headline “More than 50pc of voters now rely on government for their main income”. This if course is meant to scare you because it wants you to think they are talking about welfare dependency because of the idiotic belief that providing assistance for those on low-incomes or with caring and disability concern is a bad thing. The only problem is that JUST LAST WEEK the Parliamentary Library put out a report on “Working-age income support recipients”.

What did it find?

• In June 2023, close to 12% of the population aged 15–64 received income support payments—the lowest level in more than 45 years. June 2024 was only slightly higher at around 13%.
• The long-term decline in working-age welfare receipt is partly due to previous governments’ policy changes restricting eligibility for some payments, phasing-out other payments, and tight targeting through means testing.

So clearly the suggestion that somehow Australians are massively dependant upon welfare is wrong. So what is the CIS talking about?

They are talking about public servants which includes (hold your breath) teachers, public nurses and doctors, care workers, defence personnel, police, and anyone who receives money through the NDIS (eg a speech therapist whose patient is NDIS funded) – basically anyone who can be included in the “non-market” sector of the economy.  

Yeah. Suddenly it all seems rather a stretch. Once they add that up and also welfare recipients the paper says “it is likely that more than half of voters rely on government for most of their income.” Cripes, couldn’t even be bothered actually providing a precise number.

Ok, so why is this even a bad thing? Well the CIS says “Bigger government also corrodes ‘social capital’, which is a way of describing the ties that keep society functioning effectively — such as extended family supports, philanthropy, charities, volunteering and the spirit of self-reliance in place of state dependency.”

Seriously. They are arguing that big govt is bad because it lessens the need for philanthropy.

Talk about threatening us all with a good time.

They also think that teachers, nurses, police, defence personal are in effect leeches on society because they are “dependent” on govt funding and this means they will all want wage rises which means more govt spending.  

They also suggest that the government arguing for better pay for care workers was a bad thing. The report doesn’t want to think they are cruel, because it notes that “this is not to deny that many of these workers perform useful and sometimes vital services for the rest of the population and are motivated by high ideals of service.” But you know… fuck ‘em.

Because the paper is pretending to be a serious bit of analysis instead of a ideological brain fart, it tries to link all this government spending  with productivity. Does it do this with data and facts? Oh my sweet naive child. Please no. Merely the paper asserts that “As government spending grows, the marginal benefits become smaller while the marginal costs of financing the higher spending through taxation or borrowing increase.” Any proof of this? Nope.

For example, they could have compared the level of government spending and productivity across the advanced economies in the OECD. But then that would have shown that higher govt spending is associated with economies with higher levels of productivity. Oops

So what is the up shot? Apparently we are “moving toward European-style welfare state dimensions.”

Please. If only. This claim is completely without any basis in reality or fact. As we know welfare dependency is at record lows. But idiotic ideological reports its seems continue to grow…

There is a bit of too and fro over some of the changing standing orders in the house.

Governments usually use the first sitting of the parliament to update the standing orders – which are the rules which govern the chambers.

Last parliament, Labor updated the standing orders to allow for more questions from the crossbench, which the Coalition were not happy about because it meant they got less.

This time round, Labor is changing the standing orders so when recording a vote, if there is six or less people against the vote, then those names will be recorded, but the ayes and the absents will not.

It is not a huge deal, but it does make the job of some of the accountability sites which have sprung up which look at how MPs vote on issues, a little harder. Some of those sites already struggled when votes were recorded ‘on the voices’ which means that it’s the louder ayes or noes.

But if you vote against something, your vote will be recorded.

Zali Steggall moved this change to disorderly conduct:

A Member’s conduct shall be considered disorderly if the Member has:

 (a)persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

 (b)used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw;

 (c)persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order;

 (d)wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;

 (e)persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Speaker; or

 (f)been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner, including behaviour that is intimidating, harassing or bullying.

And then Allegra Spender tried – but the question was ‘put and negatived’ which means the government said no

We’re so often told that domestic and foreign policy are entirely separate things. That our alliance with the US is “above” presidents and prime ministers, and sometimes, above politics altogether.

As Amy reported this morning, just last night the Australian Foreign Minister got stuck in to the Coalition because they “always seek to create domestic politics in circumstances where you really need to be adult and mature and navigate a diplomatic relationship.”

Tell that to President Trump, who’s busy projecting his hateful domestic politics out into the world. Today, the US Olympic Committee has effectively banned trans women from participation in Olympic sports, in direct response to a Trump Executive Order.

That’s going to highlight some big questions facing progressive governments across the world – how can they, in good faith, send trans and non-binary athletes to the LA Olympics in 2028, when their safety might be at risk?

And of course it’s not just trans people who might be in danger. Athletes have already been denied entry into the US because of Trump’s travel bans, and there are big questions about not just the Olympics but the FIFA World Cup too, which the US is hosting next year. Athletes, national sports bodies and spectators are going to have to weigh up some serious risks to their safety versus participating in those global competitions. A bunch of countries are already issuing travel advisories to trans and non-binary people.

If you want to read more about this issue, I had a chat to the ABC about it last week. 

This is all happening as part of the Trump administration’s radical approach to gender more broadly. At the same time as the administration is attacking and undermining trans rights, it’s reminding women where it thinks they belong. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth just removed the first woman to head the US Naval Academy and replaced her with a man. Hegseth is, in the words of Tom Nichols over at The Atlantic (not exactly a radical himself) “on a mission to erase women from the top ranks of the U.S. armed forces.” 

These are just more examples of how, no matter how much we might want to, we can’t draw lines between what happens inside the US and what it does in the world.

Jason Clare introduces the HECS bill. (Photo by Mike Bowers for The New Daily)

Labor are VERY happy with this bill. There were social media videos ready to go from yesterday preparing for this.

Here is what Jason Clare had to say in his media list (which the prime minister also jumped in on)

We promised we would cut your student debt by 20 per cent and we are delivering.

This is a big deal for 3 million Australians, in particular, a lot of young Australians.

Just out of uni, just getting started, this will take a weight off their back.

It will also cut their annual repayments. For someone earning $70,000 a year, it will cut the amount they have to repay every year by $1,300.”

That’s real help with the cost of living. It means more money in your pocket, not the government’s.”

Barnaby Joyce just popped up to the parliamentary press gallery to have a spray about net zero.

Which is hilarious, because the Nationals are going to blow up the Coalition over this and it doesn’t matter. It truly does not matter for Australian policy where the Nationals or the Coalition land on this because they are not going to be in power for six years.

But anyway, we all need some sport from time to time.

Here is what Liberal senator Jane Hume had to say about net zero this morning on Sky News:

Over and over again now, the electorate has told us that they want to see a net zero energy future. They want to see emissions down. That’s what successive elections have told us. Now, my personal opinion is that this is profoundly important for not just the electorate, but also for our country. We want to make sure, though, that that transition to a lower emissions future is seen through the lens of an economic problem, because that is exactly what it is. We want to make sure that we have abundant energy in this country, but we also want to make sure that we bring down emissions and that we make sure that we have a better future and a better planet for our children and their children.”

So that is going to be fun!

The SMH has a story this morning reporting on comments by the Deputy to the Associate Director (Defence) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (phew), Jerry Hendrix. The comments are old – he made them last year – but they’re being dragged up because Hendrix is now supposed to be overseeing the revitalisation of the sluggish American shipbuilding industry – the same one that needs to catch up on its own production needs before it can hand over any submarines to Australia as part of the Aukus deal (which is very unlikely).

Hendrix said that “the Australians have been noticeably fickle” about the deal. Which, lol. This is coming from the same administration that has itself put the deal to a review because it’s not convinced it’s consistent with Trump’s “America First” agenda. It’s also the same administration that accepted an $800 million no-strings-attached deposit and then turned around and slapped tariffs on Australian aluminium and steel. Oh, and the same one that is threatening Australian pharmaceutical exports because our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme gets a fair price for life-saving medicines from US drug companies. Maybe we could talk about being “noticeably fickle” about free trade agreements?

It’s also worth mentioning that Hendrix is now in this role partly because the administration is – you guessed it – a bit fickle. Not that long ago, Trump issued an executive order setting up a shipbuilding unit in the National Security Council – where you’d expect something like this to sit. But that didn’t last. As the SMH reports, the NSC was downsized, the guy who was originally in charge left for the private sector, and the role was moved to OMB. That’s important too, but for less fickle reasons. OMB sits in the Executive Branch and “serves the President of the United States in overseeing the implementation of his vision.” OMB was specifically identified by Project 2025 as a vehicle for further concentrating power and authority in the hands of the president.

That’s the same president the Australian government is relying on to stick to the Aukus deal. A deal it is currently reviewing. It looks increasingly likely that the review will come back demanding what could be described as conditionality on steroids. Australia getting those Virginia class submarines will be conditional on two factors: first, the needs of the US Navy being met in all respects first, which even the Americans think is unlikely. And second, an Australian pre-commitment to future US military adventures. That should be a red line for any sovereign nation. And it should encourage us to be as fickle as possible and rethink the deal in its entirety.

It shouldn’t have to be said, but really – in a healthy democracy, putting a deal the size and scope of Aukus to a parliamentary review should be welcome. Not least because we’re now dealing with an administration that at best could be described as “fickle”. 

If you’re feeling fickle yourself, you can pop on over and sign our petition calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the Aukus deal. 

It turns out our governments aren’t just giving most of our gas away for free to foreign owned gas corporates. They’re also handing back the much of the meagre royalties they do bother to collect!

Yes, that’s right. The same governments who don’t charge any royalties on over half the gas exported from Australia, who managed to concocted a Petroleum Resource Rent Tax that no gas export projects has ever paid, are now funneling the meagre royalties they do collect on oil back to Chevron, Santos and Exxon.

That’s at least $500 million, almost half the royalties these companies have paid for their lucrative Barrow Island oil project over the last 40 years, to clean up the environmental destruction of one of WA’s most important ecosystems.

Yes, these companies have managed turn WA’s second largest island, and formerly pristine Class A nature Reserve, Barrow Island, into a “contaminate site” as it is now classified by the WA Government. Even if thats possible, itwill cost a bomb, and Ausie taxpyers will food the bill.

If you or I get caught littering, we pay a fine. If Big Gas destroy an island, they get a tax refund.

Its complete policy and regulatory failure. Big Gas has captured out governments. Surely its time for a comprehensive public inquiry into the mismanagement of Australia’s gas resources!

I’ve asked organisers for a list of politicians who have read out names from the book of Palestinian children killed by Israel. This vigil comes after Australia signed a statement calling for an immediate end to Israel’s war on Gaza by the way. It’s not as if it’s ‘complicated’.

Ed Husic – Labor

Mehreen Faruqi – Greens

David Shoebridge – Greens

Larissa Waters – Greens

Nick McKim – Greens

Penny Allman-Payne – Greens

David Pocock – Independent

Independents Andrew Wilkie and Fatima Payman are scheduled to read names later today. Labor’s Alicia Payne had been scheduled (and was among the list of names on the vigil’s media alert, but cancelled. Independent Sophie Scamps came to the vigil but did not read names.

Other notable names include Mohamed Duar, the Amnesty Lead for the Occupied Territories of Palestine, Dr Jordy Silverstein, cultural historian and advocate , Sarah Schwartz, lawyer and executive officer of the Jewish council of Australia, Suzan Waheb, the president of the Palestinian Christians Australia, Sara Saleh, author and poet, Ahmed Abadia from the Palestine Justice Movement in Sydney, author, broadcaster, writer and speaker Clementine Ford and First Nations rapper Dobby and so many more – health care workers, midwives, actors, activists and just people who needed to do more than just watch.

Meanwhile Sussan Ley did the rounds this morning. She is trying to keep a chipper face on things.

Asked how she was feeling by the Nine Network,and whether it was a bit frosty in the church yesterday (you can see the pics below where Mike Bowers caught Ley and Albanese looking like divorced parents at a wedding) Ley said:

It’s terrific to be back doing a strong job in opposition, holding the government to account, and working constructively for the national interest for the Australian people. The Prime Minister and I are fine, by the way. We see each other at many public events, and we see each across the despatch box, too. And we’ll be doing that today at 2pm.