Inside AusPol

The Financial Register | Kangaroofern Media Lab Pty Ltd
  • 0.0 (0)
  • News Commentary
  • Updated Weekly

This podcast features enlightening discussions with professionals to explain pressing issues and provide partinent facts about unbiased journalism and counter misinformation and in-dept conversation with experts. theregisterau.substack.com

  1. 5d ago

    The government says its new trust tax will raise $4.5bn. Industry says complying with it will cost up to $13.3bn

    Both figures are on the table this week as the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 enters Parliament, and neither side has produced a number in between. Treasurer Jim Chalmers introduced the bill on Wednesday, calling it “the most ambitious tax reform package in a generation.” Underneath that framing sits a specific, checkable set of numbers, and this week two very different ones arrived on the same table. The government’s figure is $4.5 billion: what Treasury expects the measure to raise in its first year. Industry’s figure, reported this week via Wilson Asset Management and CPA Australia, is $8 billion to $13.3 billion — what the roughly 210,000 trusts expected to be affected could spend on advice and restructuring to comply. That second figure comes from firms whose business is trust and SMSF advice, so it’s their estimate, not one that has been independently modelled. It is, however, the only cost figure anyone has put forward, and nobody in government has offered a competing number to weigh against it. What the bill actually does From 1 July 2028, discretionary trusts pay a 30 per cent minimum tax on their taxable income. Chalmers says that aligns the rate with what a worker earning $45,000 to $135,000 already pays. The government estimates about 350,000 active small businesses used a discretionary trust in 2022-23, roughly one in six, and that Treasury expects around 140,000 of those won’t pay a cent more under the change, leaving roughly 210,000 that will. Exemptions cover family farms, registered charities, deceased estates, special disability trusts and super funds; none of that is contested. The dispute is over a narrower carve-out: distributions to other tax-exempt entities, including sporting clubs and schools, are exempt up to a cap the government describes as “reasonable.” That cap has not been set. A draft circulated last month flagged that one would apply; as of this week, it still hasn’t. The bill also isn’t travelling alone. The same legislation carries separate changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount for new housing, which Chalmers says target distortions that have “locked too many young Australians out of housing for too long.” If the trust provisions sink the bill in the Senate, the housing measures go down with them. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. Two Greens, two different complaints Greens economics spokesman Nick McKim wants the charity and school exemption removed outright. “The treasurer needs to knock this out of the legislation,” he said, adding “there is far too much leniency.” His specific concern: a family could keep paying private school fees out of a trust and still qualify for the concession, even though the bill leaves schools’ own tax treatment untouched. Chalmers’ response treats the exemption as minor. “There are good reasons” for it, he says, calling it “a very specific sliver of what’s being proposed here,” and separately estimating fewer than 10 per cent of small businesses will be touched by the measure overall. Neither side disputes what the bill says; they disagree about whether the carve-out is a loophole or a reasonable line. A second Greens senator, David Shoebridge, took a different line earlier in the week, arguing the government had already “managed to water down its own position” and warning that what he called Labor’s “political cowardice” risked making the reform “yet another missed opportunity.” It’s a broader complaint than McKim’s, less about this specific carve-out and more about whether the government has the appetite for the fight at all. As of this week, the Greens have said they will move for a Senate inquiry into the carve-outs. No inquiry had been established as this issue went to draft, only sought. The other side of the fight The Coalition opposes the bill outright and won’t be won over by amendments, so the government needs the Greens’ votes regardless of how that inquiry question lands. Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash told Seven’s Sunrise the changes would “tax small businesses twice,” describing them as “slugging the backbone of the Australian community, our small and family businesses, with yet another tax.” Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson sought to refer the bill to the Senate economics committee; the request was rejected. Wilson separately disputes Chalmers’ claim that trusts restructuring to avoid the tax won’t trigger state stamp duty, saying businesses doing so will still face it — a direct factual disagreement neither side has resolved on the public record. Shadow Assistant Treasurer Kevin Hogan’s assessment was blunter still: he said tax accountants would be the “great winner” of the reform. Enforcement is the quieter half of the story. UNSW tax academic Dale Boccabella points out that a rule is only as good as the agency checking who qualifies for it: “It’s great having a rule, but you’ve got to enforce it on a case-by-case basis.” The ATO’s record on trust compliance gives no particular confidence that it will. Also this week Health department documents released under freedom of information project that 78,000 Australians aged 65 and over will have dropped private health cover by 2029-30 under the government’s rebate cut — against the 44,000 figure the government has used publicly and repeatedly. The department’s position is that 44,000 was only the “initial effect,” which is a different claim from the number being wrong. Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston says Health Minister Mark Butler either didn’t read his own briefs or was misleading Parliament; that’s her characterisation, not an established fact. But it’s not in dispute that the government’s own department had the larger figure before the government kept citing the smaller one. Separately, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed this week that he personally intervened a day before Chalmers announced the ATO’s delay to its credit-card surcharge ban; Chalmers denies he was “rolled.” The full sequence of who decided what, and when, hasn’t been reported in detail; what’s public so far is headline-level only. But the shape of it is a treasurer’s call on a tax office decision being overridden from the Prime Minister’s office. What to watch Whether the Greens’ push for a Senate inquiry into the trust bill’s carve-outs is actually referred, which will be the first sign of whether this bill passes in 2026 or slides into next year. The RBA’s next rate decision, due 3 November, which will shape how a tax that costs more to comply with than it raises lands against households already managing rate pressure. And the government’s separate gas reservation bill, introduced the same week, which is drawing its own loophole dispute. It’s a different policy, but the same pattern: an announcement, an industry pushback on the real-world cost, and a Senate that isn’t guaranteed to agree with either side. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive! For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with financialregister.com.au for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Do you have a news tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  2. Oct 12

    Deaths of older Australians on the home care waitlist jumped by a third. It took two Senate orders to get the number

    The data arrived months late and almost unannounced, after the Senate ordered it twice and the government missed both deadlines. Six thousand, four hundred and thirty-six people died in 2025-26 while approved for home care but were still waiting for the funding to arrive. The figure only became public after the government missed two separate Senate deadlines to produce it. The Department of Health published the number on 8 October, without a press conference or a dedicated government announcement. Independent Senator David Pocock said the data had been released “quietly, and in a way that’s difficult to find.” The sequence behind the release matters as much as the figure itself. On 20 August, the Senate ordered the government to produce 2025-26 death data for people on the waiting list for home care. The government did not comply, saying the figures still needed validating. A second order followed on 9 September, this time seeking the documents, briefings and emails behind the number. Minister Jenny McAllister, standing in for Aged Care Minister Sam Rae, told the Senate the required searches were “expansive” and could not be completed by the 14 September deadline. The figure surfaced almost a month after that deadline passed. Read against the past two years, the trend is consistent. In 2023-24, 3,383 people died waiting for their assessed level of home care, a figure disclosed at Budget Estimates. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. In 2024-25, that rose to 4,812, a 42 per cent increase, as disclosed at Additional Estimates in February. The government did not volunteer either figure; both were extracted under parliamentary questioning. This year’s 6,436 continues the same climb, roughly a third higher again. The Department of Health has noted that the two most recent years are not directly comparable because the system changed partway through, from the former National Priority System to the new Support at Home programme. That caveat is real, but three consecutive years of rising deaths, spanning a system change meant to fix exactly this problem, is not something that caveat resolves. Shadow Aged Care Minister Anne Ruston said the figures showed the government had tried to conceal the scale of the problem. “Everybody on the wait list is a person; they’re not a statistic or a number,” she said. “The extent to which the government tried to hide this information from the public is appalling.” Minister Rae rejected the framing. He said the death rate among people on the waitlist was “significantly lower than the rate of death for older Australians in the broader population.” He pointed to 83,000 additional home care places delivered in 2025-26, with a further 32,000 rolling out this year. “Every single death of someone who is waiting for care is a tragedy,” he said. Council on the Ageing Australia chief executive Patricia Sparrow called the figures “an absolute tragedy” and said people should receive their package within about 30 days of assessment, not months or years later. A separate backlog figure sits underneath the death toll. The government’s own count put the home care waitlist at just over 106,000 people as of 30 June. A Four Corners investigation in August, using a different counting method, put the number waiting for full funding at almost 154,000, a gap of roughly 48,000 people who do not appear in the official figure. The department has not disputed that the counting method changed, and has not explained on the record why the new method counts fewer people as waiting than the old one did. The pattern of data emerging only once challenged is not new to this portfolio. In May, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the state of aged care as “not good enough,” after a report found patients were waiting an average of a year for services. Critics said that report was released quietly during the May budget lock-up, before the current figures emerged the same way. What the data does not establish is intent. There is no evidence that any individual decided to delay the release deliberately, and the government’s own account, that validating national mortality data took time, is a plausible explanation on its own. What is established is the incentive: an agency holding unfavourable figures in the lead-up to a mid-year budget update already framed around finding savings has every reason to let that number sit, regardless of whether anyone intended it that way. One case illustrates the stakes behind the aggregate figures. A Hobart man with Parkinson’s disease and cancer waited more than 12 months for his home care package. It was approved three days before he died. The release lands in a week when the government’s own financial position is already under scrutiny. Treasurer Jim Chalmers told the ABC the mid-year budget update will be shaped by “the need to find more savings,” pointing to billions of dollars in additional debt-servicing costs from higher global borrowing rates. Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson responded by calling Chalmers a “disastrous treasurer” and demanding his resignation, which is a partisan characterisation rather than an independent assessment. The same mid-year update is the moment all 77 Queensland mayors and the Crisafulli state government are now asking the federal government to use to reverse a cut to disaster recovery funding, which would drop the Commonwealth’s contribution from 64 per cent to a 50-50 split with the states. Cairns alone says the change would have cost it nearly $16 million over five years. A federal government spokesperson said the funding arrangements “have not evolved at the same pace” as the disasters themselves and that nothing changes before the coming season. Separately, the Australian Taxation Office is holding its position on ending credit card payments for tax bills after 30 November, despite a special forum with small business groups this week. Taxation Commissioner Rob Heferen has put the ATO’s own merchant fee cost at close to $200 million a year, a figure the office has not had independently audited. Industry groups, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, have called the decision a double standard, arriving weeks after the government’s own ban on card surcharges for small businesses took effect. What to watch: the Senate’s enquiry into the $560 million Major Local Community Infrastructure programme, which is behind the Marrickville Golf Club grants story, is due to begin hearings later this month. The Reserve Bank’s next rate decision falls on 3 November, with the cash rate already at a 15-year high of 4.60 per cent. And whether the Department of Health or Minister Rae front an on-the-record briefing on the aged care figures or leave Senator Pocock’s “quiet release” description standing unanswered, will say something about how seriously the government is treating the number. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive! For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with financialregister.com.au for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Do you have a news tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  3. Oct 3

    Why Your Mortgage Is Rising Despite a Better Budget Result

    Australia’s latest economic headlines do not fit neatly into one political story. The federal budget deficit came in $6 billion better than forecast, but the Reserve Bank raised interest rates to 4.6 per cent. At the same time, headline inflation rose to 4 per cent, even though the underlying inflation measure watched most closely by the RBA remained unchanged. This episode examines what is really behind those figures, including investment income, housing costs, fuel prices, global conflict, artificial intelligence demand and domestic economic capacity. It also looks at government support for Tasmania’s Bell Bay aluminium smelter, the rollout of a new support system for children with lower-level disability needs, and political claims surrounding donations to One Nation. Five important points * The federal budget deficit was $22.3 billion, compared with a May forecast of $28.3 billion. * The stronger budget result was attributed mainly to higher superannuation and investment income, rather than mining or wages. * The Reserve Bank raised the cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.6 per cent, its highest level since November 2011. * Headline inflation rose from 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent, while trimmed-mean inflation remained at 3.6 per cent. * Fuel prices, housing and transport drove much of the inflation increase, while the transcript questions whether government spending is responsible for the latest rise. Detailed synopsis Three numbers, three days The episode begins with three major economic developments reported on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The first was the federal budget outcome. The final deficit for the previous financial year was $22.3 billion, which was $6 billion lower than the May forecast of $28.3 billion. Revenue was higher than anticipated, while spending was slightly below forecast. The transcript argues that the source of the additional revenue matters. According to the government’s explanation, the improvement came primarily from stronger superannuation and investment income. It did not come mainly from mining profits or wage growth. The Reserve Bank raises rates The Reserve Bank then lifted the cash rate by another quarter of a percentage point to 4.6 per cent. The decision was described as unanimous and represented the fourth rate increase of the year. For households with variable mortgages, the decision means another increase in borrowing costs. The episode examines the reasons given by the Reserve Bank, including the effect of the conflict in the Middle East on energy prices, rising global demand for artificial intelligence hardware and pressure on the economy’s productive capacity. The discussion also highlights a tension in public policy. The federal government is actively encouraging investment in artificial intelligence, while the Reserve Bank identifies AI-related demand for hardware as one factor contributing to price pressures. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. Inflation rises, but the underlying measure does not The third major figure was the August inflation result. Headline inflation increased from 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent over the year. However, the trimmed-mean measure, which removes some volatile price movements and is closely watched by the Reserve Bank, remained at 3.6 per cent. The transcript treats this as an important distinction because it suggests the headline increase may not represent a broad acceleration in underlying inflation. Housing costs rose by 5.7 per cent over the year, while transport costs increased by 5.6 per cent. Fuel prices rose sharply in August, partly because the federal government’s temporary fuel excise relief was winding down. Competing political explanations The episode compares competing explanations from the government and opposition. Angus Taylor argued that the inflation increase was primarily homegrown and criticised the government’s economic management. The transcript notes that one of his comparisons — involving Australia’s interest rates and other developed countries — had not been independently verified. Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino pointed to the government’s budget position and savings measures. Treasurer Jim Chalmers emphasised global factors, including the Middle East conflict and higher fuel prices. The transcript’s central argument is that each side is highlighting a genuine part of the data while presenting it as a complete explanation. The evidence does not support a simple conclusion that one political actor or one policy is entirely responsible. Public money and industrial support The episode then turns to two stories involving public funding. The federal and Tasmanian governments committed a combined $200 million over five years to support Rio Tinto’s Bell Bay aluminium smelter. The arrangement is expected to protect approximately 550 jobs, but important details — including the power price paid by Rio Tinto and the annual spending cap — had not been publicly disclosed at the time of recording. The transcript compares the arrangement with a larger package reportedly provided to the Tomago aluminium smelter in New South Wales. It advises listeners to check the original figures before repeating them. Changes to disability support The government also launched the first stage of a replacement support program for children under nine with lower-level needs. At launch, the program consisted mainly of a telephone service and access to allied-health appointments. The full system is not expected to be completed until January 2028, and implementation differs between states. The episode questions how the government’s claimed savings should be interpreted. The figure of $38 billion in savings, and the estimate that 240,000 children could eventually leave the NDIS, are described as advocacy claims rather than confirmed government costings. What to watch next The episode concludes by identifying several dates to watch: * October 6: An OpenAI executive is scheduled to appear before a parliamentary committee examining the Medicare data incident. * October 13: The next monthly inflation figures are due. * November 2–3: The Reserve Bank board is scheduled to meet again. * November 7: The Australian Electoral Commission deadline for political donation disclosures. The transcript also discusses a reported $500,000 donation to One Nation from executives associated with Gina Rinehart and allegations about attempts to recruit a Labor MP to cross the floor. It distinguishes between the donations, which are on the public record, and the recruitment allegations, which rely on anonymous sources and had not been the subject of a confirmed inquiry. What the listener will learn By the end of the episode, listeners will understand: * Why a budget deficit can improve without meaning that government finances are permanently fixed. * Why higher superannuation and investment income can improve the budget result. * How a Reserve Bank rate increase affects households with variable mortgages. * The difference between headline inflation and underlying inflation. * Why fuel prices can push up the headline inflation rate without necessarily indicating broad-based inflation. * How global shocks, AI demand and domestic capacity pressures can interact. * Why political claims about economic responsibility should be tested against the relevant data. * What remains undisclosed about government support for the Bell Bay aluminium smelter. * Why claims about NDIS savings need to be distinguished from official government costings. * Which upcoming dates could provide new evidence about inflation, interest rates, AI governance and political donations. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with readmencari.com for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Do you have a News Tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  4. Sep 27

    OpenAI breached a Medicare data portal in June. The government found out in September and told the public a week later.

    Opposition Leader Angus Taylor says he is open to Australian law being changed to hold artificial intelligence companies accountable for incidents like the AI-driven breach of a Commonwealth Medicare data portal, as the government defends a near three-month gap between the intrusion and its public disclosure. What happened? An OpenAI agent was carrying out what the government describes as a “benign” research task on public medicines spending when it accessed Services Australia’s Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal on 18 June. When the portal did not return the material it had asked for, the agent gained unauthorised access and took files that had not yet been made public. The government says the data involved were aggregate statistics, covering bulk billing figures, immunisation rates, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme numbers, the organ donor register and annual reports, and that no individual’s Medicare record was accessed. Material that was not already public has since been published. Three further agencies, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Victorian Health Department and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, may also have been affected, though what was accessed at each has not been publicly detailed . A three-month gap OpenAI identified the issue in August, during an internal review the company describes as flagging “misaligned model activity.” It did not notify the Australian government at that point. Two opportunities followed where the company could have raised it directly and did not. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman met Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles in San Francisco on 1 September. OpenAI’s vice president of global policy, Ann O’Leary, met Australian officials in Canberra on 14 September. Neither meeting included a disclosure of the breach. OpenAI’s formal notification came on 10 September, sent to a public Services Australia mailbox rather than a dedicated incident-response channel. Services Australia saw the email the following day. The matter reached the Australian Signals Directorate on 15 September, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher was briefed two days later, and the Prime Minister’s office was told the following weekend, shortly before Albanese departed for the UN General Assembly in New York. Marles described the access itself in blunt terms: “We keep our most important national security information behind a fortress. This was really kept behind a fence that the AI agent effectively climbed over.” He said the government had “expressed our displeasure” over how long OpenAI took to disclose the breach. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. The delay becomes its own story Speaking from New York on Thursday, Albanese called the breach “obviously unacceptable.” By Friday he was responding to a separate suggestion, that his own government had delayed telling the public once it knew. He rejected the claim directly. “It’s just nonsense,” he said. “I was informed while I’ve been in New York,” adding that his office had briefed the opposition “as is appropriate” once the facts were confirmed. Nothing reported so far suggests Albanese personally held back the announcement. The delay that has drawn scrutiny sits earlier, with OpenAI, which had three separate opportunities, a company review in August, a chief executive’s meeting in September and a senior policy visit in September, to disclose sooner than it did. What the government is considering A taskforce led by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, working with the Australian Signals Directorate, the AI Safety Institute and the Office of AI, is running a forensic investigation into the breach, including whether the conduct broke any existing Australian law. Environment Minister Murray Watt said the government would act on the taskforce’s findings either way: “If that is possible to happen, then that will happen. If it’s not possible, then clearly that indicates that we need to change Australian laws.” Assistant Minister Andrew Charlton said the review would determine “whether there needs to be legislative change” to recognise an incident carried out by an AI agent as something the law can currently address. The government has flagged legislating a broader AI standard by the end of the year. Taylor has not committed the Coalition to a specific position. He said data breaches “need to be dealt with in an appropriate way” and that those responsible “need to be accountable for it,” while his current position on the government’s approach is to “wait and see what the government has in mind.” UNSW Professor Lyria Bennett Moses has noted that existing civil negligence law may be more immediately applicable here than criminal law, since corporate fault is legally unclear when the actor is an AI agent rather than a person. Why it matters The breach lands in the same week Treasury’s Intergenerational Report named artificial intelligence as one of the clearest drivers of long-term productivity and budget improvement. The government has not yet had to publicly reconcile that with this: courting AI investment, while discovering that an AI company’s own system can walk past a Commonwealth government’s data protections largely unchecked, and take months to say so. Separately this week, the jobless rate rose to 4.6 per cent in August, the highest of the post-COVID era, sharpening expectations of a Reserve Bank rate rise on 29 September. The United States also lodged a formal objection to Australia’s Digital Duty of Care bill, arguing it amounts to “extraterritorial censorship” and should exempt US social media firms. Both are separate stories, but they sit alongside the OpenAI breach as the same underlying question repeated three times this week: how much control a foreign technology company has over rules made in Canberra, and how much Australia can actually enforce when a company decides not to comply. Whether the OpenAI incident breaks existing law, and whether Parliament ends up legislating specifically for AI-agent conduct, will likely be settled well before the separate political question, of how much cost the disclosure delay itself carries, is resolved. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with readmencari.com for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Got a News Tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. 🛑 More on Kangaroofern Media Lab * Read our last AU Politics newsletter : Bendigo Bank Axes 158 Roles * Read our last AI newsletter : Anthropic Raises $13B Series F * Read our last Tech newsletter : Australian Court Rules Apple * Read our last Podcast newsletter : Spanish podcast listeners seek more Latino cultural content:YouTube Unveils AI Podcasting Tools This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  5. Sep 19

    Labour sets a hard migration target and admits someone will pay for it

    Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has told the country the government’s migration forecasts are no longer forecasts. They’re targets, 245,000 net overseas migration this financial year and 225,000 the next, and he’s tying them explicitly to the price of housing. Burke unveiled the detail at the National Press Club on Thursday, in a speech titled “The Work of Managing the Migration Program: Who Arrives, Who Stays, Who Leaves.” It had been delayed six weeks amid reported disagreement inside cabinet. It arrives as a package of regulatory changes rather than legislation. Compromise talks between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Angus Taylor broke down last week over a list of Coalition demands, including tougher rules linked to ISIS-connected partners and a push to tie migration numbers to housing completions. What changes International students will no longer be able to bring family members on most visas, with carve-outs for students from Pacific and ASEAN countries and some postgraduate courses. Working holiday makers move onto a ballot system: second-year places capped at 45,000, third-year places cut from 31,000 to 5,000. Visa processing is re-prioritised toward construction, health, agriculture, fisheries and teaching, after sustained complaints from those sectors about being outpaced by other visa categories. Migration agents who encourage “non-meritorious” claims face sanctions or deregistration. A hundred additional compliance officers and 250 extra detention beds are earmarked for pursuing visa overstayers. The skilled-migration points test is redesigned to weight a trade qualification the same as a university degree. Burke also flagged two further changes he wants but currently can’t deliver without Parliament: a cap on international student arrivals through an expression-of-interest mechanism, and tighter rules on protection-visa claims from countries where the refusal rate already exceeds 85 per cent. The same day, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its own population data, showing net overseas migration had already fallen to 292,100 in the year to March, the lowest reading since mid-2022, and below the 309,500 recorded the year before. Migration was easing before Burke’s speech. The new targets are designed to keep pushing it down further and faster, from a base that peaked at a record 538,000 in 2022-23 after the pandemic-era net loss of 85,100 people in 2020-21. The word doing the work The shift from forecast to target matters more than it might read at first pass. A forecast is a prediction a government can revise without much political cost. A target is something a minister is accountable for delivering. If net overseas migration lands above 245,000 this year, that’s now a policy failure rather than an external shock: Burke’s own number, on his own record. Setting a hard number this way suggests the political cost of leaving migration levels open-ended has come to outweigh the risk of missing a stated target, which says something about how central housing pressure has become inside cabinet’s calculations. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. Who says they’ll pay for it Burke didn’t dress the changes up as cost-free. Asked about the economic flow-on, he said he “can’t quarantine any sector” of the economy from the impact. The National Farmers’ Federation took him up on it directly, warning that cutting backpacker numbers will hit the workforce that picks and packs Australian produce. Its chief executive put the consequence in plain terms: “We will see a lift in the price of food. We will see emptier supermarkets.” The criticism isn’t confined to industry. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has spent months campaigning for deeper migration cuts than Labor has proposed, yet her own plan, unveiled just days before Burke’s speech, didn’t go as far on backpacker visas as what he has now announced. That detail complicates a simple reading of the changes as Labor chasing One Nation’s base. Neither the Coalition, reportedly circling a target of 150,000 to 170,000, nor One Nation, which wants net-negative migration through a 750,000-visa cut over three years, has locked in a final position. Both proposed levels sit below Burke’s own targets. That puts the coming argument over how far and how fast to cut, not whether cutting is warranted at all. Every major party now agrees on that much. Why it matters Migration policy has become inseparable from housing policy in this government’s own framing, and Thursday’s speech is the clearest statement yet of that link. It’s also a reminder that regulatory action doesn’t only run in one direction. The industries built around the settings Burke just changed (international education, horticulture, tourism, the migration advice sector) now have to adjust to a policy shift made by ministerial regulation rather than negotiated legislation, with no parliamentary vote to contest it directly. The next test comes from the Reserve Bank, which hands down its next interest rate decision on 29 September with this announcement squarely in the background, and from the Coalition and One Nation, both expected to firm up their own competing migration numbers now that Labor has moved first. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with readmencari.com for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Got a News Tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. 🛑 More on Kangaroofern Media Lab * Read our last AU Politics newsletter : Bendigo Bank Axes 158 Roles * Read our last AI newsletter : Anthropic Raises $13B Series F * Read our last Tech newsletter : Australian Court Rules Apple * Read our last Podcast newsletter : Spanish podcast listeners seek more Latino cultural content:YouTube Unveils AI Podcasting Tools This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  6. Sep 14

    Labour's $560 million grants scheme sent three dollars to safe seats for every dollar sent to the Coalition

    An independent investigation into a closed-door federal infrastructure fund found no link between where the money went and where it was needed, only between where it went and who was likely to win the seat. For every dollar the federal government spent in a Coalition-held seat through its $560 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure Programme, it spent three dollars twenty in a seat notionally held by Labour. That is the headline finding of an independent Centre for Public Integrity investigation published this week. It sits at the centre of a growing row over how the Albanese government decided who got a slice of the country’s largest single-purpose community grants fund. The MLCI programme was set up to deliver on more than half a billion dollars in election commitments: sports facilities, parks, and community centres. Unlike most federal grant schemes, it ran on an invitation-only basis. The government selected roughly 220 projects and invited them to apply. There was no open or competitive process, and electorates left off the list had no way to be considered. The Centre for Public Integrity’s analysis, reported by the ABC’s Jake Evans for 7.30, found 73 per cent of the funding went to seats notionally held by Labour at the 2025 election, 23 per cent to Coalition-held seats and 4 per cent to everyone else. Breaking the labour-seat total down further: about $220 million went to marginal seats. Labour was actively contesting, and about $270 million went to seats it already held safely. Just $66 million was promised across every seat where Labour wasn’t competitive. The centre also tested whether the pattern could be explained by genuine need rather than politics. It compared funding against household income data and found no relationship. In fact, the poorest electorates in the country received a below-average share of grants. It found no link either to a measure of “community connectedness”, a proxy for how much infrastructure a place actually lacks. Forty-five electorates received no invitation and no funding at all. “Prima facie, it looks like the misuse of public money or serious pork-barrelling, as it’s sometimes called,” the centre’s chair, former justice Anthony Whealy, told 7.30. Executive director Catherine Williams summarised the imbalance in blunter terms: “for every dollar spent in a Coalition seat, $3.20 was spent in a notionally ALP-held seat.” Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. The golf club in the Prime Minister’s seat The single detail driving the most attention is a $6 million grant to Marrickville Golf Club, the only golf club invited into the entire program and located in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s seat of Grayndler. The grant covers clubhouse refurbishment, an accessibility ramp and septic system repairs. ABC News revealed this week that Albanese has held an honorary membership at the club since around 2012, by his own account to parliament, and that it was never declared on his register of interests. He has said he holds no member card, has not visited the clubhouse in years, and was not personally involved in the decision to fund it. Those claims have not been disputed by any reporting to date. What is not in dispute is that the membership existed undeclared and that his own electorate’s golf club was the sole one funded nationally. Asked about it in Question Time, Albanese defended the grant on its merits and framed the scrutiny as an ordinary part of representing an electorate well: “If you’re a good local member, a whole lot of people will give you honorary membership of things. If you’re a good local member who stands up for your electorate, that will occur.” That framing sits uneasily next to the experience of Indi, the north-east Victorian seat held by independent MP Helen Haines, one of the 45 electorates that received nothing under MLCI. A local club in her electorate, Rutherglen Golf Club, nearly a century old and in need of repairs to asbestos-affected walls, white-ant damage and a sloping floor, asked Haines how to apply for MLCI funding. She had no answer, because there was no invitation to be had. “I was shocked by the scale of this, by the depth of this,” Haines told 7.30. Club member Ian Grimes put it more simply: “It just feels unfair and frustrating. We’re not asking for special treatment.” The government’s defence Infrastructure Minister Catherine King has defended the programme as consistent with longstanding grant guidelines: ministers do not decide on applications inside their own electorate (a different cabinet colleague does), and every grant awarded is published on AusTender. She has also pointed to $1.7 billion made available separately through open, competitive schemes, Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs. None of that addresses how the original 220 projects were chosen for invitation in the first place, a process the government has not explained. The Centre for Public Integrity’s research strategy director, Gabrielle Appleby, put the gap plainly: “A value-for-money assessment after a project has been hand-picked doesn’t tell us whether the hand-picking itself was fair.” Questioned in the Senate this week by independent Senator David Pocock, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher rejected the pork-barrelling characterisation outright. Funding had been allocated “across the board, in seats we don’t hold, in seats we would never hold,” she said, adding, “We have followed every single rule to the letter.” Green Senator Steph Hodgins-May has since moved to refer the MLCI programme to a Senate enquiry, arguing the programme’s design, its selection process and any conflicts of interest warrant closer scrutiny. A pattern with a long history and a finding that cuts both ways The MLCI row echoes two earlier scandals with almost identical shapes. Then sports minister Bridget McKenzie resigned in 2020 after failing to declare an honorary membership at a gun club that had received a grant under the Coalition’s $100 million sports grants programme, after the auditor-general found evidence of “distribution bias” in how funding was awarded. In 1994, then minister Ros Kelly resigned from the Keating government over a $30 million sports grants scandal, after it emerged the funding shortlist had been compiled on a whiteboard with no record kept. One detail complicates the partisan reading of all this. Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh, part of the current government, co-authored a 2022 paper examining the Coalition’s earlier sports riots affair and found it had no measurable effect on how people actually voted. Leigh and his co-author concluded that pork-barrelling does not move votes, even when politicians on both sides believe it does. Its real effect, they argued, is to erode public trust rather than win elections. That is the pattern here: a mechanism that survives governments of both colours and repeated rule changes, and, by the government’s own researcher’s account, doesn’t even achieve what it sets out to do. Whether Marrickville Golf Club specifically was picked for partisan reasons is still an open question. That the process behind the $3.20-to-$1 split needs answering for is not. What happens next The Greens’ Senate enquiry motion, moved this week, is the most concrete next step. Its success or failure, and the scope of any enquiry that results, will determine whether the process behind the 220 project selections is ever made public. Separately, the government has yet to offer any account of how those selections were made in the first place. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with readmencari.com for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Got a News Tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. 🛑 More on Kangaroofern Media Lab * Read our last AU Politics newsletter : Bendigo Bank Axes 158 Roles * Read our last AI newsletter : Anthropic Raises $13B Series F * Read our last Tech newsletter : Australian Court Rules Apple * Read our last Podcast newsletter : Spanish podcast listeners seek more Latino cultural content:YouTube Unveils AI Podcasting Tools This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  7. Sep 4

    ASIC reveals 551 audit misconduct complaints, then faces questions about its own response

    Australia’s corporate regulator told a federal parliamentary inquiry on Friday that the big four accounting firms have logged 551 complaints of alleged audit misconduct since mid-2023. But for the first time in this long-running inquiry, it wasn’t the accounting firms facing the toughest questions. It was the regulator itself. What ASIC told the committee ASIC’s executive director of enforcement and compliance, Chris Savundra, told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in Sydney that KPMG, PwC, EY and Deloitte have together received 551 whistleblower complaints alleging audit misconduct since 1 July 2023. ASIC chair Sarah Court clarified the scope: the complaints relate to whether registered auditors misused or shared confidential client information, and ASIC used its compulsory information-gathering powers to obtain the underlying material. Court was careful not to overstate the figure. “I don’t want to suggest that there’s, you know, 550 serious whistleblower issues,” she told the hearing, adding that ASIC still has significant work ahead assessing which complaints warrant further investigation or enforcement action. When Greens Senator Barbara Pocock asked whether the 551 complaints were spread roughly evenly across the four firms, in the order of 125 to 130 each, Court asked that the hearing move off-camera before answering. As a result, the per-firm breakdown was not made public at Friday’s session. A tabled report calls KPMG’s disclosures “deceptive” The sharpest material to emerge from Friday’s hearing was a report by law firm Allens, tabled at the inquiry, examining how KPMG handled the whistleblower complaint that triggered the broader audit-leaks scandal: the alleged misuse of confidential Lendlease board papers to support KPMG’s audit-tender bids for Westpac and Dexus. Allens found that KPMG’s 2024 and 2025 Transparency Reports omitted any mention of an active whistleblower complaint, “despite indisputable evidence one existed.” The firm’s conclusion was blunt: those reports were “not transparent at all but misleading — at best deceptive, at worst fraudulent.” KPMG had classified the original 2024 complaint as an HR matter rather than an audit-quality or transparency issue, which is how it came to be left out of documents that regulators, investors and the public rely on. A KPMG spokesperson told the ABC the firm is “progressing work to address integrity issues, strengthen accountability and rebuild trust” under an action plan launched in June, while acknowledging “there is more to do.” KPMG has already cut almost 400 jobs this year following the scandal, after clients including Macquarie ended their engagements with the firm. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. The regulator under scrutiny Senator Pocock used Friday’s hearing to challenge KPMG leadership’s repeated assurances of reform. She noted the committee had “spent hours listening to the leadership of KPMG… telling us that they’ve turned over a new leaf, that they are a new leadership, ‘there is new culture, trust us,’ and yet here we are.” Her expectation, she said, is that new leadership “requires delivery of outcomes,” and that KPMG will be called back before the committee if it doesn’t deliver. But the sharpest challenge to ASIC itself came from a separate whistleblower, whose June 2026 email to the regulator was also tabled at the inquiry. The email, following an earlier disclosure attempt in December 2021, accused ASIC of a “condescending tone” and argued the regulator “will need to be dragged kicking and screaming to take action that has been clearly available against at least one of the big four.” The whistleblower went further, alleging ASIC had “substantially done nothing bar tacitly endorse and further encourage misconduct,” despite auditor misconduct being listed among ASIC’s own stated regulatory priorities for both 2025 and 2026. ASIC rejected that characterisation in a statement to the ABC: “ASIC takes all whistleblower reports and allegations of misconduct seriously… assesses and progresses matters in a timely and methodical manner.” The regulator said a number of investigations and enforcement actions are already underway. Two further details complicate any simple read of the relationship between ASIC and the firms it regulates. Senator Pocock said ASIC signed new contracts with KPMG in March 2026, the same period the scandal became public. And the current chair of the Tax Practitioners Board, Peter de Cure, spent 25 years as a KPMG partner before taking the role. Neither fact establishes wrongdoing on its own, but both feed the underlying question this inquiry keeps circling back to: whether Australia’s audit regulators are positioned closely enough to the firms they oversee to regulate them without fear or favour. The federal government has separately been weighing, since at least July, whether to require the big four to structurally separate their audit and consulting divisions. The reasoning is that a firm auditing a client it also hopes to sell consulting services to has a built-in conflict. No decision has been made, but Friday’s hearing adds fresh, official evidence to that debate. Two more developments worth noting Separately on Friday, administrators for Bathla Group, one of Sydney’s largest residential developers, held the company’s first creditors’ meeting after it entered voluntary administration last week. Administrators from Teneo said Bathla owes known creditors about $3.4 billion, including $3.08 billion to secured lenders. Its 219 development sites carry a preliminary valuation near $4.9 billion, though administrators stressed that value is largely illiquid, tied up in land and part-built projects financed lender by lender. Teneo is in “positive discussions” with five lenders to keep some construction running, with Monday morning the effective deadline; sites whose lenders don’t participate will likely see work stop. And in Sydney, phone-tap recordings played this week at the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s Operation Rosny hearings show fugitive property developer Jean Nassif describing former premier Dominic Perrottet as his “boy,” while boasting of influence over the Liberal Party. Dominic Perrottet has not been accused of wrongdoing and referred the matter to ICAC himself in 2022; it’s his brother, Charles Perrottet, now in his fifth day of evidence over whether he used family connections to pressure the state’s former building commissioner on Nassif’s behalf. What to watch The per-firm breakdown of the 551 complaints may surface once Friday’s off-camera evidence is made public. The government’s decision on an audit-consulting split remains pending. Bathla’s Monday funding deadline will determine how many of its sites keep building. And Charles Perrottet remains under summons at ICAC, with counsel assisting yet to release him from further questioning. Follow us on all major podcasting platforms and social media channels for important updates. Your support keeps independent journalism alive!For more in-depth coverage on these stories and other news affecting Australia and the world, subscribe to readmencari.com. Support our independent journalism by listening to our podcasts on all major platforms and considering a subscription to help us continue delivering fearless reporting free from financial and political influence. As well as knowing you’re keeping MENCARI alive, you’ll also get: * Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS – Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve * Unlock our COMPLETE content library – Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favourite podcast apps. * Join the conversation that matters – Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting Mencari's Stay with readmencari.com for continuous updates on these developing stories and more from across Australia, New Zealand, and the globe. Subscribe to our newsletter for daily briefings delivered straight to your inbox! MENCARI - Delivered fearless reporting to you is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Got a News Tip? Contact our editor via Proton Mail encrypted, X Direct Message, LinkedIn, or email. You can securely message him on Signal by using his username, Miko Santos. 🛑 More on Kangaroofern Media Lab * Read our last AU Politics newsletter : Bendigo Bank Axes 158 Roles * Read our last AI newsletter : Anthropic Raises $13B Series F * Read our last Tech newsletter : Australian Court Rules Apple * Read our last Podcast newsletter : Spanish podcast listeners seek more Latino cultural content:YouTube Unveils AI Podcasting Tools This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theregisterau.substack.com/subscribe

  8. Aug 20

    Public servants repaid almost half a million dollars in personal card charges this year. Is that a system working, or just one catching up with itself?

    Thousands of taxpayer-card transactions across federal departments were personal, not official, new Senate figures show. So far, every dollar we have traced has been paid back . That raises a narrower question than fraud, what prevention actually looks like .Federal public servants paid back around $480,100 in personal spending charged to taxpayer-funded credit cards in the 2025-26 financial year, figures tabled to the Senate this week show.Orders from Uber Eats and a single Defence transaction that brought the department’s total to nearly a quarter of a million dollars were part of the spending across at least eight departments and agencies.None of the departments involved characterise the spending as theft or criminal misuse. "It's said by everyone that personal charges are banned on the cards and the money is repaid once identified.It was never really a question of the money coming back. The harder question is what does a system designed to catch mistakes after the fact really prove?The numbers, by departmentDefence had the most total, 3,276 purchases the department itself says are “contrary to Defence policy,” worth about $240,000. At least $213,672 has already been paid back, a spokesperson confirmed.Then DFAT with 2,029 inadvertent transactions totalling around $151,000 for the financial year. The department’s spokesperson said the largest transaction, more than $3,000, was repaid in full.The Australian Federal Police recorded 987 incorrect personal transactions that cost more than $42,000. Between July 2025 and March 2026, Home Affairs staff were reimbursed for 477 purchases, totalling $28,400, including 149 Uber or Uber Eats orders worth about $5,500.The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet was repaid for 81 purchases, valued at about $2,400, again mostly Uber. Health $5,370.16 (accidental private purchases) (repaid) Employment and Workplace Relations $8,688.02 (repaid) Social Services $2,250.00That is at least $480,100 across the eight departments and agencies cited in the figures, a minimum rather than a precise total, since the AFP's figure was only reported as "more than $42,000." The same figures, two readingsFinance Minister Katy Gallagher has defended the existing processes. “The information supplied shows that the system is working, in that the inappropriate use is identified and paid back,” she said in a statement. “Agencies and secretaries are required to manage the matter at the departmental level.One way of reading the figures is that misuse is being identified and the money is coming back in. Nothing in the tabled data says anything about a trend - the claim is harder to sustain as evidence the underlying rate of mistaken personal spending is actually falling. That’s just the total for one year.Deputy Opposition Leader Jane Hume put the opposing frame. She said: “It is encouraging that these purchases are identified and the vast majority repaid, but the scale is concerning.” It's a critique that doesn't quite provide us a way out.It’s also worth noting that the same repay-on-detection model has run under governments of both stripes without a structural redesign, so this is less a new failure than an old one nobody currently in office has moved to close.What matters here is not the difference between "the system caught it" and "the system failed." Both readings agree with that. It's between a control that prevents the mistake and one that only ever cleans it up, and on the evidence tabled this week, Australia's public service credit card system remains very much the second kind. Quick hitsRoblox has made a court-enforceable undertaking with the eSafety Commissioner after gaps in the platform’s child safety systems were found, including that adults could send connection requests to children without parental consent and that children’s accounts were not private by default.The company has three months to comply, or face penalties of up to $100 million. Communications Minister Anika Wells said the founder of Roblox had promised her personally that the company would accelerate. eSafety estimates that 1.7 million Australian children use the platform.Business leaders are divided on how much Australia’s migration intake should be cut. Federal budget forecasts show net overseas migration falling from around 300,000 to 245,000 this financial year, with the current permanent intake at 185,000 places. One Nation wants that cut to 130,000, the Coalition wants migration capped against housing construction but has not named a figure.E-commerce entrepreneur Ruslan Kogan said the debate should be about which migrants Australia admits, not the raw number, while Leora Healthcare co-CEO Esha Oberoi – whose aged-care and disability business is more than 45 per cent visa holders – said she doesn’t know how the sector operates without continued migrant staffing.What to readSubmissions on Labor's fix to the negative-gearing “widow tax” – the change that protects a spouse inheriting a jointly owned investment property from losing existing negative-gearing treatment – close Friday 21 August. This week's price of Coalition support for the NDIS savings bill was that fix.Thursday 20 August was also the final sitting day of this parliamentary fortnight, concluding a string of connected deals between Labour and the Coalition on the NDIS, gambling advertising and the widow tax, three bills that were really one negotiation.What that cooperation will cost each side politically is an open question as we head into the next sitting period. Appreciate the newsletter but aren’t ready to pay for a subscription? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter. The deepfake economy You’re scrolling and an ad plays. Decent production. A face you recognise — maybe finance commentator Alan Kohler explaining a “government-backed” trading platform, maybe a mining billionaire telling you she’s put her own money into it. None of it is real. The voice, the face, sometimes a whole fake news article sitting underneath as proof, all generated. ASIC chair Sarah Court’s advice is blunt: a quick search isn’t enough anymore to separate real from fake, because the fake sites are built specifically to survive that check. This isn’t a scattering of one-off cons. Nineteen thousand-plus sites and ads taken down in a year points to something closer to a production line. SmartCompany identified at least eleven Australian public figures currently being used as bait, spanning business (Dick Smith, Gina Rinehart, Alan Kohler), economics commentary (Tom Piotrowski, Stephen Koukoulas, Alan Oster), politics (Anthony Albanese, Angus Taylor, Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson) and broadcasting (John Laws). None of them authorised any of it. None of them see a cent from it. They’re simply recognisable enough to make a fake platform look credible for the few seconds it takes someone to decide whether to click. A note on how solid these particular numbers are: the 19,000-plus takedown figure and the 182 percent increase come from three outlets — SBS, the regulatory wire MLex, and SmartCompany — all reporting the same numbers on 17 August, not from an ASIC document we could locate and read directly. Treat the scale as well-reported rather than independently verified against a primary release. The trend line isn’t in question, though. This is the third public warning ASIC has issued this year about the same deepfake mechanism, following releases in April and July, with the numbers worsening each time. Part of why this particular scam works so well on a younger audience is distribution. It doesn’t arrive as a cold call anymore. It arrives as a targeted ad in the same feed as content from a creator you actually follow, placed there by an algorithm that has no way of distinguishing a genuine endorsement from a fabricated one. It just knows the ad gets clicks, and shows it to more people who look like the people who already clicked. Who’s actually on the hook This is where the accountability trail splits in two, and splits right now. Banks already have exposure. In June, the Federal Court ordered HSBC’s Australian arm to pay a $35 million penalty, not for a scam happening on its platform but for how it handled customers afterwards: an average 144-day delay investigating scam reports, and gaps in fraud controls on its internal payment rail. HSBC has already paid roughly $21.5 million in compensation, with more due, and recovered $6.5 million for customers. That penalty sits under an existing rulebook, the ePayments Code, and a court that used it. Social media platforms, where these deepfake ads are actually served, sit under a newer and different rulebook: the Scams Prevention Framework. Banks, telcos and digital platforms — social media, messaging services, search engines — were all formally designated as regulated sectors under the framework in May 2026, overseen respectively by ASIC, ACMA and the ACCC. But the framework has a long runway before its penalties apply. Regulated entities must join the external dispute resolution scheme, AFCA, from 1 September 2026. The framework’s full prevent-detect-disrupt-report-respond obligations, with AFCA handling scam complaints, take full effect from 31 March 2027. Once fully live, the penalties aren’t small: up to $50 million, or 30 percent of turnover, for failing to prevent, detect, disrupt or respond to a scam running on a platform’s own service; up to $10 million for governance and reporting failures. Some legal commentary describes a lighter “reasonable steps” obligation applying from as early as 1 July 2026, ahead of the formal AFCA and enforcement dates. Sources vary on the exact sequencing here, which is flagged in this issue’s claim ledger as the main area of date uncertainty. Put the two tracks side by side. Losses tied to fake celebrity endorsements: $7.4 million and rising, this year.

See All (159)

About

This podcast features enlightening discussions with professionals to explain pressing issues and provide partinent facts about unbiased journalism and counter misinformation and in-dept conversation with experts. theregisterau.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    The Financial Register | Kangaroofern Media Lab Pty Ltd
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    159
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Kangaroofern Media Lab Pty Ltd
  • Show Website
    Inside AusPol