r/AusNewsWire

Women’s advocates say the case of a Gold Coast pole dancing studio owner who is being sued for refusing membership to a transgender applicant highlights the urgent need for legislative reform to protect women-only spaces.

The Australian revealed on Thursday that Queens of Pole owner Nomes Witney is being sued for $30,000 in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal after refusing membership of the female-only studio to an applicant who identifies as a transgender woman.

The case has parallels with the Tickle v Giggle case in which the Federal Court found Sall Grover, the founder of the female-only Giggle app, discriminated against transgender woman Roxanne Tickle, as well as with the Lesbian Action Group’s case against Australian Human Rights Commission, which refused to grant a Sex Discrimination Act exemption to allow the group to hold a “lesbians born female only” event.

Ms Grover and LAG were on Friday joined by Women’s Forum Australia and the Women’s Rights Network Australia in rallying behind Ms Witney to call for changes to the federal Sex Discrimination Act. Barrister Megan Blake, who has been involved in representing Ms Grover and LAG, is also acting for Ms Witney.

Barrister Megan Blake, who has been involved in representing Sall Grover and the Lesbian Action Group, is also acting for Nomes Witney. Picture: Elke Meitzel.

Barrister Megan Blake, who has been involved in representing Sall Grover and the Lesbian Action Group, is also acting for Nomes Witney. Picture: Elke Meitzel.

The women’s calls came as the Labor Party passed a resolution at its federal conference in Adelaide in support of “the LGBTIQ+ community in having agency over their health decisions”, but did not discuss the conflict between women’s rights and those of transgender people.

They also followed Queensland Human Rights Commissioner Debbie Platz stating that neither “women” nor “sex” is ­defined in that state’s Anti-Discrimination Act, and that “sex may include people who identify as that sex”.

Ms Grover, who is pursuing her own High Court appeal, said it could not be that the intention of gender identity laws “was to erase women and every protection we need on the basis of sex from law”.

“As more and more women come under attack from gender identity laws and ideologically captured human rights commissions, it only highlights that the current legislation isn’t working,” she said.

“Unless, of course, this was this intention. In that case, the Labor government needs to explain why they made a decision, by stealth and without a single democratic process, to destroy women’s sex-based rights.”

Transgender activist Roxanne Tickle, left, and Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover, right. Picture: Supplied.

Transgender activist Roxanne Tickle, left, and Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover, right. Picture: Supplied.

The Lesbian Action Group said it stood with Ms Witney and her right to continue operating a successful women-only business.

“Women-only fitness and movement classes … are places where women build confidence, improve their physical and mental wellbeing, recover from trauma, form friendships and simply enjoy being themselves free from the male gaze,” LAG said.

“For many women, particularly survivors of male violence and abuse, knowing that only women are present is fundamental to feeling safe. That environment is immediately destroyed when a man enters the space.

“The threat of crippling financial penalties and years of litigation has the potential to ­destroy a successful business, up-end a woman’s life and send a chilling message to every other woman considering providing ­female-only services.”

LAG said Australian law “must change”.

“The 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, which added gender identity as a protected attribute, have in cases like this been weaponised against women,” the organisation said.

“Human rights bodies and tribunals in Australia continue to prioritise gender identity over sex-based rights.

Members of the Lesbian Action Group celebrating their Federal Court win in April. Picture: NewsWire/Alex Coppel.

Members of the Lesbian Action Group celebrating their Federal Court win in April. Picture: NewsWire/Alex Coppel.

“In our successful Federal Court case against the Australian Human Rights Commission earlier this year, Justice Moshinsky found that the Tribunal hearing our appeal against the Commission’s refusal to allow us to hold lesbian-only public events had erred by placing decisive weight on discrimination against trans women instead of undertaking the balancing exercise required by the Sex Discrimination Act.

“The Australian Human Rights Commission’s temporary exemption guidelines, which influenced that decision, were also found by the Federal Court to be ‘deficient’.

“Parliament must restore women’s ability to establish and operate female-only businesses, services and community spaces without fear of legal action.”

LAG called on the Labor Party, having amended the SDA in 2013, to act to “stop those provisions being used to undermine women’s rights”.

“It is also time for Australia’s human rights institutions to return to their proper role,” the organisation said.

“They should apply the law impartially, not act as advocates for any particular ideology.

“The Sex Discrimination Act does not elevate gender identity above sex, and women should no longer be expected to sacrifice their rights while human rights bodies and tribunals continue to treat it as though it does.”

Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong said Ms Witney’s was “the latest case to highlight the urgent need for Australian governments to restore clear legal protections for women and girls on the basis of biological sex”.

“Women should not be dragged through courts and tribunals every time they seek to provide a space or service designed specifically for women,” Ms Wong said.

“How many more examples do we need of women being punished for defending biological reality and sex-based rights before our governments recognise there is a problem and fix it?

“It is profoundly misogynistic that women are being compelled to accept men’s claims to be women at the expense of their own rights.

“Female-only spaces exist because women and girls have legitimate needs for privacy and safety. Laws that undermine those spaces while penalising the women who provide them are failing women.”

Women’s Rights Network Australia said Ms Witney was “yet another woman finding herself in legal trouble because the Sex Discrimination Act elevates gender identity in ways that undermine women’s sex-based rights.”

“Women should not face complaints, legal proceedings or financial ruin for providing female-only services. Yet this is becoming an increasingly common consequence of the law as it currently stands,” WRNA said.

“The Albanese Labor government must urgently amend the Sex Discrimination Act to restore clear protections for women’s single-sex businesses, services and spaces.

“Women should not need lawyers or courtrooms to defend the simple right to provide services exclusively for other women.”

Labor’s factional bosses joined forces to quash dissent over the Israel-Palestine conflict and AUKUS as its triennial national conference wrapped up in Adelaide on Saturday, sparking criticism from rebel backbencher Ed Husic that the refusal to debate was a sign of weakness, not strength.

Asked if he was worried that Labor would put him “in the freezer” after pushing the issue, Husic said he didn’t “give a shit”.

With the party to debate foreign policy on the third and final day of its triennial gathering, former cabinet minister Husic defy his superiors and pushed ahead with a motion designed to pile pressure on Israel.

Ed Husic after a Maritime Union of Australia member, who planned to second Husic’s motion, was pressured to withdraw. Dominic Lorrimer

But a Maritime Union of Australia member who planned to second the motion was pressured to withdraw, and both factions agreed not to support it.

Instead, before the debate began, Jewish MP Josh Burns from the right, and his colleague Basem Abdo, who is of Palestinian origin and from the left, jointly urged delegates to adopt the agreed foreign policy platform without amendment.

As a result, Husic’s motion, along with several other anti-Israel amendments that were to be moved by the Left, did not proceed. A push by a Labor Against War delegate to move an anti-AUKUS motion was also killed off.

Husic’s motion called for the government to establish full diplomatic ties with the Palestinian state, which it recognised in September last year. It also urged the government to acknowledge an International Court of Justice finding that Israel’s actions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem constituted a breach of the racial discrimination convention “which prohibits segregation and apartheid”.

The motion also called for the withdrawal of defence and trade representatives from the Australian embassy in Tel Aviv, and for authorities to “track, investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute” Australian/Israeli dual citizens who have served in the Israeli military.

Other provisions include calling for trade sanctions against anyone or any company connected to “illegal settlements in the occupied territories”.

Husic said he was disappointed and surprised at how much energy the party’s factional leaders put in to quash his motion on Israel’s actions in Palestine, which he described as the biggest moral issue of our time.

Speaking after finding out his motion would not get a seconder, Husic contrasted the lack of debate within Labor to One Nation.

“I have to say I have been surprised at the extraordinary amount of energy that has been applied to stop this, as opposed to talking about this and being able to have the discussions,” he said.

“I’ve always taken the view there’ll be different views. You’ve got to be able to work harder. That’s democracy. Got to be able to listen to people.”

He said the view that the Labor platform was a sacrosanct document that could not be changed even a little was not healthy for the party. “I think the big test for us as one of the big parties is to be able to show that we’re willing to take stands on issues.”

Josh Burns MP and Basem Abdo MP at the 50th Australian Labor Party Conference in Adelaide. Dominic Lorrimer

He said it was important to acknowledge that there were many who “believe there are plausible concerns for genocidal action to have occurred, and that people should be protected from that”.

Husic also said he was “personally horrified” by a UN report in June that found 20,000 kids had been killed and 44,000 injured in Gaza as a result of the actions of the Netanyahu government.

Jewish MP Burns had urged delegates to “choose empathy over outrage” to bring factions together on Israel, while Palestinian MP Abdo encouraged a unified position.

Burns told delegates that Labor should maintain its commitment to a two-state solution but acknowledged the party platform does “not represent everything either of us might wish to say, nor every aspect of government policy”.

“Through hours of conversation, and compromise, and respect, we are both standing here together,” he said. “We are choosing to believe that the long arc of justice can bend towards a shared future for Israelis and Palestinians.”

Abdo said the motion he was moving to affirm UN and international frameworks in relation to Israel and Palestine “does not cease to prescribe or ascribe every responsibility to every target”.

“It’s been an incredibly difficult few years on what is an already very difficult issue,” he said. “No single motion can do justice to it.”

He asked delegates to imagine life under occupation and to weigh up whether it was safer for your child to leave home or stay indoors.

“They are the things that allow people to build their life, and they should never be determined by where you are born or who you are. Human dignity, comrades, is universal.”

Reflecting on the way the motion was killed off, Husic drew a line back to scars left from the divisions the ended their last stretch in government.

“I think there’s been a broader issue in the party... that the experiences of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years were so divisive that people are almost traumatised into a position that anything that looks like debate is a schism, a difference, a divide that means that the government might topple over,” he said.

“I don’t think that’s the case at all.... being able to have those discussions is a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness. And it’s also important for our party members who feel strongly on this issue that they know that they’re being heard.”

Husic said Labor had been “terrific in recognising the state of Palestine”, but had hoped the motion would allow the government to recognise Palestinian ambassadors and diplomatic teams as well.

NSW state Labor MP Stephen Lawrence, who backed Husic, said “one thing I’m really confident to say is that it has the personal support of the majority of delegates”.

“I’ve got no doubt about that at all,” he said. “I’m confident that while our resolution is not going to be supported today, it will be supported in the future at a future conference. I’m very, very confident to say that.”

Fifty pages of leaked ALP conference amendments show significant grassroots support for downgrading Australia’s relationship with the United States, exiting AUKUS, deleting references to the ANZUS treaty, and adopting a more “non‑aligned” defence posture. Some delegates also propose removing references to “Islamist terrorism,” replacing them with broader terms like “hate groups” and “far‑right extremist entities.” Other amendments seek to expand nuclear‑weapons prohibitions and soften language condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by adding conflicts involving Palestine, Iran, and Lebanon.

Steve Bannon, the barnstorming godfather of the MAGA movement, follows Australian affairs more closely than almost any other American politico.

He has some surprising praise for Anthony Albanese and some awkward advice for Pauline Hanson. But his confident prediction of America’s near future is shocking.

Donald Trump’s campaign strategist for his 2016 election win says: “I believe we will have a national emergency declared by late August,” ahead of the Congressional midterm elections due on November 3. “You will have enough evidence by mid-August to show that we have a massive problem” of election fraud, he tells me in an interview. Trump’s televised address to the nation on Thursday last week was the beginning of the process, he says.

The president declassified documents, which he claimed show “shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure” revealed by the 2020 election.

These had been hidden, even from him, by a “deep state” conspiracy of US intelligence services, he posited.

Trump demanded that the Congress pass a bill called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act. The bill stipulates that all voters produce a passport or birth certificate to be eligible to vote. Democrats denounce it as an effort at mass disenfranchisement. The Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University estimates that it could block 21 million Americans from the ballot box.

Under the US Constitution, it’s the states, not the federal government, that run elections. The SAVE Act would force state governments to hand voter roll information to Washington.

Trump sent his Homeland Security Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, out the following morning to issue a threat to state officials: they could face prison time unless they followed the administration’s orders to remove non-citizens from rolls.

But Bannon tells me that he doesn’t think there’s time to pass the bill. “There will be more Thursdays. You have to lay the predicate first.” The administration would find more evidence of fraud, he predicted. “They will find more things.

“We cannot have another stolen election,” he said, a reference to Trump’s fiction that Joe Biden won by fraud in 2020. Almost one in three Americans believes him.

“We are facing a national security emergency, and we will need real teeth to deal with it,” Bannon says. “You put ICE agents around polling booths to stop illegal immigrants from voting or any playing with voting machines. Maybe the National Guard; we need to clean up mail-in ballots.” Trump wants them outlawed, even though 29 per cent of Americans used mail-in ballots to vote in 2024.

Could Bannon’s vision actually materialise? “Yes,” says a Democrat strategist, Steve Elmendorf, who’s advised many of the most prominent leaders of his party over many years.

“It’s believable, but Bannon says a lot that is ‘out there’.” Nevertheless, the Democrats are taking the scenario seriously. “The Dems are aware of all the crazy and are making contingencies,” Elmendorf tells me.

Trump would be accused of an authoritarian grab for power. The documents he released last week did not stand up to scrutiny as proof that fraud influenced election outcomes.

The Republicans control both houses of Congress. Bannon had hoped against history that the Republicans could hold both chambers in November “if we maintain a maniacal focus” on the “the basics of the economy, including getting the budget deficit under control, not this massive deficit that’s pushing up interest rates”. The US annual budget deficit last year was 5.7 per cent of GDP. For comparison, Australia’s was 1 per cent.

Like many MAGA leaders, Bannon is frustrated with Trump’s war on Iran: “Because of the war, we’ve taken our eye off these issues. The longer the war goes on, the worse it gets … If we lose the House [of Representatives], the White House becomes Fort Apache,” a 1948 western which has become a byword for a state of siege against impossible odds. The House would assail Trump with subpoenas and impeachment motions for the rest of his term, says Bannon, realistically enough.

After running Trump’s 2016 campaign, Bannon served briefly in his White House and since 2019 broadcasts the daily War Room podcast, rated highly for both its number of listeners and for its volume of misinformation. He still speaks with the president.

“Iran keeps sucking us into the Middle East,” Bannon complains. “Obama told Trump, a couple of days after we won in 2016, that he’d tried to pivot to Asia but all he’d managed to do was to redeploy one Marine brigade to Darwin. Central Command [responsible for the Middle East] has such a powerful gravitational force that it doesn’t allow us to focus on the Chinese Communist Party threat.”

Unlike Anthony Albanese: “What your prime minister has done is nothing short of brilliant,” says Bannon in one of his less likely political appreciations.

“I’m not a fan of much of his economic or social policy, but, strategically, I don’t think there’s a government in the world that understands as well as this man. Your government has focused on sea lanes, on military alliances and diplomatic alliances in the South Pacific, showing the Pacific Islands people the importance of Australia and showing that Australia is there for them, will support them … I think you have taken the lead, and we are playing a little bit of catch-up.”

On the US commitment to AUKUS, Bannon says that “nothing is a certainty, but this is the closest you can get to one. Australia is a central linchpin, if not the central linchpin in the Pacific”.

“If we had lost Australia in World War II, we would not have won the war against Japan for another decade or longer, and China is many times more powerful than Japan in the 1940s,” says the former US Navy officer.

He accuses the Biden administration of allowing US Pacific priority to “atrophy”, yet concedes that Trump is distracted by his Iran war.

One of Bannon’s co-hosts of War Room is Trump’s ambassador-designate to Canberra, former congressman David Brat. “He had all types of opportunities to work in the administration and when the State Department offered him Australia, he came to me and said, ‘What do you think?’ I said it’s one of the most important strategic posts in the world. The US heartland is the Pacific, World War II proved that.” Bannon said he’d helped “find” Brat for the Republicans, and Brat went on to become the first person in US history to unseat a House majority leader in a primary.

“David was a forerunner of populist nationalism, he has access to the highest levels of power and he has a big presence in MAGA media – he’ll be the perfect man for the job” in Canberra, once he’s confirmed by the US Senate.

Pauline Hanson is an unabashed Trump fan. The feeling is mutual. Bannon says that “we watch Pauline Hanson closely. She’s smart, she’s more nationalist than Trump was at the beginning, she’s always talking about putting Australia first”.

Except when, as Liberal Party shadow minister Andrew Hastie puts it, she’s putting “MAGA first, Australia second”.

Bannon’s advice to her? “The hardest thing is to make sure you’re getting quality people. You have to be able to leverage your message. It has to be relentless.”

Well, that’s awkward. Hanson never has managed to recruit and hold quality members and candidates. Criminals, Nazis, nut jobs. As she told my colleague Paul Sakkal last month, “I’m being infiltrated by these extremists, so it’s all the time happening with One Nation.”

Related Article

The presidential motorcade driving along the Reflecting Pool when it was drained in May.

AnalysisTrump's America

The reflecting pool saga is a metaphor for the Trump presidency itself

One Nation’s Senator Malcolm Roberts illustrates Bannon’s point about the difficulty of consistent messaging while burdened by confused candidates. Roberts is an anti-vaxxing conspiracy theorist who claims that people dying of COVID in makeshift morgues were “staged” and “bullshit” and contradicts his leader by calling AUKUS “absurd”.

The new federal MP for Farrer, David Farley, is an exception. So is Barnaby Joyce, making some obvious allowances for idiosyncrasies.

Bannon doesn’t say so outright, but he’s evidently stumped by a couple of recent Hanson comments. Right-wing populists are supposed to attack elites and pick on minorities, such as Muslims or Asians. But Hanson called Australian workers “lazy” during her outing at the National Press Club. Bannon stresses that “there was never any criticism of workers” in Trump’s campaigns; on the contrary, he posed as the champion of workers against the villainous globalisation. “I would not say Australian workers are lazy,” Bannon adds for emphasis. More awkwardness.

Similarly, Hanson talks about revisiting the issue of abortion access. Bannon says that abortion was “not in Trump’s wheelhouse” in 2016. The Trump campaign deliberately chose Mike Pence as the running mate so that he could appeal to the right-wing evangelical and conservative Christian voters without having to involve the leader. Awkwardness again.

Could Hanson be more radical than Trump? Or is she just less calculating?

Bannon speaks of a “new politics” of a radical right and a radical left. When Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York over a year ago, the self-identified socialist was dismissed as a strictly local phenomenon without wider appeal. But, as the news site Politico points out, Bannon immediately saw it as the harbinger of a radical new anti-establishment left at the national level, “flashing red lights” for moderate Democrats.

Bannon has been vindicated. He calls them “Marxist jihadists” and says “they have the momentum in the Democratic Party”. Candidates endorsed by Mamdani and Bernie Sanders now are defeating moderates in primaries well beyond New York.

In the new politics, Bannon says, “there’s no middle ground – there’s the right wing and the left wing. The right wing will win, or the left wing will win, and that’s it.” Radical positions – mass deportations on the right or free rent on the left – are essential to motivating people to get out to vote, he says.

In America, this might be the secret to success. But what about a country with mandatory voting? Where elections are decided not at the extremes but at the centre? In such a country, radical positions are not the fast track to success but the gangplank to failure.

US politics is more radical, but the Australian electoral system produces outcomes that are more conservative in the literal sense, risk-averse. Driving fast can be a thrill, but, ultimately, you’ll only survive if you remember which side of the road you’re supposed to be driving on.

Peter Hartcher is political editor and international editor. He writes his world column on Tuesdays.

For a political party that has existed longer than any other in Australia, and which is entrenched in power federally and in most states, Labor still likes to present itself as the underdog. A victim, even.

It always comes to the fore when the party navel-gazes, as it has been doing in Adelaide this week at its triennial national conference.

While Labor figures rallied against One Nation, party leaders completely ignored warnings from union legend Bill Kelty on falling living standards. Dominic Lorrimer

Boiled down, the labour movement motivates itself with a belief that the anti-Labor forces, whatever shape or form they have taken over the past 125 years, have never subscribed to Labor as a legitimate occupier of the government benches.

Anthony Albanese pushed the born-to-rule button in his keynote speech to the true believers on Thursday.

“In April 1904, when the new prime minister Chris Watson and his Labor colleagues took their spots on the government benches of the federal parliament for the first time, Sir John Forrest stared across at them from the other side of the chamber and said to his Tory colleagues: ‘What are those fellows doing in our places? Those are our seats!’

“They’ve never really got over it, have they? Our opponents have never been able to accept the legitimacy of a Labor government. They think we should know our place.

“They have never been able to accept that the trade union movement is central to the health and strength of our democracy. Because they have never believed that the working people of Australia deserve a say in the shape of our economy and the future of our society.”

“Labor, like other progressive centre-left parties across the world, has trended away from a growth agenda to that of big government.”

Ditto Wayne Swan on Friday as he was awarded life membership of the party. He spoke of the endless fight to make Australia “a fair and prosperous nation”, a pursuit he described as the “heritage and heartbeat” of the Labor Party.

All that ever changes is the face of the enemy. Today it is the ascendant One Nation.

“Together with our mighty trade union movement we fought Fraser. We fought Howard. We fought Abbott. And now we watch the conservative mantle pass to One Nation, and a new battle awaits us,” he said.

“They will never confer legitimacy upon us. Fifty-two years, and I have not seen it once. I do not expect to see it now.

“Good. We were never going to get it that way. We seize it. The way the shearers seized it at Barcaldine with nothing but each other. The way we seized it from Joh [Bjelke-Petersen] and John Howard. The way our prime minister, Anthony Albanese, seized it from Scott Morrison. The way we will seize it from Hanson.”

That sentiment of them-against-us has permeated every aspect of this conference. Chapter after chapter, amendment after amendment has focused on protecting the supposedly oppressed from their supposed oppressors. It’s what Labor does.

The loudest cheer Albanese received during his keynote speech was when he rattled off the tax changes in the budget that targeted wealth. (He focused on the popular changes to housing, not the stuff that has riled the small businesses, start-ups and investors who were collateral damage.)

However, the greatest source of oppression, the moribund condition of the economy, hasn’t rated a meaningful mention all week.

Labor, like other progressive centre-left parties across the world, has trended away from a growth agenda to that of big government and the taxation and redistribution of capital and wealth.

The shift is writ large in the fundamental changes that were made to the party’s guiding document, its national platform.

“Labor will deliver a progressive and sustainable tax system, where taxing work doesn’t subsidise the taxing of wealth,” it says.

“Labor will reform the tax system to help more Australians achieve home ownership, better align the taxation of income from assets with taxation of income from work and to lower the tax burden on workers.”

Nowhere has anyone gone into bat for productivity, economic growth or controlling inflation to generate real wage growth, all of which are in dire straits and all of which, if rectified, would do much more to helping those Labor purports to defend than carving up and distributing the dwindling pie.

There are mentions in the platform of such matters but no more than paying lip service.

“Making our economy more productive and more resilient is essential to delivering higher living standards over time and ensuring more Australians get access to more opportunities,” it says.

“Lifting productivity is critical to growth in real wages, incomes and jobs, and should be done in a sustainable and inclusive way to ensure all Australians can benefit.”

But no one uttered a peep when the economic chapter was rubber-stamped first thing Thursday morning.

ACTU president Michele O’Neil and ACTU secretary Sally McManus at the Labor conference. Dominic Lorrimer

ACTU secretary Sally McManus is not a delegate to the conference but was invited to speak to open the industrial relations chapter on Friday. She didn’t venture near the nation’s economic travails either.

Just days before, one of the giants of her movement, Bill Kelty, provided the template. Kelty, when he helmed the ACTU during the Hawke-Keating days, never attended national conference. He believed his primary role, and that of the ACTU, was to negotiate with the government of the day, not be part of Labor’s processes.

Earlier this week, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry, he let fly on Australia’s economic state of affairs, decrying the lack of urgency on growth, productivity and inflation.

He said this month’s OECD annual review, which showed Australia second only to Italy in having the biggest reduction in real wages since 2021, was both “hard to comprehend” and a “sad reflection in this nation”.

“But commodity prices have been rising and our terms of trade have significantly improved. We know that it is not just the terms of trade, but volumes have increased,” he said.

“But we know the underlying malaise. Our productivity has fallen and is the third lowest in the OECD. Investment is too low. Our growth per capita is non-existent.

“But our taxes are increasing, government expenditure is rising faster than prices. It does say something is wrong with this place.”

It was a message notably absent in Adelaide.

Labor’s national conference was a display of tight message control and internal discipline. Contentious issues such as AUKUS, Palestine, and higher resource taxation were largely neutralised or watered down, with delegates prioritising stability, incrementalism, and governing credibility. The mining industry and pro‑alliance voices emerged satisfied, seeing the outcomes as a win for continuity rather than ideological disruption.

Potential flashpoints like a gas tax or ending the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies were defused or softened. In return, the party’s left secured a significant win: stronger support for voluntary assisted dying, the first issue to be openly contested on the floor. Unions also achieved several victories, including restoring a Fair Work court, strengthening AI protections, backing sovereign industrial capability, and advancing a home‑building agenda.

Veteran Labor figures — Bill Kelty and Peter Beattie — publicly criticised the party, warning that rising support for One Nation reflects voter dissatisfaction and a sense that major parties are failing households. Kelty pointed to wasteful spending and structural problems such as housing shortages and infrastructure blowouts. Their interventions, the article suggests, mirror a broader dark public mood that Labor will need to confront ahead of the 2028 federal election, likely through targeted support for struggling voter groups.

AI‑related data centres require large construction workforces — often 1,000 to 10,000 workers depending on size, with up to 1,500 workers on site at peak build. But once operational, they are highly automated, typically employing only 20–88 full‑time staff, sometimes around 50 workers for a facility the size of several football fields. Analysts say advocates routinely overstate long‑term employment benefits.

Data centres consume enormous resources. A 1‑megawatt centre uses ~25.5 million litres of water per year, and Sydney Water projects centres could use a quarter of Sydney’s drinking water by late‑2020s. They already use 2% of Australia’s electricity, expected to rise to 6% by 2030. The government now expects operators to minimise emissions, secure new clean energy, and report water usage transparently.

A construction boom risks pulling specialised trades — high‑voltage electricians, industrial cooling technicians, advanced mechanical engineers — away from housing construction, worsening shortages. At the same time, operational roles that do exist are well‑paid, with listings showing salaries of $137k–$149k+ for technicians and $55/hour for HVAC specialists. More than 1,100 data‑centre technician jobs are currently advertised nationwide.

Rob Harris and Brittany Busch

July 23, 2026 — 1:07pm

Pauline Hanson labelled paid family and domestic violence leave a “holiday”, described it as a “scam” that encouraged false claims and argued child support had become a “cash cow” in another broadside against Australia’s family violence laws.

The One Nation leader made the comments late last year on the Broken Fathers podcast, hosted by Jared “Purcy” Purcell, during a discussion about fathers’ rights, child custody and the family court system.

Pauline Hanson on the Broken Fathers podcast.YOUTUBE

The previously unreported remarks, which resurfaced after Hanson this week declared domestic violence was “a two-way street”, included claims that protections had been “abused”, police spent too much time on family violence instead of “real crime” and that men were perennially disadvantaged by the family law system.

Hanson, 72, has faced intense scrutiny in the past six weeks after her party’s stunning rise in the polls this year and a controversial, wide-ranging policy speech at the National Press Club in June. She has long campaigned for sweeping family law changes, including abolishing the Family Court.

In the podcast, she argued child support had encouraged custody disputes.

“I believe that you’ve got to wind back a lot of issues to do with the family law court … Go after the child support. A lot of people see it as a cash cow,” she said, questioning whether payments were always spent on children.

The One Nation leader speaks to Broken Fathers podcast host Jared Purcell.YOUTUBE

“I reckon you actually rein in child support … that would sort of put a lot of people back in their box.”

She also criticised the policing of domestic violence, claiming officers were being diverted from more serious offending.

Swift backlash after Hanson says domestic violence a ‘two-way street’

“Domestic violence takes up about 75 per cent of police officers’ time now,” Hanson said. “That’s why we’re not dealing with real crime out there. The whole thing needs to be wound back.”

Asked by Purcell whether the family court favoured women, Hanson replied: “Of course it is.”

She blamed feminist groups and governments for creating a system that “is favouring women”, arguing parliament had become dominated by “too many woke people”.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody and National Children’s Commissioner Deb Tsorbaris rejected Hanson’s “two-way street” comments on Thursday.

Cody said any suggestion victim-survivors shared responsibility for abuse was “harmful, wrong and dangerous”, adding that leaving a violent relationship was often one of the most dangerous times for women and children.

Tsorbaris said children affected by family violence were too often overlooked and warned families seeking safety should be “supported rather than judged”. The commissioners said financial hardship could place pressure on families, but “violence is a choice – and blame rests entirely with the person who commits it”.

In the November podcast, Hanson suggested some domestic violence killings could be linked to the frustration of men over family breakdowns.

“Why is there murders in domestic violence? Is it because, you know, the sheer frustration that people are having? Is it through jealousy that they can’t, you know, see their children?”

She argued restrictions on contact between parents and children should require evidence of physical abuse.

Hanson, who found herself a single mother in her early 30s, has said she was a victim of domestic violence. Her campaign to reform the Family Court was in part influenced after her son, Adam, pleaded guilty in 2016 to breaching a domestic violence order.

Hanson doubles down on raising controversial policy in interview

Pauline Hanson has used her first media appearance back in Australia to defend raising the White Australia Policy in a controversial interview.

Hanson also questioned the breadth of Australia’s domestic violence laws, arguing behaviours such as sending text messages to ask about children or limiting household spending could be interpreted as abuse.

“What people don’t understand is … they think domestic violence is, you’ve gone and bashed your wife,” she said before listing examples, including husbands saying: “You can’t buy shoes … we’ve got to watch the money because we’ve got to buy the groceries and pay the rent.”

She later argued similar controlling behaviour by women towards men – such as not allowing them to go to the pub or fishing – should also be considered domestic violence.

The podcast’s host, a former Australian Border Force officer, last year received a nine-month good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to offences uncovered by a National Anti-Corruption Commission investigation.

The One Nation leader also attacked paid family and domestic violence leave for victim-survivors.

“The governments have made it easier for marriage breakups,” she said, listing legal assistance, financial support payments and “domestic violence holiday leave”.

“I’m totally against it because this is an incentive to actually go out there and make false allegations until you prove to me that your allegations are true.”

She questioned government crisis payments for victim-survivors, asking: “Who’s to say it’s not a scam?”

Hanson also claimed men were unfairly treated after relationship breakdowns, saying they were routinely forced from the family home while women received financial assistance to “start up a new life”.

She argued assets accumulated before marriage, including superannuation, should generally remain with the original owner after separation. She also claimed false allegations were widespread and called for stronger perjury laws.

Asked by Purcell whether she thought domestic violence laws were being used as a legal weapon, she replied: “Yes, I do. Most definitely it is. And that’s why the false allegations. We’ve allowed it to go on and fester.”

She also argued domestic violence orders could unfairly cost people their jobs, claiming workers in occupations requiring security clearances or licences could lose their employment as a result.

A powerful new agency targeting organised crime and informed by Australia’s best criminal intelligence would be established within Victorian Police under the state government’s latest response to the Building Bad corruption scandal and amid mounting pressure on Premier Jacinta Allan.

Jacinta Allan is under increasing pressure regarding her leadership.

Jacinta Allan is under increasing pressure regarding her leadership.Ruby Alexander

Allan will on Monday present to cabinet her government’s plans for an Organised Crime Agency to prevent and disrupt the criminal exploitation of major building sites and the firebombing turf wars between rival gangs over control of illegal tobacco and booze.

If approved by cabinet, it will put into motion key elements of Police Chief Commissioner Mike Bush’s strategy to elevate the fight against serious and organised crime across Melbourne.

Allan will cite the proposed reforms as evidence that a royal commission is not required to address corruption on Big Build projects.

Allan is staring down further leadership rumblings within her party, telling colleagues Labor can still win the election and she won’t succumb to pressure to relinquish the leadership.

Related Article

Jacinta Allen continues to refuse to allow an inquiry into CFMEU corruption despite mounting evidence of it being endemic.

OpinionBuilding Bad

Big Build is the gift that keeps on giving, for all the wrong reasons

David Hayward

David Hayward

Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at RMIT University

While most MPs contacted by The Age believe the premier would no longer control the numbers in a caucus vote, her only viable challenger, Deputy Premier Ben Carroll, is refusing to move against her.

With only four sitting weeks remaining in this parliamentary term, a contested leadership ballot would require a vote of caucus and a ballot of party members.

“She has probably become more dogged in her determination to tell people creating mischief to bugger off,” one left faction MP said. “If there is a challenge and she digs in, that is complete chaos.”

From our partners

The Allan government has become increasingly centralised, with the plans for the Organised Crime Agency tightly held between the Premier’s Private Office and Bush’s senior command.

Related

InvestigationBuilding Bad

Building Bad

The chief concern of Victoria Police, expressed privately by senior officers, is whether the Allan government can push through the complex regulatory work and deliver the resources required to make the proposed new agency a success. While the reforms could be announced as early as Monday, they will need to be completed by the next parliament.

Under Victoria Police’s proposed design, the new agency would work closely with relevant state government departments such as the Labor Hire Authority and Department of Justice and federal agencies including the Australian Federal Police and Australian Taxation Office.

A new inter-agency intelligence centre would be established to facilitate the sharing of sensitive intelligence about organised crime figures and activities. Regulatory changes would be required to unwind one of the recommendations of the royal commission into police informants and strengthen the capacity of Victoria Police to cultivate, register and protect the identity of human sources.

Under current Victoria Police rules, officers cannot guarantee to prospective sources that their identity will never be disclosed in legal proceedings. This has prevented Victoria Police from cultivating critical intelligence and collaborating with interstate agencies.

To effectively combat organised crime, the agency would need to hire specialist skills and have access to advanced technology. The Organised Crime Agency, while reporting directly to police command, would also be overseen by a cabinet committee.

Related Article

A drive-by shooting at The Emerson in South Yarra was the 21st attack linked to a mysterious crime gang attacking nightlife spots

Organised crime

‘It makes no sense’: Melbourne in grip of nightlife firebombings

Bush has expressed to the premier and senior government ministers that much of Victoria’s crime problems, including troubling levels of youth crime, are driven by the influence of organised crime.

A specialist team within Victoria Police, Taskforce Hawk, has been given the job of tackling corruption and criminal behaviour across the state’s construction sector following The Age’s ongoing Building Bad series spotlighting serious malfeasance on union-controlled construction sites for state government infrastructure projects.

But last month, the team’s leadership said the force was largely powerless to clean up the construction sector without legislative change.

Integrity experts, the opposition and even a growing number of Labor MPs believe a royal commission into Big Build corruption must be called to neutralise the issue and address community concerns.

But Allan remains opposed to the concept and argues, internally and publicly, a royal commission would take too long and fail to deliver cultural change.

The new agency and its powers to be put to cabinet Monday are an attempt to cut off this criticism and neutralise leadership speculation that continues to dog the premier.

A June push to replace Allan with Deputy Premier Ben Carroll fell over before going to caucus vote, but internal grumblings have worsened over the past five weeks as a growing number of MPs have become frustrated with the leadership team and warmed to the idea of Labor announcing a royal commission.

Related Article

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan and Deputy Premier Ben Carroll (right) on Tuesday.

Victorian Parliament

‘Marathon man’ Carroll’s leadership run over before it began

A senior government source said they had hoped to present the organised crime proposal to the Labor caucus retreat this week, but it was not yet finalised in time.

Three MPs, speaking anonymously to avoid repercussions, said they now believe the premier would not control the numbers in a caucus vote, but her enemies have not yet been able to organise a coherent strategy for a coup.

The premier’s allies maintain she will not step down even if urged by her colleagues.

Party unity has been fraying in recent weeks.

Health Infrastructure Minister Melissa Horne broke ranks earlier this month by writing to the state’s infrastructure authority about “serious allegations” about hospital construction contractors in The Age which Allan had already dismissed as baseless.

Related Article

The added cost to every new train station on the signature Metro Tunnel project.

ExclusiveBuilding Bad

‘Extraordinary, unforeseeable’ and extremely costly: CFMEU pricetag of each Metro station revealed

Police Minister Anthony Carbines also used caucus conference this week to deliver a frank assessment of the government’s fortunes in front of his colleagues, arguing they would be reduced to a rump in parliament if they did not address integrity concerns in the Victorian public.

Although he did not mention a royal commission into Big Build corruption, his speech implied heavily that the premier’s office had mismanaged the response to the issue.

Two Labor MPs said recent policy moves, including the organised crime commission, showed the government was scrambling from one issue to the next with no clear direction four months out from the election.

One said the premier’s office had hyped up an “AI week” of announcements, which were postponed repeatedly, only for policies made on Sunday and Monday about social media trolls and workplace monitoring to flounder.

Government MPs are frustrated that they have not received details about local election commitments, such as local infrastructure upgrades, that would give them confidence they will have positive messages to sell to their electorates.

A senior Labor source said the premier’s office was in “la la land” and couldn’t comprehend the scale of displeasure at the current leadership.

Senior Liberal conservative James Paterson says populism risks destroying the institutions underpinning Western civilisation and the Australian way of life, in a repudiation of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation movement.

As he laid out a path to shield Australia from the damage of populism from both the left and the right, Senator Paterson on Thursday night told universities that a Coalition government would be a “walk in the park” compared with more extreme parties that showed open contempt for experts.

Senator Paterson implored universities to open their doors to conservatives and classical liberals, and prioritise research in the national interest.

He also warned judges that they must get back in touch with the public, saying political outbursts from members of the judiciary and lenient sentences for criminals were undermining the nation’s confidence in law and order.

The opposition defence spokesman on Thursday night joined Liberal leader Angus Taylor in pushing back against the rise of One Nation and other populist right and left movements that have a “total lack of regard for our institutions”.

In a commencement address to the 2026 Ramsay Postgraduate Scholars before they head to Oxford and Harvard universities, Senator Paterson said populism was a “package deal” that tied understandable resentment about the economy and elites with ­radical policies and conspiracy theories.

While not naming One Nation or its leader by name and making it clear he was worried about ­populism across politics, Senator Paterson said a Hanson-esque govern­ment-imposed monoculture was alien to Australia and voters should be wary of “foreign concepts” of cultural uniformity.

Senator Pauline Hanson this week with her Secret Harbour candidate Luke Herdegen. Picture: Colin Murty

Senator Pauline Hanson this week with her Secret Harbour candidate Luke Herdegen. Picture: Colin Murty

Speaking at the NSW State Library in Sydney, Senator Paterson said: “The risk today is that understandable discontent with Australia’s recent economic performance – a solvable policy problem – is used as a vehicle to trash our political, legal and social institutions which have underpinned our progress, prosperity and harmony for centuries”.

“Australians struggling with the cost of living have not suddenly embraced conspiracy theories about chemtrails, the federal reserve, school shootings, 9/11 and pharmaceutical companies,” he said. “But populism is a package deal. Voting to express your reasonable frustrations with the established parties of government brings with it a lot of baggage.

“The danger is these anti-establishment parties don’t just mine grievance about poor economic performance. Whether on the populist left or right, they bring with them a much broader wagon of grudges and resentments.

“And they are most often defined by a total lack of regard for our institutions more broadly.”

Senator Paterson, who recently won the McKinnon Prize for federal political leader of the year, also called out the politicisation of high-profile legal cases, without naming Ben Roberts-Smith, who has been charged with the war crime of murder.

“I am gravely concerned about … the rule of law. One of the few things that separates a free and ordered society from domestic anarchy is the belief that a justice system will ensure wrongdoers are punished fairly,” he said.

“Decisions of our justice system are more routinely becoming sensationalised. As you know, there is a high-profile prosecution of a former Australian soldier before the courts, following allegations of war crimes. I have not ventured any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case because, unlike some of my parliamentary colleagues, I do not want to run the risk of contempt of court.

“Nor should any of us want to do anything which undermines the presumption of innocence or a fair trial. But we have recently seen this case become so politicised – literally – that a photo of an accused person was displayed at polling booths as a tactic to generate votes. To say this is a regrettable trend would be a gross understatement.”

Senator Paterson said ‘Voting to express your reasonable frustrations with the established parties of government brings with it a lot of baggage’. Picture: Aaron Francis

Senator Paterson said ‘Voting to express your reasonable frustrations with the established parties of government brings with it a lot of baggage’. Picture: Aaron Francis

On the broader undermining of Western society, Senator Paterson said it was imperative to “address our economic underperformance to remove the main driver of populist discontent”. The Victorian senator also said the nation must “defend and, where necessary, reform the institutions of Western civilisation so they can survive this disrupted era to be passed on to future generations”.

“The reason why universities are not better funded and supported by our political system is because they have lost the broad social licence to sustain public support through the political cycle.

“And the reason for that is a significant proportion of society – particularly those who identify with the centre-right of the ideological spectrum – feel estranged from our system of higher education. Classical liberals and conservatives believe their per­spectives are unwelcome, at least in the humanities departments at universities across Australia.”

Senator Paterson said universities must drive urgent reforms and “ensure there is a diversity of views, especially in their humanities faculties”. Universities must also “prioritise research in the nat­ional interest and tell the Australian people who ultimately fund it about this critical contribution”.

“If any other group in society was as under-represented among their faculty as conservatives and classical liberals, every university would establish a working group, hold a symposium, host an international conference, impose quotas or targets and launch a new scholarship to fix it.”

After Senator Hanson used a recent National Press Club address to endorse a “monoculture”, Senator Paterson said “two things can be true at the same time”.

“That Australia is a multicultural country. Also that it’s reasonable to disagree about whether the policies that underpin multiculturalism are working well, or not.”

“One thing that would be totally alien to our history and political culture would be a government-imposed monoculture. We should be very wary of those on the right who want to import foreign concepts of cultural uniformity.”

He said “moral relativism displayed by some on the left, who seem to believe the only distinctive feature of Australian culture is we have no culture at all, is not a recipe for a cohesive society”.

“I do not agree with those who argue that ‘diversity is our strength’. Diversity in and of itself is not a strength. There are many diverse countries today which are not strong at all. Our strength is that despite our diversity, we have generally been a harmonious and cohesive society.”

“This is thanks to pluralism. In an Australian context, that means we can – and should – insist on the respect for and adherence to shared Australian values as part of any successful embrace of multiculturalism.”

Senator Paterson said that included “respect for liberal democracy, the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of others – including religious liberty and freedom of speech”.

“If we don’t, we run the very ­serious risk of descending into a nation of tribes,” he said.

Senator Paterson also took aim at Confucius institutes, including one at Melbourne University that only recently closed after operating for 17 years.

“That institution was – charitably – a soft-power initiative by a foreign authoritarian government which has been accused by human rights groups and the UN of committing crimes against humanity in targeting ethnic and religious minorities.

“If anything has compromised the integrity and independence of Australian universities in recent decades, it has been their dependence on the People’s Republic of China, not a donation from a deceased Australian businessman (Paul Ramsay) whose foundation supports the study of great books.”

Pauline Hanson recently suggested that Gough Whitlam “opened the floodgates” to non‑European migration by ending the White Australia policy in 1973. The article explains this is factually incorrect. Migration from Asia had already slowed dramatically by the early 1900s, and later governments—Menzies (1958) and Holt (1966)—had begun dismantling racially exclusionary rules long before Whitlam. Even after these changes, Australia remained overwhelmingly European well into the 1980s. Hanson’s narrative misrepresents both the timing and the scale of demographic change.