Because what happened here isn’t an error. It shows how easily money can be taken from people who have the least ability to absorb the loss. For someone living on a pension or low income, a “small fee” can throw out an entire fortnight: a skipped meal, a postponed prescription, a bill that suddenly can’t be paid. These decisions shape people’s day-to-day survival. What makes this worse is how quietly it happened. Most affected customers only found out when the regulator forced the banks to hand over the data. And even now, one of the biggest banks in the country is refusing to repay the full amount. If this is allowed to stand, it signals to every major financial institution that low-income customers are easy targets: less likely to complain, less likely to switch banks, more likely to absorb losses they shouldn’t have to. That’s why adding your name matters. It shows that people are paying attention, and that this kind of treatment won’t pass unnoticed. It’s a simple step, but it builds the public pressure needed to make sure the rules catch up with reality, and that this doesn’t become business as usual.

Across the country, people are doing their best on incomes that no one could survive on. Parents skipping meals so their kids can eat. Older people choosing between rent and medicine. Disabled people fighting the system just to get the support they’re entitled to. Young people couch-surfing because rent has skyrocketed out of reach. And hanging over all of it is a digital web of obligations, points targets and automated penalties – a system where your only income can be suspended because an algorithm misread your situation or a provider didn’t update their notes. This kind of hardship means people are less likely to stand up for their rights. That kind of compliance helps maintain low wages, insecure jobs, and a profitable “job services” industry that survives on churn, not long-term outcomes. Robodebt showed us what happens when governments automate punishment. Lives were destroyed. Families were left grieving. Rights were ignored. Yet today, many of the same or similar systems remain – just with different branding and a new interface. People deserve better than this. They deserve fairness. They deserve dignity. They deserve a future where support helps people get back on their feet – instead of pushing them deeper into stress and insecurity so others can profit. Raising the rate and ending automated punishment isn’t just good economic policy, it’s a stand for what kind of country we want to be. One where we look after each other, and where no one is disposable.

Across Australia, too many older people are trapped in an aged-care system that treats them like numbers on a form instead of human beings with rights, dignity and agency. Here’s what that looks like in practice: ““What’s your primary health condition?” “I have multiple equally primary health conditions.” “You have to pick one.” After 40 years of disability, I was told “pain it is then.” I asked for help with home maintenance and meal preparation – but there was only one provider. They couldn’t guarantee staff would be masked or vaccinated, and I wasn’t allowed to choose someone I trust. When I explained I couldn’t afford supermarket meals on a pension, I was told the provider’s books were closed – “buy prepared meals yourself.” I thought I could choose my own provider, but was told I’m “on CHSP” and “don’t need higher level care.” I still don’t understand what that means – only that I’m left without the help I need.” This is not an isolated story. It’s the experience of so many people who’ve worked, cared, and contributed all their lives, now caught in a maze of red tape and underfunding. Every older Australian deserves: • Choice and control over who provides their care • Timely support instead of months-long waiting lists • Respect for safety and consent, not one-size-fits-all providers • Dignity in ageing, not confusion and neglect When we ignore these failures, we betray the very people who built the communities we live in today. Fixing aged care isn’t charity, it’s justice. It’s about valuing life, care and connection at every age.

If we democratically manage what we produce, we can all share in the benefits. Publicly owned mining could drive a renewables boom and position Australia as a manufacturer of green tech. First Nations communities could be in the drivers seat, rather than hastily consulted at the last minute. Generations to come would have money in the bank to help them build a thriving, sustainable society.

The effects of these chemicals are widely unknown, with only certain chemicals having been studied. They are used in all sorts of products, including children's toys. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said children might be more sensitive to the harmful effects of chemicals like PFAS as they were still developing. In the EU, in addition to the PFAS class ban, authorities are also in the process of adopting new safety regulations that include bans on PFAS and other harmful chemicals, specifically in toys.  Australia needs to join the rest of the world in taking a precautionary approach, rather than responding to confirmed toxicity once a single chemical is studied. We should be banning this entire class of chemicals until it can be proven that some (if any) are safe for use in consumer products.

Test - Kurt Sorensen