On Sunday at Bondi we witnessed the appalling consequences of hatred and how it breeds radicalisation and violence. But as the Jewish community and the whole country grieved, some politicians went on the attack, exploiting a tragedy to sow division and pit our communities against each other. Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce are attacking our Muslim and Palestinian friends, families and neighbours. Benjamin Netanyahu and Jillian Segal are pushing to erode our civil liberties and attacking those who peacefully protest genocide. Andrew Hastie and Josh Frydenberg are trying to score political points by attacking migrant communities. But we all deserve to feel safe, no matter our religion or where we come from. We cannot allow our grief, fear and anger to be used as a political weapon to spread division and hate. Jewish communities are beautifully diverse, culturally and politically. Antisemitism and racism flourish when the diversity of any community is erased. The far-right Israeli government does not speak for Jewish people in Australia and is not interested in our safety. Only we can create safety for each other. We are asking all Australians to unite behind the call to end antisemitism, racism and gun violence in the wake of this unthinkable tragedy. The only way to build lasting community strength and safety is by coming together.  There are a number of incredible partner organisations working with the Jewish Council to promote this campaign. Note that signatures collected on this page will be tallied together with those collected by our partners.

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.

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.

THE THREAT: HUMAN CONTROL CAN BE LOST ONE DELEGATION AT A TIME AI development is moving beyond assistance toward delegated AI agency and increasing autonomy. A person may first ask AI for an answer. Later, that person may authorise an AI agent to carry out a task. Increasingly autonomous systems can then plan, sequence actions, use other software and act with less contemporaneous human direction.   HELPING AGENT  →  DELEGATED AGENCY  →  AUTONOMY The danger does not require a dramatic 'AI takeover'. Human agency can be eroded incrementally: one decision is delegated, then another, then a process, then an organisational function. The human may remain formally responsible while practical authority has migrated to the system. This is an emerging and increasingly important public-interest risk. The fact that today's AI is useful and generally user-directed must not obscure the consequences of tomorrow's more autonomous systems. WHAT IS HUMAN AGENCY BY DESIGN? Human Agency by Design means treating human authority as an intentional, protected property of every consequential AI-enabled system — not as an optional ethical feature added after the technology has been built. It has two inseparable dimensions: • Governance intention — society and government establish who may delegate authority to AI, what limits apply, who remains accountable, how people can challenge decisions, and when human intervention is mandatory. • Architectural intention — those requirements are built into identities, permissions, credentials, data, APIs, workflows, agent frameworks, audit trails, intervention mechanisms and the underlying software infrastructure. The principle is simple: increasing machine capability must not automatically become increasing machine authority. WHY ACT NOW? Once organisations and governments become dependent upon autonomous systems, restoring human control may be technically, economically and institutionally difficult. The opportunity to establish the boundary is greatest while humans still determine how AI is incorporated into the digital infrastructure of society. History provides a warning. Robodebt and the Post Office Horizon scandal demonstrate the human and institutional cost that can arise when automated system outputs acquire authority while affected people lack effective means to understand, challenge or correct decisions. AI could magnify such risks through greater scale, speed, complexity and delegation. The objective is therefore preventive: protect human agency before it becomes difficult to recover.

The average cost of a funeral in Australia is $4,000–$15,000 per funeral, plus the cost of burials, gravestones, and the plot for the body. If you go the cremation route, you still have to pay for the cremation and urn. The costs for all of this have ballooned and led to a society in Australia where you have to pay to die. The government has allowed funeral companies to profit off grieving families, and the exploitative industry charges hundreds for even the cheapest coffins. Even if you go for the cheapest option, companies will try to guilt-trip you into spending thousands more while you are mourning the death of a loved one. This leads to people in Australia taking money out of their super to make sure their family does not have to suffer through the costs—money that should be used to enjoy their limited time in this wonderful country of ours. And because death is incredibly unpredictable, families can also be stuck with the cost, putting people in debt and making those who are already mourning the loss of a loved one suffer even more by having to worry about how the hell they are going to afford this. During this, we are not hearing ANYTHING from politicians. I have not heard a single policy or even acknowledgement that there is a problem. The truth is that this affects everyone in this country, whether you are rich or poor or you are a working person who is just trying to get by. Everyone in their life will eventually have to experience the cost of a funeral or be the one that funeral is for. This petition is calling for the following policies to be put into action ASAP: The abolishment of the funeral industry and its replacement with a government-owned funeral system, where the government covers the full cost of funerals and cremations/burials, as well as the cost of any coffins/urns, the plot of land, and the gravestone the person may want. A government fund to give mourning families financial assistance, depending on their financial situation, to help them get through the hard times, as well as cover the costs of anything that would not be covered, such as any repast and venues for a repast. The government to also create a new manufacturing company to build coffins and gravestones at low cost with high-quality materials to ensure the government would not need to spend too much money on these measures. The benefits of all this would allow people to mourn the loss of a loved one without having to worry about the costs that may come with it. It would also encourage the government to improve the healthcare system and do more to reduce suicide rates, as well as improve safety in our day-to-day lives—therefore increasing the average life expectancy in Australia. Additionally, it would encourage the government to close the gap for First Nations people and improve life expectancy for all people, whether white, Black, or part of the LGBTQIA+ community, as well as improve overall happiness. All of this would be encouraged because of the cost of funerals. If the cost of covering funerals gets too high, that would indicate to the government the need to improve safety.

In today's age where information flows freely, it is crucial that the details of convicted sex offenders, including their names and addresses, are made legally available for public access. This will empower individuals to make informed decisions about their safety and the safety of their families. Currently, in many regions around the world, individuals are left in the dark about the potential threats lurking within their own neighborhoods. By making such crucial information accessible, we can prevent further trauma and foster trust within our communities.

NEPT is essential. It safely transports patients who still need clinical support but don’t require an emergency ambulance. If it’s privatised further, we’ll see: ❌ Loss of experienced NEPT staff ❌ More pressure on emergency ambulances ❌ Longer wait times for vulnerable patients ❌ Reduced accountability and inconsistent care ❌ More strain on an already struggling health system Privatisation might look like a cost‑saving measure, but the real cost will be paid by patients and frontline workers. Victoria deserves a safe, reliable, publicly accountable NEPT system. 👉