Inform future workplace reform based on evidence, not ideology Addressing fatigue is not about working less — it is about working smarter, safer, and more sustainably. A modern economy depends on a healthy, capable workforce. Australia can lead by testing what the evidence already suggests: that well-rested workers are more productive, resilient, and engaged.

We demonstrate that: · The minimum wage adequacy benchmark remains at approximately 36% of required living standards, where it should be approximately 50% post-GST · This 14-point gap creates systemic underpayment of low-income Australians · It generates unfunded liabilities in workers' compensation schemes · It produces impossible compliance contradictions between social security and injury compensation systems · It results in significant revenue shortfalls for state and federal governments Fiscal Domino Effect Revenue Stream Annual Shortfall Cause WorkCover Premiums ~$780 million Suppressed wage base State Payroll Tax ~$1.5 billion Suppressed wage base Federal Income Tax ~$6.24 billion Suppressed wages GST Collections ~$2 billion Suppressed consumption Total Estimated ~$10.52 billion/year This submission provides the evidence, analysis, and pathway for correction. We urge all addressed parties to: 1. Formally acknowledge the 2000 GST anomaly 2. Commit to the LECI development and implementation 3. Begin the systemic recalibration Australia needs   The time for temporary fixes has passed. We must complete the social policy framework that should have accompanied the 2000 tax reform.

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.

His actions disarming a gunman are the actions of a naturally heroic person.

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.

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.

If Forest Fire Management continue their burns through Victorian forests and wilderness areas the change to our ecosystems will be degraded to the point we will mass species/habitat loss and not have any old growth forests left. If you look at the planned burn areas of the Great Otway National Park for example, their burns cover the entire area.  It is the same for the Snowy River National Park where they are burning at this moment. FFM also claim they are doing "fuel reduction burns" all clever propaganda, because they cant say they are doing "forest reduction burns" as communities would be up in arms, but this is what they are doing.

Right now, the system allows those with deep pockets to gain privileged access to the people making decisions that affect the entire country. When individuals or corporations can pay thousands of dollars for private time with politicians, it creates a two-tier system: •  One where the wealthy can influence decisions directly  •  And another where ordinary Australians are left on the outside  This undermines the core principle of democracy—that every citizen should have an equal voice. Even when no explicit deals are made, the perception alone damages trust. Australians are left wondering whose interests are really being served behind closed doors. Over time, this erodes confidence in government, fuels cynicism, and weakens the integrity of public institutions. Decisions that should be made in the national interest risk being shaped by those who can afford access—not those most affected by the outcomes. Ending cash-for-access is about restoring fairness, rebuilding trust, and ensuring that political power remains accountable to the people—not to money.

Australia needs to be more self reliant as oppossed to be reliant upon other countries & subject to the changing world dynamics. We are at the mercy of changing mindsets of other countries ie. USA & global changes out of our control. We need to be more in control of our future. 

In the context of the 2026 global political landscape, the demand to withdraw Australian military forces until the Epstein files are fully addressed is based on several key arguments regarding national integrity, accountability, and the influence of foreign leaders. 1. Integrity of Military Alliances Advocates for withdrawal argue that Australia’s military commitments—particularly those involving the United States and Israel—should be suspended if the leadership of those nations is compromised by information in the Epstein files.  • Current US President: Recent document releases under the Epstein Files Transparency Act have identified Donald Trump as being mentioned thousands of times. While he denies wrongdoing, the files include claims regarding his past association with Jeffrey Epstein and trips on his private jet. • Israeli Leadership: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has been documented as having extensive business and social ties with Epstein, including over 60 meetings. Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also been mentioned in the files, though primarily in a contextual rather than accusatory capacity.  2. Concerns Over "Diversionary" Conflicts There is a growing public perception that current military actions, such as the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran, may serve as a distraction from the legal and political fallout of the Epstein disclosures.  • Critics argue that it is unethical to deploy the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to support administrations whose leaders are under intense scrutiny for their historical links to a convicted sex trafficker. • Public figures and activists have raised concerns that "war talk" is being used to bury reports of elite misconduct. 3. Protection of National Sovereignty Withdrawing military support is seen as a way to protect Australia’s own social cohesion and ethical standards.  • By pausing military engagement, the Australian Government can demand full transparency from its allies before risking the lives of its service members. • This stance supports the call for an Independent Corruption and Integrity Commission to investigate any potential local links to the Epstein network, ensuring that no foreign influence dictates Australian military policy.  Parliament of Australia 4. Accountability and Justice for Victims Linking military action to the resolution of the Epstein case emphasizes that justice for victims of human trafficking must take precedence over geopolitical interests. • The United Nations has noted that flawed disclosure processes in the US have undermined accountability for these grave crimes. • An Australian military pause serves as a diplomatic lever to pressure allies into releasing the remaining 98% of sealed documents, which reportedly include crucial videos and internal investigative notes.