Elizabeth Watson-Brown
Ryan · Australian Greens · Australia
“We terrified the major parties because they knew it was popular and they were going to lose votes if they didn't do something. So they caved. Both Labor and the Liberals committed to 50 cent fares permanently. In 2022, we won bigger taxes on coal corporations in Queensland with the same method. We announced our policy.”
“Labor MPs were sitting around a table with Sportsbet at the Midwinter Ball last night, and this morning they introduced gambling reform designed to appease the gambling lobby. Gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry built off the losses of everyday people. People are losing their livelihoods and their lives over this.”
“This is the motion that Labor just tried to stop me talking about: the need for essential public services to return to public ownership. Instead, Labor replaced it with their own topic. I've never seen this happen before in the entire time I've been here.”
“It's no wonder that they want to stop me talking about it. They don't have the solutions. The real solution is staring us in the face. We have to end 40 years of privatisation and corporate rule. If you're out there in the real world listening to this, I just want to say something.”
“on indulgence I also acknowledge that it's a very good idea that we do have a conversation about this because it's a critical thing. We here on the crossbench are representing our constituents, and we are giving them a voice here in this parliament. Any potential suppression of that is a suppression of the voices of our constituents.”
“That's why I reckon we can win a gas tax, but only if we organise. We know the people in Labor and the major parties are still too close to big corporations to really put everyday people first, so we'll have to replace them. But you know how we replace them? By getting organised.”
The complete record
Every one of 365 lines we hold for Elizabeth Watson-Brown, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“I had a little cry of despair, but I woke up this morning fresh—not hungover like a lot of people here today, I've got to say—with fresh resolve to keep fighting for vulnerable Australians even as their government seems lined up against them.”
“During what should have been a serious and critical debate, there they were, chattering amongst each other, laughing and joking about going to the Midwinter Ball that night—what they're going to wear, how much they would drink, how late they would party—while voting for one of the most appalling pieces of legislation brought before this House. Straight after their vote to remove basic human rights for people with disability, they went to the ball to party with the likes of Sportsbet, arguably another vehicle for destroying lives. I just felt a pox on your House. I didn't go to the ball. I went home to, frankly, have a little cry.”
“That's why I reckon we can win a gas tax, but only if we organise. We know the people in Labor and the major parties are still too close to big corporations to really put everyday people first, so we'll have to replace them. But you know how we replace them? By getting organised. Lastly, I just want to talk about what happened in the House yesterday. We were speaking to and voting on the government's heinous NDIS bill. We saw the two old parties lining up together to support a bill that will destroy lives. Seeing them all there, ganged up against the most vulnerable Australians with many backbenchers who I'm convinced didn't know what they were voting for, was horrendous. It was soul destroying.”
“We terrified the major parties because they knew it was popular and they were going to lose votes if they didn't do something. So they caved. Both Labor and the Liberals committed to 50 cent fares permanently. In 2022, we won bigger taxes on coal corporations in Queensland with the same method. We announced our policy. We campaigned on the ground. We won the argument. Labor were forced to go much further than they'd planned. We also won a far bigger build of publicly owned renewables in Queensland, same story. Last term in federal parliament, we won an extra $3 billion for public and community housing with the same approach again, organising. These politicians in the major parties, they're not leaders; they're followers. They follow the line set for them by their corporate donors and lobbyists unless they're forced to follow the people.”
“It's no wonder that they want to stop me talking about it. They don't have the solutions. The real solution is staring us in the face. We have to end 40 years of privatisation and corporate rule. If you're out there in the real world listening to this, I just want to say something. You, we, can win a tax on gas corporations but not if we leave it to the politicians. Let me explain. In 2024, we won 50 cent public transport fares in Queensland. We didn't do this by doing political deals. We did it by organising. In 2020, the Greens announced a free public transport policy. At the time, we were laughed at, but then hundreds of everyday people doorknocked tens of thousands of voters. We talked about free public transport, among other bold policies.”
“This is the motion that Labor just tried to stop me talking about: the need for essential public services to return to public ownership. Instead, Labor replaced it with their own topic. I've never seen this happen before in the entire time I've been here. Clearly, they desperately don't want to talk about how Australians are being ripped off on their phone bill, energy bill, internet, even mortgage. They're being ripped off because Labor and the Liberals, both major parties, have been privatising public corporations and essential public services for decades. Here is just one example. According to the Australia Institute, in 2024, AGL made $755 in profit per customer per year for household electricity. You're not just paying for these essential services; you're paying for the price of privatisation on top.”
“Then they'll go to bed at 8:30, right? It is very realistic to expect that kids won't stay up to watch their favourite team. Kids will grow up thinking the link between gambling and sports is totally normal, and they've failed to do anything about inducements which are truly insidious methods the gambling companies use to relentlessly target addicts for everything they have. The government should be ashamed of themselves.”
“Labor MPs were sitting around a table with Sportsbet at the Midwinter Ball last night, and this morning they introduced gambling reform designed to appease the gambling lobby. Gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry built off the losses of everyday people. People are losing their livelihoods and their lives over this. The government is too close to the gambling industry, and these laws are not a serious response to the scale of gambling harm in Australia. There's no national regulator in these laws. Remember, reporting from last year revealed that the industry is effectively regulated by six people in the Northern Territory, most of whom have huge conflicts of interest. They're not fixing that with this bill. They're selling out our kids. An arbitrary number of three gambling ads an hour is apparently OK.”
“So I think it's really critical for the retention of democracy and the voices of the millions of people that we represent to make sure that our voices are still heard in this democracy.”
“on indulgence I also acknowledge that it's a very good idea that we do have a conversation about this because it's a critical thing. We here on the crossbench are representing our constituents, and we are giving them a voice here in this parliament. Any potential suppression of that is a suppression of the voices of our constituents. I'm very concerned that other constituents across Australia, with this kind of motion and this move, would not understand how their own representatives had voted. I think it's really critical, particularly on very, very important and life-changing bills, like we saw yesterday with the NDIS, that individual constituents in those electorates actually understand what their MPs have voted for or voted against.”
“The commission's findings were unambiguous: interruptions to care, administrative friction and rationing of essential services are drivers of poor outcomes in this cohort, including suicide. A cap structured this way will cause harm. It may cost lives.”
“Insultingly, the government slaps them with a new policy with next to no detail of how it will work and without acknowledgement of the very real impact this will have. DVA is clearly not working for the people it's meant to serve. Veterans wait years in limbo for initial liability and compensation decisions. The system is already in deep crisis. Against this backdrop, the government is asking veterans to trust that a brand new, demonstrated clinical need mechanism—the proposed safety net for those who exhaust the $5,000 cap—will be accessed quickly, fairly and without becoming yet another barrier to care or yet another interruption to ongoing treatment. The royal commission specifically warned against precisely this kind of barrier.”
“But what, indeed, is a valid clinical need? How is it defined? We haven't seen anything, veterans haven't seen anything and nor have the veterans organisations. So who is this change actually for? It's certainly not benefiting veterans and their families—exactly the opposite! This change is for a government that's handing out billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies to massive corporations while claiming it cannot afford to look after the people who have actually served our country. What is abundantly clear to me, from my discussions with veterans, is that there is no trust that the government will look after them or put their best interests first. These are people who have given so much, often at great personal cost.”
“Veterans in my electorate have been contacting me extremely concerned about the introduction of a $5,000 allied health service cap introduced in Labor's last budget. I've heard that, for many, these changes will mean they could be worse off than before the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. A $5,000 cap won't even last half the year for some. We also know—from the thousands of messages, testimonies and experiences of veterans—that, even before this cap has commenced, timely access to care is already extremely difficult. The wait time for a GP who actually understands the department's system and is willing to complete the additional clinical paperwork required for any DVA claim or exemption is longer, still. DVA will fund allied health services above the $5,000 cap where there is a valid clinical need.”
“Our amendment reduces the scope of the ministerial power by reducing the timeframe for making transitional rules to six months for every part of the bill, except for parts relating to new framework planning, reasonable and necessary supports, and plan renewals. This will significantly limit the power of the minister to change how the NDIS Act works without taking a bill to parliament, though the Greens will continue to push for this power to be removed from the bill altogether. I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to make a submission to the inquiry on the NDIS bill. There have been over 4½ thousand people so far who have done so. You've helped us put pressure on the government to secure these changes. The Greens and I will continue to use every pathway we have to fight this bill and to push the government to scrap it entirely.”
“Treatment must also be a publicly funded service available through Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the public health system. Thirdly, this bill allows the use of automated decision-making for important NDIS decisions, including for the development of participant plans and the processing of claims. We have secured greater transparency on the detail of how these automated decisions will be made by requiring that decision-making frameworks for evaluative decisions be made publicly available before being implemented. Lastly, this bill gives the minister the power to make rules that can change how parts of the NDIS Act operate without having to pass a new bill through parliament.”
“The minister cannot make cuts to supports that people rely on for daily health needs, attending medical appointments or getting to work. The second area is the definition of 'permanent disability'. The bill gives a new definition of 'permanent disability' that narrows the scope of what will be considered a permanent disability by bringing into primary legislation the concept of 'all appropriate treatment', which requires a person to undergo treatments to prove their disability is permanent before being allowed to access the scheme. The bill as it is written specifies that financial and geographical circumstances are not a consideration regarding what treatment is available. We've secured protections to ensure that treatment cannot be a restrictive practice, such as forced medication.”
“However, even with these amendments, the effects of this bill will still be incredibly cruel, and the Greens will continue to push the government and the opposition to withdraw their support for it. The first area of amendment relates to support determinations. The bill as first presented allows the minister to make universal percentage cuts to funding for a category of supports. These cuts would apply to all NDIS participants. Our amendments will ensure that cuts cannot be applied to the support categories of daily living, transport, consumables, assistive technology or home modifications. We've also limited the impact of the minister's changes to support determinations relating to social, community and civic participation.”
“I sent out a survey to people who my office has helped with the NDIS, and every single person who responded was seriously concerned either about being kicked off entirely or about cuts severely impacting their quality of life. Some said they simply weren't sure if they could keep going and keep surviving without their NDIS support. I'm pleased that the Greens have been able to secure an additional eight weeks of inquiry into the bill. This will delay the passing of the bill and will secure more time for the disability community to have their voices heard in the inquiry. This, in turn, will build more pressure for the bill to be completely withdrawn, as it should be. As well as gaining more valuable time for participants, the amendments I'm moving today will protect NDIS participants from some of the very worst parts of this very bad bill.”
“(9) Schedule 5, item 1, page 108 (lines 25 and 26), omit subitem (5), substitute: (5) Rules under subitem (1) relating to amendments or repeals made by Part 5 or 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act, or to Schedule 4 of this Act, must not be made after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subitem commences. (5A) Rules under subitem (1) relating to amendments or repeals other than those mentioned in subitem (5) must not be made after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this subitem commences. The Greens will not be supporting these cruel cuts and changes to the NDIS Act. We know that these changes will make life harder for people who rely on the NDIS to live independently, participate in their communities and access education and work. I've heard these concerns directly from my constituents.”
“(7) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (after line 30), at the end of subsection 25A(1), add: Note 1: For the purposes of paragraph (c), treatment is regularly undertaken or performed in Australia if public funding is available in respect of the treatment. Note 2: Appropriate treatment does not include restrictive practices involving seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, physical restraint or environmental restraint. (8) Schedule 3, item 11, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 59D(5), insert: CEO must publish proposed instrument (5A) At least 7 days before making a standard operating procedure instrument, the CEO must cause a copy of the proposed instrument to be published on the Agency's website.”
“net FCA means: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the funding component amount stated in the plan for the specified group of supports; or (b) if the determination specifies an excluded subgroup within the specified group—the funding component amount stated in the plan for the group of supports minus so much of the funding component amount as is attributable to funding for the supports in the excluded subgroup. (2B) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of net FCA in subsection (2A), the determination must specify how to determine the portion of the funding component amount that is attributable to funding for the supports in the excluded subgroup.”
“(4) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 18), omit "to which it applies", substitute "in the class of participants' plans to which the percentage applies". (5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 20 to 22), omit "specified in the determination is taken instead to be the stated amount as reduced by the percentage specified in the determination", substitute "is taken instead to be the amount worked out under subsection (2A)". (6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (after line 6), after subsection 34A(2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the funding component amount for the specified group of supports is the amount worked out as follows: FCA—specified percentage × net FCA where: FCA means the funding component amount stated in the plan for the group of supports.”
“(1B) The determination may specify one or both groups of supports. If it specifies both, it may specify the same or a different percentage for each group. (1C) The determination may specify a subgroup within a specified group of supports as an excluded subgroup for the purposes of subsection (2A). The excluded subgroup may consist of one or more kinds of supports. Note: Excluded subgroups will include supports in employment and disability related health supports. (1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a class of participants' plans may be specified by reference to features of plans, features of participants, or both. (3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (line 17), omit "is in force", substitute "of a percentage is in force for a group of supports".”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (lines 8 to 13), omit paragraphs 34A(1)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) a percentage for reducing funding component amounts for a group of supports specified in the determination; and (b) the class of participants' plans to which the percentage applies, which may be: (i) all old framework plans that commence on or after the day the determination commences; or (ii) the class of such plans specified in the determination. (2) Schedule 1, item 34, page 12 (after line 16), after subsection 34A(1), insert: (1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a specified group of supports must be supports for one of the following: (a) assistance with social, economic and community participation; (b) improved daily living skills.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. A minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports has proven to be one of the most popular policies with the Australian public. Despite this, you've chosen to listen to the gas industry over everyday Australians. Will you listen to the people and hold a national plebiscite for a gas tax?”
“The government is either being recklessly slow to regulate AI companies or it is doing their bidding, and I do not know which is worse. The good news is that there is hope. Communities are sounding the alarm, rallying together and standing up against these dangerous megaprojects. In May, one development in Perth faced overwhelming opposition due to impacts on schools, residences and cultural heritage sites. The Greens have established a Senate inquiry into these data centres, and we will call on the government to pass a comprehensive AI bill. The government should consider a moratorium on new data centres until proper regulations have been enshrined into law.”
“Big companies set up shop here, we failed to tax them properly and we watched their profits sail away overseas, leaving behind a wrecked environment and no economic benefit. Is that the future we really want? Is that the best the government can do—our precious resources extracted and big tech companies making huge profits? All the government has to offer is a set of non-binding expectations for AI companies. Rather than imposing legal regulations on their activities, Labor's acting nicely and hoping for the best. Is it cynical of me not to trust these companies to do the right thing in Australia? We've seen this story before with the tobacco, gambling and fossil fuel industries. Big corporations use donors and lobbyists to influence government policy.”
“At the very least, the government must force companies to contribute renewable energy to the grid, not compete with households for energy during a fuel crisis. There are several other major problems with AI data centres, including their use of otherwise productive agricultural and industrial land, their environmental degradation and water consumption, their noise pollution in close proximity to residential areas and the job cuts they actually cause. So what's the government doing about them, you may ask? They're welcoming them with open arms, signing deals with Amazon, Anthropic and Microsoft in recent weeks. We are repeating the very same mistakes we made during the resources boom.”
“Without proper safeguards, data centres are going to drive up retail power prices, increase climate pollution and use up our scarce water. You might have seen the advocates of these data centres saying Australia was the perfect host due to its renewable energy potential. Note that key word: 'potential'. Isn't this an amazing change of heart! Big business now wants renewables when it suits them. They don't care about the climate or the fires and floods that we suffer each year. No, American executives only want renewables when it serves their business interests. I don't support these data centres and certainly not while the regulation is so poor. Like many Australians, I'm completely at a loss regarding what benefits they would actually bring to Australians.”
“Australia is already No. 8 in the world for the total number of operational and proposed data centres. We were behind only the USA for new proposals in 2024, with new projects proposed every week. One site, just 30 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD, would occupy 350 hectares. That's larger than many suburbs. Another 52-hectare site in Western Sydney would be Australia's single largest energy consumer. And it's the energy consumption of these sites that is so alarming. Data centres will account for more than 10 per cent of Australia's energy consumption within a decade, jeopardising our energy transition. They're already boosting fossil fuel demand, absorbing half of one year's total rooftop solar growth.”
“I'm pleased to support this matter of public importance regarding AI data centres and fully agree with demands for developers to fund the mitigation of their projects' harms. Thirsty for water and hungry for power—that's how the new AI data centres springing up across Australia are being described, and for good reason. Big tech companies are taking advantage of Australia's resources, imposing their damaging data centres on our communities and consolidating their control of our personal data and our economy. While the government seems okay with Australian land being covered in AI data centres, everyday people are rightly asking serious questions: Why are these data centres being forced on us? What risks do they pose, and what safeguards are actually in place? People want answers and proper regulation of this industry.”
“It's clear that we have a lot of work to do, people—a lot of work. We need them to fear everyday people more than they like their gas lobby mates, so get out there and build the movement for a gas tax. Talk to your friends, your colleagues and your neighbours about it. And, if politicians can't resist the gas lobby's influence, then let's replace them.”
“I rise to speak about the corrosive influence of the gas lobby. It's a very simple proposal: get gas lobbyists out of parliament. Ban them. It's that simple. Our politicians seem to be completely incapable of resisting the relentless lobbying, the spin, the threats, the pressure and the dossiers of talking points handed to them and their staff. It really is simple: politicians shouldn't be meeting with gas lobbyists; they should be meeting with the people who elected them. The Greens just put forward this simple proposal, and guess what? Labor, the Liberals and One Nation all voted against it. Why? Well, this is also really simple: the current status quo suits them. A lot of MPs and staffers are friends and ex-colleagues of gas lobbyists. Some of them are ex-lobbyists themselves, and some will go on to be lobbyists. It's a revolving door.”
“Switzerland rejected the use of Palantir after an internal risk assessment because they couldn't be confident about data security. We should be doing the same here in Australia. Instead, during questioning in Senate estimates this week by Senator David Shoebridge, the government refused to answer whether Australian biometric data would be safe from Palantir. We simply should not be trusting them with our data.”
“We know that they help develop AI generated 'kill lists' in places like Gaza, that they help track and deport immigrants from the US and that it was their AI targeting software that was responsible for the strike on the school in Iran that killed over a hundred children. In Australia, Palantir's clients include the Department of Defence and the Australian Signals Directorate—and also Coles Supermarkets, to 'address workforce related spend'. They hold other contracts with the federal government and Australian states worth several hundred million dollars. How much of your data do they have access to? How can we be confident that data is secure when Palantir has explicitly said they will serve the interests of the US military?”
“Speaking of big companies taking public money, Palantir—you might have heard of it. It was founded by far-right billionaire Peter Thiel. Its business is AI data analytics, and it's enabling a huge expansion of the surveillance state through its technology with absolutely no democratic oversight. It is now worth a staggering $375 billion. This is not a politically neutral company. They're very, very explicitly in favour of US military power and dominance over the rest of the world and have said that they have a duty to uphold that with their work. Palantir's clients include the US and Israeli militaries and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aka ICE.”
“BHP is the world's largest mining company and Australia's largest company. They've made a staggering $91 billion in profit over the last 10 years, so why did they receive $622 million in fuel tax credits just in the last year? That is Australian taxpayers subsidising diesel for the world's largest mining company. People are right to be really angry about this. BHP is one of many mining companies benefiting from generous fuel subsidies while everyday Australians have to pay full price. Meanwhile, the government has made huge cuts to public services in the budget, including cuts to the renewables transition. Perhaps, instead of cutting funding for renewables, they should be looking at the billions of dollars in subsidies that we're giving to the mining sector every year.”
“It's going to a Senate inquiry where these issues will be examined, as they should be. It's important we let that process play out. What we ultimately want to see is the billionaires, the ultrawealthy and the one per cent who are earning a huge amount from simply watching assets grow paying their fair share, but let's make sure that is actually what this bill will achieve. The Greens will be supporting this bill in the House. The government has the numbers, and the bill's clearly going to pass. But I want to make very clear that we will be reserving our position in the Senate.”
“What gets a little more complex is the situation where people who might be earning an income from work are supplementing that with earnings from non-housing assets. Many people doing this are quite wealthy, but certainly not everyone. I can totally understand why young people who feel locked out of the housing market and may have resorted to assets like shares to save up for a deposit would feel that they're getting the rug pulled out from under them. I do think that that's understandable. I've also been hearing from many of my constituents—some retirees, some small-business owners, and many others concerned about potential unintended consequences—that the government simply has not been able to explain or to justify its proposed changes to these concerned people. So where are we left on this bill?”
“Young Australians are not cheering for this package of reforms, because they've watched the property ladder being pulled up before their eyes. Another really serious concern is the broad, sweeping ministerial powers that this legislation gives the Treasurer. Then there are the changes to tax concessions for non-housing assets. The government has failed to communicate with the public about these changes, leaving the door open—as we've seen—for a massive campaign against them by big business, start-up founders and people invested in shares—people earning a passive income from simply owning assets shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than people earning an income from working. I don't think that that should be controversial to say.”
“This bill, seemingly, has no friends. On one hand, the Greens have been campaigning for property tax concession reform for a long time. It's clearly necessary to wind back these concessions if we are going to fix the housing crisis, but we also need investment in public housing and renters' rights reform. However, the reforms that we've been presented clearly have many loopholes that advantage existing property owners over young people trying to enter the property market. Why should these tax concessions be grandparented for people with five, 15 or 50 properties? If this reform is actually going to have an impact on the housing crisis, those people cannot be encouraged to hold on to their dozens of properties. But that's what these reforms as drafted will incentivise.”
“I hope that Labor MPs and the minister, who voted against a gas tax, are prepared to answer this question of the Australian people, who overwhelmingly support a tax on gas exports, about why they have once again put the gas corporations first.”
“They know that a 25 per cent tax on gas exports is a simple and effective way to make gas corporations pay their fair share for our gas—gas that belongs to us, the Australian people. People are sick. They're so sick of the gas corporations having more of a say than them. They're sick of the donations, the cash-for-access meetings and the revolving door between gas lobbyists, MPs and senior staffers. People know that our health system, our education system and our other public services are underfunded. The $17 billion raised from taxing our gas would help fix that. Instead, gas corporations are making huge profits from our gas and using that money to continue to lobby against paying their fair share. It's a great, big, self-perpetuating circle of influence over our democracy.”
“The government must learn from past mistakes of being slow to regulate new technologies and pass comprehensive legislation to safeguard Australians from AI risks. The government is representing gas corporations, not the Australian people. Yesterday, I moved a simple amendment calling for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Labor MPs voted to defeat it, and One Nation and the LNP didn't even bother to turn up. Australians are fed up with the gas companies ripping us off. They know that many gas corporations like Santos are paying no company tax. They know that the PRRT scheme is completely ineffective. We're raising more tax from beer than PRRT. Japan's raising more tax from our gas exports than we are. The PRRT revenue is predicted to go down over the next few years.”
“The government is asking an AI company worth half a trillion dollars to investigate its own industry. What a joke. Meanwhile, the Victorian government has been so desperate to approve a huge new data centre that they hosted international AI executives at the Australian Open. Regular people don't get that kind of access to our governments, but big AI companies do. Has the government put any safeguards in place for data centres? No. All they've produced are non-binding expectations—not laws, just expectations. The government will ask nicely, cross their fingers and hope that big tech companies do the right thing. Wishful thinking? Clearly. It's a stunning failure to regulate this emerging threat to our jobs, our environment and our energy security. The Greens have established an AI inquiry into those data centres.”
“I was shocked to read the government's Austrade website, which proudly proclaims Australia is becoming a regional data centre hub, where it is cheaper to build and operate data centres than it is in Asia. For big tech companies, the government rolls out the red carpet and says: 'Step right up. We're a cheap date.' It's a pretty sweet deal for the multinational corporations, but it is a betrayal of ordinary people and our environment. Why the major parties are so friendly to the big AI companies is not a mystery. Technology companies donated over $13 million to political parties at the last federal election. Just last week, Anthropic visited Canberra to sign a memorandum of understanding involving exclusive contracts to investigate AI safety. Can you believe it?”
“The new proposed AI data centre in Victoria would be Australia's largest ever, demanding more power than Victoria's biggest coal plant. Data centres like this one consume obscene amounts of land and obscene amounts of energy and water, threaten our energy transition, take away jobs and degrade our environment. What would these data centres do for us? It's really difficult to imagine any good, when they destroy far more jobs than they create, they increase energy prices and reliance on fossil fuels due to their excessive demand, they degrade our precious water and the surrounding environment, and they're privately owned by foreign corporations that don't pay tax. I don't know about you, but I think that's a very bad deal. Unfortunately, it appears that the government thinks it's a good deal.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. According to Oxfam, over the last year 17 more billionaires have been added to Australia's billionaires list, now at 178. Do you think that this time next year there should be fewer or more Australian billionaires?”
“Now! Rosa says: Tax them! Ash says: My wife is a teacher and constantly told "we can't afford pay rises"—and rightly points out that education, along with other public services, could be funded with the $17 billion this tax would raise. Kieran says: Our Gas sales should be beneficial to Our Children's Children, not Multinational corporations. Hear, hear!”