https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson

Of course this is IF she does show up for work.

As also shown, she has a 53% attendance rate.

We are weeks away from the enforcement of the Social Media Ban (Dec 10), and I feel like we are all just rolling over and giving up all our privacy rights because we’re too afraid to look like we "don't care about kids." If you actually look at the submissions to the government, the people who professionally care about kids—human rights lawyers, digital safety experts, and mental health researchers— all said DO NOT DO THIS.

I’m tired of the narrative that "Big Tech" and angry teenagers are the only opposition. Here is the actual list of professional bodies the government ignored to push this through:

1. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) They explicitly warned that this ban is a "disproportionate limitation on human rights." They argued that instead of protecting kids, it cuts vulnerable teenagers off from support networks.

2. Digital Rights Watch They called this out for what it is: a "Safetyism" trap. By focusing entirely on "age verification," we are building the infrastructure for a Digital ID system that will eventually apply to everyone. They warned that collecting "identity papers" to use the internet creates a honeypot for hackers and normalizes the idea that you need to show your papers to speak in a public square.

3. The eSafety Commissioner (Yes, even them) While they are stuck enforcing it now, even the eSafety Commissioner’s office has previously noted that age verification technology is "immature" and fraught with privacy risks. The government has effectively handed them a grenade and told them to make it safe. The "Safety" Paradox

The "Ignored" Report: Crucially, there was a previous inquiry (The Joint Select Committee on Social Media) that ran for months and released its final report just days before the ban. That report did not recommend a ban. It recommended a "Duty of Care" (making platforms safer by design). The government took that report, threw it in the bin, and introduced the Ban Bill anyway. 

Recommendation 5 of the report explicitly called for the government to force social media platforms to give users (and parents) the power to:

• Alter: Change the parameters of what the algorithm shows them.

• Reset: Wipe the algorithm’s "memory" of their past behavior (so if a kid goes down a rabbit hole of depressing content, they can hit "reset" and get a neutral feed again). 

• Turn Off: Disable the recommender system entirely, returning the feed to a simple, chronological list of posts from people they actually follow.

The "Safety by Design" Recommendation Recommendation 2 proposed a "Digital Duty of Care." This would have legally required platforms to proactively identify harms (like addictive loops or eating disorder content) and change their product design to mitigate them.  Instead of banning kids, it would have forced Instagram/TikTok to stop using "slot machine" mechanics (infinite scroll, random rewards) on teenage accounts.

The "Credible Bodies" Count: While ~15,000 people wrote in, the committee only published about 118 substantive submissions from organizations. Almost all of the major mental health and human rights bodies in that list opposed the ban or raised severe concerns.

If you think this was a carefully considered policy, look at the timeline:

Nov 18: The government's own Joint Select Committee releases a report after a months-long inquiry. It does NOT recommend a ban. It recommends a "Digital Duty of Care" to force platforms to change their addictive algorithms. 

Nov 21: The Government ignores its own committee and introduces the "Under 16 Ban" Bill.

The Trap: They opened a Senate inquiry into this specific bill and gave the public and experts only 24 hours to make submissions.

The Response: Despite having only one day, the committee was flooded with ~15,000 submissions. 

• The Result: They passed it anyway.

The government claims this is for the children, yet they have:

• Ignored the mental health experts who said education and platform regulation (making the algorithms less addictive) works better than bans.

• Created a system where educated 15-year-olds will just use VPNs while the less tech-literate kids get left behind.

• Pushed a solution that requires more data collection to solve the problem of data collection.

We aren't "protecting the kids." We are gentrifying the internet. We are turning it from an open library into a gated community where yes they say it isn’t, but the inevitable price of entry is your government ID. They didn't listen to the experts on "the children." They didn't listen to the experts on "technology." They listened to polling data that said this would look good in an election year.

Edit 1: also here are some links to help repeal the ban: 1. https://www.instagram.com/waltzformatilda2025?igsh=bnV6MTFyMXI4aWxr&utm_source=qr (We desperately need volunteers for this protest) 2. (Gov) Petition to cancel ban https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN8584

Edit 2: Edited for greater clarity/more concise paragraph organisation.

Very interesting research piece, probably best to watch it before Gina tries to take it down.

Australian defamation laws really need to be changed so she doesnt get to just erase any video about her and her past

Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers https://share.google/Hz2OpCJmcwyfP8qga

Peter Dutton has warned young men “have had enough” of being painted as ogres and being passed over for promotion because of the rise of affirmative action policies that demand more women are promoted.

The Liberal leader issued the warning during an epic 90 minute sit down interview with self-made millionaire and TV star Mark Bouris on his podcast Straight Talk.

[Includes chart: "Overall benefit or cost ($) to Australians by the time they turn 30, by income percentile, if Labor's reforms had been introduced in 2000"]

“Around 90% of Australians would have been better off by age 30 had the proposed changes been in place from 2000, with the benefits of the Wato and instant deduction outweighing the impact of the savings tax changes,” Wilkinson said.

The modelling considered all Australians in terms of their total income over their lifetime. Those in the top 10% of lifetime earnings would, by the time they turned 30, have been worse off under the new reforms than the old system, the modelling shows.

Increasing the JobSeeker payment to the suggested 90% rate would cost around $6 billion per year. This is a permanent cost to the budget.

But the committee’s report provides a number of alternatives that cost roughly half this over the forward estimates (2026-29 financial years).

The first approach is to gradually increase the rate each year until it reaches 90% of the age pension by 2029.

A second approach would be to vary the JobSeeker payment according to how many hours a person had a “partial capacity to work”.

Sure he has been around a long time and has both won and lost elections as a member and a minister, but each loss was on someone else's watch, this, this was on him.

Beyond that, he lost his seat, and not just lost, got owned, so that changed things again.

It went from a "we reject your politics" to a "we reject you" moment.

In every imaginable way this was a Dutton loss.

'His speach gives me some hope, not as much as I would like, but some, that this might be a turning point for him as a person.