Stand Up Now Australia

What has changed for you under Labor government? Victoria goes to the polls in November 2026 with twelve years of Labor government to assess. Our ten-issue investigation asks what government collected, borrowed, promised and delivered — and what Victorians have to show for it. Follow the link in our bio >> ow.ly/SHBk5105h4f

850 AUSTRALIAN JOBS ON THE CHOP. AND AI IS PART OF THE PLAN. Qantas has announced plans to cut 850 Australian jobs, shifting work offshore through a major deal with Accenture as it moves towards greater AI adoption and automation. And on the very same day, the Albanese Government announces plans for new AI laws, another regulator and tougher penalties. But there’s a much bigger conversation Australia needs to be having. WHY ARE WE REPLACING PEOPLE WITH TECHNOLOGY, AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE LEFT BEHIND? We’re being told AI will improve productivity, reduce costs and transform the way businesses operate. But behind every job being cut is a real person. Someone with a mortgage, a family to support, bills to pay and a career they’ve worked hard to build. What about young Australians trying to get their first job, build experience, earn an income and become independent? What happens when those opportunities disappear before they’ve even had a chance? Regulating AI is one thing. But who’s addressing the impact on Australian jobs and the long-term consequences for our workforce? Innovation and progress should create opportunities for Australians, not come at the expense of their livelihoods. MORE DATA CENTRES. MORE AI. MORE AUTOMATION. BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS FOR AUSTRALIANS? theguardian.com/business/202…

LEST WE FORGET. 🇦🇺 At 11am today, we pause to remember. On 11 November 1918, the guns fell silent, marking the end of the First World War. Today, we honour the courage, service and sacrifice of the men and women who fought for our nation, those who never returned home, and the families who carried the cost of their sacrifice. The freedoms we enjoy today came at an extraordinary price. They should never be taken for granted. As Australians, we have a responsibility to remember those who came before us, honour their sacrifice and preserve the freedoms they fought to protect. At the eleventh hour, on the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, we remember them. We will remember them. Lest we forget. 🌹🇦🇺 #RemembranceDay #LestWeForget #StandUpNowAustralia

BREAKING: ALBANESE ANNOUNCES NEW AI LAWS AFTER OPENAI BREACH. Yesterday, the PM announced plans for tougher AI regulation following the OpenAI breach involving Australian government systems. Labor has accepted all 18 recommendations from a Rapid Review led by ITS OWN GOVERNMENT — the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, working with five existing government bodies, including the Office of AI, Australian Signals Directorate and Australian AI Safety Institute. The recommendations include: • Mandatory reporting of serious AI incidents. • Stronger cybersecurity and information-sharing arrangements. • Greater oversight of advanced AI developers. • Consideration of criminal law reforms for serious misconduct. The Government has also announced plans for independent AI safety testing and a NEW AI safety regulator with powers to impose significant penalties. This proposed regulator would be to 4 other regulatory bodies alreday overseeing this space. WHO WILL OVERSEE THE WATCHDOGS? The Rapid Review was conducted within government. Its recommendations have been published, and the full underlying report has not been made public. That raises an obvious question: how independently has the government’s own handling of the breach been examined? AI companies must be held accountable when their systems put government information at risk. But what about the government agencies responsible for protecting that information in the first place? Before establishing another regulator, Australians should know what went wrong, who was responsible, what corrective action has been taken, and why existing oversight arrangements are insufficient. We should also know what the proposed regulator will cost, what powers it will exercise and who will hold it accountable. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BIG TECH. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT. NO BLANK CHEQUES FOR EITHER.

ANOTHER REGULATOR. MORE POWERS. MORE PENALTIES. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced plans for a NEW AI safety regulator, with powers to impose significant penalties on technology companies. Yes, another one. Australia already has an Office of AI, an Australian AI Safety Institute and an eSafety Commissioner whose remit includes AI-related online services. This proposed regulator would be ADDITIONAL. And the timing deserves attention. Just yesterday, Google warned a Senate inquiry that the Albanese Government's Digital Duty of Care Bill could lead to intrusive monitoring of private emails, messaging and file storage. Google also warned that the legislation could force age checks and potentially restrict under-18s from accessing everyday services such as Gmail. Meanwhile, Meta, TikTok and Snap have raised concerns that broadly defined online harms and substantial penalties could encourage platforms to remove lawful content rather than risk enforcement action. THIS IS NO SMALL MATTER. We're watching multiple layers of digital regulation develop, each with its own obligations, enforcement mechanisms and potential consequences for Australians. The new AI regulator is being proposed following the OpenAI breach of a government Medicare statistics portal. Stronger cybersecurity and accountability are legitimate objectives. But why is another regulator necessary? What will it cost? Where will its powers overlap with existing authorities? And what protections will prevent regulatory overreach? The Digital Duty of Care Bill is already raising serious questions about privacy and freedom of expression. Now the government wants another regulator with additional enforcement powers. Australians have every reason to demand answers before Parliament grants them. pm.gov.au/media/new-australi…

CUT THE FUEL EXCISE, CANBERRA! ⛽️ While politicians are busy in Parliament, we haven't forgotten about the fuel crisis. Because we're the ones trying to survive it. Families are struggling. Small businesses are hurting. And the rising cost of fuel is making EVERYTHING more expensive. Canberra might have moved on to other debates, but Australians don't have that luxury. WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN. AND WE'RE NOT BACKING DOWN. It's time to CUT THE EXCISE and give Australians some much-needed relief. ✍️ SIGN THE PETITION. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. 👉 protectourfuel.com.au #CutTheExcise #ProtectOurFuel #StandUpNowAustralia #CostOfLiving

WE’RE LAUNCHING OUR VICTORIAN STATE ELECTION 2026 CAMPAIGN! After twelve years of Labor government, Victorians head to the polls this month with plenty of questions worth asking. Today, Stand Up Now Australia launches a ten-issue investigation examining what the Victorian Government has collected, borrowed, promised and delivered, and what Victorians have to show for it. This isn’t about telling you who to vote for. We’re not campaigning for a party or candidate. Our focus is on examining the record, asking the questions and putting the information in your hands. Before casting a vote, it’s worth taking a closer look at the record. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be sharing our findings across ten key issues ahead of election day. Our job is to put the information on the table. What you do with it is up to you. Your state. Your vote. Your decision.

THE DIGITAL DUTY OF CARE BILL IS BACK UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT. The Greens have announced Senate committee hearings for 9 and 10 November, giving the controversial Digital Duty of Care Bill further scrutiny. The Bill has already passed the House of Representatives, but it is far from becoming law. Australians have raised serious concerns about freedom of speech, privacy, government overreach and the powers this legislation could introduce. Now it’s time for those concerns to be properly examined. Who will be held accountable? What safeguards are in place? And will Australians actually be heard? We’ll be watching closely. The committee report is due on 20 November.

MILITARY-STYLE RIFLES ON SYDNEY STREETS. SAFETY OR INTIMIDATION? From 1 November, heavily armed NSW Police officers began patrolling Sydney’s streets, public spaces, major events and places of worship. The Minns Government’s new $94.3 million Armed Response Command will eventually comprise 250 specially trained officers carrying Australian Combat Assault Rifles. The Government says the unit is about protecting communities and responding to serious threats following the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack. BUT WHERE DOES PUBLIC SAFETY END AND THE MILITARISATION OF POLICING BEGIN? According to SBS News, human rights advocates are raising serious concerns about intimidation, overpolicing and the potential deployment of heavily armed officers at peaceful protests. And here’s what should concern Australians. When asked whether these officers could be deployed at protests, the unit’s commander said he was “not in a position to say we will never be there”. Amnesty International Australia is calling for clear safeguards, independent oversight and assurances that the unit will not be used to intimidate or suppress peaceful protest. These are not unreasonable demands. Australians deserve protection from genuine threats. Our police deserve the resources to respond to dangerous situations. But Australians also deserve to walk their streets, gather peacefully and exercise their democratic rights without fear of intimidation. A $94 MILLION ARMED POLICE UNIT. MILITARY-STYLE RIFLES. AND NO ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE THEY WON’T APPEAR AT PROTESTS. If these extraordinary capabilities are becoming a permanent feature of policing in NSW, the public deserves clear answers about where, when and how they can be used. SECURITY SHOULD NEVER COME AT THE EXPENSE OF ACCOUNTABILITY. sbs.com.au/news/article/nsw-…

RELIGIOUS LEADERS CALL FOR DIGITAL DUTY OF CARE BILL TO BE WITHDRAWN Leaders from four Christian denominations have reportedly called on the Albanese Government to withdraw and redraft its Digital Duty of Care Bill, warning of serious consequences for freedom of expression. According to reporting in The Australian, Baptist, Sydney Anglican, Seventh-day Adventist and Presbyterian church leaders have raised concerns about the Bill’s broad definitions of online harm and the potential for lawful religious expression to be restricted. Their concerns include discussions about morality, marriage, sexuality and gender, where views that are lawful but controversial could face increased scrutiny or removal by online platforms seeking to avoid substantial penalties. The leaders also question why professional news, research and certain educational material receive explicit protections under the legislation while religious expression does not. BUT THIS ISN’T JUST ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. The same concerns extend to independent journalists, community organisations, advocacy groups and everyday Australians expressing lawful opinions. When definitions of harm are broad, enforcement powers are extensive and penalties are substantial, platforms may have strong incentives to remove content rather than risk regulatory action. The question isn’t whether Australians deserve protection from genuine online harm. They do. It’s whether those protections can be delivered without compromising freedom of expression and handing regulators excessive discretion over lawful speech. The Bill passed the House of Representatives on 28 October and now awaits consideration in the Senate. With opposition emerging from different sectors of the community, Parliament must properly examine the consequences before proceeding. Online safety should not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms.

WA POLICE ARE WATCHING. WHEN WERE WEST AUSTRALIANS ASKED? Police drones flying over residential neighbourhoods. Number plate recognition cameras capturing vehicles entering shopping centres. Facial recognition technology scanning members of the public. Welcome to the expanding surveillance capabilities of WA Police. In October, the Cook Government launched its Drone as First Responder program, with plans to expand across Perth suburbs. Police say the drones respond to incidents, not conduct routine patrols. But their cameras operate while travelling over residential areas. Meanwhile, WA Police’s number plate recognition trial at Westfield Carousel captures the plates of ordinary shoppers, with data reportedly retained for 12 months. And police have separately trialled live facial recognition technology. EACH PROGRAM COMES WITH A PUBLIC SAFETY JUSTIFICATION. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT? Police Minister Reece Whitby declared: “You won’t see us coming, you won’t hear us coming, but we’ll be there in the air watching your every move.” It’s a remarkable statement from someone entrusted with protecting the community. AT WHAT POINT DID WEST AUSTRALIANS AGREE THAT GOING SHOPPING, DRIVING THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBOURHOODS OR RELAXING IN THEIR OWN BACKYARDS SHOULD POTENTIALLY EXPOSE THEM TO POLICE SURVEILLANCE? And when were West Australians asked? Who decides how much surveillance is acceptable? Who oversees these technologies? What happens to the information collected? And what prevents today’s limited programs becoming tomorrow’s routine monitoring? Preventing crime is important. But so are privacy, accountability and the presumption of innocence. PUBLIC SAFETY DOES NOT GIVE GOVERNMENT A BLANK CHEQUE TO SURVEIL ITS CITIZENS. sbs.com.au/news/article/poli…

AUSTRALIA’S UNDER-16 SOCIAL MEDIA BAN FACES A HIGH COURT CHALLENGE This week, Australia’s High Court is hearing a constitutional challenge to the Albanese Government’s under-16 social media restrictions. The challenge, brought by the Digital Freedom Project and Reddit in separate proceedings being heard together, centres on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. THE QUESTION IS BIGGER THAN SOCIAL MEDIA. Since December 2025, children under 16 have been restricted from holding accounts on major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, X and Reddit. The Government argues the restrictions are necessary to protect children from serious harm, and that alternatives such as parental controls, education and content regulation would be less effective. But the challengers argue the legislation places an unconstitutional burden on political communication by excluding young Australians from important spaces for public discussion. Australia’s Constitution does not expressly guarantee an individual right to free speech. However, the High Court has recognised an implied freedom of political communication necessary for our system of representative government. WHERE DOES CHILD PROTECTION END AND GOVERNMENT OVERREACH BEGIN? The case raises questions about proportionality, political participation and whether less restrictive measures could achieve the Government’s stated objectives. Every state and territory Attorney-General has intervened in support of the Commonwealth’s position. The hearings are scheduled for 3–4 November, with judgment expected to be reserved. Whatever the outcome, this case could have significant implications for the limits of government regulation of online communication in Australia. SUNA will be watching closely.

THE DIGITAL DUTY OF CARE DEBATE IS GROWING. The Bill has passed the House, but scrutiny of its consequences is growing. FINALLY. Protecting children from exploitation, harmful AI chatbot design and serious online harms is legitimate. Giving users more control over algorithms is welcome too. But who decides what constitutes harm? Could platforms remove lawful speech to avoid penalties of up to $109.2 million? What does compliance mean for smaller websites and community organisations? The Australian Human Rights Commission supports a duty of care but calls for clearer definitions and stronger safeguards. UNSW researchers have also warned that broad online safety obligations could result in legitimate sexual-health and drug-education information being removed. THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION DESERVES ATTENTION. Anika Wells has sought alignment with counterparts in Malaysia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden and the UK. No formal commitment by those countries to adopt Australia's Bill has been verified. Meanwhile, the US administration intervened through a US Embassy submission in September, warning about censorship and impacts beyond Australia. It also sought to exclude American social media companies from the proposed requirements. International discussions are not international agreements. The Senate inquiry holds hearings on 9–10 November. The Greens are seeking further changes. With the Coalition opposing the Bill, Labor needs Greens or sufficient other crossbench support to pass it. The inquiry and subsequent negotiations will test which concerns are addressed. Parliament must scrutinise both the protections promised and the powers being created. It's not too late to contact your senators and local MP. Share your concerns and ask them to consider the issues raised by researchers, the media and the Australian Human Rights Commission. insidesmallbusiness.com.au/t…

CANAVAN TAKES A GAMBLE. LABOR FACES LEADERSHIP QUESTIONS. ONE NATION IS SHAKING UP THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE. Australia's major political parties are facing an increasingly unpredictable electorate. Nationals leader Matt Canavan has announced he will seek preselection for the Queensland seat of Capricornia at the 2028 federal election, abandoning the relative familiarity of the Senate for a potentially bruising lower-house contest. And who might be waiting for him? One Nation's James Ashby, who is considering contesting the same seat. Canavan currently holds second position on Queensland's LNP Senate ticket. With One Nation gaining support, even that position carries electoral risk. MEANWHILE, TROUBLE IS BREWING INSIDE LABOR. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is facing deteriorating approval ratings, economic pressure and growing scrutiny of the relationship between his leadership and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Reports of tensions over economic management have fuelled speculation about Labor's internal unity. There is no confirmed leadership challenge, but the possibility of a future spill is entering political discussions. And the latest Newspoll offers some context. One Nation: 28% Labor: 27% Coalition: 21% For the first time in this poll, Pauline Hanson's party leads both major political groupings on primary support. THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT IS UNDER PRESSURE FROM MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION. The Nationals are defending their traditional regional base. The Liberals are confronting a fragmented conservative vote. Labor is facing questions about its economic management and leadership. And One Nation is no longer operating on the political fringes. The next federal election may be less about the traditional Labor-versus-Coalition contest and more about where disillusioned voters decide to place their support. Are we witnessing a temporary political upheaval, or a fundamental realignment of Australian politics? abc.net.au/news/2026-11-02/f…

TODAY IS YOUR LAST CHANCE! Submissions to the Senate inquiry into Labor’s Digital Duty of Care Bill close today, 30 October. This legislation goes far beyond social media and protecting children. Don’t leave your concerns unheard. Make your submission today. 🔗 aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus…

THE COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER WON’T LET US COMMUNICATE. 😂 Apparently, we’re not passing the test. You really couldn’t make this stuff up. Last week, Stand Up Now Australia attempted to contact Communications Minister Anika Wells through her official website. We weren’t sending abuse. We weren’t spreading misinformation. We weren’t threatening anyone. We were simply asking nine legitimate questions about her reported discussions with foreign governments concerning Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation. You know, the legislation that hasn’t passed Parliament yet. The legislation that’s still being scrutinised by a Senate inquiry. The legislation the Government is already promoting internationally. And what happened when we tried to send our questions? ❌ “The answer you entered for the CAPTCHA was not correct.” The Minister responsible for Australia’s digital regulatory agenda has a contact form that won’t accept our correspondence. We’re apparently not sufficiently convincing to get past her website’s automated gatekeeper. And there’s the irony. The Government wants to impose sweeping new responsibilities on digital services, while Australians are left navigating automated systems that can frustrate even the most basic attempt to contact an elected representative. To be fair, a malfunctioning CAPTCHA isn’t evidence of censorship. But it is a rather spectacular illustration of how technology can become a barrier between the public and the people supposedly serving them. Minister Wells, we’d love to ask you about your international regulatory ambitions. If your website would kindly let us. Don’t worry. We’ll find another way to deliver our questions. DEMOCRACY SHOULDN’T REQUIRE PASSING A ROBOT TEST. #AnikaWells #DigitalDutyOfCare #AustralianPolitics #GovernmentAccountability #StandUpNowAustralia

THE BILL HASN’T PASSED PARLIAMENT. BUT ANIKA WELLS IS ALREADY PROMOTING IT OVERSEAS. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Australians are still being asked to make submissions on Labor’s controversial Digital Duty of Care Bill. The Senate inquiry is underway. Submissions close on 30 October. Parliament hasn’t finished scrutinising the legislation, let alone passed it. Yet Communications Minister Anika Wells is already pursuing international support for Australia’s proposed regulatory approach. According to Bloomberg, Wells has held discussions with counterparts in Malaysia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden and the UK about aligned online safety standards. AND HERE’S THE PROBLEM. This legislation isn’t just about protecting children. It proposes a broader regulatory framework affecting digital services, with potential consequences for independent publishers, small businesses, political advocacy and lawful online expression. So what exactly is Wells promoting overseas before Australians have had their say? General child safety principles? Or specific regulatory powers in legislation that hasn’t passed Parliament? Have agreements, commitments or implementation arrangements been discussed? And have these international discussions influenced the legislation Australians are now being invited to scrutinise? International cooperation is one thing. Promoting a regulatory framework before parliamentary scrutiny is complete is another. SUNA IS FORMALLY SEEKING ANSWERS FROM MINISTER WELLS. We want the dates, participants, agendas, outcomes and details of any proposed international commitments disclosed to the Senate inquiry. Australians deserve to know whether their submissions can genuinely influence this legislation, or whether the Government is already establishing its preferred model internationally. PARLIAMENT FIRST. INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION SECOND. Our democracy is not a rubber stamp. Source: Bloomberg reporting, 20–21 October 2026. straitstimes.com/asia/austra…

🤨 ALBO SAYS DON’T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. THEN WHY BRING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO IT? Yesterday, Parliament set aside its regular legislative business following the horrific attack on independent MP Helen Haines, instead holding Question Time and paying tribute to their injured colleague. An appropriate gesture of respect. But Anthony Albanese couldn’t resist bringing social media into the conversation. During his tribute, the Prime Minister declared: “While the investigations go on, we must not rush to conclusions.” He then went on to discuss how social media enables increasing anger, rage and aggression towards politicians and others. EXCUSE US, PRIME MINISTER. WHAT DOES SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ATTACK? There is no established connection between the attack on Helen Haines and social media. No established motive that justifies drawing that association. Yet, in the middle of a parliamentary tribute, the Prime Minister introduced precisely the narrative that underpins his Government’s controversial Digital Duty of Care legislation. He didn’t need to mention the Bill. He didn’t need to claim social media caused the attack. The association was enough. And that’s what makes this kind of political messaging so troubling. Being subtle doesn’t make it acceptable. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes we must not rush to conclusions, then - he shouldn’t. Out of respect for Helen Haines, her family and the integrity of the investigation, this attack should not be used to advance arguments about social media without evidence connecting the two. And out of respect for our democratic institutions, legislation should stand or fall on its merits, not on the emotional weight of an unrelated tragedy. WE NEED TO CALL THIS OUT. Political leaders must be held accountable not only for what they explicitly say, but also for the associations they encourage. LEVERAGING A TRAGEDY TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA IS SHAMEFUL. And Australians deserve better. #HelenHaines #AnthonyAlbanese #DigitalDutyOfCare #GovernmentAccountability #StandUpNowAustralia

🚨 DEVELOPING: 5,101 EMAILS. JUST 225 SUBMISSIONS ANALYSED. The Albanese Government has released its consultation summary for the controversial Digital Duty of Care Bill. The Department acknowledges receiving 5,101 emails, many opposing the proposed legislation, yet its published analysis focuses on just 225 substantive submissions. That doesn’t necessarily mean the thousands of emails were ignored. But it raises a serious question: HOW MUCH WEIGHT WAS GIVEN TO THE VOICES OF ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS? The Government’s own report acknowledges concerns about free speech, small-business compliance, ministerial powers and the eSafety Commissioner’s proposed fake social media accounts. THESE CONCERNS HAVE NOT GONE AWAY. The Bill is now subject to a Senate inquiry, and Australians have another opportunity to be heard. SUBMISSIONS CLOSE FRIDAY 30 OCTOBER. Don’t assume someone else will speak up for you. HAVE YOUR SAY. MAKE A SUBMISSION. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON. 🔗 Senate inquiry: aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus… Official report: infrastructure.gov.au/depart…

🚨 DIGITAL DUTY OF CARE UPDATE: LABOR IS STARTING TO BUDGE. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON! The growing scrutiny of Labor’s controversial Digital Duty of Care Bill appears to be having an effect. According to The Australian, the Albanese Government is considering further concessions to secure Coalition support, including restrictions on its proposed sock-puppet powers. Yes, those powers allowing the eSafety Commissioner and accredited researchers to operate fictitious social media accounts. Labor is reportedly considering prohibiting their use to promote government messaging. BUT DON’T MISTAKE THAT FOR REMOVING THE POWERS THEMSELVES. Covert accounts could still be authorised for regulatory investigations. WHO WATCHES THE WATCHDOG WHEN THE WATCHDOG IS PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE? ➡️ And there’s been another development. On Monday, Minister Mark Butler publicly confirmed Labor was open to negotiating with ANY Senate party willing to engage. So which way will Labor go? The Greens? The Coalition? And what concessions will it offer to secure the numbers? THIS IS LEGISLATION, NOT A POLITICAL BARGAINING CHIP. The Bill was expected to face further House debate this week, but Monday’s regular legislative business was suspended following the horrific attack on Helen Haines. As of Tuesday, no new concessions have been formally agreed or introduced. Meanwhile, concerns remain about lawful expression, independent publishers, small-business compliance and the extraordinary powers proposed for the eSafety Commissioner. A FEW CONCESSIONS DO NOT MAKE A BAD BILL GOOD. The Senate inquiry is still accepting submissions until 30 October. Public scrutiny matters. Political pressure matters. And we must keep applying both. Don’t leave it to politicians to negotiate away our concerns behind closed doors. HAVE YOUR SAY. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON. CONTACT YOUR COALITION MPs NOW AND MAKE YOUR CONCERNS HEARD. Source: theaustralian.com.au/nation/…