Monday, October 26, 2026

If the Democrats win the midterms, a lot of people are going to prison

 



Laura Schwartz worked in Bill Clinton’s White House for eight years, ending up as Director of Events. She is now a US political commentator, currently focusing on the midterm Congressional elections on November 3. 
Fitz: Laura, thank you for your time. You started working for Bill Clinton at just the age of 19 in 1993. Late in the evening when the wine’s flowing freely and you’re with your friends, what’s your best Bill Clinton war story? “I’ll never forget the time the president said to me ...”
US political commentator Laura Schwartz.
LS: [Laughs.] That’s going to have to be when we’re actually having martinis, and they’ll be great stories! But I was actually just thinking about something today, as Bill Clinton goes out on the trail for the first time for the midterms, down in Florida for the gubernatorial race. Back in 1996, after one of his debates against Republican nominee Bob Dole, I said to the president something about him running “against” Dole. And he said, “You know, Laura in a lot of ways, I’m running with Bob Dole because here’s the deal: he has different ideas and different solutions to solve the problems of the American people today than I have. But we both agree on what those problems are. I just feel like my ideas will be more effective and better than his.”
Fitz: This being an obvious contrast with today?
Former US president Bill Clinton takes a photo with a supporter of Florida Democratic candidate for governor, David Jolly. AP PHOTO/MARTA LAVANDIER
Laura Schwartz and President Bill Clinton in the outer office of the Oval Office. 
LS: Yes. President Clinton was such a policy wonk, and so was Bob Dole. But they were cordial to each other. Years later, Bob Dole said, “You know, Bill Clinton was my opponent, not my enemy.” And unfortunately, that’s not where we’re at right now. We’re not even at that point right now on state and local elections. It is much closer to enmity between political opponents.
Fitz: So you’ve made your way since as a very successful nonpartisan pundit. You’ve been with Fox News, CNN, CBS, BBC, ITV, and you were a regular guest and host on Larry King Live. Has it been difficult to remain nonpartisan in these fraught times when the schism between left and right looks more like the Grand Canyon?
LS: Absolutely, Peter, and I’ll tell you why. Ever since Trump came on the scene in 2016, with his divisive rhetoric – making fun of those with physical and mental disabilities, outright making fun of them on stage – that really tore into me as a human being. And that’s my problem with Donald Trump: there is no connection to the human condition to create an empathy that can lead you towards policies that can make an impact on those of all demographics, geographics, socioeconomics, and that’s what politics and politicking should be about.

FROM OUR PARTNERS

Fitz: So how do you stay non-partisan?
Trump rally in Kansas. AP
LS: Personally, I’ve voted for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. I try to just stick to explaining why politicians are saying what they’re saying, and how this could affect the American people, how this can affect the global condition. I try to change the conversation to policy.
Fitz: And yet in Australia, what I think a lot of us don’t understand is Trump’s staggering resilience. On a bad day, he can get through three things before lunch – “They’re eating the dogs!” “Quiet, piggy!” “Let them take out Los Angeles!” – that would sink any normal politician. And yet he barely blinks and more often than not, goes on to win. How the actual ruck?
LS: Yes, his resilience is just extraordinary. Looking back to his first presidential campaign in 2016, he really tapped into a piece of America that felt the Democratic elites were ruining their lives and not making them better. And they saw this guy from television, and they thought, well, he picks the winners on The Apprentice. This man flies in private planes and he’s wealthy. He knows how to run a business. He should run the United States of America. And then some realised how he actually filed for bankruptcy many times, he stiffed contractors and never paid them. It all starts coming out, but in the meantime, Donald Trump has created this MAGA movement, this “Make America Great Again” base and that really is a core 30 per cent.
Fitz: And they, in turn, have been remarkably resilient, pretty much staying with him?
LS: Yes, but I always say this: politics is a game of addition. The moment you start subtracting, you lose. And in recent times, in this second term, he’s begun losing some support from Republicans and independents, he has started to subtract. So I think right now, America is in three sections. A quarter are Democrats, a quarter are Republicans, but the largest piece of America right now are independents – often disillusioned with both major parties – and in 2024 they broke heavily for Trump, but right now they are breaking heavily the other way.
Fitz: All right, so in the midterms we’ve got 435 seats in the House of Reps up for grabs, and 35 seats in the Senate. The polls point to a blue wave of Democrat wins and maybe even a blue tsunami. And yet notoriously those polls have been terribly wrong before?
LS: I really appreciate polling, not as God’s given truth, but as a way to look at trends and trajectories for a campaign, it can tell you whether or not you have the right message, and it also can tell you if you’re delivering it in an effective way. But there is no doubt Trump is taking notice of those polls, whatever he says. 
Fitz: Go on.
LS: Look at where he’s spending time and money. At this point in the campaign, Trump should be trying to widen the scope, but instead he’s going to reliable red Republican states to try to keep them and try to turn up the enthusiasm that’s not there. He’s going to states that he’s previously won by double digits, some of them by 20 points. And the other thing you have to look at is [how weak] the closing message of the president is...
Fitz: Yes...?
LS: Trump can tell them till they’re blue in the face at all these rallies that the economy is awesome, that America’s never been hotter than before. But it’s the voter who’s at the gas station spending over $100 to fill up their tank; and deciding how much they can spend at the grocery store; how they can pay their heating bill and the rent, that is going to have the most impact. It’s like if you’ve got a pain in your knee, and you go to the doctor, and the doctor says, “Oh, you’re just fine, you don’t hurt.” But you know you hurt, and so you will go shopping around for another doctor that’s going to listen to you, and I think that’s what’s happening in the electorate right now. So this is not a winning closing message for Trump. There are actually some good Republican candidates out there, state, local, and federal. But no matter if their message is trying to connect to that voter who wants to see costs lower or not, Trump’s voice is louder than theirs.
Fitz: Yet some of these polls are historically bad for a sitting president?
LS: CNN today has Democrats up by 10 points. A New York Times poll that came out tonight shows Democrats up by 11 points just on a generic ballot. But you also have to look at enthusiasm. Democrats have plus 17 points when it comes to enthusiasm. Still, the Democrats have to be incredibly careful at this moment, and especially if it is a blue wave or blue tsunami because here’s the other piece of this: it doesn’t mean that the Democrats are popular. Democrats have a 47 per cent unfavorable rating. Republicans have a 52 per cent unfavorable rating. So if there is a blue wave, this is not necessarily a vote for the Democrats. It’s a vote against Trump. If they do get control, they will have to actually do things.
Fitz: Earlier this year, Steve Bannon said if the Democrats win the midterms, “a lot of people in this room, including me, are going to prison.” Do you agree, or does Trump simply unleash a blizzard of pardons, or indeed a tsunami, including one pinned to his own forehead, saying: “Nyah, nyah, you can’t get me!” What do you think will happen?
LS: He’ll issue a lot of pardons. But that won’t be the end of the legal and investigative process. If the House goes Democrat, which I am certain it will, they will have investigative authority, but I hope they don’t launch impeachment proceedings because that turns people off. Bill Clinton actually won seats during his second term midterm election because the American people were happy with the economy and they were unhappy with the Republicans trying to impeach him on the Monica Lewinsky case, and so impeachment is not a winner. But they do want to see investigations.
Fitz: On what, specifically?
LS: They see corruption happening in government. They see President Trump and his family increasing their wealth by $US2.7 billion since he came into office while at the same time American families are falling behind. So I think the Democrats will have to be incredibly careful. They need to weigh every investigation. Fine, investigate Trump and investigate Donald Trump Jr’s investments with companies that are then given contracts by the Pentagon. But make sure that for every investigation you launch, you also put forth legislation to address the cost of living, and the shortage of healthcare in the country. That’s what they need to do. Otherwise, they’re going to get in there, and the American voter in two short years is going to be like, “Yeah, thanks. We gave you a try, and it didn’t work.” And then you’ve got the presidency up for grabs. So they’ve got to be really careful if they get in how they legislate.
Fitz: But for those not pardoned, will there be a lot of people actually going to prison?
LS: Bannon’s right. In fact, I’ve heard that there are some at the White House in the presidential circle who were going to leave at the midterms, but will stay. You know why? Because you get to use the government lawyers. Think of how much it costs to defend yourself! And there’s also stories of a lot of law firms being contacted, exploring representation to deal with what’s coming.
Fitz: What would it mean if the Democrats go well, for the Iran War and the Ukraine War?
LS: Well, I think that for the Iran War, they’ve already tried to invoke the War Powers Resolution, to curtail military intervention, but it was blocked by the Senate. So the Democrats would need to win both the House and the Senate to really do something on Iran. For Ukraine, I think there is a much bigger opportunity for the Democrats to strengthen the sanctions and also get the military support for the additional Patriot missiles that Ukraine so desperately needs. Congress might also launch an investigation into what happened with Elon Musk and his Starlink. They’ll want to know if the Wall Street Journal is right and Starlink slowed down the ability of Ukraine to defend themselves using the satellites. The Pentagon is Musk’s client, and so I think Congress will launch an investigation into that. That may be why Elon has dumped over a quarter of a billion dollars into the midterms – more than he did the presidential elections. The question becomes, how much influence does the richest man in the world have?
Fitz: My final question: You’re an American beneath the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air. Do you still have faith that your flag is still there, that America will go on? Do you believe that the democratic process will work its magic, and that America as we know it will recover?
LS: I retain that faith and optimism, and I do because we have already seen this country stretched in ways we never thought it could after January 6 and the insurrection, and we’ve come back from that. So that does give me faith in American democracy and in our institutions. And I also have to say that many of the Republican senators elected this time will feel less shackled by Donald Trump. They’ll be elected for six years, which is four years beyond when he’ll be gone and perhaps offer the checks that are at the core foundation of our country’s checks and balances. I think it will be restorative.
Fitz: Thank you for your time.

We asked dozens of librarians about America’s libraries

 “A republic, if you can keep it,” the wise man once said


We asked dozens of librarians about America’s libraries

The New York Times gift article – ….and what they provide, what they need to survive. “This year, Americans are marking the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding. The nation’s librarians are celebrating a milestone too: the 150th birthday of the modern American library. 

A lot has changed since the American Library Association was established in 1876 — even just over the past decade. The library has gone from a building full of books to arguably the most versatile civic center in any community lucky enough to have one. 

We spoke with dozens of librarians at the A.L.A. conference this summer in Chicago. They came from rural towns and major cities, elementary schools and universities, local branches and big government agencies. These librarians want you to know that they don’t sit around reading all day. 

They want you to know about book bans and budget cuts, but also about career counseling and crafting groups and pop-up medical clinics. They want you to worry, the way they worry, about artificial intelligence, looming legislation and harassment of their staff. 

But most of all, they want you to know what the library really is: a safe place for people to gather around books, ideas and one another. Here’s what librarians had to say, in their own words..”

Leaked chats show Russian extortion gang sending ‘agents’ into US law firms

 

ATO worker fired for allegedly accessing taxation information for stalking purposes


The Federal Court has given a former ATO worker leave to amend his originating application against the Tax Office’s termination decision against him, following his dismissal for breach of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.


‘Never seen this before’: $860k ATO audit leaves accountant baffled


Order of Australia recipients Benjamin and Roberta Chow lose $2.5m tax court battle

Australia’s highest honours could not save a husband and wife from losing a $2.55m Federal Court fight with the ATO over their family trust.

2 ex-FBI officials charged with lying to Congress about Hunter Biden laptop probe

Brendan Carr warns broadcasters about ‘fake polls’ as a real polling scandal unfolds

Carr didn’t identify the polls he was targeting but warned that broadcasters could run afoul of their federal licenses


Leaked chats show Russian extortion gang sending ‘agents’ into US law firms

The Record: “Members of a Russia-based cyberextortion gang plotted to send operatives into U.S. law firms, kidnap business executives and even recruit military personnel to spy on submarine-based nuclear forces, according to leaked chats reviewed by Recorded Future News. 

The archive, posted to a bespoke .onion site in early October by an unidentified source who did not state a motive, contains thousands of messages from August 2025 to September 2026. In those messages, members track dozens of victims, haggle over multimillion-dollar payments and direct operatives based in the United States whom they call “agents.” Some of the named organizations have not publicly acknowledged a breach. The archive mixes apparent records of real extortion with brainstorming sessions, abandoned plans, boasting and violent fantasies. Recorded Future News could not verify whether the most extreme schemes were ever attempted. 

However, parts of the cache have been corroborated independently. Blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis examined cryptocurrency addresses contained in the leak and said it could tie them to known extortions by the Silent Ransom Group, which is also tracked as Luna Moth and Chatty Spider. The company cautioned that it could not “speak to the totality of claims” documented in the archive. The FBI has also documented the group’s most unusual tactic for a Russian extortion group: recruiting what the gang calls “agents” to physically infiltrate victims’ offices. A flash alert earlier this year warned that members of the Silent Ransom Group were posing as IT personnel to gain physical access to computers. 

In one negotiation shared in the chats, a law firm’s representative told the extortionists that the firm knew an individual had entered its New York office and copied files onto a flash drive. The firm said its executives had authorized $1 million to settle the demand but wanted proof that every digital and physical copy of its information would be destroyed, citing evidence that the LockBit ransomware gang had failed to delete data belonging to victims who paid…”


AI-attributed layoffs are a household money story

Public Engagement @CAIS: Wage Loss Dashboard. Layoff totals describe how many jobs disappeared. Wage estimates begin to show what those cuts can mean for households and local economies. Experts predict that AI’s effect on the economy will be transformational in the near term. They specifically cite risks like large-scale job displacement. 

We agree. There has been significant news coverage of job loss from AI, but it can be hard to quantify how these cuts affect the average person’s finances. A recent report on job-cut announcements by Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracks layoff announcements across the country. In 2025, they identified more than 54,000 job cuts that companies reported were linked to AI. 

This works out to about 1 in 20 of all layoffs that year. This dashboard aims to help illuminate the monetary costs of AI on American families and communities. A single software engineer losing their job can mean $90,000 or more a year gone from local spending on rent, groceries, childcare, or with small businesses.

AI is also reportedly replacing workers in customer service, software, data entry, writing, legal research, and more. One person’s layoff means less income for every business they support. Multiply that effect across thousands of workers in multiple industries, and you start to see the real economic weight of AI displacement. In addition, AI-attributed job cuts aren’t spread evenly. States with large tech and media sectors are experiencing greater impact…”


 

The many barriers young adults must overcome to vote

SciLine – A research based reporting guide: “This guide offers insights, tips, and story ideas to help journalists report on Generation Z’s voting habits. Nearly 50 million adults aged 18 to 29 will be eligible to vote in the 2026 midterm elections, making Generation Z potentially one of the nation’s most powerful and influential voting blocs. 

The reality is that many Americans in this age group do not vote, a problem that researchers have studied for decades. Meanwhile, a number of new laws and policy proposals across the U.S. may make it even harder for young people to register to vote and cast their ballots on time. We created this guide to encourage journalists to examine independent, nonpartisan research about youth voting patterns and obstacles and to use that knowledge to ground their coverage of the 2026 midterm elections. 

Historically, young adults have voted at lower rates than older adults. Less than a third of U.S. citizens aged 18 to 29 voted during the 2022 midterm elections, compared with 47% of voters aged 30 to 44,  58% of voters aged 45 to 64, and 67% of voters aged 65 and older, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Even so, social scientists warn journalists not to equate a lack of voting with political apathy. “A lot of our research shows young people deeply value democracy,” says Sara Suzuki, a senior researcher at the Tufts University Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. 

Commonly known as CIRCLE, the center is a leading, nonpartisan source of data and analysis on the country’s youngest voters. These voters, whom scholars refer to as youth voters, must overcome a series of structural and logistical hurdles to participate in elections, Suzuki says. Election laws in some states make voting more difficult for college students in particular, especially students who have a permanent residence in one state but live in a different state during the academic year…”



WSJ new AI tool, “Doppler,” forecasts issues that will shape midterm elections

NiemnLab: “Ahead of Election Day, the tool has ingested 25 million TikTok videos and 500,000 podcasts to gain new insight into U.S. voters. 

More than 100 million voters are expected to cast ballots in the 2026 U.S. midterm elections. In recent election cycles, political reporting based on voter polling has drawn criticism, prompted scrutiny, and found defenders. As the debate over the value of polling continues, The Wall Street Journal is exploring new ways to cover public opinion and break out of traditional horse race political coverage. 

In late September, the Journal published its first storyusing Doppler News AI, a custom tool built to help expand the publication’s midterms coverage. So far, Doppler has ingested more than 25 million TikTok videos, roughly 500,000 podcast episodes, and thousands of Instagram videos and cable news segments. 

The Journal uses the tool to monitor trends across the internet and to identify voter priorities, concerns, and sentiments that traditional polling might miss. “We’re not trying to predict the election, but people encounter politics through a lot of different lanes: culture, work, money, family, community. We wanted to tap into that and listen in on those conversations,” said Aja Whitaker-Moore, the deputy editor-in-chief of the Journal. “We’re taking a massive set of information…and telling you, from a statistical standpoint: 

‘Here’s what people are talking about. Here are the questions they’re asking. Here are the places where those conversations are happening.’” Other newsrooms have leaned on AI “visibility tools” in the past to support their reporting. That includes using large language models (LLMs) to transcribe and summarize “manosphere” podcasts, school board meetings, and local talk radio shows. But Doppler goes further…”

The Tax Practitioners Board will also face questioning on what remains of its PwC Australia investigations

Estimates of government expenditure are referred to Senate committees as part of the annual budget cycle.This opportunity to examine the operations of government plays a key role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. Quick Links: aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/senate_estimates

 


KPMG Australia to cop the spotlight at estimates 

ANALYSIS | Senators will press regulators on corporate misconduct, stronger penalties, private company reporting thresholds, and delays to the credit card ban.

By Tom Ravlic  OCT 25, 2026 

KPMG Australia is set to dominate the spotlight across various committees during Senate estimates this week. 
 
The first and most prominent clashes between senators and bureaucrats will occur during the hearings conducted by the finance and public administration committee, given that the finance committee has just released the Watt Review. 

 

Dr Ian Watt documented KPMG Australia’s various sins already aired publicly, and he concluded that KPMG Australia should not be sent to some consultant’s equivalent of Siberia for past misconduct by audit partners.

Watt recommends a similar pattern of activity to that which took place when PwC Australia was pinged by the Tax Practitioners Board for its historical breach of confidentiality agreements.

Finance has extended the firm’s ban — a restriction on bidding for new work — until the end of February, but that will make the Greens see red. Senator Barbara Pocock will have her list of questions on the KPMG saga at the ready.

Her numerous media releases over the past four months relating to the firm’s contract variations have telegraphed where her line of questioning of bureaucrats will head throughout the next week.

The Watt review and many other KPMG Australia reviews will provide Pocock and her colleagues with additional insight because the firm’s public release of documents will confirm to Pocock and fellow Senate interrogators Deborah O’Neill and Paul Scarr that reforms in the accounting sector and whistleblower laws should be made a high priority.

Those three parliamentarians will approach things with degrees of nuance, but they are all agreed on one thing: the accounting profession needs to be better regulated, better monitored, and have stronger penalties for misconduct so the firms and their staff are gently encourage to focus on the public interest in addition to profit generation.

Wait until multiple questions from all directions — not just from Pocock — get asked during economics committee estimates, given that the Treasury, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and the Tax Practitioners Board have KPMG-related issues in their work in progress.

Treasury is in the middle of working through responses to its options paper on accounting profession reform.

Senators will be anxious to understand where that reform process is at and whether there is any chance of getting much in the way of change within the next 12 months.

ASIC executives will need to have their cheat notes ready when it comes to explaining how they are progressing with the investigations into KPMG Australia. These include investigations into auditors involved in the various confidentiality breaches that have been at the centre of political and media discourse since March this year.

The Tax Practitioners Board will also face questioning on what remains of its PwC Australia investigations as well as what, if anything, the tax agent regulator has managed to excavate from its dig into KPMG Australia.

Treasury will also need to expect questions on the issue of increased reporting thresholds for private companies because there is an active debate within the business community on whether scope three emissions reports under sustainability reporting rules actually provides any benefit whatsoever.

The thresholds for reporting for private companies have historically been a thorny issue — increasing them has been an arbitrary exercise by public servants — so expect Treasury to cop any number of ‘please explain’ questions.

There is also bound to be a truckload of questions for the Australian Taxation Office where the credit card ban decision is concerned. 

ATO officials will be unable to dodge queries related to those matters, and senators of all stripes will be ready for ministerial deflections that point to the prime minister and treasurer having delayed implementation of a ban.

All that is left for people across Canberra and elsewhere watching the livestream is to stock up on microwave popcorn and their favourite soft drink, and watch to see whether anybody actually bothers to turn down the heat of the debate.

 

The new KPI for public servants: Avoiding a viral Senate moment

Since 1970, Senate estimates hearings have exposed and explored political scandals and governance failures, from the loans affair in the Whitlam era to the children overboard saga during the Howard years and, more recently, robo-debt.

(Dr Russell Cope’s fearless parliamentary colleague) the late Harry Evans was the clerk of the Senate between 1988 and 2009. He described Senate estimates as a general inquisition into the operations of government, saying:

 “The ultimate safeguard against the misuse of power by a government is the ability of its opponents and rivals to find out about, and draw attention to, its mistakes and misdeeds. Accountability is not a refined process which operates on an elevated plane, above sordid politics. Accountability operates down in the swamp of politics, amongst the crocodiles and mosquitoes. The political wetlands sustain our cultural life and biodiversity; without them the desert of despotism assumes the landscape.”

Treasury secretary Jenny Wilkinson during a Senate estimates hearing at Parliament House in Canberra. Alex Ellinghausen

There are eight Senate estimates committees that meet three times a year. Each committee has four days to conduct hearings that typically run from 9am until 11pm.

The Senate doesn’t sit at the same time as estimates hearings, so any senator, not just those on the relevant committee, can ask questions.

In Parliament House’s committee rooms, the chair sits on one side with the committee secretary nearby. They are surrounded by senators from the opposition, minor parties, independents and government backbenchers.


On the other side, the witnesses are senior public servants who sit at a long table with the minister (or their representative from the Senate) in the centre. In the rows behind are more public servants and ministerial staff, and the hearings are open to the media and the public.

Television cameras are fixed unobtrusively around the room, recording continuously, and Hansard reporters sit at a side table, producing the official transcript.

A daunting prospect

Estimates hearings are resource intensive. In preparation, both sides will have scoured departments’ portfolio budget statements, corporate plans and annual reports as well as the outcomes of appointments, grants, tenders and audit reports.

They will have reviewed Hansard records and answers to questions on notice, along with freedom of information disclosure logs and recent media coverage. Today it’s likely both sides will have used a variety of AI tools in their preparation.

In the weeks leading up to estimates, public servants will have prepared those large, tabbed folders of briefing materials you see on the tables. Both sides will have held strategy meetings. Witnesses will have practised answers at mock estimates sessions.

Appearing at estimates can be a daunting prospect for public servants, who typically operate behind the scenes. I’ve heard it described as “the hardest open-book exam you will ever do”, and everyone who has appeared remembers their first time. For me, it was a then-government backbencher looking to get information about coal exports on the record.

Estimates is theatre. The hearings are televised live and recorded. While the actors are sitting in the room, many of the questions senators ask are developed outside the room during the hearings and fed in electronically.

Most witnesses will want to appear helpful but say little beyond what is on the public record. They will be keen to show their professionalism and capability in handling any difficult questions they face. Their job can depend on it.

“Former senator Robert Hill observed that few parliaments scrutinise government finances as intensely as the Australian Senate.”

Most public servants do not want to become the story, and a long-running KPI has been to avoid appearing on the evening news or the front page of tomorrow’s paper. Today, the KPI includes avoiding providing a soundbite that could go viral or a video clip that could do the rounds on TikTok.

Public servants must remain apolitical. The government guidelines for witnesses highlight their duty to assist ministers fulfil their accountability obligations by providing “full and accurate information to the parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration”. They also have a responsibility to the government of the day. It’s a balance.

So, is Senate estimates effective?

Yes, in terms of adding to the transparency, openness and accountability of government. Former senator Robert Hill observed that few parliaments around the world scrutinise government finances as intensely as the Australian Senate, and former senator John Faulkner described Senate estimates as the “best accountability mechanism of any Australian parliament”.

Could we do better? Again, yes. Twenty years ago, there was a concern that a growing number of questions were being taken on notice by public servants. Today, the number of questions on notice being asked by the senators is growing exponentially.

The Parliament House website lists more than 11,000 questions on notice asked this year before this round of hearings began. That’s an average of 77 every day, including weekends, a number that has more than tripled since 2022.

While the answers contribute to the transparency and accountability of government, responding to so many questions must be consuming an enormous amount of time and diverting resources away from other public service work. While AI is probably used in drafting questions and answers, the responses can’t be left solely to AI because they require human judgment and multiple layers of clearances including by the relevant minister.

Given a key question public servants consider in their daily work is “Will this survive scrutiny at estimates?”, these hearings continue to provide a key accountability mechanism for government, but they come at a growing cost. Harry Evans said accountability operates in the swamp of politics, but perhaps it’s time to limit the number of fishing expeditions being conducted in the swamp.



‘Outrageous’: Senators slam public service push to restrict social clips

Senators are demanding the government produce evidence justifying a call by top civil servants to ban MPs from posting unflattering video clips of them on social media, in an escalating row over transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

The Senate is heading for a showdown with the public service after the deputy secretary for security and estate at the Defence Department, Celia Perkins, told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday that officials did “not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites”.

Independent senator David Pocock. Dominic Lorrimer

Perkins’ request that video evidence given at inquiries not be reposted was overruled by committee clerks, but departmental chiefs have also presented a “secretaries board” submission to a parliamentary standards inquiry asking for an end to the use of social media posts taken from parliament hearings which they say are “presented without context and expose officials to ridicule, hostility or abuse”.

Politicians condemned the demands. Greens senator David Shoebridge called the move an “extraordinary” attempt at censorship, while independent senator David Pocock denounced the public service’s stance as “frankly outrageous”.

“The officials in question are not junior public servants in need of protection, they are senior executives on a base salary over $400,000 whose role includes responding to this kind of scrutiny,” Pocock said.

 Pocock, Shoebridge, and Liberal senator Michaelia Cash will push for a vote in the Senate on Wednesday to force the government to produce documents underpinning the public service’s requests to curtail social media posts.

The senators on Tuesday intend to invoke two powerful “orders for the production of documents” to push government ministers to reveal all documentation and communication related to Perkins’ statement and the secretaries board submission, including legal advice and material prompting the requests.

“Committee hearings are public proceedings and – with the exception of in-camera sessions – there should be no barriers to content being shared with the community, be that via parliamentary broadcast or on social media,” said Pocock.

“Transparency is essential to a healthy democracy and these demands are frankly outrageous. Real questions remain over whether this stance was encouraged or orchestrated by the government.”

The submission from the nation’s most senior mandarins was tabled to an unprecedented joint parliamentary inquiry into the behaviour codes and standards in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, launched without fanfare in June.

The secretaries board – made up of the heads of government departments and chaired by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet chief, Steven Kennedy – insisted the request for tighter guidelines was not an attempt to avoid robust questioning or “legitimate and necessary” scrutiny.

 Hearings, inquiries and Senate estimates are all livestreamed for public viewing.

“The concern arises only where conduct crosses the line into behaviour that demeans, intimidates, humiliates or personally targets official witnesses,” it said, warning of potential “psychosocial” health hazards.

It warned that comments sections under social media posts could become “highly offensive and sometimes defamatory”, with officials being attacked over their physical appearance and women targeted in particular. Agencies had been required in some situations to conduct insider threat assessments.

Officials had been referred to as “despicable”, “filth”, “political puppet”, “bigot”, “pig”, “KKK member”, “sleazy”, “incompetent retard”, “parasite”, “stupid”, “shill”, “demonic”, “putrid mutt”, “criminal”, “fraud”, “clown”, “scumbag”, “lying corrupt grub”, the submission said.

Among the department officials’ requests are the explicit adoption of behaviour standards and the behaviour code for the examination of witnesses, guidance for the treatment of witnesses and social media use and education for MPs on the role of the public service.

Former Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, who appeared in parliament some 200 times over 21 years, said official witnesses should never be ridiculed but it was “entirely appropriate” for MPs to “highlight instances of officials being evasive, obstructive, and in some cases clearly not across their brief”.

“Use of social media is one way to do this. There is no place for crude, rude, or sneering imputations being made in such social media activity, and the parliament’s own behaviour code makes that clear,” he said.

“We all know such behaviour when we see it. If a member of parliament has fallen short in this regard, it is for the relevant house of parliament to take action, as it sees fit.”

A Defence spokesperson said the department strongly supported parliamentary “accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny” but was concerned about social media excerpts “presented without context” that “exposes officials to ridicule, hostility or abuse”.


Gallagher says public servants' careers have been ruined by Senate estimates

Finance and Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher says the use of Senate estimates clips on social media has gone too far, warning that hard-working bureaucrats are being driven out of their careers by political attacks.
In an interview with The Canberra Times about the heightened safety risks experienced by politicians as political debate became more polarised, Senator Gallagher said she knew public servants who had quit because they had been ridiculed online. 
"I've worked with a couple of very senior public servants who have retired or left because they will not come to Senate estimates," she said.
"They won't come because they've been called a liar, and that matters to them. Their professional career is being apolitical public servants, and so to be just roasted and then clipped and called a liar ... That is an issue that we should think about a bit more."
Katy Gallagher appears at Senate estimates in February. Picture by Keegan Carroll
Katy Gallagher appears at Senate estimates in February. Picture by Keegan Carroll
The minister and ACT Labor senator did not go as far as backing the Secretaries Board's call for a ban on the editing of videos clipped from estimates to post on social media for party political purposes, which Coalition frontbencher James Paterson has blasted as "an affront to democracy".
But, she said, while the public was entitled to "accountability and transparency" from the bureaucracy, the portrayal of estimates hearings "should be truthful".
"I don't think they should be clipped in a way that makes it tell a different story," she said.
Senator Gallagher shared her concerns while reflecting that the heat of political discourse online was spilling into real life, after the vehicle attack on independent Indi MP Helen Haines outside her electorate office shocked the nation. 
The minister, whose evidence to estimates is regularly clipped by political rivals, said she had been accosted in public over how she was portrayed - such as when Nationals senator Matt Canavan posted his grilling her over a $30 billion federal budget overspend in February.
"I got absolutely inundated," Senator Gallagher said. 
"This guy just comes up to me, I'm just at the supermarket, and starts abusing me and going, 'Where's our $30 billion? Where have you embezzled all this money?' In a really menacing way."
She acknowledged that being in government meant that "you're on the receiving [of criticism] and you're not giving it like the opposition".
But, she argued, lines of questioning at estimates were increasingly tailored towards "generating footage [to] make sure that you can whip up enough outrage with something and then move on."
"I believe in accountability and being accountable to the Parliament and trying to give as much information as we can, but we also have to protect ourselves and our institutions and the public servants that appear with us as well."
If public servants were expected to be "frank and honest," Senator Gallagher said, it was not helpful to "clip videos that make them look like fools, so that they get piled on."
"There's human consequences to this," she said. 
After ACT independent senator David Pocock's social media post about Australia collecting more tax from beer than offshore gas exports went viral in February, she said, "the pile on that those public servants got was unbelievable."
"They have no right of reply," she said, citing a hearing where a public servant was "called a liar" and accused of having doctored a submission, which they later proved was untrue - but the damage was done. 
"There's no consequence for senators and their behaviour. They can just throw this stuff out there and then move on as they do to the next video, and then meanwhile the public servant's left shattered, with their career ended."
David Pocock at estimates in 2025. Picture by Keegan Carroll
David Pocock at estimates in 2025. Picture by Keegan Carroll
Senator Pocock agreed that politicians "need to take care in what and how we ask our questions, show respect to public servants and disagree civilly."
"Senate Estimates hearings are publicly broadcast for good reason and are an essential part of a strong, open democracy," he said.
"Care does need to be taken in how clips from senate estimates are cut and shared on social media. It's definitely something my team and I are mindful of when using clips from estimates."
Senator Pocock's office does not believe his beer tax post, or any others, made a harmful contribution to the political debate.
Senator Canavan, who became Nationals leader weeks after his post about the $30 billion overspend, was scathing of Senator Gallagher's comments.
"I am sorry? Katy was described as a 'mean girl' by one of her own senators," he said, referring to the reported comments of the late Kimberley Kitching.
"Is she seriously throwing mud about other Senators doing their job and holding the government to account? We need more accountability, not less, otherwise people will become more frustrated than they are."
Voters had "legitimate frustrations" with the government and the bureaucracy that needed to be "responded to through the normal Parliamentary process," Senator Canavan said. 
"Seeking to subvert or reduce Parliamentary accountability will not help our social harmony."
He stood by his social media clip about Senator Gallagher, which related to a $50 billion overspend on government programs.
"She could not account for $30 billion of that figure. She is the Finance Minister. Such a failure deserves to be exposed and Senate Estimates is precisely about doing that."
Jane Hume at estimates in 2024. Picture by Keegan Carroll
Jane Hume at estimates in 2024. Picture by Keegan Carroll
ADVERTISEMENT
Ad
Acting opposition finance and public service spokesperson and Liberal Party deputy leader Jane Hume said politicians' and public servants' salaries "are paid for by taxpayers".
"It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to see how their money is being spent and to hold those who spend it to account," Senator Hume said.
"Australians have every right to see their government being held to account. If any Minister doesn't like the questions being shared, perhaps they should start by answering them."
Greens deputy leader and democracy spokeswoman Steph Hodgins-May said Senate estimates existed "so the public can understand how political decisions are affecting the departments that serve all of us."
"It's about the transparent expenditure of public money, and we deserve to know how well that's working," Senator Hodgins-May said.
"Every senator at the table is asking questions on behalf of the Australian people. It's not about blaming public servants - it's about getting clear, honest answers, even when they can be hard to get, and holding ministers accountable for the decisions they make."