Stand-Up Australia

Jacinta Allan has resigned as Premier, stepping down just minutes before she was due to face a leadership challenge, and only four months before the state election. After losing the support of colleagues within her own parliamentary party, Allan made way for Ben Carroll to become Victoria's new Premier. Leadership spills always dominate the headlines. But for most Victorians, the more important question isn't who occupies the Premier's office. It's whether anything actually changes. • Rising debt. • Cost of living. • Housing affordability. • Crime. • Major infrastructure cost blowouts. Does changing the leader mean a genuine change of direction, or simply a new face delivering the same agenda? In his first press conference as Premier, Ben Carroll declared: "Integrity will not be an option in my government." The sentiment is clear: integrity should be non-negotiable. Victorians will have the opportunity to decide if those words are matched by actions when they head to the ballot box later this year.

Europe is moving away from Palantir while Australia is handing it more contracts. Palantir is a powerful US technology company whose software brings enormous amounts of government data together in one system. It can be used across defence, policing, intelligence and financial-crime investigations to find connections, track patterns and help authorities make decisions. While parts of Europe are trying to reduce their reliance on foreign technology and regain control of their critical data, Australia is heading in the opposite direction. Palantir recently received a $7.6 million Australian Defence contract, while AUSTRAC awarded it another $5.06 million deal. Corrections Victoria has reportedly handed the company nearly $20 million in contracts since 2012. Europe is asking whether its most sensitive systems should depend on an American corporation. Why isn’t Australia asking the same question?

WHO OWNS YOUR COUNTRY'S DIGITAL BACKBONE? When governments build roads, ports or power stations, they usually want to own and control them. So why should the digital infrastructure that underpins defence, intelligence and critical government systems be any different? Spain has reportedly instructed many state-backed companies to stop signing new contracts with Palantir, citing concerns about national security and sovereignty over critical data. Other parts of Europe are also questioning their reliance on foreign technology providers. Meanwhile, Australia continues awarding Palantir contracts across government agencies. This isn't about being anti-American or anti-technology. It's about asking a simple question: Should Australia's most critical systems become increasingly dependent on overseas companies, or should we be building sovereign capability here at home? A country that can't control its own critical infrastructure isn't truly independent.

You know what's funny? These days it feels like everyone wants your information. Your bank. Your phone. The apps you use. The websites you visit. Even the professionals you're supposed to trust are now being asked to report suspicious activity under expanding laws. Maybe it's time we stopped making it so easy. A VPN isn't about having something to hide. It's about deciding that not everything you do online needs to be everyone else's business. So if you're going to browse... At least don't browse naked. 😉 We've partnered with Proton VPN because if there's one thing we've learnt over the past few years, it's that privacy isn't something you get back once it's gone. 👉 https://go.getproton.me/aff_c?offer_id=26&aff_id=14611 This is an affiliate link. If you sign up through it, we receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. It helps support the work we do. #standupnowaustralia

Australians work hard for their money. They deserve the same discipline from government—especially when public safety is involved. The Federal Government has spent approximately $132 million developing AusAlert, Australia's new emergency warning system. The technology has potential, but major questions remain: • Existing SMS and landline warning systems still need to remain in place. • It relies on mobile coverage, leaving many regional and remote Australians without alerts. • Queensland has questioned relying on it as the primary system, while Western Australia has also raised concerns. • Domestic violence groups warn alerts could expose hidden "safe phones". • Not all mobile phones are compatible. After spending $132 million, taxpayers have every right to ask: Has Australia received a genuinely national, deployment-ready emergency warning system—or another government rollout launched before it was ready? Public safety deserves better.

At a time when political factions can become more focused on fighting each other rather than improving everyday life, Australians deserve a clearer way to be heard. The findings will be published publicly, with reports organised by electorate and delivered directly to elected representatives. People nominate their electorate and their responses contribute to a local report. That means Australians and their representatives will see the same evidence— leaving less room for selective listening, political spin or avoiding accountability. The Census counts the country. The National Pulse will show how the country is feeling.

The Census tells us how many Australians there are, where we live and how our communities are changing. The National Pulse will add another part of the national picture: how Australians are actually experiencing life-and whether governments are responding. The National Pulse survey will examine two connected areas. ⚠️ First: Australians’ standard of living. We will ask about cost-of-living pressure, housing, work, health, personal security, community and confidence in the future. ⚠️ Second: government performance and accountability. We will ask whether people feel heard, whether public priorities reflect their needs, whether decisions are clearly explained and whether governments are delivering meaningful results.

Australia may be divided on plenty—but the pressure people are feeling is remarkably non-partisan. The National Pulse is a new independent survey measuring Australians’ living standards, wellbeing, confidence and whether governments are listening. We’ll turn the national mood into clear public findings and electorate-level reports, then present them directly to elected representatives. No party spin. No speaking for people. Just Australians sharing what life is really like—and what they expect from those in power. Coming soon. Your experience. Your voice. Your choice.

Australians are counted. Now it’s time to hear them. We’re launching The National Pulse—an independent national project measuring how Australians feel about their living standards, wellbeing, confidence and the performance of government. The survey will explore the pressures people are facing, whether they feel heard and whether governments are responding to the needs of their communities. National findings will be published, with electorate-level reports prepared and presented to elected representatives—so local experiences are clearly documented and harder to ignore. The first National Pulse survey is coming soon. Your experience. Your voice. Your choice.

🚨How will the remaining areas be identified? 🚨 Will productive land be affected? 🚨 How will conservation be balanced with agriculture, regional development, resource industries, recreation and public access? 🚨What role will state governments play, and how much public funding will be required? These are legitimate public policy questions that deserve open discussion. Australia’s participation in the framework was publicly announced, but there was no major public explanation of what the commitment could mean for Australians. The Government has since released strategies and funding to implement it, yet many Australians remain unaware that the nation is working towards conserving 30 per cent of its land and waters by 2030. Whether you support the target or not, democratic accountability requires Australians to know what commitments have been made in their name, how they will be implemented, and what the practical consequences may be. 🚨 Major national policy should not rely on public ignorance. It should rely on informed public debate. SOURCES: https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/mccarthy/25-cent-australias-land-now-protected-milestone-ipa-dedication?utm_

Without most Australians noticing, a significant national milestone has been reached. Around 25 per cent of Australia’s land is now included within the National Reserve System and other recognised protected areas. The Australian Government has committed Australia to the international 30×30 target under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The target is to ensure that, by 2030, at least 30 per cent of terrestrial land, inland waters, coastal areas and marine areas are effectively conserved and managed. This is one of the most significant land and water management commitments Australia has undertaken in decades. It extends beyond national parks to marine parks, state reserves, privately conserved land and other recognised conservation areas. As Australia moves from approximately 25 per cent towards 30 per cent, serious public questions remain. Continued below 👇🏻

For years, Australians have been told to put money into super. Why? Because we’re told it’s our retirement savings. Now Anthony Albanese is calling Australia’s $4.5 trillion superannuation pool a “national asset” that should do more for the nation—not just for the people who earned it. Let’s be clear. That $4.5 trillion didn’t come from Canberra. It came from Australians. ‼️ It’s your money. Even Westpac CEO Anthony Miller had a blunt message for the Prime Minister: “Don’t touch the super complex, don’t direct it, don’t tell it where to go.” When politicians stop talking about your super and start talking about a national asset, Australians should pay attention. 📣 We need to remind them Australia’s superannuation isn’t government money. https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/dont-touch-albo-told-to-keep-hands-off-super-after-he-urged-45-trillion-pool-to-become-a-national-asset/news-story/1168184cdaa3700d6fd6c5d4470a4e48?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Increasing the allowable residue of a “forever chemical” pesticide on berries by up to 500 times is the kind of proposal that deserves public attention. Whether or not regulators conclude the revised limit is safe, a change of this magnitude naturally raises important questions… • Why is such a significant increase being proposed? • What new evidence supports the change? • Which chemical is involved? • How was the health risk assessed? • What does this mean for children, who often consume more fruit relative to their body weight than adults? • How does Australia’s proposal compare with international standards? Public confidence in food safety depends on transparency. Australians should have the opportunity to understand the evidence, ask questions and participate in informed public discussion before changes of this scale are finalised. What do you think? Should proposals like this receive greater public scrutiny before they are approved?

Funny how quickly Parliament can move when it wants to. A major Telstra outage happens and a Senate inquiry is underway almost immediately. Meanwhile, Australians have spent years asking questions about government spending, procurement, cost blowouts and integrity concerns—often waiting months or years for meaningful scrutiny. No one’s saying Telstra shouldn’t be held accountable. We’re asking why the same urgency doesn’t always seem to apply when it’s taxpayers’ money on the line. Maybe accountability shouldn’t depend on who’s being investigated. 🔗 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-16/telstra-prepares-for-grilling-consumer-group-threatened/106915896

HANDS OFF OUR SUPER This week Paul Keating suggested Australia's superannuation system should become more closely integrated with the Age Pension, with super funds taking a greater role in administering retirement income. The stated objective is simple: To make claiming and administering the Age Pension easier. The Age Pension and superannuation serve the same purpose—providing income in retirement—but they are fundamentally different. The Age Pension is Australia's public pension, funded by Australian taxpayers and administered by the Commonwealth. Superannuation is private property. If the government believes the Age Pension system is too complex, why is the solution to bring it closer to Australians' private property? At what point does "integration" begin to erode the distinction between public administration and private property? History teaches us that governments rarely seek greater involvement in areas they intend to have less influence over. Read more HERE

$69 million of taxpayer money. Not to help Australian farmers. Not to protect Australian food security. But to back a deal that could see productive farmland converted into pine plantations for carbon credits. Meanwhile, many Australians are asking a simple question: Who made that decision on our behalf? Whether you agree with this project or not, the bigger issue is this: Australians don’t get a direct say on decisions like these. Once governments make them, the public is left to live with the consequences. Imagine if Australians had the power to force a vote on decisions of national importance. Imagine if the people—not just politicians—had the final say. That’s the conversation we should be having. Because democracy shouldn’t end on election day. 🎥 Credit: @itsmandykellie

When did Australia stop putting Australians first? The latest figures show around 3.7 million Australians are living in poverty. Families are skipping meals. Older Australians are choosing between heating and medication. Young people have given up on owning a home. Parents are working harder than ever just to stay afloat. Yet the 2026–27 Federal Budget allocates around $5.2 billion in overseas aid. Helping other nations in times of genuine need isn't the point. The question is... Why are Australians always told to wait? Why are we constantly told there's no money for housing? No money for hospitals. No money to properly support our veterans. No money to ease the cost of living. But somehow, there's always money for something else. Before we ask Australians to carry the burden of solving the world's problems, shouldn't we make sure Australians can afford a roof over their heads, put food on the table and access the services they've already paid for through their taxes? 👇 Tell us what you think.

If a shipping route on the other side of the world can affect Australia, are we really fuel secure? The Strait of Hormuz is under pressure again. Yet Australia still remains heavily reliant on imported refined fuel. Why isn’t the Albanese Government making fuel security a national priority? If you think Australia should be putting Australia’s fuel security first, sign the petition. 🇦🇺 www.protectourfuel.com.au

WHEN DID DOBBING IN YOUR NEIGHBOUR BECOME AN AUSTRALIAN VALUE? No one is arguing that organised crime shouldn't be investigated. But lately, it feels like Australians are increasingly being encouraged to monitor and report one another. First it was expanded anti-money laundering laws requiring professionals to secretly report suspicious activity. Now it's campaigns encouraging the public to report people with "unexplained wealth." Many Australians will also remember being encouraged to report neighbours during COVID. Different laws. Different campaigns. But they all point to the same question. Are we building a society based on mateship and trust... Or one based on suspicion and surveillance? Australians have always looked out for their neighbours. Not at them. What do you think?