The Albanese government and its officials continue to resist attempts to clarify what personal data will be given to the US government under an Enhanced Border Security Partnership that is being secretly negotiated with the Trump administration.

Greens leader David Shoebridge devoted an extended period of the appearance of the Home Affairs department before the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee yesterday to obtaining basic information about the state of negotiations on the partnerships. The US is demanding that all countries that currently participate in the Visa Waiver Program finalise partnerships for sharing personal and biometric data on their citizens by the end of December.

The European Union has conducted a public consultation process about the development of partnerships between the US and member countries, and the New Zealand government has spoken about its negotiations with the US, but the Department of Home Affairs persistently refused to even acknowledge that discussions were underway, until Shoebridge used estimates to force officials to admit that they were talking to the Americans.

Yesterday, Shoebridge resumed his effort to determine what personal information the US was demanding, while Home Affairs officials — chiefly the department’s Head of National Security, Hamish Hansford — continued to attempt to stonewall the Greens senator. Hansford admitted that meetings had been held with US officials in August, and that an officer had been sent to the US to conduct further talks earlier this month, but as to the detail of what the US was demanding, officials clung stubbornly to the line that the US simply wanted to validate the name and passport number provided under the Visa Waiver Program application, and to check that applicants claiming no criminal record were doing so correctly. How those goals would be achieved was still a subject of discussion, officials insisted, including either by Australia providing the validation, or providing information to the US for it to do the validation.

Shoebridge refused to let the issue go, however, and repeatedly demanded to know what kind of information the US wanted, eventually securing an admission that US officials had asked for biometric information. Who would have access to Australians’ biometric information if it was handed to the US, Shoebridge continued — would it be given to Palantir, which is a major Department of Homeland Security contractor?

Officials declined to rule out Australians’ data being handed to Palantir, saying only that their goal was for the information to be stored “securely”. They had not, they told Shoebridge, told the US that passing the information to Palantir was unacceptable.

What about passing the information to third countries, an issue that was an obvious source of tension between the US and the EU? It was too early to discuss that issue, Home Affairs replied, because it was still not yet agreed how the “validation” sought by the US was to be achieved.

Given there’s only around two months to go before the US deadline, it seems unlikely a partnership will be agreed by then. Nor are there any current plans to conduct a public consultation about whatever is agreed. Officials said they expected the US would recognise that Australia had responded to the US demand with a “mature, collaborative approach” when considering whether Australia would remain part of the Visa Waiver Program beyond that point.

From the moment Crikey revealed the secret plans for an information-sharing partnership with the US back in February, Home Affairs has adopted a two-pronged strategy: refuse to respond to any media inquiries about the negotiations, and when unable to avoid answering questions asked by Shoebridge in Senate committee hearings, insisting that things were at too early a stage to provide any concrete details: “[I]t is unclear some elements about what the US is requiring,” officials told Shoebridge at the budget estimates hearings. “So that’s why we’re having the meetings to understand their specific requirements.” 

But if anything, the “details” that were revealed yesterday, in light of the two subsequent meetings with the US, are even sparser than those provided at previous hearings. Crikey’s own Freedom of Information request to Home Affairs, made back in February, continues to be stonewalled, with its one-year anniversary now approaching, and no response from the department except a series of excuses about the need for “consultation”.

As demonstrated yesterday, that refusal to provide any details leaves the government wide open to criticism of potential scenarios such as Palantir, a company widely described as “evil“, obtaining access to the biometric data not just of Australians seeking to enter the US, but that of their families and associates, or the US handing biometric data of Australians on to third countries. And given the state of negotiations, it’s not even clear whether Australia will still be part of the Visa Waiver Program from January 1 next year.

If visa-free access to the US suddenly ends on New Year’s Day, Shoebridge and Crikey will likely stop being the only ones actually bothering to pursue the government about these partnerships.

Australia’s headline inflation rate has accelerated to 4.3%, with a key gauge that strips out volatile prices also elevated, sharpening expectations of another interest rate rise next week.

A rate hike is a near certainty next Tuesday.

Calum Jaspan: Updated October 27, 2026 — 4:14pm,first published 8:55am

The ABC’s managing director says the broadcaster will issue a cease and desist to One Nation after the political party depicted cartoon character Bluey running over former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews.

Hugh Marks said the party’s depiction of Bluey is a blatant use of intellectual property without permission and a “shocking use of Australia’s most loved character” during a Senate estimates hearing.

The ABC has demanded One Nation removed depictions of Bluey from its “shocking” cartoons.YouTube

“It’s not a parody of any Bluey work. It’s not a minor use of the IP. In my view, it is an infringement of the intellectual property, number one,” Marks said.

The political party has depicted Bluey in several episodes of its Please Explain satirical video series.

“It’s also a shocking use of Australia’s most loved character. In fact, probably the globally most loved character in a video that is both shocking and disrespectful to the children of Australia who love that character so much,” Marks continued.

[](safari-reader://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/why-trump-suing-the-bbc-could-become-the-biggest-taco-of-all-20261027-p618p9.html)

“We will be taking further action, I can assure you,” Marks said. “I would imagine that it’s a breach of intellectual property, and a cease and desist letter should be issued.”

The cartoon, which remains on YouTube where it has amassed 572,000 views, has come under scrutiny over the past week after independent MP Helen Haines was rammed by a car in an alleged attack in her electorate.

The 2024 Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain video titled The State of Melbourne depicts Andrews running over both Bluey and Robert Irwin in a car before Bluey later runs over Andrews.

Marks told the hearing that he understands One Nation did not seek permission from either Ludo Films, the BBC’s commercial arm which distributes Bluey, or the ABC, before using the cartoon’s likeness.

One Nation was approached for comment.

Marks and several ABC executives appeared in Canberra on Tuesday afternoon, facing a series of questions relating to the broadcaster’s hiring processes, particularly of former Four Corners journalist Mahmood Fazal, and proposed changes to its Indigenous content output.

Justin Stevens (left) and ABC managing director Hugh Marks at a Senate estimates hearing in December.Alex Ellinghausen

Marks said the majority of staff involved in the work produced by Fazal during his time at the ABC have since left, including former ABC News director Justin Stevens. It was revealed that Stevens got a $353,000 payout when he abruptly exited the public broadcaster in May. The ABC has not said Stevens’ exit was specifically related to the Fazal saga.

It later emerged Stevens was already in the process of being superseded, with managing director Hugh Marks [having already lined up his replacement, Simon Robinson](safari-reader://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/abc-s-head-of-news-to-exit-making-way-for-external-appointment-20260527-p6012s.html).

Marks later said Stevens [wasn’t aware](safari-reader://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/abc-news-boss-unaware-he-was-being-replaced-managing-director-says-20260609-p60503.html) the public broadcaster was in the process of replacing him before his eventual exit, which he told Radio National Breakfast was “inevitable” after the pair had disagreed on the right direction for Australia’s largest newsroom.

The ABC’s new director of news, Simon Robinson.

The figure, which Marks later said related to pay for his notice period which he did not serve and entitlements accrued over 19 years at the broadcaster, was revealed in the ABC’s annual report, released on Monday evening as executives from the broadcaster prepared to appear before a Senate estimates committee on Tuesday.

The ABC has experienced significant turnover in its senior ranks since the arrival of Marks. Almost his entire management team has been replaced, including the recent exit of chief operating officer Melanie Kleyn, who has been replaced by Trent Dickeson from Seven West Media. Kleyn was paid a full package of $869,771 in 2026 and is expected to have landed a severance package as well.

Marks was paid a total package of $1,199,856 in the 2026 financial year, which includes a base salary of $1,134,639. ABC chair Kim Williams was paid $226,000.

[](safari-reader://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/abc-watchdog-finds-litany-of-failings-at-four-corners-20260922-p60zle.html)

ABC staff expect major changes to its news division under Robinson. Last week, he told staff the broadcaster had axed The Business, a business news program that has been running for 20 years.

In the annual report, Marks hinted at the direction of future changes, saying the ABC will evolve its news offering to give greater emphasis on live, local and distinctive services, in particular by addressing “duplicated news outputs that compete for the same audiences”.

The ABC’s total radio network grew in the 2025-26 year, putting an end to four successive years of declines. While its beleaguered local radio network continued its downward trend, there was audience growth most noticeably for ABC NewsRadio, and triple j.

The ABC also grew its audience for weeknight 7pm news bulletins, up 7 per cent to 899,000 on average nationally across both free-to-air broadcast and live-streaming. Foreign Correspondent was the ABC’s standout performer, with audiences up 29 per cent compared to the 2024-25 year, while 7.30 also grew its audience by 6 per cent, giving it an average viewership of 864,000 each evening.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. [Sign up to get it every weekday morning](safari-reader://www.theage.com.au/newsletter-signup?newsletter=business-briefing&utm_source=EditorialArticle&utm_medium=ArticleText&utm_campaign=Newsletters)***.***

A surge in the number of student visa rejections being appealed has further swamped the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The ART – the federal tribunal responsible for reviewing administrative decisions made by federal government ministers, departments and agencies – revealed in its latest annual report that the number of cases still on hand surged by almost 20 per cent during the 2026 financial year to a record 133,749.

That came despite the ART finalising a record 65,900 cases during the year, with the tribunal blaming the growing logjam on the “dramatic” increase in student visa matters as well as a surge in the number of NDIS decisions being appealed.

The ART said the number of student visa cases lodged with the tribunal had surged by 42 per cent last year and had grown 14-fold since the 2023 financial year.

The surge in student visa refusal cases coming before the tribunal comes amid a crackdown on international student visas, with the number of rejections climbing earlier this year to more than 32 per cent – its highest level in around 20 years.

That crackdown is set to intensify in the coming months, after the Albanese government introduced new restrictions targeting the practice of “visa hopping” under which international students move from course to course to extend their stay.

Migration matters continue to overwhelmingly be the main type of case before the tribunal, representing 55 per cent of cases.

ART president Justice Emilios Kyrou wrote in the annual report that the tribunal was aiming to start making headway into the backlog this year following amendments that will allow the tribunal to start deciding student visa refusal applications “on the paper” – that is, without the need for an oral hearing.

“During the reporting period, the tribunal continued to face major challenges, including the dramatic increase in lodgments in relation to student visa decisions and significant increases in lodgments in relation to NDIS decisions,” Justice Kyrou said.

“The tribunal does not have the resources to process this volume of lodgments. As a result, the number of cases on hand has increased substantially and processing and finalising timelines for some cases have increased.”

The number of ART members jumped more than 11 per cent during the last financial year to 413 while the tribunal’s staff grew by more than a quarter to 1290. That growth meant that the tribunal has had to start sharing office space and is authorising some of its members to work from home.

“We have been able to accommodate all new members with increased office sharing, a rollout of office booking systems, and more flexible work-from-home arrangements,” Justice Kyrou wrote.

In 1941, Jorge Luis Borges published his short story, The Library of Babel, imagining a universe consisting of an apparently infinite library containing every possible combination of a fixed set of letters, spaces, and punctuation. Within its endless galleries existed true histories, coherent philosophies, and scientific discoveries – alongside every conceivable falsehood, contradiction, and meaningless string of characters. The library contained all possible answers, yet its inhabitants had no reliable means of identifying the correct ones. Their predicament was not scarcity of information but the impossibility of reliably distinguishing signal from noise. LLM’s are not literal libraries of every possible book. They generate responses from patterns learned during training, and their fluency can mask uncertainty.

The intellectual parallel, however, is clear.

Borges imagined unlimited information without a reliable navigator. AI offers something that resembles one. The librarian has become the algorithm. This creates a potential democratisation of knowledge.

Citizens can interrogate legislation, test ministerial claims against published data, and examine the assumptions behind government policy. The LLM will not always be correct, but neither will the minister.

For the first time, the public’s capacity to scrutinise political authority may develop faster than the institutions that exercise it. The critical political question is therefore not whether the technology works, but who controls the navigator?