You remember how ICE agents were scanning the faces of protesters with their phones for unknown purposes? How many people have they locked up again? I'm sure they were all guilty of something.

Interesting comments from the judge here, appearing to recognise, by inference, that Woodside was seeking to deter future protests with this action.

Wild story should this be confirmed. Townsend has also reported that it appears someone else has been running McConnell's office as his health declined, and that his neighbours say the senator's house is empty.

So how did it go for the agency? Swing an a miss. As per the decision: "media responses usually entail the production of vetted statements or general responses to questions, as distinct from documents that may contain the unvarnished and objective records". You love to see it. /10

I don't know how many of you have ever put in a media request, but they answer your enquiry, not your questions. They certainly don't give you the underlying documents. If you do ask, they direct you to FOI--usually because it takes forever. Here, for eg, is the answer EPA's parent dpt gave me: /9

But there's more! And this is my favourite bit. The agency said they charged because their scientists should be doing actual science, not sharing their science, there was already plenty of coverage about this event and I could have just asked for information through... a media request. /8

It was a bold strategy. Now let's see how it played out. /7

To yadda-yadda our way through some of the legal stuff, we get to a bit about whether there's public interest in just giving me the materials. The agency seemed to insist it is just so overwhelmed by FOI requests due to wealth of environment reporting in SA, that it simply *had* to charge me. /6

Then the agency sought to charge me $787.20 for "sorting and compiling" for one seven hour block of work, and another five hour block of work, totalling 12 hours. For 15 emails. That's nearly one email an hour. The Ombudsman did not find this persuasive. /5

The agency essentially argued that the search for the documents was actually super-duper complex, stressful and difficult. The Ombudsman took a closer look and found that scanning a series of two-to-three page reports would not have taken *checks notes* nine hours. /4

The EPA charged me $131.20 for the time taken to consult. Which is fair, and the Ombudsman thought so too. But it was when it came to the $590.40 charge for finding documents, things were a little... different. /3

Here's what I said--the TL:DR version is that the fee is large and creates a deterrent to making an FOI application, and investigative journalism, in a way that undermines the whole object of the act. Also, the fee was nearly three times the cost the average news story pays a freelancer. /2

Here's a breakdown of what the EPA billed me: /1

A long time ago, I asked the SA Environment Protection Authority for documents relating to the algal bloom under FOI. They charged me $1508.80. The SA Ombudsman just reduced that to $131.20. To celebrate my late-Friday refund, here's how I won this particular fight. /n

At least one mystery has been solved.

Okay, we're done. This whole thing was an extended Gish Gallop by Hanson that was intended to, and largely succeeded, in overwhelming any criticism or opposition. She abused reporters for doing their job, and the press corps did not defend itself. It was a predictable and unnecessary spectacle.

If The Advertiser aren't billing Santos' marketing department for this headline and kicker, they're really just leaving money on the table.

Always fun to read about efforts by the oil and gas lobby, then known as "APEA", to finagle special tax treatment, and the wheeling and dealing Commonwealth governments undertake to keep them happy. In this case, that means "a substantially lower company tax rate" and preferential treatment.

Bob Allen, convener of the working group, seems to be interested in climate change, giving a presentation at an AMEC meeting in 1991. At another meeting in March, you see people talking about adding "greenhouse" to the terms of reference for the sub-committee.

We have the first direct mention of "the greenhouse effect". This is cast as "concerns" that require the embrace of energy efficiency and savings measures. There are two other mentions of the "environment" and how the cost of this damage is not, at the time, factored into decision making.

What's interesting is that this is the early 1990s, with the documents advocating hard for "drill, baby, drill", at the same time there's some recognition about the future potential of renewables. I think it's often forgotten how long the consequences of decisions in the now stay with us.

Had a stack of Australian government documents come in and here's a section where they're thinking about a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz in 1989.

Australian seaweed producers Sea Forest are charging $70 a ticket for tours of their Triabunna seaweed farming facility over three days in August as part of the Beaker Street festival. The company has been downsizing its seaweed growing operations after going public.

Here's the outlook according to S&P. The gist is that they do not foresee problems, but expect some owners in New South Wales and Victoria will sell up because there is a greater concentration of activity there and Victoria has higher unemployment.

According to the report, it's the old and rich who are buying up all the extra houses as investments. It says the Money People really like lending to investors because they're less likely to default than your average homeowner.

S&P's regular report on Australian residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) is always an interesting read. Here they say two-fifths of all lending as at March 2026 was for property investors but it says Labor's tax changes will likely to cut this back.

The Coalition have been running an apparent strategy to try to keep Chris Bowen at home to undermine his work on international climate negotiations by attacking the cost of travel associated with his role as COP Co-President. Bowen is having none of it. Reminder: he did not go to Colombia.

A quick look at the companies involved:

Paul Brereton has resigned from the NACC citing the "ongoing focus on matters relating to me personally rather than the Commission’s work". He says he will "continue to resist any suggestion of impropriety."

Here ANAO finds the Infrastructure Department interpreted the FOI Act to mean all applications should take 30 days rather than be decided as soon as possible within the 30-day processing period allowed for under the act. Explains a lot, tbh.