What we learned, 19 August 2025
With that, we’re wrapping up the blog. Before we go, here are today’s big stories:
The Western Australia government “put a very rosy spin” on a summary report of a project checking if pollutants from Woodside were damaging 50,000-year-old rock art, according to a private email sent by the lead scientist.
The organisation behind the age assurance technology trial that will inform how to keep under-16s off social media has frozen out key stakeholders amid media leaks and resignations of two members.
The South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, has cited “harrowing stories” in the state’s royal commission into domestic, family and sexual violence and flagged a full response before the end of the year.
One Nation senator Warwick Stacey, elected at the May election, is resigning for health reasons.
James Paterson, the shadow finance minister, said the Coalition would be open to a contribution to a peacekeeping effort to Ukraine, a shift from a stance from the former opposition leader Peter Dutton who described any involvement as a “thought bubble by the prime minister”.
Liberal MP Garth Hamilton proposed this morning Australia start paying migrants to go back to their home countries if they’re struggling to find work or a place to live.
Thanks for your company today. We’ll be back early tomorrow.
Updated
Qld supreme court rules an abortion is in best interests of 11-year-old pregnant girl
The Queensland supreme court has ruled that an 11-year-old girl should be allowed to have abortion, deeming it “necessary” given her “physical, psychological and social circumstances”.
In a judgment made in April and published today, Justice Frances Williams determined that termination of the girl’s pregnancy was in her best interests.
The girl, referred to as C in the judgment, had what the court deemed “transient” understanding of the meaning of her pregnancy, and was described as “emotionally and psychologically immature”.
As a result, she was determined not to be “Gillick competent”, meaning she did not fully understand what it meant to terminate her pregnancy and could not give consent for the procedure.
The judgment noted:
If a child is not Gillick competent to give consent to the termination of a pregnancy, there is a risk that the medical procedure may be an assault or trespass to the person and unlawful in the absence of a court making appropriate orders.
The supreme court determined that an abortion was in C’s best interest. It found:
The overwhelming medical evidence is that the risks involved in continuing C’s pregnancy are higher than the risks involved in termination …
The evidence before the Court is that C has repeatedly expressed the view that she does not want to continue with the pregnancy. C’s mother has also expressed a clear preference for C to undergo a termination of her pregnancy.
Updated
