The Point Live: Aukus in trouble with Sth Korea deal, environmental laws bring less transparency. As it happened.

The government is all for transparency, except when its not. When isn’t it? They can’t tell you. That’s a secret (this is the whoosh-whoosh version of the parts of the legislation below)

Item 223 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Reform Bill relates to the proposed changes to the EPBC Act concerning the national interest approval.
Section 133 of the EPBC Act allows the Minister to approve the taking of a controlled action by a person for the purposes of a controlling provision for the action, after receiving the assessment documentation relating to the action.
Item 223 would amend existing section 133 to insert new subsections 133(7A) and (7B).
New subsection 133(7A) would require the Minister, as soon as practicable after deciding whether to approve the taking of an action that is a national interest proposal, to publish the reasons for the decision on the Department’s website

This is intended to ensure transparency in relation to the approval of national interest proposals, as modified tests relating to national environmental standards, unacceptable impacts and compensation would apply to such actions (see new sections 136A, 136B and 136C, proposed by item 237 of Part 1 of Schedule 1.
New subsection 133(7B) would have the effect that the Minister would not be able to publish, under new subsection 133(7A), any information that:
• is an exempt document under section 47 of the FOI Act (trade secrets etc.); or
• is a conditionally exempt document under section 47G of the FOI Act (business documents) to which access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest for the purposes of subsection 11A(5) of that Act; or
• that the Minister believes it is in Australia’s national interest not to provide.
The note after new subsection 133(7B) would explain that the reference to ‘Australia’s national interest in that provision’ refers to the meaning of that term in relation to national interest proposals generally, and refers the reader to new subsection 157C(2) (proposed by item 58 of Part 1 of Schedule 1).

While Parliament was underway this week, young people from Australia and the Pacific gathered in Canberra for the Australia Pacific Youth Climate Dialogue, urging tougher action to address climate change. This youth forum launched the 2025 National Child and Youth Statement on Climate Change, based on 27 sessions with more than 800 youth leaders in every Australian state and territory. Among other things, they want:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership embedded across all stages of climate policy along with meaningful Pacific partnerships.
• Stronger action to reduce Australian emissions in line with the global 1.5°C target.
• Youth-centred energy transition planning, with targeted education, green skills training, and job pathways.
• Greater investment in climate resilient services and infrastructure across schools, hospitals, transport, and housing, particularly in regional and rural areas.

Supported by UNICEF, it’s part of a wider Global Youth Statement to be presented to the COP 30 presidency.

The bill also includes:

“NOPSEMA (regulator for off-shore renewables) approved actions: 

The Reform Bill would amend EPBC Act to allow the Minister to declare that offshore projects do not require separate approval under the EPBC Act, if the Minister is satisfied that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) and OPGGS Environment Regulations provide the same environmental protections as the EPBC Act, replacing the existing strategic assessment. This would include relevant national environmental standards.”

Boom! Here’s the climate section – the explanatory memorandum goes out of its way to highlight that the reporting of emissions does NOT cover scope 3 emissions (our fossil fuels burnt overseas) and that it is “an information provision only and not a balancing consideration for decision making”.

That means it’s a transparency measure that can’t be used to alter what the approval decision otherwise might be.

It is, as the government had already said previously, most definitely not a climate trigger.

Here’s the full section of the EM dealing with this:

“Climate

The Reform Bill would introduce a provision requiring proponents to disclose estimates for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of the assessment of a controlled action.

Proponents would also be required to disclose associated emissions mitigation measures and abatement targets along with the estimated emissions. This supports the effective operation of the Safeguard Mechanism and supports Australia to meet its climate targets.

The Safeguard Mechanism is the Australian Government’s mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at Australia’s largest industrial facilities. Under the Climate Change Act 2022 the Environment Minister is required to give certain emissions estimates they have received to the Minister for Climate Change, as well as the Climate Change Authority and the Secretary of the Climate Change Department.

Requirements for disclosure will be aligned with requirements under other government legislation with requirements to be set out in regulations. This is an information provision only and not a balancing consideration for decision making.”

The first thing a friend of the blog has pointed out in relation to the government’s environment bill is:

Strategic assessments

Page 6 of the EM talks about how it will “amend the provisions of the EPBC Act relating to strategic assessments that have frustrated the making and operation of landscape assessments and approvals”.

The amendments include “requiring the Minister to obtain and consider advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee when deciding whether to approve a class of actions involving unconventional gas or large coal mining developments”.

There’s a report out today that the head of Australia Post, Paul Graham, is calling on Australians not to buy Temu and Shein and other pretty cheap and nasty products for Christmas.

Now the Opposition is very much aware of the risks of such things given the wipeout they got after buying Peter Dutton a Temu Trump outfit for the election campaign, and as anyone who has bought from those outlets probably has a good idea that you truly get what you pay for and that ain’t much.

But a report by Nina Gbor, the Director, Circular Economy & Waste Program here at the Institute, last year found that Australia is the biggest buyer (and waster) of fast fashion in the world. Australians buy on average 56 items of clothing a year – much of which is driven by fast/cheap/low quality clothing that lasts roughly one wash.

The problem (apart from the waste of money) is that clothing all ends up in landfill and it is essentially made completely from plastic. Nina found that  “in 2020–21, Australia generated an estimated 860kt of textiles, leather and rubber waste. This is the more than 16 times the weight of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. A big part of this – about 300kt – is clothing waste”. Also that “Shein launches up to 7,200 new items per day, and is reportedly able to produce a clothing item, from design to packaging, within a week. This fast fashion ‘trendmill’ means that overproduction and overconsumption have become longstanding fashion trends, and a massive feature of our clothing culture.”

Because of brands like Shein and Temu “between 2018 and 2023, the production of synthetic fibres in China increased by 21 million tonnes – this is enough to make more than 100 billion t-shirts in a year, which would be enough to give everyone in the world more than 12 t-shirts a year. Ultra-fast fashion brands such as Shein and Temu have been accused of contributing to the persistence of China’s oil demand.”

So yes, avoid Temu and Shein – it’s going to leave you crying due to a crap product, but it is also terrible for the environment and the climate.

Here’s Nina on ABC last year explaining the problem and what to do about it:

As mentioned earlier on the live blog, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher has emphasised just how many orders for documents the Albanese Government has complied with: more than any other government in history.

It’s a retort to criticism about the orders for documents that Labor hasn’t complied with, specifically to release the Briggs review into public sector board appointments (looking into concerns about “jobs for mates”).

But what are orders for documents?

Orders for documents

Orders for documents or OPD (technically, “orders for the production of documents”) are used by the houses of Parliament (the House of Representatives or the Senate) to require the government to produce information.

Every Australian parliament in the country has the power to order the production of documents (from their respective governments; the Victorian Legislative Council can’t make the Queensland Government produce documents).

If you have seen the ABC’s very good (but very distressing) reporting on abuse in childcare centres, that reporting is based in part on information revealled by a successful order for documents from the NSW Parliament.

While either house of Parliament has the power to order the production of documents, in practice they mostly come from the Senate because the government has the numbers in the House of Representatives.

What is the volume and nature of OPDs?

The power to order documents is inherited from the United Kingdom’s House of Commons. Its use has ebbed and flowed: between 1901 and 1906, the Senate issued over a hundred orders for the production of documents before the practice fell into disuse in the 1910s. It was revived in the 1970s, and the Senate’s annual volume of orders for the production of documents in its first six years was not matched until the 1990s.

Some orders for documents have remained in force for years and changed the culture and practice of government departments. The website listing all government contracts, AusTender, has its origins in an order for documents, and it is thanks to a different order that Australia’s quarterly greenhouse gas emissions data is published promptly.

I won’t deny that orders for documents are sometimes for things I think are trivial and intended just to score a political point. But that was also true when the Liberal–National Coalition was in government, and Labor was putting forward orders for documents. And a Senate order for documents cannot pass without multi-party support; it is never just the result of one party’s agenda.

What happens if the government refuses to comply with an order for documents?

The consequences are political, not legal. The Senate is within its rights to stop voting on the government’s legislation until it gets the relevant information. Or to take away some of the government’s privileges, like being able to sit at the central table (this symbolic honour is more important to them than you may think!)

In this case, the Senate has said that since the government won’t be transparent on this issue, the Senate will demand more transparency in other areas: by extending how long Senate Question Time runs for.  

For those asking, the amendment that has been slipped in which will see police given the power to recommend the cancellation or suspension of welfare payments, before a conviction, can be found here.

Murray Watt has introduced the environmental ‘protections’ bill into the parliament:

You can find it here.

We will go through it and give you our thoughts soonest.

Who says politics is just a game?

This morning, in the Mural Hall of Parliament House in Canberra, five remarkable young Australians took on our political leaders in games of giant Jenga, Connect Four and Noughts and Crosses.

But it wasn’t all fun and games.

These kids had a stark message for their political playmates.

They told them what it’s like to be young and poor.

They spoke about missing meals, wearing ripped school uniforms and being excluded from opportunities their parents couldn’t afford, which other kids take for granted.

“Sometimes I choose not to ask for food, because it’s easier to go hungry rather than upset anyone or risk them not helping me in the future,” said one participant, Aimee, who is one of six children in a blended family that squeezes into a three-bedroom unit.

“My dad didn’t have enough money to buy we a new school shirt when my school shirt got a rip in it,” said another, Hunter, who helps his parents by caring for his younger siblings.

“My teachers at school would give me warnings, and I would explain to them that I couldn’t afford to buy a new one. One day the warnings stopped, and I started getting detentions instead.”

“It was really hard to be in detention because I didn’t do anything wrong, and they knew I needed help.”

They were tough, but necessary, conversations.

It was all part of an initiative to raise awareness about the extraordinary – and growing – number of Australian children living in poverty.

The games were hosted by the End Child Poverty campaign, run by the Valuing Children Initiative.

The children visiting Parliament this morning all take part in programs run by 12 Buckets, which provides mentoring for disadvantaged children in schools and the community.

The End Child Poverty campaign wants the federal government to legislate a “clear, child-centred poverty measure and definition”.

There is no official measure of poverty in Australia, which makes it difficult to monitor the effectiveness policies aimed at improving the lives of those doing it hardest in our society.

“We need to measure the impacts of poverty in a child-centred way, so we can reduce the harmful effect that can last a lifetime,” said campaign lead, Sarah Quinton.

Last year, the Productivity Commission estimated that 14 percent of Australians lived in poverty, which is the number of people living on 50 percent of the median income, or below.

The End Child Poverty campaign calculates that nearly a million Australian children now live below the poverty line.

It’s now nearly 40 years since the late Bob Hawke declared in his 1987 re-election campaign launch “by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty”.

Last year, The Australia Institute released its Ending Child Poverty in Australia report.

The institute’s team of economists often say, “poverty is a policy choice”.

In a rich country like Australia, governments could effectively wipe out poverty with a single piece of legislation.

The report stated, “Poverty has long-lasting and insidious impacts on a child’s health and well-being and can affect their schooling and employment opportunities throughout their entire lifetime.”

“Given that the low rate of income support payments keeps many families in poverty, reducing child poverty is not inherently complicated.”

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Government managed to lift 650,000 Australians, including children, out of poverty overnight by supplementing existing income support payments.”

Surely, if there was one single ambition of a government with a big mandate and, seemingly, little appetite for meaningful reform, ending child poverty is a no brainer.