The Point Live: Australia missing emissions targets, Nationals pretend to care Barnaby Joyce's has left the Nationals. As it happened.

Sussan Ley is feeling a little left out of all the things being done, so she has called a press conference for 10.40 – we assume so she can complain about all the things the Coalition refused to negotiate on.

Labor had bitch and fold – which is when Labor would bitch about the legislation, and then fold and pass it.

The Coalition has refuse and bitch – where it doesn’t seriously negotiate or rules itself out and then bitches when something is passed without them.

We wrote yesterday about a quote in The Australian from the Victorian Electoral Commissioner that “We don’t have truth in political advertising in Victoria (or anywhere else in the country)”. 

That’s true of Victoria but not of Australia, since South Australia and the ACT have truth in political advertising laws. 

I’m pleased to say the article has been corrected to say “We don’t have truth in political advertising in Victoria. Most places in Australia don’t either”, as the Victorian Electoral Commission says the Commissioner was misquoted.

You can tell it is the last sitting because the government is just rushing things out the door. Including the Greens getting their win on local content rules.

From Sarah Hanson-Young:

Today we are delivering an important reform for our screen industry. Big tech companies like Netflix, Amazon and Disney will now be regulated and required to invest in local Australian stories. 

This is a win for our local screen industry and the incredible storytellers that we have in Australia. It is also a win for Australian audiences who deserve to see themselves and their communities reflected on our screens.

As part of our negotiations, the Greens have secured an extra $50 million for the ABC to invest in local Australian stories, including children’s programming.

This funding is about giving Australian kids the opportunity to see themselves and hear their own voices on their screens. 

For decades, the ABC has been the heart of Australian story telling. By strengthening its capacity to make more children’s and drama content, we’re ensuring that heart keeps beating strongly. 

Bluey, Bananas in Pyjamas, Playschool and many other successful shows have entertained and educated our kids for decades. This is the new chapter of quality kids content that parents can trust. 

Homegrown content matters. It shapes how kids understand the world, gives them stories grounded in Australian experience, and keeps our creative industries thriving. 

The Greens have long campaigned for local content quotas on streaming platforms to support Australian stories on our screen, and we’re happy to see this bill pass the Senate today. 

The Greens have secured a commitment from the Government that $50 million will be in MYEFO.”

Greens senator Barbara Pocock thinks the Treasurer needs to make APRA go further in how it treats investors:

I’m pleased to see that APRA is listening to the Greens. This is an important first step in limiting runaway investor lending that outcompetes first-home buyers but it’s not enough. 

$40 billion has gone to investors in the last 3 months and APRA and Chalmers need to stop the tens of billions flowing to investors.

APRA must use all the tools in their toolbox to rein in investor lending that is exacerbating the housing affordability crisis.

Investor lending is growing at an unsustainable pace, outstripping loans to owner-occupiers. First-home buyers are being priced out by investors at weekend auctions, house prices are surging, and the banks are profiting handsomely.

This housing crisis is heading toward a point where it may be impossible to reverse without immediate, decisive action. We urgently need to cool the overheated credit market for property investors. The Treasurer has the authority to issue directions to APRA and he should do so immediately.

APRA has used its toolkit in the past to cool investor lending and it led to the greatest stabilisation of house prices in 30 years, they need to take that decisive action again. 

This market is rigged in favour of wealthy property investors, and you only need to look at the latest ABS data, which shows investor lending skyrocketing by 12.3% over the year compared to only a 0.9% increase for first-home buyer loan commitments for the same period. It’s out of control!

House prices are forecast to increase by 9 percent next year on top of more than 6% this year, which will only worsen unless more pre-emptive action by APRA is taken.” 

If you were following yesterday’s live blog, you’d know that the proposed 2026 sitting calendar for Parliament has been released.

These calendars can change, but they give an indication of when and for how long parliament will sit next year.

I count 14 weeks where both houses are sitting, 4 where the House of Representatives is sitting as usual and the Senate is holding Estimates, and 1 where only the Senate is sitting. These are not full weeks, with sittings rarely scheduled for Fridays and sometimes not on Mondays either. Nonetheless, 18 sitting weeks is at the high mark for recent years.

What do parliamentarians do the rest of the time?

An awful lot, as it turns out.

Many of Australia’s 226 MPs and senators are ministers and shadow ministers. Ministers must determine government policy, make decisions, work with their departments, represent the country, conduct negotiations, meet stakeholders and do all the other work of government beyond debating and making laws. Shadow ministers are not responsible for governing, but they do need to debate policy, hold ministers accountable and convince the public that the Opposition would do a better job governing.

Backbenchers and crossbenchers sit on committees, which hold inquiries into issues of public importance. Committees consider mountains of both written evidence and oral evidence, and some will tour the country to hear from Australians outside the major cities. Their reports often run to the hundreds of pages of findings, with recommendations that governments are expected to respond to.

And, perhaps most importantly, parliamentarians are elected representatives. They attend community events, meet with stakeholders and constituents and help residents with their problems with government. When parliamentarians argue against more sitting weeks, they often point to the need to be in their community, interacting with the people they represent.

Should Parliament sit for more weeks?

I’ve argued in the past that more sitting weeks, but shorter sitting days, would improve working conditions in Parliament House. Parliament routinely sits for over 10 hours a day, sometimes much longer – which is not amenable to health, good deliberation or a safe workplace.

Fifty years ago, Parliament sat more often: 21 to 25 weeks a year instead of the 13 to 18 weeks of recent years. 

On the other hand, Australians already have trouble getting hold of their local member. Most Australians have never met, cannot name and would not feel comfortable approaching their local MP.

The reality is that there are too few politicians, leaving them stretched in both directions. The country has grown by 11 million people since the last increase in the size of Parliament. The result is that Parliament sits for fewer days so MPs can be in their communities more, but even so most people never meet their local member. An increase in the number of parliamentarians would tackle both horns of this dilemma.  

Here is Jim Chalmers on that APRA change:

These are important changes that will help with financial resilience and housing affordability.

Australia has a strong and safe financial system but these are prudent steps to maintain responsible lending.

It’s about managing emerging risks in our financial system and will help people into the market. 

These rule changes are an important way for the regulator to reduce risk in our economy, but these efforts will also help when it comes to getting people into homes.

Whether it’s smaller deposits for first homebuyers, building thousands of more homes through the HAFF or working with our regulators to improve lending rules, we’re tackling this housing challenge from every possible angle.”

The bank regulator, APRA has announced new lending rules for “borrowers that are deemed to have a high income debt to income ratio” – which is banking code for investors.

The last time they did this, housing prices declined – it took the heat out of the market for about two years.

It’s dressed up as concern about lending defaults -but its to stop people using existing equity to borrow against property for more investment properties.

A high debt to income ratio is considered people taking on debt that is more than six times than annual income. That is unlikely to impact first home buyers, who usually have a much lower debt to income ratio.

Here is the nuts and bolts of it:

From 1 February 2026, APRA will require that banks limit lending to borrowers with high debt to income ratios to only 20 per cent of new loans.

The limit will apply separately to lending to owner-occupiers and investors. APRA will exempt from the debt to income limit lending for the purchase or construction of new homes and bridging loans for owner occupiers.

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS) is “urging the Prime Minister to show leadership by putting an end to state and territory governments pursuing punitive policies that put more children behind bars”

The service wants the federal government to say SOMETHING about the growing number of states seeking to punish children in response to media headlines about non-existent crime ‘crises’ which don’t bare out against the research.

From the statement:

The call comes after the NSW Minns Government passed a bill this week that could make it easier to incarcerate children as young as 10 by weakening doli incapax. Doli incapax is an important and long-standing legal protection based on the scientific evidence that children under the age of 14 do not have the capacity to form criminal intent.

This change goes against the recommendations of the NSW Government’s own recent expert review, which recommended preserving doli incapax in its current state to make the community safer and protect children. 

Recently, the Victorian Allan Government announced changes to criminal sentencing in that jurisdiction, introducing adult jail sentences for children aged 14 and over.

“These recent moves from the Victorian and NSW governments are just the latest in a sweeping national trend where we are seeing state and territory governments pursuing punitive policies in the name of political point-scoring,” said Nerita Waight, Acting Chair of NATSILS.

“These policies not only hurt children and families, but they also make the community less safe. The evidence is clear that locking children up only increases the likelihood they will go on to cycles of future offending and incarceration,” Ms Waight said.

“We know what works; supporting children and families to address the root causes of offending, which include poverty, unaddressed health issues, unstable housing, and poor access to culturally safe services. Addressing these disadvantages is what sets children up to thrive,” said Ms Waight.

“The Prime Minister needs to address the human rights violations that our children are suffering as a result of state and territory government policies,” said Ms Waight.

“Not only does the Prime Minister have a moral obligation to protect children, he has the legal power to step in. Advice obtained from Senior Counsel makes clear that the Commonwealth has the Constitutional power to act on youth justice reform,” Ms Waight said.

“We urge the Prime Minister to show national leadership by calling a national emergency summit on youth justice, so that leaders from across the country can listen to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal experts and leaders in a setting where community-controlled organisations lead the discussion,” said Ms Waight. 

Australian scientific discoveries have improved people’s lives and made the economy more productive – so why is the CSIRO being forced to shed workers again?

On this episode of Follow the Money, Matt Grudnoff and Ebony Bennett discuss the latest job cuts at the CSIRO, why this is a missed opportunity as researchers leave the United States, and why science investment matters for productivity.

And here is the official government take on the laws:

Key environmental measures in the Government’s amended Bill:

• For the first time, Australia will have a National Environment Protection Agency (EPA) – a strong, independent regulator with a clear focus on ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of Australia’s new environmental laws.
• In another first, Australia will have National Environmental Standards, to ensure clear, strong guidelines to protect the environment.
• Higher penalties for the most significant breaches of environmental law, as well as environment protection orders for use in urgent circumstances to prevent and respond to major contraventions of the law.
• Removing and sunsetting the exemption from the EPBC Act for high-risk land clearing and regional forest agreements, so that they comply with the same rules and standards as other industries.
• Requiring proponents of large emitting projects to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and their emission reduction plans.
• Maintaining federal approval of “water trigger” coal and gas projects.

Key measures to speed up decision-making for business and the community:

• A new Streamlined Assessment Pathway, to significantly reduce the timeframe for proponents who provide sufficient information upfront, providing incentive to meet the standards upfront. This will deliver faster decisions, saving businesses time and money.
• New and improved bilateral agreements with states to remove duplication for the assessment and approval of projects.
• Regional planning, to deliver ‘go’ and ‘no go’ zones, delivering greater certainty to business, and future planning at a landscape scale, rather than project-by-project assessment.
• Clarifying definitions of “unacceptable impacts” and “net gain” for the environment and restraining the operation of Environmental Protection Orders.