The Point Live: Ley expected to follow Nationals on net zero to extend leadership, RBA holds rates. As it happened

Chris Bowen has announced the government will reform the energy default market offer from next year, to force energy companies to offer at least three hours of free solar energy to households, when solar power is at its peak (which is the middle of the day)

It won’t matter if you have solar panels or not – it’s about using the solar power those with panels provide to the grid and sharing it around to more households.

The government is calling it solar sharer and says it is about using Australia’s unique global position as a renewable energy super power and sharing the abundance of solar power now in the grid.

You will have to have a smart meter in order to be eligible though, which means renters, particularly those in low income rentals, will most likely miss out. And to actually save money, people will have to move their energy use to the middle of the day when the deal is in place. That works for people who are at home in the middle of the day, or have modern appliances which can be programmed ahead of time, but not for anyone else.

Still, it’s a tiny start.

The offer, which will be provided through energy retailers, will initially be available to all households in DMO-regulated states – NSW, South-East Queensland, and South Australia – from July next year. We will consult with other states to potentially extend the offer to other jurisdictions by 2027. The Australian Energy Regulator will regulate the Solar Sharer Offer to ensure customers also get a fair deal outside of the free power period.

But the Australian Energy Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Louisa Kinnear said the industry was not consulted before it was announced and that has made energy retailers sad:

Today’s announcement of a new regulated Solar Sharer Offer was a surprise to the industry and did not form part of the DMO Review consultation process. This lack of consultation risks damaging industry confidence, as well as creating the potential for unintended consequences. 

Electricity retailers have been actively participating in good faith with the Government’s DMO Review and had been seeking to support the Government’s intent to align the DMO to an efficient price framework. 

We have just spent the past 5 months engaging constructively with the Government on the DMO review, with the industry broadly comfortable with the anticipated review outcomes, but the lack of consultation on today’s announcement means the AEC can no longer offer its unqualified support.

Let’s take a look at some of the other things going on this morning:

Hundreds of people have turned up to protest the three-day major arms expo in Sydney. A major police presence has been deployed to face off against the protesters.

The Indo Pacific International Maritime Exposition is hosting “premier commercial maritime and naval defence exposition, connecting Australian and international defence, industry, government, academia and technology leaders, in the national interest” according to the NSW government website, but comes after the Nightly reported that the government has been quietly banning military exports to Israel.

So while the government will no doubt support a crack down on the protesters (which has been how the NSW government in particular has handled protests against genocide and military exports) Australia is also having to respond to their demands, because international law is pretty clear on this issue.

Malcolm Turnbull announced he wanted Australia to become a top-ten arms exporter and successive governments have supported this cause. This is an industry the Australian government is deliberately attempting to attract.

So does Andrew Bragg think that Sussan Ley will face a leadership challenge in the next six months? Bragg is trying very hard to tell his colleagues not to do it here, while also mangling another idiom.

Obviously, I support Sussan Ley, and I think we need to show leadership now. We can’t backslide when the people of Australia relying on us to hold this terrible Government to account and deliver policies which are reasonable alternatives.

Now, Australians care about climate change. They also want lower power prices. I believe we can thread the needle on this.

It’s very important that Liberal Party develops its own policies and then we try to needle or thread the whole thing together.

Bragg ends the interview by saying that the Queensland and Tasmanian state LNP governments are not as big bin fires on climate, so it’s possible the Coalition can pull out of this terminal decline. He says it’s actually Chris Bowen who is to blame.

Delulu is not always, the solulu.

Unless you like awkward comedy, this interview is a hard watch. Andrew Bragg, who has had to defend and sane wash a lot during his time in the Liberal party is now arguing that that the Nationals and Liberal party can come to an agreement on two very different policy positions, despite the Nationals literally blowing up the show.

He does realise he mangled the last idiom though as he talks about whether its time for the Coalition to divorce. Bragg is arguing that they are just in separate bedrooms at the moment, but it’s totally fine because mum and dad always do this and mum always takes dad back:

By the way, it’s walk and chew gum! I don’t think so. We’ve been married for a long time. There have been times where there have been marriage counselling session and I think before the next session, we certainly need to have our own position.

Because we represent in a main urban Australia. We also represent regional seats. But we need to make sure that we have a credible policy to present to the people who live in urban Australia. We’re a highly urbanised population and the expectation is, particularly with how many millennials and Gen Zs are on the voting rolls now, that we actually believe that this is a real risk to our future, and that we have a credible policy to address it.

So does Bragg think mum and dad should stay married?

Well, there’s a reason you have divorce laws, I guess. But we would be much better served to stay with the Nationals, because we have given Australia good government over this last 80 years. So that would be my strong preference. But it’s not at any cost. And this is a point about Labor’s net zero. They want to do their net zero at any cost. We want to do…

So he agrees – maybe mum and dad should divorce:

Well, the Liberal Party is its own party. And we need to deploy policies that allow us to maintain our status as a party of government. But we want to work with the Nats, because I don’t believe that the fragmentation of the centre-right is in Australia’s interests.

We want to have coherent, economic and national security policies, right. We’re living in a very dangerous age, so maintaining the Coalition is a high priority. But, I mean, you don’t do these things at any cost. And as I say, Labor want to do their net zero at any cost. We think that’s crazy and that’s hurting Australians.

It’s sometimes harder for adult children to deal with the inevitable truth that mum and dad should have divorced years ago.

Andrew Bragg, who is one of the last remaining Liberal moderates, has taken it upon himself to try and make the Liberal party seem less like the political party equivalent of a middle aged man going through a mid-life crisis and setting their dating age as 18-25 on the app, but he’s fighting the tide here.

He opens up to ABC News Breakfast with his prepared lines:

Australians are concerned about climate change. They see the impact on our climate and then want us to conserve the environment. People also want lower power prices, of course. And I think that this is a real moment for leadership now, not backsliding. Because our job here is not to worry about what people’s personal preferences might be, but setting out a long-term course for the nation, which protects and guards against climate change, which of course, we have to do, by working with other nations. So, we need to take the long-term view on the environment and the economy, not taking into account or focusing too heavily on short-term political issues.

So what is that detail for the man who last week, said net zero was a ‘non-negotiable’ for him?

I don’t see how we could walk away from the Paris Agreement. I don’t see how we could walk away from our commitment to reduce emissions. Virtually every country is in the Paris Agreement. Virtually every country has committed to net zero emissions. We would be a pariah state. And the reality is that countries like Canada and Japan, who are committing to net zero like Australia has, are also able to provide cheap power. So I don’t believe that it is net zero that is the enemy here. I believe that the enemy is Labor’s electricity policies and their aversion to using coal for longer*. Their aversion to using other things like nuclear*. I think that that is the real cause of our problems in Australia where we’re seeing higher power prices and losing industry offshore.

*You can see part of his soul shrivel up at these points as these words leave his mouth.

So what is the actual policy Bragg is supporting here?

Well, the Paris Agreement is the redline here. I mean, you’ve got to be in the Paris Agreement. Because if you weren’t, you would be in a group of countries like Iran and Libya and maybe two or three others. So you’ve got to be in the Paris Agreement. And the Paris Agreement requires you to get to net zero in this century. I think that that would be an important objective for Australia to maintain, as a serious country. And with a group of people in this country that actually do care about climate change.

You can tell he is under stress because he completely mangles an idiom while trying to pretend that everything he is saying makes complete sense.

The Nats have made points here where China is a world leader on energy, but also a world leader on opening up new coal fired power stations. Why should we penalise our own people? I think that we should be able to chew more gum.

Yesterday, there was more attention on Labor’s revival of a 2018 Coalition measure to allow police to recommend suspected criminals (not convicted, just suspected) have their welfare cancelled. Which is a reversal of the presumption of innocence.

Lidia Thorpe wants the amendment taken out of the unrelated bill the Labor government have tacked it on to, because the measure will more than likely be used against Indigenous people.

The Antipoverty Centre, which was one of the first civil society groups to raise the alarm, said that more groups have come together to scrap the proposal, which Labor officially got rid of in its first budget in October 2022, after it sat there for years following the Turnbull government attempt to bring it in, but decided to revive in 2025.

The legislation is due to be debated in the senate today where Thorpe will move to strike out the amendment and if that fails, David Pocock will attempt to split the bill to have the amendment (which does not have anything to do with the bill Labor is using as a Trojan horse) considered on its own in an inquiry.

Groups supporting the call for the government to abandon the amendment:

Anglicare Australia | Antipoverty Centre | Anti-Poverty Network SA  | Australian Council of Social Services | Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union | Council of Single Mothers and their Children | Disability Advocacy Network Australia | Economic Justice Australia | Everybody’s Home | Mental Health Lived Experience Peak Qld | National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS) | NSW Council for Civil Liberties | Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion | Single Mother Families Australia | Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre

Monique Ryan then explains what she thinks the difference between lobbying and raising concerns is:

Have I been lobbied? I speak every day to people who want to tell me about things that matter to them and that is lobbying and there’s nothing wrong with that.

But I think vested interests like sports companies, betting companies, have too much influence. I introduced my own bill earlier this week about lobbying activities, to regulate them better and have greater transparency who is meeting with ministers, where, when and why, to open ministerial diaries and enforce the lobbyist code of conduct we have here which is unenforced and has the effectiveness of a wet tissue.

It’s really important because Australians are asking why the Government hasn’t taken action on gambling advertising and the Prime Minister has never explained this to anyone’s satisfaction and it has to be because he’s listening to those people more than to those who voted him in and care about this issue.

It’s also Melbourne Cup day, so Australia is feeling Melbourne’s middle child syndrome more than usual today. What does Monique Ryan think about the Cup?

I generally do have a bet. People enjoy the Cup. I’m someone who has, in the past, attended it. I have some concerns about it. Y

esterday in Parliament I read a letter I’d received from primary school students in my electorate asking for stronger regulation around gambling advertising in Victoria. Primary school kids from Auburn South Primary say they want the Government to crack down on online gambling advertising. My own 17-year-old, many of his friends have gambling accounts.

I’m concerned about the impact of online gambling platforms and its effect on young people and people ask me to act on the Government’s failure to act on the failure to act on online gambling.

It’s more than two years since the report, 31 recommendations, not one of them act on yet and I’ll continue to push them on that.

Years ago I had to go to a bookmaker and or a racetrack and nowadays you can bet on the train, or lying in bed and many do and lose their life savings.

What is holding the Government back from action on this? There’s a blueprint ready to go and we could legislation within a week.

The problem is the Government is too close to the broadcasters, the sports companies and the betting companies and we’ve seen lots of evidence of that in the past. They’re listening more to vested interests than to the Australians who elected them into power.

Monique Ryan has had to understand Liberal party voters in order to be able to defeat it (twice) in Kooyong, so she has some insight when she’s asked what it is the Liberal party is doing:

I think people are asking what the Liberals care about, what their policies and principles are, and at the moment all they seem to care about is their own political prospects, which are heading to oblivion if they continue to behave this way.

Sussan Ley is the Liberals’ first female leader. She’s come to power ever a really disappointing campaign by Peter Dutton, where he didn’t lay out any significant policy framework. She hasn’t been given a chance to show whether or not she can do that.

I don’t think she’s been particularly impressive herself, to be honest, but, you know, people want the conservative side of politics to have a policy platform. We’ve seen in Victoria for many years what happens when you don’t have an effective Opposition. What you have is a poor government that can do what it likes and Australians deserve better. They need to have an effective Opposition. So I would hope that the Coalition can pull itself together in some shape or form so it can do that. Because, if it doesn’t, you know, electorates like Kooyong are not going to turn back to the Liberal Party.

Independent MP Monique Ryan has spoken to ABC News Breakfast about the Coalition’s breakdown on net zero, with Sussan Ley and the Liberals most likely to follow the Nationals in dumping the net zero by 2050 goal.

Ryan, like most people who have spent the past 30 years watching this same fight play out, is over.

I think we’ve had two recent federal elections where the voters of electorates like Kooyong have expressed their desire for Australian politicians to commit to and act effectively on climate change and environmental protections, so they’ll be incredibly disappointed to see the Nationals walking away from that as they have in the last couple of days.

I think the Nats are heading to net zero in terms of their own seats in terms of any environmental protections and climate commitments.

It’s incredibly disappointing to see this. In front of Parliament this week is a really important bill about spacey protection and environment and we’re not talking about this incredibly important piece of legislation – which is not strong enough – we’re just looking at the Liberals and Nats turning on each other and examining their own entrails.

Electorates like mine expect better from the conservative side of politics.