The Point Live: Coalition continues to tank as parliament enters its final week

Turns out not even my computer wants to partake in question time.

So apologies for the delay. Back on line now though so let’s gooooooo

We are on the downhill slide into QT.

It looks as though independent senators and the Greens have managed to stop the government legislation that will give police powers to stop welfare payments for people suspected of a crime (not convicted) from passing today, although there is no guarantee about what will happen tomorrow.

Grab what you need – no judgement here – to get through the next hour and a bit. It is going to be ROUGH.

Have to say it is completely wild, and also shockingly normal, that the government is working out just how much it can water down environmental laws, while the Northern Territory braces for a cyclone.

One of the big announcements at last week’s UN climate talks in Brazil was that the South Korean Government has committed to phasing out coal-fired power by 2040.

This is a big deal. Not only because it will reduce the substantial emissions of Korea, but because of the influence it will have on the other big Asian coal importers – China and Japan. There are centuries of rivalry between these countries and one of them moving to phase out coal will help move the others forward.

But this globally significant news might not have been possible were it not for grass roots environmental activism in New South Wales.

Three major South Korean companies had planned coal mines in NSW over the last decade – Bylong near the Hunter Valley, Wallarah 2 on the NSW Central Coast and Hume Coal in the Southern Highlands.

All three were defeated by opponents in the local communities, backed by organisations like The Australia Institute, Lock the Gate and the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).

Combined, these projects would have seen Korean companies invest $3.6 billion in mines that would have produced 13 million tonnes of coal each year. They would have seen the Korean Government deeply invested in Australian coal mines planned to operate into the 2050s.

But none of these mines exist thanks to community opposition.

This demonstrates the importance of local, grass-roots climate activism. This shows the global impact that local groups can have in this interconnected world.

More than this, however, it shows the importance of opposing mines and gas fields by climate activists. This is a complete vindication of the strategy that The Australia Institute and others have taken in targeting fossil fuel supply and highlighting Australia’s role as a major fossil fuel exporter.

Sussan Ley has completed her annual reading of domestic violence victims into the Hansard, which is something she has done for years.

This year 74 names were read. It took three minutes to name them all.

Today as the government attempts to use police powers to target those on welfare payments, new data shows just how horrific is life for those on Jobseeker.

The latest Rental Affordability Index released today by SGS Economics and Planning highlights the impossibly for many on Jobseeker to survive.

While the figures in the report suggested some good news for overall housing affordability – especially in capital cities where affordability had stabilised after a few years of getting worse – for those on Jobseeker the situation remains dire.

The report acknowledges the common view that rental stress occurs if those on low-incomes need to spend more than 30% of their weekly income on rent. By that measure every place in the country involves such stress.

For those living in capital cities however the situation is well past the point of stress and into critical desperation. In Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth, those on Jobseeker are having to spend ALL of their income on rent.

Even in the most affordable areas of country SA those on Jobseeker are having to spend half of their income on rent – well beyond the “30%” point of rental stress.

This is what happens when you have a combination of housing policy that is driven by tax breaks for property speculators, a reduction in public housing and a 30-year fall in the real value of Jobseeker:

The solution is not to further demonise those on welfare by using police powers that remove the presumption of innocence, but to boost Jobseeker to a liveable amount, and increase public housing so that we don’t have those on Jobseeker and their children living in abject poverty.

What does the Coalition want on the environment laws? It is hard to say, because it is mostly about throwing weight around, rather than actually getting a win. Industry and the business community want the government to do the deal with the Coalition so that there are no more environmental protections in place, and that tells you everything you need to know about the intent of these laws. Business has been fairly muted on the Coalition’s dumping of net zero precisely because it is hoping it will just come to their side and pass the laws. The whole thing is a mess.

Angie Bell told Sky Business this morning:

Well, certainly we put forward seven main issues that we have with the bill, but there are
many more. And there’s a secondary list as well that I’ve asked the Minister to look at, certainly the Environmental Protection authority’s powers, and we want to make sure that the CEO is accountable to the Minister, has KPIs, and that there is a binding agreement around that, so that the CEO can be dismissed if they do not perform.

That’s certainly a stakeholder concern.
There’s the definition or lack of definition around unacceptable impacts and also net gain
that is in the bills. Stakeholders are concerned about that, so we need clarity on that.

We want to make sure that there’s streamlined pathways, and that the pathways the Minister is
suggesting to take away, which are no longer in the bills, are put back in the bills. Because
stakeholders are concerned around the impact that may have on projects, and of course, that
means jobs at the end of the day.

There are very many other issues. I can outline all of them, if you like, but there’s some duplication around emissions reporting as well that we think is unnecessary because it’s already reported under the safeguard mechanism.

Stop the presses. Billionaire thinks we should have less regulation.

James Packer has let loose on Dan Andrews in an interview, saying the former premier surprised Crown Casino with a new tax in 2022. Packer claims new regulations not allowing casinos to use cash puts them at a huge disadvantage to pubs and clubs who can allow punters to gamble with cash.

Packer sold Crown Casino in 2022, halfway through the investigation. But he is still interested in how it operates. In the interview he said, “I think it’s outrageous what’s happening to the casinos in Australia”.

For those who don’t remember, these rules were changed after recommendations from the Victorian Royal Commission into Crown which variously described Crown’s behaviour as “disgraceful” as well as “illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative.” It found an “alarming catalogue of wrongdoing”, with repeated breaches of money laundering and links to criminal gangs.

Crown agreed to pay $450 million in fines over breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.

So, should Victoria soften regulation on casinos?

Australia Institute research shows Australians gamble more than any other nation, with troubling rates of gambling for those 18 to 19 years olds.

What this sorry saga with Crown Casino, as well as Star Casino in Sydney, tell us is that this is an industry that needs strong regulation.

Gambling causes significant harm in Australia and governments at both the federal and state levels should be restricting what this industry can do.

The Greens have also joined the fight against the bill. Penny Allman-Payne said:

I sat on the legislative committee that examined this bill. Schedule 5 was not scrutinised in that
process because Labor snuck it in at the last minute.
This is a Government with a worse transparency record than the Morrison Government.
Labor told people on income support that “no one would be left behind.” Yet instead of increasing
payments – so that 2.5 million Australians are not living in poverty – or implementing the Royal
Commission’s recommendation for a six-year limit on debt recovery, they have inserted an
amendment that criminalises people before they have even been convicted.
It is abhorrent. It is shameful. And many people out there must be asking: what is the point of Labor?
This bill attempts to wipe away 30 years of unlawful conduct by the Department. In doing so, Labor
has inserted Schedule 5, which breaches the rule of law and undermines people’s human rights – all while avoiding scrutiny.
The Greens will work with the crossbench to remove Schedule 5. Hundreds of experts are warning
that it will demonise people on income support and breach basic legal principles. We will stand up
for people and do everything we can to stop this

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has been arguing against the bill from the beginning:

This morning I will be tabling a letter from more than 100 concerned groups and organisations –
including the Law Council, Aboriginal legal services, and disability groups – calling on the
Government to remove Schedule 5 from this legislation.
Labor tried to sneak this in at the last minute, bypassing even the House of Representatives. As a
member of the Human Rights Committee, I can tell you it never came before us for scrutiny.
This is a dodgy attempt to demonise the most vulnerable people in this country.
We will pass the bill without Schedule 5. But if the Government continues to bully us into passing it
with Schedule 5, then we will bring the house down – because we have to protect vulnerable people.
What Minister Plibersek said about me supporting rapists and murderers is absolutely outrageous. I
refute it completely. And it is not just me calling this out – there are more than 100 organisations
demanding this schedule be removed.
Labor needs to stop demonising our communities and do the right thin