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

While Sussan Ley is having a sulk in the opposition press conference room that the government did a deal on a piece of legislation her party refused to seriously negotiate on and now she is bitching that it is a terrible deal for the stakeholders her party is aligned on, Turnbull is having the time of his life.

He says that Ley has to take responsibility here (not her strong suit)

Look, you look at the I mean, Albanese to get the EPBC legislation through has had to do it through a deal with the Greens. And, I mean, there’s no, absolutely no criticism in that. I mean, you know, that’s this parliament.

Parliaments are designed for compromise and deal doing, right?

That’s why that’s the whole purpose, people used to criticise me and say, ‘you’re doing deals in the Senate’. I’d say, ‘well, that’s, that’s what the Senate’s for’.

The Coalition could have, they could have played an active role, but they chose not to. I can tell you what few supporters they have left in the business community will just be horrified.

Malcolm Turnbull is doing what he does best – pointing out where the Coalition has gone wrong. He says the fundamental problem with the party, in his view, is that it thinks that appealing to right wing media is the way to win elections. And well, look where that has got it (thanks to Mike Bowers for the video)

The chief executive of Australia’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), Philip Reed, has written a letter to parliament apologising for giving inaccurate testimony to Senate Estimates.

This follows a series of scandals in the NACC’s upper management, including September’s revelation that chief commissioner Paul Brereton had continued to consult for his previous employer (the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force). That’s despite his $800,000 a year salary from the NACC.

In October, the NACC’s inspector also found that Brereton had engaged in misconduct by not recusing himself from the decision-making process on an investigation into the Robodebt scheme, despite declaring a “close association” with a person involved.

Despite the NACC being established less than three years ago, a steady flow of questionable decisions and scandals has eroded public confidence in its operations.

The Australia Institute, which campaigned for a decade to introduce a federal integrity commission, recommends five changes to make the NACC more effective and rebuild public confidence:

1. Bring forward the statutory review of the NACC
   1. A statutory review is scheduled to take place in three years. This review should be brought forward and initiated now.
2. Allow public hearings whenever it is in the public interest to do so.
3. Implement a Whistleblower Protection Authority.
4. Ensure the Parliamentary Committee which oversees the NACC is not controlled by the government of the day.
5. Broaden the powers of the NACC Inspector.

The NACC urgently needs to correct course, and implementing those recommendations would ensure it does so before going too far adrift.

In the meantime, Reed will face Senate Estimates again next week, and he’ll surely have to answer questions as to how and why he gave inaccurate testimony last time.

Sussan Ley seems to be most upset that Murray Watt, who has been saying for months he wanted to get their bill through by Christmas and spent most of the early part of the week telling media he was going to get it through if it killed him, was seriously negotiating to get the bill through.

The Coalition would have made these laws so much worse and that Labor was seriously trying to engage it is a disgrace, given Labor’s promises to do better on the environment, but it is very, very funny to me that Watt followed through on his heavily foreground promised to do a deal but the Coalition just didn’t really think he would. Has someone informed the Coalition of its lack of political relevancy in this parliament?

It is only relevant when Labor makes it so. That is how the senate works. It does not just have legitimacy and say-so over bills if others in the parliament agrees.

This is like when a dropkick partner wants to ‘open’ a relationship and then gets mad because their partner is out every night and then they discover that no one actually wants to sleep with them and it wasn’t the relationship which was keeping their apps dry, but their own personality.

The refuse and bitch method is getting an incredible work out here from Sussan Ley.

She is so sad for the miners. So sad for the farmers. Just sad for Australia really. Because mining and farmers just pay for all of Australia to live (it doesn’t but she is milking the hyperbole cow extra hard this morning) and now they have to *sob* have the same approval processes for fossil fuel projects that are destroying the planet and *sobs harder* not clear as much land as they want *collapse on the floor sobbing*.

And my Dolly – will someone think of the loggers? All that native forestry that might end up *gasp* NOT LOGGED, because there will be a review into the industry’s exemptions in 18 months time?

OH THE HUMANITY! IF ONLY THERE HAD BEEN A WAY FOR THE COALITION TO HAVE INPUT INTO THESE LAWS WHICH IT REFUSED TO PROPERLY ENGAGE WITH BECAUSE ITS LEADER HAS THE AUTHORITY OF A WET SOCK FORGOTTEN IN THE SODDEN GRASS.

The National Farmers Federation is very, very sad. It uses “bitterly” in its statement more than once and is butthurt (word of the day) about the land clearing restrictions and the reduced regrowth provisions.

GEE, IF ONLY FARMERS HAD A POLITICAL PARTY WHICH COULD ADVOCATE ON THEIR BEHALF

NFF President Hamish McIntyre

Farmers have been left bitterly disappointed by the deal between the Government and the Greens on environmental reform.

The Prime Minister has confirmed the Government has made a deal with the Greens on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, through the environment protection reform bill process.

As stewards of more than half of Australia’s environment, farmers understand the importance of doing the right thing by the land.

They’ve also historically borne the brunt of complex federal environmental laws, often at odds with state obligations.

That’s why the NFF has supported genuine reform, but not this deal.

Our key concern is the announcement of ‘closer controls’ of ‘high risk land clearing’. The specifics of this remain unclear, and we are urgently calling for clarity.

The introduction of reduced regrowth thresholds to the long-established ‘continuing use’ provision will promote poor environmental outcomes and increase bushfire risk.

It will interfere with routine vegetation management of regrowth to prevent bushfires, keep land productive, and manage weeds.

The misunderstanding of agricultural practices is bitterly disappointing.

The NFF will continue to try to make these reforms as workable for the farm sector as possible.

Please, pour out some coal dust and a match for the planet – the Minerals Council is butthurt that the mining friendly environment laws are now mostly status quo for the mining industry and gas projects can’t be approved in just 30 days with no consultation from the community or ability to object.

Mining projects will be approved the same as they always have, which makes the mining industry very, very sad.

Poooor mining industry. Will probably have to go cry now in its billions of untaxed profits.

Here’s Tania Constable from the Minerals’ Council being very, very sad the Coalition is so useless it can’t even get it’s act together to negotiate on bills because Sussan Ley has zero authority in the party room and would struggle to get a morning tea order out the door, let alone agreement on a bill.

Constable:

The deal between the Federal Government and the Greens to pass the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills is an inferior and disappointing outcome which fails to strike the right balance between protecting Australia’s unique environment while enabling responsible and efficient project development.

Despite the industry’s disappointment, we are now firmly focused on encouraging the government to rapidly accredit all states for both assessments and approvals which would support a more competitive Australian minerals sector.

This would be a major step forward for Australian mining companies which currently face a laborious, lengthy and complex double-track assessment and approval process on issues which are mostly identical.

The MCA has been advocating with all parties in recent weeks on behalf of Australia’s world-leading mining industry for amendments which would have strengthened the bill and supported the objectives of the EPBC Act.

Some elements of the MCA’s submission have been adopted in the final bill. These include:

• A simplified definition of unacceptable impacts – a critical new test where projects will either be rejected outright or move forward for detailed assessment
• Environment Protection Orders will be limited to a maximum of 28 days
• The retention of some key existing approval pathways in relation to preliminary documentation – the most used pathway for resources projects.

Other amendments which have not been accepted would have allowed our industry to deliver investment, jobs and regional benefits faster for the benefit of all Australians.

Faster approvals for mines means we can deliver the critical minerals and other commodities the world needs quicker, responsibly and more efficiently.

Yet the government’s deal with the Greens will increase red tape by requiring mining operations to make climate disclosures under the EPBC Act despite this already being a clear legal requirement under the Safeguard Mechanism, which could open new avenues for legal challenge.

The failure to restrict the Federal EPA to compliance, enforcement and assurance functions only creates more power for unelected officials when the agency should be accountable to the public through elected officials.

And the nuclear actions definition as drafted in the bill will capture commodities and activities unrelated to the nuclear fuel cycle – such as critical minerals, universities and medical facilities, when simple changes could have maintained the focus on radiological risk.

We might have finally seen a change that will help make housing more affordable.

Sure, there have been plenty of announcements on housing affordability. Politicians like nothing more than announcing a new policy, regardless of whether it will actually work.

But the financial regulator has just said that it is going to start restricting lending, and these restrictions are likely to mainly impact investors. I wrote about this earlier in the week when there was talk that something might happen.

APRA, the financial regulator, is worried about risking borrowing and today announced that no more than 20% of new lending can go to borrowers with debt-to-income ratios of greater than 6 times. So, if your household income was $150,000 a year you could face restrictions if you wanted to borrow more than $900,000.

APRA is worried about too much risky lending and what that might mean for the whole financial system if we have downturn.

But why will this mainly impact investors and more importantly, why might it make housing more affordable?

Investors are far more likely to have high debt-to-income ratios. Most investors are already wealthy and can put up substantial amounts of collateral. This means banks are willing to offer them larger mortgages.

It will make housing more affordable because the insane house prices that we are seeing are mainly being driven by investor demand for housing. If investors find it harder to get mortgages, that means that less investors are going to buy, making room for first home buyers to get a place of their own.

It is important to note that the restrictions that APRA announced are very weak. Restricting debt to six times income for 20% of new mortgages is not much of a restriction, since it’s only 7% at the moment.

But with the latest data from the ABS showing investor lending is rapidly ramping up on the back of three interest rates cuts this year, it could put some important guardrails on this lending.

The government could do much more to make housing more affordable. As we have suggested previously, they could tell APRA to consider housing affordability when it is setting its lending rules.

They could also stop the main source of all these problems, the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing. These are the massive tax concessions that are drawing investors into the housing market. Cut them off and we get much closer to more affordable housing.

As we previewed a bit earlier, Malcolm Turnbull is unveiling his official prime minister portrait.

Mike Bowers is there:

Some people seem to be enjoying themselves more than others

Angie Bell, Jono Duniham and Sussan Ley watch Malcolm Turnbull unveil his portrait – they were all too late to get seats it seems.

In a very detailed study the Brookings Institute in the US has shown that much of the average increase in homeowners’ insurance premiums is driven by higher disaster risk and that the increases were concentrated in highest risk areas. Moreover, the price differentials driven by disaster risk has been increasing over time. In other words if you lived in a high risk area and were paying double the average premium some years ago you might be paying triple the average premium today.

One of the mechanisms involved has been the higher cost of reinsurance for retail insurance companies.

This study shows some of the things the Australia Institute pointed to in our earlier work on the costs to homeowners of climate change. The rapid increases in home insurance costs have been due to the increasing incidence of natural disasters driven in turn by climate change. Apart from price increases, in many parts of Australia, home and business insurance is unavailable or prohibitively expensive.

In the capital cities we showed insurance costs outpaced the general price level by more than five to one in Brisbane and almost three to one in Melbourne, the lowest of the cities.

The Brookings Institute mention of reinsurance reminds us that there are only a few major reinsurers that operate world-wide. The Australia Institute earlier showed what that means; global reinsurers know that disaster risks are correlated throughout the world so events like California’s wildfires drive up prices throughout the world and that includes Australian insurance premiums. 

Even climate change deniers would be aware of the increase in their home insurance over recent years.