The Point Live: Sussan Ley finishes off worst week as leader so far. As it happened

The government is knocking back amendments left, right and centre to its environmental reform bill, including Zali Steggall’s that would have, among other things, included a duty of care into the laws.

Steggall says:

I am deeply disappointed that the House of Representatives failed to support my proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act that would have modernised Australia’s environmental laws by integrating climate accountability and financial risk into project assessments.

It makes no sense for our environmental legislation to ignore the biggest environmental threat of our time.

As the government’s own National Climate Risk Assessment showed, our environment is buckling under the weight of climate change. Nature protection and climate action can’t be separated.

These reforms were about aligning our environmental laws with the reality we face. By voting these reforms down, the Parliament has missed a crucial opportunity to deliver environmental laws that reflect science, safeguard our economy and protect our children’s future.

The Coalition have again arrived on the right side of an issue and will be opposing the FOI changes the government want to bring in. The crossbench, particularly Helen Haines, have been very strong in pushing against these increased barriers to transparency the government wanted to bring in, and the Coalition have found they agree (they had been heading that way too, which is a good thing) The Greens are also against these laws, so the bill is completely friendless, which means it can not pass the senate (unless one group gives in)

Here is the Ley statement:

The Coalition has condemned the Albanese Labor Government for ramming its Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 through the Parliament – shutting down debate, blocking scrutiny and voting down every proposed amendment except its own.

Leader of the Opposition Sussan Ley said “Anthony Albanese promised a new era of integrity and transparency but instead has delivered the most secretive government since Federation.”

Shadow Attorney-General Andrew Wallace said “the Prime Minister talks transparency but governs in the shadows.” He said Labor’s behaviour in the House today laid bare a government that fears scrutiny and is determined to avoid it at any cost.

“Today Labor used its numbers to silence debate, block a proper inquiry, and force this legislation through with no justification or urgency,” Mr Wallace said. “This is law-making by arrogance from a Prime Minister who made big promises on integrity and has broken every one of them.”

Under these friendless reforms, Australians would be charged to access information about their own government and Cabinet secrecy will be expanded. 

Labor would be able to toss out requests it labels “frivolous or vexatious”, drag out processing times, and hide more documents simply by narrowing what counts as an “official record”. 

The result is simple: more refusals, fewer disclosures and weaker accountability.

This is not modernisation, it is a retreat from transparency and a truth tax on accountability.

Since taking office, Labor has normalised secrecy by using non-disclosure agreements on consultations, issuing a secret manual to stage-manage Senate Estimates, repeatedly defying Parliament’s orders to produce documents, ignoring recommendations to improve access to information and reducing resources for those whose job it is to hold the government to account.

FOI was never designed to make life comfortable for those in power. It exists so citizens, journalists and the Parliament can see how decisions are made and hold governments to account. 

Recent FOI releases exposing warnings about Labor’s rushed NDIS changes and doubts over its Medicare bulk-billing incentives show exactly why Labor wants to shut the door on accountability. 

Australians deserve a government that is transparent, accountable and humble enough to remember that information belongs to the people, not to ministers or bureaucrats. 

The Coalition will oppose this Bill and continue to defend the public’s right to know.

We take no responsibility for any hauntings or paranormal activity that may, or may not occur following the viewing of these images. We can only hope Mike Bowers was protected by his camera lens

Penny Wong has released a statement following her meeting with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya:

Today I met with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus. 

Ms Tsikhanouskaya is an advocate for a free and democratic Belarus. Her decision to run in the 2020 presidential election in Belarus after the politically motivated imprisonment of her husband Serhei reflects her determination to support the Belarusian people’s aspirations for a free and democratic future. 

The 2020 elections, and those held in Belarus since, have been marked by a concerning lack of transparency.  

Ms Tsikhanouskaya’s visit is an important reminder to Australians of the situation in Belarus under the Lukashenko regime. Reports that thousands of individuals in Belarus have been unjustly detained, subjected to torture, or forced into exile are alarming. 

The Lukashenko regime’s support for Russia’s illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine undermines security in Europe. The Australian Government has taken strong action in response, including sanctions on Lukashenko and others supporting Russia’s war.   

The Government reiterates its call on the Lukashenko regime to fully adhere to its obligations under international law and to cease support for Russia’s destabilising actions.  

I commend Ms Tsikhanouskaya’s bravery and her fight for universal values of democracy and human rights. 

Up in the Sunshine State, the new-ish LNP Government has proposed a new “Energy Roadmap” that boils down to more-coal-for-longer.

There’s a state parliamentary inquiry into the Energy Roadmap that has just published submissions, including ours at The Australia Institute. Our key points:

• The proposed Energy Roadmap could increase Queensland’s emissions by 310 million tonnes to 2050, almost a years’ worth of Australia’s national emissions.
• If emissions increase by 310 mt in the electricity sector, then emissions have to decrease by 310 mt somewhere else under a net zero policy. This additional abatement cost in other sectors could reach $98 billion. It is far cheaper to abate emissions in the electricity sector.
• The proposal to spend $1.6 billion on maintaining coal and gas-fired generators sounds controversial, but is actually just business as usual for Queensland and is probably an underestimate of what is required as the power stations age. This money should be redirected to renewable energy.

Browsing through other submissions, there’s not a lot of support for this energy policy trainwreck. Most submissions oppose it, including the Mining and Energy Union:

While we are pleased to see the indicative closure schedule for Queensland’s state-owned coal power stations reset to technical lifespans, we are deeply concerned by the lack of certainty offered by the Roadmap, which will make it near impossible for workers and communities to plan for their futures.

Though the Roadmap extends the timelines, the overarching trajectory for coal-fired power in Australia is towards closure, and the Roadmap does little to create certainty for the coal power sector and its workers.

There are currently no credible proposals for new coal-fired power generation and, indeed, the Roadmap does not propose the construction of new coal-fired generation capacity.

In this context, we find that the Roadmap is subjective, opaque, vague, and non-committal with regard to the new closure dates for state-owned coal power stations.”

Anthony Albanese has met with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the exiled Belarusian leader (Tsikhanouskaya won the vote, but Belarusian elections haven’t exactly been ‘democratic’ under Putin’s influence)

There are photos, but we have a policy of not running photos supplied by the PMO, unless absolutely necessary and it’s a posed photo of the two shaking hands, so no, it is not absolutely necessary. I am sure it will turn up else where though, if you are desperate.

Matthew Knott at the SMH reported this morning that Tsikhanouskaya had met with senior Labor figures in her tour of Australia but had not yet secured a meeting with Albanese. Guess the additional prod worked.

Tsikhanouskaya has been given refuge by Lithuania, who recently downgraded the security it was providing her, but maintained it’s overall protection remains.

Pretty sure the disability peak bodies attached to this statement urging caution at the police welfare powers amendment would be shocked to hear they are supporting ‘dangerous felons on the run’ instead of you know – THE RULE OF LAW.

This statement is endorsed by:

· Australian Autism Alliance

· Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

· Children and Young People with Disability Australia

· Community Mental Health Australia

· Down Syndrome Australia Consortium

· First Peoples Disability Network Australia

· Inclusion Australia

· National Ethnic Disability Alliance

· National Mental Health Consumer Alliance

· People with Disability Australia

· Physical Disability Australia

· Women With Disabilities Australia

We are deeply concerned by the schedule 5 amendment to the Social Security and Other Legislative Amendments (Technical Change No 2) Bill 2025 that gives police new powers to advise the government to stop a person’s Centrelink payment.

Stopping a person’s payment before any court process has occurred risks leaving people without income, housing or essentials, and undermines the presumption of innocence that underpins our justice system. The Disability Royal Commission demonstrated that people with disability disproportionately experience high rates of contact with the criminal justice system, reflecting the broader criminalisation of disability and the lack of appropriate social, health and community supports. Commissioners also documented the significant barriers that our communities face when dealing with police, courts, and other parts of the justice system. These findings show that even within a system designed to uphold due process, people with disability are often denied justice when their rights and needs are not properly understood or accommodated.

We are also deeply concerned that communities traditionally over-policed and disadvantaged, including First Nations people with disability, would be at heightened risk under this amendment.

Given such injustices already occur for our communities under judicial oversight, the risks are far greater in an administrative system where decisions can be made quickly, without due process, evidence, legal representation, or advocacy.

This amendment was introduced without public consultation or adequate scrutiny. Changes that affect millions of Australians should be transparent and informed by those most impacted.

DROs strongly support the calls made by multiple civil society organisations, including the joint statement from Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) and Economic Justice Australia, for the Federal Government to abandon schedule 5 of this Bill.

Tanya Plibersek also tried defending her amendment which will allow police powers over welfare by criticising people standing against it (and you know, the whole reversal of the presumption of innocence) as standing up for ‘fugitives on the run’. No one is saying that. What people are saying is that this is a dangerous precedent to be setting. The Law Council of Australia has concerns over this, as does every major disability advocacy group, Indigenous advocacy groups and civil society. And for good reason:

Plibersek:

Well, unbelievably, Laura, we actually have people in the Parliament right now and in the community who are arguing that a fugitive on the run from the police for a serious offence like rape or murder or child abuse, should continue to get social security benefits while they’re on the run.

The Minister already has the power to cancel someone’s payments if they’re suspected of a terrorism offence and their passport or their visa is cancelled. It came to my attention recently that we don’t have the power to do that. When someone is accused of a serious crime like rape or murder, they’re on the run, there’s a warrant issued for their arrest.
So, what I am proposing is that the Home Affairs Minister, after a request from the Federal Police or State Police, determines whether that person, whether there’s strong evidence against them, there’s a warrant for their arrest, they’re a continuing threat to the community. After considering any dependents, making sure that we look after the dependents, that person can have their social security benefit cancelled the same way they would if they were waiting on remand to be tried for a serious crime.
And unbelievably, we have people in the Senate and in the Australian community who are saying, oh no, they should continue to get their JobSeeker or DSP or pension, whatever.

This is a very unfair characterisation of the facts.

Tanya Plibersek had to defend the environment law negotiations her successor in the environment portfolio is carrying out today, on Daylight SAD (which must burn given she had a deal with the Greens that Albanese scraped) and again made the point that this is something the fossil fuel lobby wants passed:

The legislation as it currently exists is really problematic. It just has presided over the slow decline of our environment in Australia. And it’s been, as you say, a handbrake on the development that the country needs. Everybody agrees that the current laws are broken. If these new laws, the proposed laws don’t pass, we’re stuck with the current laws. I think the people who are at the edges of this debate, at the extremes of this debate, just have to understand that there will be compromise required from both ends to get something that is workable and acceptable to the majority. And I think it’s really significant that, that there are plenty of people on both sides of this debate who are saying let’s just get on with it.
People in the environment movement and people from the business community, including, I mean most recently the Minerals Council, saying let’s just get on with it

The National Australia Bank today released its annual report showing a pre-tax profit of $9.7 billion.

This was slightly down on 2024 but, nevertheless, the CEO and executive group paid themselves $35.3 million, an increase of $2.4 million.  CEO Andrew Irvine got a cool $5.6 million as remuneration in the year to September 2025.

NAB is Australia’s fifth largest company and third largest bank by market value. It accounts for 17% of all the loans to Australian residents. That includes 14% of housing loans and 22% of business loans, which means it is slightly biased towards its business customers.

Nevertheless, NAB is one of the big banks which, between them, control 72% of all Australian home loans. On average, they make $213,480 in pure profit from the average first home buyer paying off a 30 year mortgage. 

“The NAB’s slightly lower profit has been described as “lukewarm” and “disappointing”. It is neither of those things. It is obscene,” said Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute. 

“The lack of competition among the big banks in Australia comes at a huge cost to struggling homeowners.

“Just like the similar profit posted by Westpac a few days ago, this massive profit from home loans far exceeds the level of risk the bank undertakes.

“The federal government has a huge majority and therefore a huge opportunity to help take the burden off the people who need help the most.

“A small super profits tax, raising just over $1.7 billion in 2024-25, was imposed by the Coalition government back in 2017. That has clearly done little to dent the profits, or the market share of the big bank.

“Increasing it to $5 billion – or more – would take an extra few billion of the banks and give it to the battlers.”