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

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Nationals deputy leader Kevin Hogan laid out their different parties views on the environment laws on Morning SAD* today:

*Sky After Dark

Hanson-Young:

Well, this bill as it’s drafted at the moment and as it will pass through the lower house today is a bill that’s effectively been written to satisfy the mining industry and the big logging companies, and big business. It’s much more about fast tracking things like coal and gas, and mining operations than it is about protecting the environment. So, if the government wants to work with the Greens to pass environment legislation, they’re going to have to put some protections for the environment in there. And, right at the top, that means protecting our native forests and protecting our climate. The bill
will go to an inquiry, in fact, the inquiry is listed to not report back until March.

So, there’s quite a bit of time for the Senate to look at this and scrutinise it. I know the government is keen to get it done before Christmas, but if that’s the case they’re going to have to want to work with the Greens, they’re going to have to improve this bill significantly because now, it’s a bill about protecting the destroyers rather than protecting the forests.

Hogan:

Well we’d do a deal if we thought this bill was going to do what he says it will do. And that is make things easier, streamline processes to get approvals and to make things easier to employ people and make money for this country, and when Sarah says things like mining companies and business, I go, great isn’t it great that they’re having input into this?

Because mining is a good thing. We export hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of mining products every year, which funds the NDIS, which funds Medicare. So, isn’t it good that people who make money want to have input to this bill?
But what they’re all telling me, Pete, without exception, is this bill right now makes it even more difficult to do things in Australia than it currently is. And Pete, what does that mean? Some of these companies are big business and they can invest in gas projects, mining projects, anywhere in the world. And what they’re telling me is Australia is getting too hard. It’s over regulated, too much red and green tape. It’s too hard, too risky and it’s cheaper to invest your money and get better returns elsewhere. That’s not good for the wealth of our country.

The mining industry WANT the Coalition to pass this bill. So what does that tell you about how much easier it would make things?

It usually is the people who are most vulnerable to the abuse of laws, who come out and fight on behalf of everyone – because eventually, that is who these sorts of laws impact

Monique Ryan will hold a press conference today with medical and university researchers to ask the government to unlock funding from the medical research fund to you know, fund research.

Ryan has asked about this issue multiple times in the parliament and has been told the government is working through it. But it is one of the issues with these ‘funds’ that became super popular in the Howard years – instead of setting up funding direct to groups and policies, the governments set up funds and then rely on the dividends providing that funding. But the fund managers want the funds to keep making as much money as humanly possible, so they don’t like to release the dividends, and hence – no one gets any funding.

Ryan will have representatives from the following organisations will be present at the roundtable:

• The Group of Eight, including researchers from: Monash University, University of Western Australia, University of Adelaide, and the University of Sydney
• Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes 
• Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences
• Australian Academy of Science
• Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
• Burnett Institute
• Lung Foundation Australia
• George Institute
• Australasian Leukemia and Lymphoma Group
• Hudson Institute of Medical Research
• Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand
• John Curtin School of Medical Research
• Research Australia
• Science and Technology Australia 

Labor likes to talk about gas being a transition fuel. People usually interpret that as gas being a necessary evil for a short period of time, while we move to renewables and storage.

But on ABC radio this morning, a member of the Labor Government said the quite bit out loud. Andrew Leigh, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury said:

“Gas over the course of the next couple of hundred years is going to be phased out but in the short term it provides a firming role which supports the renewables transition in a period in which battery technology is still developing.”

Yes, you read that right. Labor expects gas to continue to be used for hundreds of years.

The science is telling us that we need to act urgently. Labor is planning to burn gas for hundreds of years. The result will be more storms, more floods, more droughts, and more fires.

Labor is clearly enjoying the mess that the Coalition is in on net zero. But the Coalition are an irrelevant rump in parliament. Labor can pass anything it wants through the parliament with the help of the Greens and crossbench.

The distraction that the Coalition have become has clearly taken the pressure off Labor. They now feel comfortable telling us they plan to burn fossil fuels far into the future.

Rather than focus on the irrelevant bun fight in the Coalition, we should be holding Labor accountable for their plans to cook the planet.

For years now, The Australia Institute has been saying that while some people will never believe the science around climate change, their insurer certainly does.

The CEO of the nation’s second biggest insurer, Suncorp, has told politicians it’s time to start taking climate change more seriously, especially when it comes to the types of houses we build – and where we build them.

Steve Johnson hosted at roundtable at Parliament House, telling politicians, planners and housing groups they needed to take climate change into account when responding to the housing crisis.

“For too long, the housing and resilience sectors have operated in isolation, leading to too many homes being built in high risk areas susceptible to flood, fire and cyclone,” Mr Johnson warned.

He said expanding our major cities into areas with natural risks, like low-lying riverside areas susceptible to floods or the edge of fire-prone bushland, was trying to solve one crisis by causing another.

“While these greenfield areas often offer lower upfront costs for developers, they present a significant and growing risk to homeowners and communities.”

“Without proper thought and discussion, we will only see a deepening of inequality, push more people into financial hardship, and widen the divide for our most vulnerable community members.”

Way back in 2019, The Australia Institute proposed a levy on the nation’s biggest polluters to create a fund which would raise billions to prepare for – and respond to – climate-related disasters.

“According to our research, over 2 million people already live in homes that aren’t fully insured. As climate change continues to push up insurance prices, this problem is only going to get worse,” said Jack Thrower, Senior Economist at The Australia Institute.

“Instead of pouring more fuel on the fire with billions in fossil fuel subsidies, it’s time the government taxed the fossil fuel industry to create a National Climate Disaster Fund that could help pay for the costs of disaster response, recovery and adaptation.”

Mr Johnson later spoke to journalists in the parliamentary press gallery, saying the nation’s leaders should focus on preparing for more frequent and intense natural disasters, rather than relitigating the debate over net zero targets.

His comments were endorsed by New South Wales Planning Minister Paul Scully.

“Weather events are getting more extreme, more frequent and less predictable and while we face that challenge we’re also grappling with critical need for more housing,” Mr Scully said.

“The challenge is not just land use controls for new homes, but in recognising the legacy of development and making sure that we encourage resilience so that those least able to afford it are not left behind.”

The Government’s proposed restrictions on freedom of information have been assessed by Federal Parliament’s Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and they have serious concerns.

The committee’s job is to assess whether proposed changes to Australian law will harm individual rights and liberties.

They find that the Albanese Government’s FOI Bill “may unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties that rely on access to government information”, and that it does so “without sufficient justification”.

That’s because the bill introduces “broad and discretionary” ways for public servants to deny public access to documents requested under FOI.

It’s a damning assessment of a bill which is already in hot water from integrity groups, including The Australia Institute which found the bill would make it harder and more expensive for Australians to get information from the government.

The committee is also concerned that the bill may curb procedural fairness by allowing agencies and ministers to refuse to deal with requests they see as frivolous and may allow administrative power to be delegated too broadly – meaning that if you put in an FOI application, it might be rejected without sufficient reasons given, or be assessed by someone too junior for the powers they’ve been given.

The FOI bill passed its second reading in the House of Representatives yesterday, but only Labor MPs voted for it.

The bill can only become law if it also passes the Senate, and that won’t happen so long as the Liberal–National Opposition and crossbench hold firm in their opposition.

NSW Liberal senator Jessica Collins, who is part of Angus Taylor, has had to make a bit of an awkward explanation to the senate:

In speaking to Senator Hume’s private member’s bill on superannuation, I misspoke declaring former Senator Richard Alston ao, a good friend of mine as the late Senator, I indeed exaggerated his death.

I can confirm that former Senator Richard Alston, AO is a OK having spoken to him immediately after my speech to apologise for my mistake.

Former Senator Alston was instrumental in the early days of superannuation being appointed Shadow Minister for superannuation during his tenure. However, the late Senator to whom I was referring was Senator John Watson. May God rest his soul.

I thank former Senator Richard Alston for his good grace and his humor and for encouraging me by saying, ‘if that’s the worst mistake you make in Parliament, you’ll be doing okay’.

And my sincere apologies to anyone who I may have taken by surprise.

I also often accidentally refer to my ‘good friends’ who are still alive as having died, so very understandable.

For one of the first times I can remember, you have the teal independents standing with the Coalition in opposition to something Labor is doing.

Now there have been disagreements in the past on things like super and what not, but a lot of the time, the teals who don’t have electorates who feel strongly about tend to sit the votes out.

It is unusual that you see these names altogether – but Labor have done it.

The government is gagging the debate on the FOI bill, claiming it was had in the Federation chamber and there is no more need for debate in the chamber.

The timing of the debate meant the independents had to do some fancy scheduling work, because they were split between that and getting their objections on the record for the environment bill.

And now, despite not really answering Helen Haines’ and others questions about the costs (they have been increased by huge amounts) or the cabinet in confidence exclusion (which means a government can just say its confidential and not release it) the government is done with the debate and moving it to the senate.

Lots of groups here, not necessarily all who are always on the same page, raising the same concerns about giving police powers over welfare. Outside of Lidia Thorpe and Andrew Wilkie, there has not been the same examination at the political level.