Dr Mohammed Mustafa, an Australian emergency room doctor who has been to Gaza twice to volunteer in what is left of its hospitals after Israel’s non-stop assaults, has spoken to ABC News Breakfast this morning about what is still happening to Palestinians:

Things are changing, but it’s only the rhetoric that’s changing. The action hasn’t changed. To starve a population doesn’t take a few days, it takes weeks and months. What’s happening now in Gaza – it’s not just that these people are starving – even if we were to get them food in now, it wouldn’t stop the problem.

Even if they were to feed right now and have food again, it wouldn’t solve the problem of starvation. If you gave them food right now, they would die from the food, from things like re-feeding syndrome. When the body is in starvation mode, the body is used to breaking down fat.

When you start giving them food, it gives them carbohydrates, a huge insulin spike. Salts in the bloodstream can cause things like seizures, arrhythmias, heart attacks.

What you need is not just food, but an influx of healthcare professionals to come in as well to combat the images that we’re seeing in Gaza. That’s why it’s not enough – rhetoric is not enough. And opening up aid distribution for a few trucks to come in with food is not going to save these children’s lives. We need a coordinated humanitarian response. That’s not what we’re seeing.

So what has been the response?

Steph Hodgins-May:

This is a sector-backed plan and we’re proud to stand with The Parenthood and other organisations who are calling for this to be initiated as a matter of urgency. We wrote to the Prime Minister several weeks ago now and, unfortunately, haven’t yet heard back.

We’re urging the Education Minister, the Prime Minister, to put politics to the side and to sit down with advocates, to sit down with the Greens, and work constructively towards a way to keep our children safe. Because, frankly, if we’re not in here to do that, it’s the most important job we’ve possibly got – what are we doing?

What would that watchdog look like?

Steph Hodgins-May:

Essentially what it will do is ensure that we don’t have that patchwork implementation of standards across the country. Australia does have some of the world’s leading national quality standards, but the truth is that they’re not enforced.

So that national watchdog will have teeth, and it will have the power to enforce the National Quality Framework, but it will also have important powers to be able to gather information and be able to lay the foundations for a childcare system that actually prioritises children over profit.

And, look, we know that’s the elephant in the room – in the last 10 years, more than 90% of childcare providers that have come through are running for profit. It’s the Greens’ view that, if a centre is running for profit, profit is the number one priority of that centre, rather than the education and safety and wellbeing of our children.

So that watchdog will crack down on national standards and ensure that they’re enforced, but essentially create a genuinely universal system of early childhood education and care that’s high-quality and really prioritising the needs of our children over the profit margins of, many times, offshore corporations that are running these outfits.

Advocacy group The Parenthood is also pushing for a national watchdog.

Greens senator Steph Hodgins-May has told the ABC that the Greens will not stand in the way of the government’s legislation to address concerns about child care safety, following reports into the sector led by the ABC, but that they want it to go further.

The government legislation will strip Commonwealth funding from centres that don’t meet the national minimum standards, but Hodgins-May said that is “bandaid solutions to much, much deeper structural issues”.

Whilst we might see some short-term improvements on safety, they aren’t going to go to the heart of the issue. They’re not going to lift national quality consistently across the country. Instead, they’ll crack down on individual providers and, really, sadly, it’s going to require harm to have occurred in order for the government to step in. The Greens are really pushing for more. We’ve written to the Prime Minister urging him to work with us on a national watchdog with teeth that can enforce our national quality standards in a way that hasn’t happened. At the moment, we’ve got this patchwork effect where multiple states have different regulations, but no national body to actually enforce and work towards raising national quality standards across the country.

The Greens senator David Shoebridge has announced a press conference for 8am this morning to talk about the Greens push for a review into Aukus.

Emma Shortis from the Australia Institute will be there.

There seems to be a few schools of thought within caucus as to what Labor is doing here (Australia is the only major partner NOT reviewing the pact). One is that Labor wants to wait until the new conditions the US review is working up are official, and review it then (keep the powder dry as it were) so as not to jump too early, or upset Trump doing the trade negotiations.

Another is that Labor can’t decide on terms of reference and another again is there is the usual Australian hesitancy to hold a review and annoy the bigger countries.

GOOD. TIMES.

The latest Gencost report has been finalised. Prepared by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, it looks at the cost of power generation which can advise governments in where do invest etc.

This report has found:

• Large-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) remains the strongest performer, falling 8 per cent for the second year in a row.
• Battery costs recorded the biggest annual reduction, falling 20 per cent.
• Onshore wind costs continue to increase, but at a slower rate.
• Gas turbine costs increased the most.

Chris Bowen is doing a little dance:

Australia has the best wind and sun to power our future and we’re harnessing it to secure
the better, fairer energy system our nation deserves. The latest GenCost confirms what our energy experts have been saying for a long time: the most affordable path to deliver reliable energy in future is with new renewable generation and storage, firmed by gas and pumped hydro.
This is a test for the new Coalition – will they listen to the experts and embrace the cheapest form of energy or continue their anti-renewable expensive nuclear fixation?”

Simon Stiell spoke of Australia’s potential to be a new energy powerhouse:

All countries are not in the same position, and the actions that need to be taken, the considerations that need to be factored in, are different for all, but we’re still governed by that underlying science that how we are consuming, how our industries are run, how we live our lives is generating excess of emissions, which are then causing the global climate impacts that we’re seeing, which are costing lives and also damaging the economy.

So if you like, it’s a ledger.

It is the benefits from business as usual, versus the cost of inaction, which for Australia, the predictions are by 2050, and climate change, there’ll be a loss of GDP, loss of somewhere in the $6.8 trillion to Australia based on the kind of impacts.

So yes, you have economic benefits from that business as usual, but you have the economic costs which far outstrip that.

And then in between that you have the opportunities associated with the transition. So whether it is new energy sources, green hydrogen. (Sally Sara points out that green hydrogen hasn’t delivered as yet)

….But the potential, the potential is there.

As we mentioned a little earlier, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Simon Stiell is in Australia and will meet with Chris Bowen later today to discuss Australia’s climate targets.

You would have to imagine Australia’s lack of ambition will be the main talking point. We are doing the bare minimum and still looking to open up more fossil fuel sites, which is the exact opposite of what the science is telling us to do.

Stiell spoke to ABC radio’s Sally Sara this morning about the ‘challenge’:

Science tells us we need to transition away from all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. So, yes, addressing your own domestic emissions is part of it, but exporting carbon emissions also needs to be addressed. And there we need to look at that global picture in terms of not just the supply of fossil fuels, but it is cutting our dependency demand for fossil fuels. And that requires, again, global effort.

Here is how some more of that interview went:

Andrew Clennell: Do you think net zero gets in the way or it’s not even relevant when it’s some 25 years away?

Sussan Ley:

Everything has to be considered and people have different views. But I want to look at this from the perspective of Australians. And Australian energy policy is clearly not what this government is about, because look at costs. I mean, we’re amassing already a list of their broken promises. I’m not going to let them off the hook for $275 reduction in energy prices. Meanwhile, I could not go into a factory floor as Shadow Minister for Industry in the last parliament without hearing a story about energy prices putting people out of business. So we’re here for Australians who want to have a crack and get ahead.

Clennell: Do you think that’s because of renewable energy?

Ley:

It’s because of an overreliance on renewables, the renewables only mantra that this government has been preaching for three years doesn’t work. Of course, now that I’ve realised they need to bring gas into the system, it’s all a bit light, it’s all a bit confusing, but the ultimate cost is being worn by businesses.

Clennell: Would you come up with your own 2050 target rather than net zero if you dumped the policy?

Ley:

Everything is on the table and I want to make that clear. It’s not about me landing on what this group might come up with. We’ve got an outstanding colleague in Dan Tehan leading a process. Everybody in both our party rooms has an opportunity to have their say.

Clennell: It sounds like the say is in and it’s get rid of zero.

Ley:

People have got different views, Andrew. And party organisations – as you’ve pointed out – have passed motions, they always have, they’ll continue to do that. We’re listening to them too.

Clennell: So you’ll go with what the party room tells you? Or do you have your own view?

Ley:

I’m the Leader and I’ll make the call when the time comes. But what I said at the beginning of my leadership was I would consult, I would listen. And when it comes to policy, we would do this with everyone playing their part and having their say. I’ve set up those processes, by the way, in areas not just energy, but across the board, so we can harness the talents and the experience – the life experience, and the ideas of every single one of our party room members.

Sussan Ley has been continuing to appear on as much media as possible (as a mark of difference to Peter Dutton who only appeared on friendly media) and yesterday, that included a one-on-one with Sky New’s political editor, Andrew Clennell.

Asked about the WA Liberals wanting to dump net zero (which includes Michaelia Cash and Andrew Hastie) and the Nationals revolt, Ley said:

Individuals in my party room and in the Nationals party room have passionate, well held views on this. And we’re going to bring all of those views together in a working group led by Dan Tehan. And it’s going to flesh out the different perspectives, the expert advice, and of course, focus on this government’s miserable failure when it comes to energy policy. But let’s just step back a moment, the election was not quite three months ago, the next election’s about three years away. I said, when I became leader, I would be consultative, collaborative and take the time to get this right. So we do have time. And of course, the important thing is we’re not actually holding the levers on this policy. The government owns current energy policy, and we will hold them to account for the absolute trainwreck that it’s become.

But again, it doesn’t matter what the Coalition decides on. It won’t have any impact on policy – but it is sucking up space. So why are we covering it? Because you need to know what is happening across all the parties to get a whole picture – and you need to know where the fights are coming from.