It has been A DAY.

So we are going to leave it there – thank you to everyone who came along and joined us today, it truly does mean the world.
We will be back tomorrow with the last day of the house sitting before we get another two week break – hope you have steeled yourself.

Until then, take care of you Ax

Here is some of how Mike Bowers saw question time:

Labor MP Ed Husic, who was very strong on building up Australia’s manufacturing industry while he was industry minister – and who since being dropped from the cabinet has been making his views known on gas and other issues he thinks need more attention, has also dropped by the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing studio.

Q: We heard from Mark Vassella, the CEO of BlueScope Steel, saying a gas reservation policy is needed and other heavy industries say the same. I know a gas market review is under way. It is east coast reservation policy inevitable, something you have to do?

Husic:

I think so. If you look in the last decade, gas demand has fallen 20% and yet we are paying extraordinary prices for an Australian resource.

Australia averaging is $10 a gigajoule for gas. In Qatar you can get of a for $2.20 and in the US for $3, what BlueScope Steel pointed out today.

Part of the recent prices are so high is because we export a phenomenal amount of gas and a lot of foreign multinationals who are on a great deal do not want to have us get access to the uncontracted gas. We want to be able to get that as part of a reservation plan.

The other important point that people need to understand as well is we will have foreign buyers intervene in our market saying do not touch the gas arrangements, yet some of these countries are on selling the very gas they get from us, so Japan, for example, has on sold between 600 to 800 petajoules of gas, nearly double what we use on the east the coast.

Q: Yet knowing that Resources Minister Madeleine King has given a speech given great assurance to the Asian markets Australia is a secure partner for other Asian nations to seek energy security from which seems to suggest she does not want to interfere in any of the existing arrangements we have with those companies from places like Japan which are historically some of our biggest buyers of LNG.

Husic:

Yes and I think most Australians would think if you are buying that gas for your own use, we totally respect the need to hold a contract. But if they are on selling at a phenomenal rate to South Korea and Taiwan, for example, where some of the markets they are on selling to, nearly double what we use on the east Coast and we are paying incredible prices as a result, that is not good.

Q: Do you want a limitation on what buyers can then do with the gas they buy?

Husic:

The other point is this is not a one off. Japan has done this four consecutive years in a row where they have on sold Australian gas while telling us we should not have a right to intervene. My view is Australia needs to assert itself and we should have mechanisms like use it or lose it mechanisms. They are not using it for themselves and just profiting which is exactly what they’re doing, profiting from that gas while we are struggling and we have manufacturers like BlueScope Steel, Dulux and others trying to get access to competitively priced gas. That is an issue and we should assert ourselves.

Q: Should that be imposed on existing contracts because a lot of these are long-term contracts that will run for many years. Should that be imposed on contracts in place the now?

Husic:

I absolutely think if foreign buyers are not using it for themselves and are simply using it to make money by on selling it, we should have a mechanism to intervene.

We cannot have a situation where Australian manufacturers are put under such pressure because of the state of gas pricing. Interventions we have tried here, even the ACCC has redoubtable working, the gas trigger, gas code, heads of agreement, two times now the ACCC said we do not see evidence that is working. We will have to take a stronger stand and my view is the country, if it is serious about manufacturing capability, if we said we learn the lessons of the pandemic and needed to build capability, we need to take a stand to get access to a resource that should confer on us commercial and economic advantage.

For some reason, and I end on this point, for some reason we always seem to be browbeaten easily by either the foreign multinational set up approach setting up the contracts or by foreign buyers making money by answering the gas and we think our national interest [should] take a backseat …and despite having sand kicked in our face when we should be asserting; this is an Australian resource, our gas, our price should be the [set by us].

Alex Hawke, who had to step in and help save Sussan Ley’s preselection is now taking on a Praetorian guard role for Ley’s leadership. He has done several interviews asking for time and is now speaking to Mel Clarke on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing about some of the issues within the Liberal Party. Including the leaks. Jacinta Price had a bit of a spray on Sydney radio 2GB earlier today, but Hawke seems to be taking more of a gentle parenting approach.

[Ley] has a different culture and a different approach to the previous leader and that is you can speak your mind in the party room. I welcome it and people are speaking their mind. That comes at a cost sometimes it looks more messy however you do have to be able to speak your mind and if you are constructive colleagues I think I going to be receptive.

Yesterday at Senate estimates (the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee to be exact), Senator Bridget McKenzie has flagged the potential impact of tree-planting on agricultural land.

To achieve the Albanese Government’s 2035 emissions reduction target of 62 to 70 percent, Australia will need to remove a total of 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air by 2035, according to the CSIRO modelling on which the government’s target is based.

For a start, if Senator McKenzie and her colleagues are genuinely concerned about the impact on agriculture by either climate change or mitigation efforts, they would support policies addressing the root of the problem. That is, fossil fuel extraction and usage which put excess carbon in the atmosphere in the first place, and native forest logging which deprives the land of its natural carbon sink.

It makes no sense trying to scoop out water from a leaking boat without fixing the leak.

In answering Senator McKenzie, a Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry noted that, in the agricultural sector, existing technologies will have to do most of the emissions reduction work in the next 10 years, as other technologies gradually mature. By implication, tree-planting may be the most important way for land-use sector to capture carbon.

ABC’s Alan Kohler agrees: the most viable way to capture carbon for the immediate future is to plant new trees, over an area of about 10 million hectares, roughly half the size of Victoria.

Given Australia’s experience before, it’s crucial that the government carefully design any such program to ensure long-term efficacy. A tree-planting program had been carried out under the Abbott Government, resulting in about 30,000 hectares of revegetated forest by 2021, that’s only 0.3% of the scale needed to make the 2035 target possible.

That relatively small program had both conservation and carbon reduction as its objectives. But as experts have pointed out, the benefits were limited on both fronts. Because the government prioritised minimising “cost per tree” with its competitive grants for private providers, the planting of certain tree species (such as tropical rain forest trees) were hardly funded. It also meant that the funding was not specifically directed to areas with high potential for carbon capture.

If the Albanese Government is serious about meeting its 2035 emissions target, it will need to generously fund tree-planting projects, and to fund them according to a rigorous process so that the trees are planted where they grow the best and where they matter the most.

BlueScope Steel Chief Executive Mark Vassella has confirmed what The Australia Institute has said for years, that our governments have put the interests of foreign owned gas exporters ahead of Australians.

Australia Institute research shows gas exports have caused east coast gas prices to triple and electricity prices to double, causing the decimating Australian manufacturing businesses. The government could solve this tomorrow by forcing gas companies to supply Australians rather than exporting uncontracted gas to the global spot market

Mr Vasella has called out the gas export industry for its spurious claims of  “sovereign risk” at every suggestion of prioritising Australians instead of gas exports. He rightly identifies the real sovereign risk issue is the sovereign risk to Australian manufacturing caused by excessive gas exports driving up energy prices.

Australia Institute research shows that new gas projects will not solve the problem, and that the gas crisis could be solved immediately simply by diverting gas exports to Australians.

Mr Vassella also agreed with the Australia Institute and the ACCC that the Government’s tepid policies including the Gas Code, Heads of Agreements and Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism (ADGSM) have completely failed.

The Government has nowhere left to hide. Its decade of policy failure and letting foreign owned gas corporates trample the interests of Australians is on full view. It will finally have to prioritise the interests of Australians over gas industry profits. 

“The best solution is for the government to implement the ACTU’s policy of a 25% tax on gas exports. This would immediately ensure sufficient gas was supplied to Australians at reasonable prices and that Australians get a fairer return for the exploitation of our gas resources, raising around $12.5 billion annually for better health, education, and housing.

Well, again not a lot.

The opposition feels like it has some meat on the 000 issue, which is understandable – it is a complete and utter failure, which has had devastating consequences for at least four families.

But it still can’t get a handle on the baser political instinct that exists within the Coalition’s senior leadership team, when it comes to how to handle these issues.

There are questions to be asked. Yesterday, Helen Haines showed us how that is done, asking about preparation to ensure there are no further outages during natural disasters.

The Coalition have valid questions over timing and when Anika Wells knew, as well as differences in the timeline presented to the parliament. To continue to tack on cheap politics about travel and to deliberately twist her answers to suggest a lack of empathy, is not just university grade politics, it speaks to the broader issues within the Coalition – that a thread of nastiness has seeped into how it carries out it’s politics, and that is one of the reasons it has been unable to arrest its fall off the cliff of relevancy.

I have been saying it for years – this is an issue that stretches back to how Howard changed the Liberal party and the impact that has had on the party leadership and direction as a whole. And now, so is the Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly who wrote today:

The crisis transcends the Coalition parties – this is an intellectual, cultural and political crisis of the centre-right in Australia, 20 years in the making, with the nation since 2020 moving decisively to the left; witness Labor’s wins at the 2022 and 2025 elections and, more important, the collapse of a consistent, conviction Coalition policy stance.

The Liberals are increasingly divorced from the centres of cultural and opinion-forming power in Australia – the education and university sectors, the professional classes, much of the corporate sector, the climate change lobby and the renewable energy industries, the not-for-profit community organisations, the arts community, the public broadcasters, public sector employees, the trade unions and constituencies vital in shaping opinion – professional women and ethnic communities.

There was no sign today, or any day, that Sussan Ley knows how to handle this.

Anika Wells:

To deal with the various elements of it in regard to penalties; there is a bill before the house, the enhancing consumer safeguards built, it’s an amendment of humankind — telecommunications act and was introduced on 28 August, debated on the 4 September.

…The shadow minister for Women occasions spoke on this bill about enhancing consumer safeguards on the 4 September. She spoke about penalties on the 4 September. She spoke about her support for the increase to penalties, the increase to penalties up to $10 million and in some particular cases even more than that. She spoke in support of that work.

So I would contend it is confusing having done that on the 4 September to now bring an amendment to a different bill and object to us not supporting that amendment because we have already done this work which she has already supported in this place. Nonetheless…we can all agree surely that what happened in September was not good enough, and Albanese Government will always work to protect Australians and we will always work hold those who failed to deliver on their obligations to full account. There are several investigations under way now to this effect. In the telco fails Australians like Optus did, they will face real and serious consequences.

Real and serious consequences, Mr Speaker. There are no excuses. Telcos must deliver resilient and reliable000 services. That is their obligation under the law and that is the work we will continue to do on this side of the house to hold them to account.

For reasons known only to the universal deity in love with Queensland at the moment (understandably, it is is the greatest nation on earth) Bob Katter gets his second question for the week. Two days of Katter in a row. Aren’t we lucky.

Katter:

Prime Minister, grand final is over, Queensland won – sorry about that! Season is over, 1,000 North Queensland rugby league players are bored you know, an idle mind is a devil’s workshop. In some of the last jungles left on earth, 3 million pigs are destroying our fauna and flora. Please give the boys back their rifles and licence, I emphasise licensed, access to national parks. Prime Minister, now doomed cassowary and the North Queensland turtle. Give the boys back their air-rifle, you may eliminate some of the 2,000 million toads in North Queensland. Prime Minister, too late for the Rabbitohs, sorry, sorry. And don’t worry about the pests in this place, please would you worry about the pests in North Queensland?

Alex Hawke, who has the misfortune of not being a Queenslander has a point of order. It is not a point of order. The question about pests, is in order.

Anthony Albanese:

I’m concerned about pests, Mr Speaker. I assure the House of that. And I know that this is a really serious issue around our national parks and around regional – not just regional Queensland, but right around the country. I visited some time ago the Northern Territory with the Cattleman’s Association looking at the issue of feral pig there is is just devastating the country, and having a real impact on our wildlife and, therefore, it is something that we do take seriously. I will ask the member for the Minister for Agriculture to supplement, but I will say to the member for Kennedy that as a South Sydney supporter, we have been 43 years in a drought and we always have hope. We always have hope and we have something that those on this side of the House have in abundance, it’s called loyalty. (LAUGHTER)

Julie Collins gets the question and she is thrilled to have it:

I thank the Prime Minister for passing that question through from the – for Kennedy. Can I say… (INTERJECTIONS) ..to the member for Kennedy, I do appreciate and we had many discussions in-person about his love of the land in Queensland and his genuine commitment to improving land management in Queensland and his concern for invasive species because there’s no doubt they are having a serious impact in Queensland and elsewhere around the country. Which is why of course since coming into Government we have strengthened our biosecurity system because we want to stop more pests and disease from getting into the country and we invested $2 billion in doing that.

Etc, etc, etc

Sophie Scamps asks Mark Butler:

The former Director-General of the American centre for disease control, testified she was illegally sacked from the role by US secretary for health for refusing to fire top scientists at the agency or to preapprove changes to vaccine advice without evaluating the evidence. In her place the health secretary’s own deputy has been inserted into the role. Minister, will the Australian CDC be safeguarded from political interference by ensuring that Director-General must be appointed by a short list by an independent panel?

Butler:

Thank you to the member for her question.

Her engagement about this really important reform. As the member knows, as many in this House know, the lack of a single trusted source of advice and data was one of the very significant restrictions we had in our preparedness and our pandemic response.

That was the view of many public health organisations, it was the first conclusion of the independent COVID inquiry. That is why we’re currently debating legislation to introduce an independent CDC. It’s supported by all state and territory governments, supported by every public health organisation I’m aware of, supported by many members in this House. I’m not sure whether it’s supported by the opposition, they indicated at the last election they would not proceed with this, but it’s an important debate for this Parliament to continue to have.

The CDC will be an independent agency that operates separately from the Department of Health. The Director-General of the CDC is a very important role and many of its arrangements, its powers and functions, are set out in the bill that’s currently being debated by the House. It’s very important that the Director-General perform his or her functions at arm’s length from the Government. They will not be subject to direction from the secretary of my department or from the Minister or anyone else for that matter.

There are also importantly to the member’s question very limited provisions allowing the termination of the Director-General of the CDC and they are for misbehaviour or an inability to perform their duties due to physical or mental incapacity. Importantly, that person cannot be terminated for providing advice that the Government of the day does not agree with.

As to the appointment, the Minister for Health, in this case, must be satisfy that the Director-General holds appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in public health matters prior to their appointment and the process of appointment will reflect the Government’s well-understood merit and transparency policy.

And that involves a selection being put together which in this case will probably involve the secretary of my department along with a nominee of the Public Service Commission and other potential representatives. They would undertake an interview process after advertisement, they would then provide a short list with a report on every short-listed candidate to the Minister for the Minister’s consideration and then the decision of the Government in the usual way.

I’m very confident that that provides a level of independence and assurance for the community that this person occupying a very important role in this new agency will have the appropriate qualifications and experience and the appropriate protections and independence from political interference. … All Australian children.