Australia news live: Greens want to negotiate with Labor on emissions targets; white whale not Migaloo, authorities confirm

Key events:

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Severe weather warnings across NSW

The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast rain across much of southern Australia and severe weather warnings across New South Wales for Sunday that will ease into this evening.

Updated at 20.35 EDT

White whale not Migaloo

Authorities appear to have confirmed the white whale on Mallacoota beach is not Migaloo.

Full details yet to come.

Updated at 20.26 EDT

Chalmers dismisses criticism over pandemic leave payments

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has brushed off criticism the government was too slow to act in reinstating the pandemic leave payments in the wake of rising Covid-19 cases, AAP reports.

The $750 pandemic isolation payment, which ended on 30 June, was extended to the end of September following a national cabinet meeting on Saturday.

The government had previously ruled out bringing back the payments due to budget pressures.

Acting opposition leader Sussan Ley said the government had been dragged “kicking and screaming” to reinstate the payments, but Chalmers described the criticism as ridiculous.

It was her government a little over eight weeks ago that designed this program to end at the end of June.

We will get on with our work, working with the states and territories, led by premiers and chief ministers of both persuasion.

The treasurer said there would be an increase in Covid cases across the country in coming weeks.

Clearly for us, we’re about to have another spike in cases.

A new telehealth program will start next week, allowing GPs to spend longer with patients to assess their suitability for Covid-19 antiviral treatments.

Updated at 20.18 EDT

Dutton calls for Aukus submarine process to be sped up

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has called on the government to speed up the process to acquire nuclear submarines as part of the Aukus security pact.

Following growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, Dutton said it was critical the timeline be condensed surrounding the vessels.

‘We got the best possible outcome’ … Leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

It comes after defence minister Richard Marles flagged an announcement on whether Australia would acquire US or UK-made submarines as part of Aukus during the first quarter of 2023.

A decision would then be made on when the new vessels would become operational.

Dutton said it was important for cooperation to be sped up on the issue:

The agreement was struck under the Coalition government, we really fought hard, we negotiated a very difficult discussion.

We got, I think, the best possible outcome and it’s laid out for the Labor party now to implement, and hopefully they don’t get in the way of it.

I hope that they can really condense the timelines, because the very clear sense that I’ve got out of our discussions with the [US] administration here is that things are deteriorating in relation to China.

The comments come as Dutton attended the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington.

The bipartisan event was also attended by Marles, with Aukus key among the topics discussed with American officials.

From AAP

Updated at 22.26 EDT

Dutton: possible war in Europe reason for opposing 43% target

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has appeared on Sky News from Washington this morning, where he raised the prospect of war in Europe as a reason for opposing the government’s effort to lock in a 43% target:

If our trading partners or an ally like the United States or others in Europe decided to adjust their emissions, if Europe went into a broader war, then – and there was a severe economic downturn, would the government want to have a legislated 43[%]? Or would they want to adjust and deal with the reality of the times?

A report by InfluenceMap, a European thinktank that tracks lobbying by fossil fuel companies, found in May that the war in Ukraine has become a key talking point in the US oil and gas sector to slow efforts to combat climate change:

The industry appears to be using a number of key narratives to push its pro-fossil fuel agenda, many of which appear to include misleading claims or misinformation.

These narratives are being used to push for a long-term role for oil and fossil gas in the energy mix and appear to be targeted towards specific policy demands. These include advocating for policies which encourage new and/or increased oil and gas production, and rolling back previous climate policy decisions that limited the production of oil and gas or required climate considerations in new projects.

Updated at 19.57 EDT

Greens want to negotiate on emissions targets

And that’s a wrap! Just to recap, Greens leader Adam Bandt was at pains to point out the Greens want to negotiate on emissions targets and were trying to push back on the “take it or leave it approach” so far adopted by the federal Labor government.

While this may help Labor frame itself as a moderate government, it also risks alienating those constituencies that voted for stronger climate action with the Greens and independents.

Updated at 19.49 EDT

Bandt: ‘Labor is hellbent on opening new coal and gas projects’

The conversation then moves on to new fossil fuel projects. Bandt makes the point that Australia’s environmental laws allow approvals without any consideration of how they will contribute to climate change. Bandt uses the example of WA and NT:

Look at what happened in Western Australia under a Labor government. The Environmental Protection [Authority] came out and said if we’re going to open up new gas projects, it’s all got to be offset and it’s all got to be carbon neutral, and the Labor government came in and said, ‘nah, we’re going to override that, we’re going to give you a free pass, and you can keep on polluting and open up the new projects’.

The Northern Territory Labor government since the election has already come with its handout to the federal government, saying can we have public money, taxpayers’ money, used to open up the Bedaloo? That will be a test for the federal government as well.

Bandt then sums up the Greens’ assessment on Labor’s current approach:

What we’re learning clearly is Labor is hellbent on opening new coal and gas projects. Part of the Greens’ job is to try and push them and say if we are in a climate emergency – and we are, and the government has just agreed to this this week, in an emergency – you don’t make the problem worse.

You don’t put the fire out while you’re pouring petrol on it.

Updated at 19.48 EDT

‘Our strong preference is to work with the government,’ says Greens leader

Bandt is trying to be really clear about what the Greens want out of this term of parliament:

I think the message from this election is take action on climate and people want us to work together to take action on climate.

Our strongly preferred approach is to improve and pass. But if the government says it’s our way or the highway, then we’re going to have to respond to that.

Our strong preference is to work with the government to get good climate legislation passed. And if the government’s willing to sit down and talk, we are too.

Updated at 19.42 EDT

Bandt: ‘Labor’s vote went backwards’

Speers asks Bandt about Labor’s mandate and suggests this shows Australians do not support a legislated 43% target. Bandt’s response is that the Greens vote also massively increased:

Labor’s vote went backwards. The Coalition’s vote went backwards. The parties and independents whose vote went up were the ones who said we’ve got to stop opening coal and gas. The government – we now have a situation where less than one in three people in this country voted for the government, OK?

[…] A number of people voted for the Greens and preferenced them. That’s a clear message. Do better on climate.

Greens leader, Adam Bandt: Voters sent a clear message to do better on climate. Photograph: Jono Searle/AAP

Updated at 22.30 EDT

Greens’ questions for the government

Bandt lays out what the Greens want to know from the government: 1) any emissions target can’t be a ceiling; 2) a genuine floor on the emissions target; 3) no ability for governments to backward; and 4) what is the target going to make the government do?

Updated at 19.43 EDT