Good night and good luck
Well, you’ve all been ace, as per usual. But it’s time to down tools for this evening. A couple of pictures to share as we part with the evening summary: here’s the agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce, not in his happy place after the dissent motion earlier today.
Pure speculation on my part of course, but I reckon the treasurer here is in his happy place. Joe Hockey is taking a moment alone, something you rarely get in this building, packed as it is with crowding events and aggressive extroverts, and a roiling lynch mob, watching on.
Let’s all retreat to our happy places after this wrap. Today, Monday.
- Bill Shorten introduced his marriage equality bill which will now hibernate like a tulip bulb at least until the Spring session.
- The prime minister went to Harvey Norman and said today was not the day for marriage equality. It was the day to focus on building business confidence.
- Separately to building support for a budget measure everyone supports, Tony Abbott declared the government’s proposal to strip dual nationals of their citizenship in the event they were terrorists was entirely clear even though there is no actual proposal at this time.
- Separately to that declaration of clarity, various Coalition folks wandered about saying exactly what they liked about the still non-existent citizenship revocation proposal. It was either great, or not great, or something requiring compromise, or something requiring resolve of steel. In one case it might require a home prison, which seemed somewhat alarming.
- On the upside, it is refreshing to see an actual debate about a serious policy change. Genuinely. Refreshing. On the downside, the debate rather contradicted the statements about clarity.
- Apart from citizenship, Labor made an attempt to dissent from a ruling of Madam Speaker on the basis she’d ruled out a question before it was even articulated. The complaint against Madam, while a valid topic for debate, did escalate rather quickly – leading Christopher Pyne to mark down the effort. One must build one’s outrage. One must not rush to the point. The punted question involved an inquiry about whether or not the prime minister had sought assurances from Barnaby Joyce that he’d stay out of court cases involving the Rinehart family – given a judge had given the agriculture minister that advice, more or less, just last week. The basis for Madam Speaker punting the question was not entirely clear to we amateurs only slenderly acquainted with the deep magic of the standing orders.
- Meanwhile, various folks fretted about the escalation by China in the South China Sea. And this seems reasonable, given the worst consequences of the current stand off are potentially terrifying.
On that note: happy places, stat.
Let’s do it all again tomorrow.
Not to be out feeled (sorry, that doesn’t sound quite right, does it). Let’s begin that again. Many people have been either sharing their feelings or hiding their feelings about same sex marriage today. Cross bench senator John Madigan is a sharer. He’s taken to Facebook to invite people to share if they agree with the following proposition:
Marriage is and can only be the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Madigan’s post includes google people smiling at us. Superimposed on the randomly generated smiling family is the slogan: We are all equal. But no Dad can be a Mum or Mum, a Dad.
(Having grown up in a single parent household I can break the news to the good senator that Mums can be Mums and Dads and whoever they need to be to look out for the welfare of their kids. My mother also had supersonic hearing and eyes in the back of her head. She was easily a Mum/Dad. And then some. Sorry, senator.)
Meanwhile, in estimates, the tensions in the South China Sea, are being thrashed out. The head of the defence department, Dennis Richardson, has just told the committee the military build up on the contested islands, and China’s reclamation program in the South China Sea is “beyond anything we have ever seen” and “dwarves” what other nations in the region have done previously.
He said “legitimate questions” can be asked about what purpose this build-up serves for China. Also ..
Acting Defence Chief Ray Griggs confirms Australian warship HMAS Perth is currently in South China Sea as tensions between US & China rise
— Andrew Greene (@AndrewBGreene) June 1, 2015
Cory Bernardi, putting the liberal in the Liberal party
From George (Go Away) Christensen to Cory Bernardi, putting his libertarian foot first.
Bernardi has told the ABC:
As a matter of principle, I think it’s absolutely wrong for us to take away citizenship from an individual whose sole citizenship is Australia. And particularly be able to do it without any reference to a court of law, at the arbitrary whim of the [immigration] minister, I think the principle is entirely wrong.
The principle that someone with only Australian citizenship can be stripped of that citizenship, without a court of law, by ministerial directive, for an offence, I think is a very dangerous precedent because who’s to say the range of offences won’t be expanded in the future.
This is the sort of power creep that I think is very dangerous from any government.
LNP backbencher George Christensen is on Sky News. It is hard to know how to calculate the number of moving goal posts in this interview. Just a few examples.
Christensen says he doesn’t see a difference between people with dual nationality and people who could have dual nationality. (I suspect courts would see a difference if they were allowed near this proposition.)
He says that people who have departed Australia to fight for Islamic State should stay in the state they are now in. (This would be a state that isn’t a state that Australia doesn’t actually recognise for obvious reasons. Don’t think that helps with the statelessness problem.)
He’s asked why rapists and murderers should not have their citizenship stripped as well given they’ve rejected our way of life. Christensen says these folks have not taken up arms against their country. That’s the difference.
What’s his message to the cabinet?
We back the prime minister’s concerns.
Tony Abbott backs rising house prices
Question time is now behind us. I just need to clean up one issue that I didn’t properly nail the first time round.
I mentioned the prime minister was asked about the treasury secretary’s evidence in estimates today that there was a housing bubble in Sydney and parts of Melbourne. I also mentioned that it looked like the first time the prime minister heard about John Fraser’s comments was in question time. He was clearly winging it.
What I failed to mention was Tony Abbott backed rising house prices.
The prime minister:
As someone who along with a bank owns a house in Sydney I do hope that our housing prices are increasing. I do want housing to be affordable, but nevertheless I also want house prices to be modestly increasing.
Every home owner in the country feels this way. However home owners are not the only folks politicians need to be sensitised to. High prices lock many people on average incomes out of the housing market. I suspect this will kick into the afternoon and evening.
Dissent is contagious. Someone is causing trouble.
Extraordinary non defence of Speaker during dissent motion by @cpyne #auspol
— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) June 1, 2015
Albanese is correct though. As I’ve noted, Pyne defended Joyce, and said the government had confidence in the agriculture minister.
That wasn’t what this motion was actually about. It was about Madam Speaker.
Here’s Burke from a couple of minutes ago, moving the dissent motion.
The chamber is dividing now.
Joel Fitzgibbon, wandering past Madam Speaker, suggests she might want to have him round for a restorative cup of tea.
Madam Speaker:
I’d better have you all round for a cup of tea.
I’m taking the opportunity to be wide-ranging Madam Speaker.
Christopher Pyne, responding to a point of order. He notes the government has absolute confidence in Barnaby Joyce. (Strange, I don’t think that’s what the motion was about.)
The manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, is first speaker for the negative. He notes Tony Burke has been taking acting lessons over the summer. That performance would have made Olivier blush, he says.
Generally one builds up to dissent motions, Pyne notes. He says he’s had some experience in such matters. So has Anthony Albanese, he notes, who was blushing at that performance.
It was all very half cocked.
Pyne says for the last 18 months, Labor has been on the banana lounge with a milkshake, dreaming of being ministers. Taking it easy. Well wake up boys, Pyne says. Wake up.
End the distractions, like marriage equality. Pyne says marriage equality is just a distraction because Labor doesn’t know what to say about the budget.
Fitzgibbon:
This is not a protection racket, this place, Madam Speaker.
Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon is seconding the Burke motion.
He says dissent rulings are rarely used by oppositions in the chamber. Fitzgibbon says it doesn’t matter whether we like the speaker, or we don’t like the speaker ..
Behind him, Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, has developed a fit of the giggles.
Fitzgibbon says this is not the first time Madam Speaker has binned a question about Barnaby Joyce.
Updated
Burke is going to town in this motion. He says the government should be accountable for its interactions with Gina Rinehart, a person with close links with senior ministers in the Abbott government. He says Bishop is making a joke of the parliament. He says the government is arrogant, and Bishop has used the chair to prevent questions being asked.
It makes a farce of this being question time.
How can you rule a question out of order that you haven’t heard?
Labor moves a motion of dissent against the Speaker
Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon would like to know whether the prime minister has advised the agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce againt intervening in court proceedings involving the mining magnate Gina Rinehart. Joyce tried in 2011 to convince Rinehart’s daughter Hope not to proceed with litigation against her mother. A judge didn’t look kindly on that intervention.
Madam Speaker has ruled the question out of order. After some outrage, Labor is moving dissent in that ruling. Burke says the question was ruled out of order before it was even asked.
Tony Burke:
You are shutting down debate in this parliament, Madam Speaker.
The environment minister Greg Hunt is celebrating the fact that the Great Barrier Relief has been removed from a world heritage watch list. Relief. Yes indeed. The Reliefs have it.
Love this.
This is a government that is taking the budget responsibly back to surplus.
(The prime minister, on whether his budget forecasts add up.) Furthermore, the government trusts small business, and small business shall lead the way.
The treasurer Joe Hockey is telling the chamber he’s been searching for Labor’s money tree, high and low, low and high.
I can report there is no money tree.
The asylum boats Dorothy Dixer is often the segue to the national security question. The government has just invited the justice minister Michael Keenan to explain the government’s quick and decisive action against the death cult. Keenan obliges. He’s foreshadowing a conference on countering extremism. The death cult is reaching through computer screens, radicalising young people. This must stop.
Updated
Immigration minister Peter Dutton is now telling Bill Shorten that he must stare down Tanya Plibersek and the left at the national conference in July on boat turnbacks otherwise the people smugglers will be back. There is a push on from the left to prohibit boat turnbacks in the ALP policy platform. I’m pretty confident Plibersek is not at the forefront of that push, but she is in the left.
Dutton makes a glancing aside to Wayne Swan, former Labor treasurer, now Labor backbencher. Swan blows Dutton a kiss.
Bill Shorten is asking the prime minister why he’s making a fuss about the small business budget measure passing when the government knows it has Labor’s support?
The prime minister grabs that one. So you are saying you will pass this through the parliament within the fortnight with no inquiry? If you are saying that, then I welcome it. Thanks Bill.
The prime minister is asked whether he agrees with the treasury secretary that there is a housing bubble in Sydney and in parts of Melbourne. Secretary Fraser gave his opinion at estimates this morning. The prime minister is welcoming the statements from the treasury secretary. (I might be wrong, but I suspect this is the first the prime minister has heard of this statement.)
The government’s Dorothy Dixers thus far are on the small business package. The treasurer is laying down the challenge to the Labor party: help us pass this package in the next few days.
This is the one Labor has said it supports. Reckon the treasurer is on safe ground.
Member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, would like an update on country of origin labelling. Madam Speaker calls the minister for industry, Ian Macfarlane.
And science.
He corrects Madam Speaker in the way through.
The minister is telling the House there are no quick fixes on labelling. The process needs to be meticulous. Market research and testing will begin this month. Macfarlane says a new survey will test community views. State governments need to assist also. He says the end result will be clear labelling.
I’ll try and make this simple.
That’s the social services minister, Scott Morrison. Mansplaining social policy to Labor’s Jenny Macklin. Just me, perhaps, but I reckon that’s brave, given Macklin’s professional lifetime spent in the intricacies of social policy. Still, he’s a brave guy, Morrison. Way brave.
The manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, wonders if the prime minister will table the legislation on citizenship, because nobody has yet seen these clear plans. The prime minister will not table the legislation. Not today.
Labor is back on the cabinet leak. Was the ten day rule observed?
The prime minister is back on his clear plans for national security.
While the prime minister is talking about his clear plans for national security, I can note in passing that some of the surveillance powers from the Bush era have just expired in the United States.
Question time
It being 2pm ..
First question to the prime minister is on last week’s cabinet leak. Has the prime minister called in the AFP to investigate?
The prime minister knows that oppositions are interested in such matters but he’s interested in his clear plans to strengthen counter terrorism laws. Where do you stand on citizenship, Bill?
As we reconfigure for question time, here’s some quality Mike Bowers: the equal marriage morning, in pictures.
Updated
While I’ve had my head in the twists and turns of citizenship a debate has crackled around me about the near empty chamber that greeted Bill Shorten’s marriage equality bill this morning. Lots of people affronted by the absence of Coaliton folks, both here, and on the Twits.
I should supply the following context: there is not normally a huge roll up in the chamber for private member’s business. It would be quite unusual to see a packed House. I suspect that background won’t soothe upset people, particularly given the timing for this bill’s introduction was well telegraphed, and was always likely to attract significant public interest – but I offer the context all the same.
Liberal MP Dan Tehan – chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Commitee on Intelligence and Security – is on the ABC now speaking about citizenship. He’s asked whether the prime minister put him up to coordinating a letter from backbenchers urging the government to go further on citizenship than merely stripping dual citizens of their citizenship. (This is the letter that surfaced over the weekend, but has not yet been seen by Abbott.)
Tehan says not. He says he wrote an opinion piece a few weeks ago supporting the British model for citizenship revocations. He then spoke with colleagues after the joint party room meeting in Canberra last week.
Tehan:
It was really a reaction to what happened in the partyroom last week.
Just a note that may be of interest. Labor’s Anthony Byrne, who is the deputy chair of the JPCIS, declined to comment about his views on the citizenship proposal earlier today because he noted the legislation may come before the committee. Tehan evidently has no such reservations.
Speaking of cabinet, the social services minister Scott Morrison has been chatting with his favourite Sydney radio host, Ray Hadley. Hadley wants to know who the (damned) leaker is.
Q: There’s has been a series of cabinet leaks about the push by immigration minister Peter Dutton to strip citizenship from second generation Australians. Apparently half a dozen ministers were very much opposed to the measure with Julie Bishop, George Brandis and Malcolm Turnbull among those who argued against it. Who’s leaking?
Scott Morrison:
I don’t know Ray but what I do know is that the measure that was brought to cabinet, which was the one that said if you were a dual citizen and you were involved in these terrorist activities then we will cancel your citizenship. It is a very similar proposal to the one that I initiated when I was immigration minister and I am very pleased that Peter Dutton has maintained that position.
The two then get into Morrison’s substantive position on the proposal. Morrison was the minister who first raised the citizenship stripping in January 2014. We know that because he told Hadley about it at the time. Morrison said he was interested in adopting the British model. In this conversation Morrison confirms he’s in the camp of doing more than just revoking citizenship in instances where people are dual citizens. He’d go further. Not full monty. But a strong half monty. Read on.
Q: So you were someone who would argue against stripping citizenship from second generation Australians who were engaged in terrorism?
Look there is a discussion paper – the issue here is how do you prevent someone who has gone over there – and remember that is who we are talking about. We are not talking about people who go for a holiday to Great Britain to see their relatives, or Ireland or Canada or wherever, we are talking about people who got on a plane, flew into Turkey, crossed over the Syrian border and got involved with this madness with Daesh. Now I would welcome any opportunity to look at any option that prevents those people coming back to Australia.
Q: So you would support what has been proposed?
Scott Morrison:
Well I think there is another way to do it which is actually in the discussion paper where you can actually – someone can continue to be an Australian citizen but you can remove their ability to enter and remain in Australia. In the same way as if someone goes to prison they don’t get to vote. They are still a citizen but there is an entitlement of citizenship which is suspended for a period of time. Now the issue here is when people get over there and they get into this madness it changes them forever. We know that was the case when people returned from Afghanistan previously and the high level of their involvement in terrorist activity in the decade that followed. So you know we can all get very interested in the broader issues in this debate but there is a very serious national interest issue here and that is when these characters come back there is a very high risk based on form that they will get involved in terrorist activity. So I think we’ve got to use every measure at our disposal. That is why I support the prime minister and the immigration minister so strongly.
On Sky News, host Peter Van Onselen has just told his viewers a minister has told him via a text message that cabinet tonight will be fiery just like last week. He’s referring to the debate about citizenship last week that led to the leaks I’ve already referenced. Sorry to tut tut, but that’s an incredibly indiscreet thing to say. Hopefully the minister concerned won’t regret whispering away to PVO on the iPhone. Hope it was on Confide or equivalent.
Anyway, I’m mentioning this only because the guest on the program is the education minister Christopher Pyne, who was one of the ministers raising issues with the citizenship revocation proposal last week. PVO wants to know who will win the current tussle: will cabinet hold the line on rule of law and international obligations, or will the backbench storm into the cabinet suite with the ‘push them all out’ proposal?
Pyne powers on, deadpan. Cabinet meetings are generally stable and sober affairs, he notes.
Tonight’s will be just the same.
Politics this Monday lunchtime
Brisk old morning. Let’s take stock.
- The prime minister thinks legalising same sex marriage is important but he also thinks it’s more important to press on this week with a small business budget measure which is in absolutely no danger of being rejected by the parliament. Just because.
- Bill Shorten thinks marriage equality is very important, so important in fact that it needs to be introduced to parliament this week. Same sex marriage will pass the parliament, the Labor leader thinks, if the Coalition gets a free vote on the issue. He thinks this can be resolved positively with a free vote. As they say in the classics, only time will tell.
- Elsewhere, the defence minister Kevin Andrews is unhappy about China’s conduct in the South China Sea. Labor’s foreign spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek thinks Andrews needs to tone down the unhappy a bit.
-
Tony Abbott believes the government has a very clear position on stripping jihadists of their citizenship despite the fact that various people are saying different things and there’s no legislation to look at yet. Apart from that, it’s very clear indeed. Abbott has also not seen a letter from a bunch of backbenchers that has been in the public domain for 48 hours.
On we go blogans, bloganistas.
On. We. Go.
I will get onwards and upwards with a lunchtime summary very shortly. If you’d like to watch the opposition leader’s speech while you crack open your peanut butter sambo, here it is, thanks to ABC News.
The Australian Christian Lobby is also not amused. Having worked through predictable arguments against same sex marriage, we are now down to “will no-one think of the celebrants.”
From their statement:
The bill only provides an exemption for ministers of religion. Any other celebrant is not able to exercise their freedom of conscience if they believe that marriage is inherently gender diverse.
Onwards, upwards.
A frequent theme of this parliament. Unity tickets between the libertarian left and the libertarian right. The Greens and LDP senator David Leyonhjelm support marriage equality and are unhappy with Shorten’s move.
The Greens will support #marriageequality - every vote, every time. But a bill the whole parliament can own has the best chance of success.
— Richard Di Natale (@RichardDiNatale) June 1, 2015
It's the same as the Greens bill in the Senate. What's the point? We need one that will pass, not grandstanding. https://t.co/pLdxmAzLLr
— David Leyonhjelm (@DavidLeyonhjelm) June 1, 2015
Updated
Before we power on, just for the record, Bill Shorten on freedom and free votes.
I have not made a habit of speaking publicly about my faith, and I do not seek to preach to others today. I do believe in God and I do believe in marriage equality. For me, there is nothing contradictory about extending love, compassion, charity and respect beyond heterosexual Australia.
I understand, that for many people of different faiths, this is a complex question, I respect this. It is why I support a free vote.
And why this legislation makes it clear that no minister of religion can be compelled, or is obliged, to conduct a particular marriage…including one where two people are of the same sex. All ask in return that this respect be mutual.
Just as churches, mosques, temples and synagogues of all faiths and traditions will be free to choose if they consecrate same sex marriages. Let the same respect allow Australians to freely choose who they marry, without vilification or judgment.
I’ve said it once this morning, but it bears repeating: this is just the start of a process which will get nowhere if Coalition MPs aren’t given a free vote, and even then, there’s no guarantee of success in the House.
If the eventual vote is close then a binding vote from Labor may have pushed this issue over the line. Shorten does not support a binding vote. He supports a free vote.
How does the story end? We are just going to have to wait and see.
The thin government benches as Bill Shorten introduces his marriage equality bill.
Updated
Five Coalition MPs were in the chamber for Shorten’s speech. Bob Baldwin at the table, Russell Broadbent, Darren Chester, Mal Brough and Andrew Broad.
Updated
Shorten ends with turning on the lights. It’s time to turn on the light. The speech is greeted with applause from the public gallery.
Shorten says marriage equality is an important gesture for young people. It tells them the parliament is proud of them. It is an act of fairness.
We know two out of every five young Australians who are gay have thought about self-harm or suicide. Two out of every five.
He says youth suicide was a sotto voce subject when he was at school in the 1980’s. Inclusion is necessary. Tolerance is necessary.
Shorten says he’s not made a habit of speaking about religious conviction in his public life, but he believes in God, he believes in marriage, and he believes in marriage equality.
Shorten introduces his marriage equality bill
Bill Shorten is on his feet in the chamber.
This parliament can change a law that no longer describes modern Australia and pass a law of which we can all be proud.
Let us delay no more. Let us embrace a definition of marriage that respects, values and includes every Australian.
Updated
Shorten’s speech on marriage equality coming up very shortly. At the moment Mal Brough and Bob Baldwin are the only Coalition members in the House. Labor’s senate leader Penny Wong, and new ACT senator Katy Gallagher are on the floor watching.
Updated
Private members business is underway now in the House. PUP leader Clive Palmer has a bill about the death penalty. In his tabling speech he’s critical of the AFP’s role in exposing Australian citizens to the risk of the death penalty in Indonesia. He’s speaking about the Bali Nine.
The prime minister is asked about the show of support from the backbench for throwing the book at alleged jihadists.
Abbott:
I haven’t seen the letter as yet.
Er, wut? A letter has appeared on the front page of a newspaper two days ago has not yet reached the recipient?
It’s on the Herald Sun website. Have a look. Strange the prime minister hasn’t seen it.
Convenient though, it means the prime minister can stick within the mandate he’s been given by the cabinet: dual citizens first, other business later on. That’s possibly the only way to get through the internal divisions, swim along the rip.
Meanwhile he’s sticking to this line that Labor should articulate its position on legislation that no-one has actually seen.
Tony Abbott is asked whether he accepts that a majority of Australians now support gay marriage?
Abbott:
Let’s see where the community debate goes.
(Um, breaking: it’s gone. 70%+ support according to the Liberal party pollster.)
The prime minister and the treasurer are currently surrounded by plasma televisions at Harvey Norman in Fyshwick. Tony Abbott is concerned that the small business budget measure that everyone supports will not pass the parliament. That’s why we are at Harvey Norman. Making sure the budget measure (that is not in peril) is not in peril. This small business budget boost must pass the parliament. It simply must.
How about same sex marriage?
Tony Abbott:
We don’t have to do everything immediately.
Back to citizenship, and improving our collective literacy on an important subject. I did tweet a link to this earlier on, but I’ll include a reference in the blog as well. Sangeetha Pillai, who is the director, federalism project, at Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law has produced an excellent primer on citizenship revocation regimes around the world. It’s worth a read when you have a chance, and you can find it here.
If you just want the short version, Australia is currently following Britain, and the UK is the outlier.
Pillai:
The broad deprivation powers in the UK have attracted substantial criticism. Their operation raises significant concerns. For instance, while a person may lodge an appeal against a citizenship deprivation order, this does not prevent them from being deported from the UK. This can make it very difficult to initiate appeal proceedings.
Packed to the rafters.
Updated
This pep talk to caucus comes ahead of the introduction of his bill to the chamber in an hour or so.
Bill Shorten says today is about securing a free vote on this issue.
I believe if there is a free vote in the parliament of Australia, then marriage equality will pass.
(I’m not sure I believe that yet but I am certainly open to persuasion. Go on parliament, show me.)
Updated
I'm excited: Shorten
To the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, beaming in the Labor caucus room.
This is an exciting day.
It is amazing how a few words can create such a fuss, isn’t it? What I will be moving and seconded by my fantastic deputy Tanya Plibersek – is we will be moving a bill to amend the Marriage Act for marriage equality.
Secretary Fraser:
I dont know. I don’t know everything.
Penny Wong:
No-one knows everything.
Treasury estimates is still burrowing into surplus forecasts. Many charts. Much contention.
Wong invokes intervention by the committee chairman. The committee chair expresses reluctance to intervene.
You two have such lovely chats.
You cooked the books. You cooked the books.
Wong is shouting at Cormann about the return-to-surplus forecasts. The finance minister says Wong is being very discourteous to the committee.
Downstairs, meanwhile, the industry minister Ian Macfarlane is announcing a new payments scheme for businesses impacted by the Rudd government’s pink batts scheme.
Macfarlane:
The home insulation program was an unmitigated disaster by the previous Labor government and we need to, as a government, recognise that.
We have done that through the Royal Commission which completed its work last year and Ian Hangar QC made a number of recommendations as a result of that.
We need to do what we can to assist those small businesses affected by this scheme and this is what this payment scheme is about.
Updated
Fraser and Cormann speak about the importance of giving people certainty in their retirement planning as a rationale for ruling out changes to super concessions in the short term.
Wong points out that certainty didn’t seem to apply in the case of pension changes.
Only some people can have certainty and not others, is that how it is?
The treasury secretary is reflecting on the continuous nature of budget preparations. It’s like painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge, you no sooner finish than you have to start over again. Wong points Fraser to public comments suggesting he’d like to improve things. What? Life is about continuous improvement, the treasury head notes.
We are now on to generous super concessions. Does the treasury head think the current concessions are sustainable?
Fraser says governments will have to address the costs of programs. He qualifies.
In the longer term.
Updated
Labor’s senate leader Penny Wong and the finance minister Mathias Cormann are always worth a watch during estimates. Wong, a message machine herself, is always keen to push Cormann off his usual disposition to be a message machine. Much sparring ensues.
Penny Wong:
Chair, do I have the call, or is he just allowed to interject? Mr Fraser, with respect that is non-responsive.
Mr Fraser is the new head of treasury. Wong is currently trying to ascertain why the government in the budget produced a small business measure three times as stimulatory as a measure Labor introduced during the GFC. This is the small business depreciation measure. Is treasury and the government so worried about the health of the economy that such stimulus is required?
Fraser and Cormann are doing their best dead pan. The tax break isn’t stimulatory, it’s structural.
Fraser:
It’s a separate issue. I wasn’t here during the GFC. It’s a measure that is structural in intent.
Cormann wonders why Wong is asking these questions given Bill Shorten says Labor will support them. Glower on glower.
The House is sitting today and the red room is preoccupied with estimates. I have half an ear on treasury right now and will endeavour to keep you up to date with that worthy process as time permits.
Good morning Mike Bowers.
Updated
Is legalising same sex marriage inevitable?
Let’s walk back to gay marriage. I want to try and nail a point that I don’t think has yet been nailed. There is a lot of talk at the moment about the inevitability of legalising same sex marriage. I referenced that sense in the first post this morning. I also noted that change is a distance short of inevitable given there is no conscience vote yet in the Liberal party, and I remain uncertain whether the numbers are there in the House of Representatives for change, even with a free vote.
Let me flesh this out a touch. Labor has endured some internal hand to hand combat in recent weeks over whether its MPs should be required to support gay marriage (a binding vote), as opposed to voting on the issue according to conscience (which is the current policy). Tanya Plibersek has been pushing the binding vote, but many in Labor think this is dumb politics. Why push for the binding vote when Labor is already on the moral high ground? Pushing for a binding vote might lead to socially conservative types in Labor splintering. Then Labor becomes the story – instead of Tony Abbott’s lack of support for a conscience vote being the story.
As a political assessment, this is absolutely correct. As a numerical assessment, however, it is somewhat lacking. Research being undertaken about voting intentions by my colleague Shalailah Medhora suggests there are seven Labor MPs who are currently noes or undecided. If the numbers are very tight in the House of Representatives (and most people in this place think they are, even with recent shifts) then a binding vote could actually deliver gay marriage.
It could be the difference between success and failure. It’s a technical point now, as the numbers for a binding vote don’t appear to be there. Plibersek has been abandoned by key figures in the left faction. But it’s a point that should not get lost in the wash when Bill Shorten brings forward his bill today.
Updated
The shadow foreign affairs minister Tanya Plibersek has just done an interview on Sky News and she’s been asked about the South China Sea. Plibersek has delivered a veiled rebuke to Kevin Andrews, who she evidently believes has spoken too plainly.
Plibersek says Australia’s position should involve staying clear of language that might inflame tensions. She says Australia supports freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
Plibersek:
We don’t take sides in these disputes and believe they should be settled under international law.
Apart from citizenship, concern is rising about China’s actions in the South China Sea. China is reclaiming land and militarising islands. Given regional and broader geopolitical tensions, you can see how easily this situation could escalate. The defence minister Kevin Andrews has been at a summit in Singapore this past weekend.
Andrews:
We are particularly concerned at the prospect of militarisation of artificial structures.
Andrews told the summit Australia was opposed to “coercive or unilateral actions” and hit out at “any large scale land reclamation activity by claimants”.
It is therefore important that countries agree as soon as possible on a substantive code of conduct for the South China Sea between Asean members and China. When tensions are high, the risks of miscalculation resulting in conflict are very real.
Over on Sky News, another Liberal backbencher, Dan Tehan, who is the chairman of parliament’s Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, is also making the yes case. He’s asked about the consequences of handing one minister the power to strip someone’s citizenship. It’s a big power. Is he comfortable with that?
Dan Tehan:
If you have a minister that’s not [judicious], then ultimately the Australian people will hold them to account, and that is something that governments take incredibly seriously.
The other two main stories in the morning news cycle are the Abbott government’s proposal to strip jihadists of their citizenship, and increasing tensions in the South China sea.
Citizenship first. The government faced a couple of challenges last week. The major challenge, apart from not having detail about a proposal it has been talking about for more than a year, was a cabinet leak exposing differing views between ministers in extraordinary detail. By Sunday, the prime minister was keen to move forward as a famous gingered lady once said. Moving forward involved demanding that Labor reveal its disposition on the legislation.
Labor said it couldn’t reveal its disposition on legislation not yet sighted. How about the principle, was the counter. Well, which principle? Would that be the principle backbenchers like and the cabinet doesn’t like, or the principle the cabinet (well, some of it anyway) favours?
If you didn’t follow this issue last week, the government is pressing ahead with a plan to strip dual nationals of their citizenship. To go further than that risks breaching Australia’s international obligations. Australia in the mid-1970s signed an international treaty that imposes obligations on the government not to render people stateless. But various folks – the prime minister, the immigration minister, and a big chunk of the backbench – want more action. In Britain, the home secretary can strip people of their citizenship in instances where they aren’t technically dual citizens. The UK power allows citizenship to be revoked in cases where the individual has “reasonable grounds” to avail themselves of another citizenship. That (or equivalent) is the power being sought here.
One backbencher, Andrew Nikolic, has been out on the radio this morning talking about the principle he favours, which is stripping jihadists of their citizenship.
No if’s or buts. Just do it.
Do it.
Nikolic:
I think it’s about time we erred on the side of the victims. Others are involved in a discussion about the rights of terrorists.
Good morning
Good morning and welcome to winter. I gather it’s been snowing in Queanbeyan this morning, so winter it is. I hope you have your little hands wrapped around a warm beverage.
Welcome, too, to Monday. The leaf blowers are in full swing downstairs in the courtyards and the cleaners are ensuring our parliamentarians can’t be offended by a stray bit of fluff floating in the stairwells.
We are rolling into the new parliamentary week much as we rolled out of last week. Gay marriage is a focal point, with the Labor leader Bill Shorten planning to press ahead with his private members bill in the House of Representatives this morning. It’s not expected to go anywhere today, the prime minister says legalising same sex marriage is important (progress) but this week is a week to focus on the budget. Parliament cannot do several things at once, apparently. Perhaps that’s actually right, given the government couldn’t quite manage to juggle the budget and security issues last week without various balls being dropped.
Just a general observation. I’ve been scratching my head for some time how it is that an issue with a 70%+ public approval rating (same sex marriage) gets trumped regularly by other reform proposals the public isn’t actually asking for. When it comes to that head scratching, in the event you are interested, here’s a little something I prepared earlier.
Shorten has copped some blow back from parliamentary colleagues for pressing ahead with this bill before the Liberal party is ready to make this a genuine cross party effort. Labor’s senate leader Penny Wong was asked about the blow back on the ABC this morning. It was put to Wong, who is in a long term same sex relationship, that legalising same sex marriage is now inevitable in this country. Wong doesn’t see it as inevitable, given nothing has actually happened yet to make it inevitable.
Wong:
There’s a lot of chat, but we’ve had 14 months with a bill proposed by Tanya (Plibersek) offering bipartisanship, no-one stepped up.
Well it’s time someone does and it’s time Tony Abbott was made to do the right thing.
Another brief observation. It’s still not clear to me that same sex marriage would clear the House on current numbers, even if the Coalition gets a conscience vote. Shorten’s move has delivered this sliver of progress: the Liberal party’s Warren Entsch, a long time campaigner for same sex rights, is now saying publicly he’ll cooperate on a cross party effort after the budget session. That enhances the prospects of success, but it doesn’t make change inevitable.
Lots more on the go. We’ll get into that shortly. Get into it in the comments thread which is now wide open for your business. You can also find me on the twits @murpharoo and himself with the lens, who has changed his name to Mikearoo to better synchronise our efforts – @mpbowers
Updated
