And we will leave today there, because there’s a long week ahead of us and while it is only Monday, I feel as if I have lived a million of them.
Tomorrow it’s all Neg all the time, as Josh Frydenberg and Malcolm Turnbull take on the backbench and the Nationals to keep their energy policy alive.
This is of course after Tony Abbott has his say on 7.30 tonight. And you can imagine that say will be quite heavy, given the public smackdown he was given by the PM in QT.
Goodness. It’s like we haven’t spent anytime away at all.
We will be back with all of the fun and games bright and early tomorrow morning.
In the meantime, a big thank you to the Guardian’s brains trust, who are still toiling away. And to Mike Bowers, despite his day long trolling of me, in revenge for posting his fashion inspo twin, Craig Kelly. Hate the game, not the player, my friends.
As always, the biggest thank you is reserved to you, for reading and following along with the madness. We all appreciate it.
Go put your feet up - and take care of you.
We’ll see you soon.
Andrew Bartlett will be giving his final speech in the next couple of weeks - he is stepping aside and Larissa Waters will be back as the Greens’ Queensland senator.
Lee Rhiannon finishes her speech with this:
Before I came into parliament I believed that people working together are the drivers of progressive change. Our history illustrates this truth – winning the right to vote for Indigenous people and women, withdrawing our troops from Vietnam, ending Apartheid in South Africa, securing decent employment conditions, saving the Franklin River and most recently the marriage equality victory and so much more, testify to this
truth. The streets is where the action is.
I have been privileged to be a member of two parliaments. I am leaving parliament but not politics. I look forward to returning to the streets.
Greens senator Lee Rhiannon gives her valedictory speech in the senate chamber of parliament house Canberra this afternoon. Monday 13th August 2018. Photograph by Mike Bowers Guardian Australia Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Bill Shorten has responded to Gai Brodtmann’s news:
On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I want to thank Gai Brodtmann for her outstanding service to the parliament, to our Shadow Ministry and to the people of Canberra.
As her statement makes clear, Gai’s decision today comes from the heart. It’s driven by that most powerful force, her love for her family. Every one of us can relate to the things Gai feels like she has missed and all of us can understand why she wants to spend more time with the people who mean the most to her in the world.
Like all Gai’s Caucus colleagues, I will miss her calm counsel, her policy insights, particularly on national and cyber security issues, her command of the 90 second statement, and her deep understanding of, and affection for, our nation’s capital beyond the parliamentary triangle.
While this will be Gai’s final term in the parliament, I’m confident she has a lot more to offer our nation. Just as Gai served our movement and her community with passion and integrity long before she came to the Parliament, I know she will continue to give her all for Canberra and the Labor cause in the next phase of her life.
It’s a pleasure to wish Gai and her family every happiness and success in the future.
Gai Brodtmann to stand down at the next election
From her statement:
I have advised Bill Shorten I will not be nominating for preselection for the seat of Bean.
My decision has been made for entirely personal reasons.
My mother turned 79 last week. Faye Anderson and my working class matriarchy are why I am Labor to my bootstraps and why I ran for the seat of Canberra in 2010.
My mother is now one of the reasons why I am not nominating. By her own admission, Mum has years not decades left. I want to be there for those years.
Over the break, I’ve also spent more time than usual with my sisters and their families and my friends. It’s made me realise I have missed too many precious and significant moments in their lives. I want to be there for those moments.
Representing the people of Canberra has been an enormous honour and privilege and brought me inestimable pride and joy. I love my community. I love being a fierce advocate for it. I will continue to fight for it as long as I am the Member for Canberra.
I have also loved influencing, shaping and developing policy, particularly on national and cyber security, women’s health and empowerment, small business, public service and administration and Norfolk Island.
I want to thank the people of Canberra for putting their faith in me for three terms and Bill Shorten for the opportunity to serve on the front bench for two of those terms.
I want to thank my dedicated and tireless team, former team members and the countless volunteers who help – and have helped – me serve Canberra.
And I want to thank the party and the rank and file of the ACT branch for allowing me to play some small part in the great Labor story. I will not be nominating, but will do everything in my power to ensure a Shorten Labor government at the next election.
Because, as I said in my first speech, we are in a battle of ideas and I believe it is desperately important that Labor wins. When we win our prosperity is shared. When we win children get the chance of a world-class education. When we win Australia gets a country that supports the weak; a nation that uses its wealth to help the poor. When we win individuals are encouraged to excel but never at the expense of the common good. When we win workers get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. When we win we fight for jobs and the environment. When we win our nation is outward looking and engaged with our allies and the forums of the world. When we win we demand from each the best they are able to give and offer to each the chance to be the best they can be.
Since 1983 I’ve been handing out how to votes for Labor and fighting the good fight. I will be there again at the next election handing out for whoever the party’s members believe is best fit to continue our proud traditions.
To deliver a Shorten Labor government to advance Australia and my much loved Canberra.
Updated
A little more from Lee Rhiannon’s speech:
“... Dealing with the Labor party has presented a dilemma for the Left in this country for over a century. Here we have a social democratic party that has too often embraced neoliberalism and acted in the interests of big capital. Labor has played a major role in the privatisation of precious public assets.
Yet history shows us that Labor in opposition is a different beast from the party that forms government. This is an enormous tactical challenge for the Greens and the broader left. That’s a subject for another time but for now I did want to share with you a comment from a chatty NSW Labor Right MP.
He said – “We need Labor Left. How else could we mobilise socialists and the Left to vote for Labor and elect right-wingers.”
Updated
Lee Rhiannon is giving her farewell speech to the Senate:
What is the future for the Greens? I believe it can be long and fruitful but the challenges that all progressive parliamentary parties face are upon us.
We need to remain a progressive, democratic party of the left. That means resisting careerism, hierarchical control, bullying behaviour and the associated leaking and backgrounding.
If we fail to stand up to that sort of behaviour not only will the Greens suffer setbacks, our contribution to building social movements will be reduced, we will lose members and individual members will be hurt.
We need to engage constructively with the great progressive causes of our time. The future of a liveable planet depends on it. It is inspiring to see that around the world social movements for transformative emancipatory change are on the rise.
And thanks to a poll taken by the Centre for Independent Studies we can quantify this interest in Australia. The poll found 58% of people born in Australia between 1980 and 2006 are favourable to socialism and 59% thought that – and I quote – “capitalism has failed and government should exercise more control of the economy”.
The Greens can take heart from these trends.
Updated
It’s a bit early for a #tbt, but we will allow it:
Here’s a Monday Memory for you - 2007: WA Young Labor President & Secretary; 2018: Federal MPs. Welcome to the Federal Parliament Patrick Gorman, new Member for Perth #auspol #qt #wearewalabor #mondaymemory pic.twitter.com/S9EFzJoJ8X
— Matt Keogh MP (@mattkeogh) August 13, 2018
Lisa Cox has updated her Great Barrier Reef Foundation story. From her report:
Due diligence the government says it conducted before announcing a $443.8m grant to a not-for-profit group was actually conducted as part of an application for funding for a separate project, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation says.
The environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, says “extensive due diligence” took place before awarding the foundation almost half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.
On Monday, the government said this included the environment department seeking information in March from the foundation about its operations and structure prior to a meeting between Frydenberg, the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the foundation’s chair, John Schubert, on 9 April.
Lee Rhiannon will be delivering her valedictory speech to the Senate in about half an hour.
Speaking to Sky, Matt Canavan says he won’t deal with hypotheticals – as in what happens if the Coalition party room rejects the Neg tomorrow –but then in more general terms says the electricity sector won’t have consistency and power prices will keep going up.
Updated
I welcome the Senate President’s statement today in relation to the derogatory, defamatory and sexist comments made by Senator Leyonhjelm.
— Sarah Hanson-Young💚 (@sarahinthesen8) August 13, 2018
I hope that the President’s statement can be a message to make both the Parliament and all other workplaces in Australia better for women
From Mike Bowers’s lens to your eyeballs:
Updated
And to answer a question which has been thrown around this afternoon, Patrick Gorman got his middle name – Possum – the most Australian way possible.
There were possums in the roof of the house his parents lived in when he was born. I kid you not. You can see him tell the story here, on the ABC Perth Facebook page.
Updated
Mitch Fifield’s office has just sent this out:
The Turnbull government has commenced an efficiency review of the public broadcasters, which was announced in the May budget.
[The] minister for communications and the arts, Senator Mitch Fifield, said the review would support the organisations to identify best public broadcasting practice.
“The ABC and SBS are vital public news and cultural institutions that are an important underpinning of media diversity and represent a major commonwealth contribution to civic journalism,” Minister Fifield said.
“In the fast-evolving world of media organisations, it is important to support our public broadcasters to be the best possible stewards of taxpayer dollars in undertaking their important work for the community.
“The review will assist the public broadcasters as they approach the next funding triennium through which more than $3.9bn will be provided from July 2019.”
Peter Tonagh and Richard Bean will conduct the review, assisted by the Department of Communications and the Arts in cooperation with the ABC and SBS.
Mr Tonagh has significant broadcasting and media experience including as chief executive officer of Foxtel until January 2018. He is currently chair of the not-for-profit Bus Stop Films, which gives people with intellectual disabilities opportunities to learn skills through filmmaking. Mr Tonagh is also a member of the Council of the Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS).
Mr Bean was acting chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority until October 2017. Before joining the ACMA in 2010, Mr Bean was general counsel at wireless broadband infrastructure owner and ISP, Unwired (subsequently acquired by Optus).
Further details including Terms of Reference for the Review are available at: communications.gov.au/national-broadcasters-efficiency-review
Updated
And for anyone who was wondering what Malcolm Turnbull was referring to, when he mentioned Bill Shorten not saying what he thinks when he on mic, it’s in regards to this:
Here is @billshortenmp, all miked up and ready to go on an outback adventure #Insiders #auspol pic.twitter.com/V2jKkBtx3N
— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) August 11, 2018
Which are offshoots from his drought tour last week, which was sent out by the pool feed camera (one TV camera goes out to these things to save money – the costs are split by media outlets who use the feed) and then distributed out.
Updated
For anyone wanting to see Tony Abbott’s reaction to Malcolm Turnbull’s public dressing down in real time, Sky has isolated the footage:
.@Mark_Butler_MP: Is the PM aware @TonyAbbottMHR has ridiculed claims power prices will fall under the NEG.@TurnbullMalcolm: The honorable member knows very well what happens when you allow ideology and idiocy to take charge of energy policy.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) August 13, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/ykweMevBOK #QT pic.twitter.com/CKpAPMLfZl
Pat Gorman makes his Politics Live debut, courtesy of Mike Bowers
Updated
Did anyone have Malcolm Turnbull smacking down Tony Abbott in question time bingo?
“On that stirring note,” Malcolm Turnbull ends question time.
Even the prime minister is trolling Paul Fletcher now.
Tony Burke is correcting the record on how much he invested in the Great Barrier Reef while a minister, as well as claims Josh Frydenberg has made about his record on the reef.
Updated
Tony Abbott reacts to the prime minister during an answer he gave in #qt “this is what happens when you allow ideology and idiocy to take over energy policy” @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/CsSiFMrAzK
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) August 13, 2018
Paul Fletcher is now talking about “increasingly popular trains” and I am wondering if Nasa has any more room on that probe which is headed to the sun’s surface. You know, just asking for a friend. (spoiler - it’s me).
Updated
For two weeks – since the Super Saturday byelections – the government has been dancing around the question of whether they will take the big business component of its 10-year company tax cut plan to the election.
Labor’s Penny Wong tried to nail the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, down again today in Senate question time.
Cormann:
“We are absolutely committed to taking business tax cuts to the next election - hopefully having been legislated by the Senate.”
Labor keen to construe this as a rock solid commitment. Taken literally “hopefully” would tend to suggest that regardless of whether the Senate passes it the commitment is to take the package to the next election. But to my ear it still sounds like it’s liable to change if the Senate blocks it.
Updated
Tony Burke to Josh Frydenberg:
My question is to the environment minister. Earlier he said the department assessed the foundation’s proposal – when did the department receive the foundation’s proposal, was that before or after they were offered half a billion dollars?
Frydenberg begins by trying to be a smart-alec but it backfires, which is a lesson for all of us:
The member for Watson must not have been listening very carefully [since I said it was] on 29 May, the foundation finalised the proposal. Mr Speaker, what is very clear, when we met on the 9 April, with the foundation, to solicit whether they were interested in ...”
The rest of the answer is the same as before, but Burke is looking very pleased indeed with that slip of ‘solicit’ from the minister’s tongue.
Updated
Tony Burke to Josh Frydenberg:
I missed the question, but mostly it was about how there were contradictions on how much the Great Barrier Reef Foundation had raised and “when the minister can’t give a straight answer on how much they raised and says this was the due diligence, how can the government say there was any due diligence on a foundation they did not even contact?’”
Josh Frydenberg:
We do know that Anna Marsden said to the 7.30 report, and I quote from the interview, I can confirm we have raised over $90m. These are audited figures. If you go to this website, we are the lead fundraisers to the Great Barrier Reef in over 18 years and have raised $90m, Mr Speaker, when it comes to the breakdown of the funding we know two-thirds, two-thirds have come from private and philanthropic sources,Mr Speaker. We know the state government from Queensland has contributed quite significantly, Mr Speaker. That is, the foundation has raised tens of millions of dollars from the private sector, and from the philanthropic sector, Mr Speaker. It has had money from the federal government when Labor was in power from the federal government when we were in power, and from the state Labor government.”
Burke asks him to table “the Google search that constituted due diligence he was just referring to”.
Frydenberg declines on the grounds of quoting from confidential documents.
Updated
Christopher Pyne just said some words on something, but he didn’t seem to be that into them, as it wasn’t about how terrible unions were, so I tuned out.
Updated
Mark Butler to Malcolm Turnbull:
Is he aware that the former prime minister, he has ridiculed claims power prices will fall under the national energy guarantee, saying, frankly, pigs might fly? Does the prime minister agree with the man he replaced?
It’s very nice of Butler to give the PM a chance to vent out some of his Abbott-induced rage:
The independent assessment of the Energy Security Board, the almost unanimous views of industry groups and business leaders around the country, all of whom support the national energy guarantee as a means of ensuring that we will have more affordable energy – the honourable member knows very well what happens when you allow ideology and idiocy to take charge of energy policy.
He knows very well what happens in South Australia, where you have the most expensive and least reliable electricity in Australia. The time has come for economic change, the national energy guarantee delivers that, and the Energy Security Board, comprising five of the most expert members of the community associated with energy policy, has delivered this policy, delivered this plan – it’s a good one, it has more support across the community than any energy policy I have seen in decades. And that’s why, Mr Speaker, it deserves the support of the opposition and all honourable members.
Mike Bowers, who is in the chamber, informs me that Tony Abbott threw his hands up in the air at the term “idiocy”.
I’ll bring you those pics, and more from QT, as soon as the madness slows.
Updated
Josh Frydenberg is now delivering a Dixer to his backbench to get on board the Neg.
Basically.
Updated
Labor’s Kristina Keneally has asked Mathias Cormann in Senate question time who came up with idea of the $444m grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and what due diligence was done before the initial meeting to discuss it.
Cormann said the idea “originated with the minister for the environment” – although it’s not clear if he means it was formally a cabinet submission from Josh Frydenberg or he was the first one to propose it in any forum.
He said the process “started some time ago”. But when pressed on what due diligence was conducted and Anna Marsden’s comments the foundation was not contacted, Cormann said he would take it on notice.
Updated
Josh Frydenberg gives timeline of reef grant approval
Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull:
Yesterday the environment minister said there was extensive due diligence – before the prime minister offered a small, private foundation almost $500m of taxpayers’ money in a closed-door meeting on the 9 April, but today the CEO explained no one in the foundation was contacted and she wasn’t aware there was a due diligence process under way. Could the prime minister detail the extensive due diligence that his minister referred to?
Turnbull punts the question to Josh Frydenberg:
It might help the House to run through a timeline, because the decision to make this funding available was the result of a considered process. Last May, in 2017 ... an interdepartmental task force led by my department to deal with the challenges facing the reef, leading to an announcement of $57m. I then took two submissions through the ERC process in March, which included seeking further funding for water quality, tackling the crown-of-thorns starfish, reef science, Indigenous engagement and the on-board management program, and a proposal to establish a partnership with a non-government organisation, which was the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
This was based on three things. The foundation’s proven track record in philanthropic support as Australia’s largest reef dedicated charity. Its extensive experience working with my department and key stakeholders are more than a decade. And the first phase of due diligence by my department, which looked at its governance, structure, constitution, project management, fundraising history, capacity, the growth, competition and scientific expertise. Following the ERC agreement, an interdepartmental committee was established to progress this proposal and I was given authority to approach the foundation, which occurred on the ninth of April, to determine whether they were interested in entering into partnership, subject to the successful negotiation of the partnership agreement and final phase of due diligence.
Over the next two weeks, the department worked with the foundation to develop the fundamental principles of the partnership, which included governance, risk-making, reporting, financial management and other things. I formally wrote on the 22 April to the chair outlining these collaboration principles, making it clear that any Australian government funds was dependent on negotiating and executing a new grant agreement.The foundation board agreed to these principles and agreed in a letter back to me on the 26 April. On the 29 April, the government announced our funding commitment, and it was included on the 8 May [budget]. On the 24 May, consistent with the guidelines, I approved the guidelines, outlining the necessary requirements to be included in the application, which were published on my website. On the 29 May, the foundation formalised their proposal, and on the 20 June, under section 71 of the public governance performance and accountability act, I approved the grant based on a recommendation from my department, and the second state of due diligence, which included as well work by the Australian government solicitor.
My department concluded this grant would meet the government’s policy commitment to protect the Great Barrier Reef, represented value for money and was consistent with the governance and accountability act.
Updated
Peter Dutton is handing out his daily parliamentary dose of safety.
Moving on.
After a Dixer to Kelly O’Dwyer, we get our first question on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation:
Bill Shorten:
Today Channel Nine news reported the almost $500m of taxpayer money the prime minister offered a small foundation was rushed out of parliament in a closed-door meeting in just 24 hours. Whether it is taxpayer-funded new fire stations or just his friends, why is this prime minister so careless with taxpayers’ money?
Malcolm Turnbull:
The honourable member demeans himself and his party with his smears but I’ll ask the minister for the environment to deal with the timeline and the process relating to that grant.
Josh Frydenberg:
We know the Labor party is only raising this issue because they have abandoned the voters in the seat of Herbert, they’ve abandoned the voters in Leichhardt, in the seat of Flynn, in the seat of Capricornia, and in the seat of Dorset. 64,000 people are employed with the reef, Mr Speaker. It provides more than $6bn to the Australian economy, Mr Speaker, and it has been the Turnbull government that has raised and supported extra money for the reef.
We know my department has made it clear in a report to the Senate that the partnership that is established through a grant agreement is in accordance with the relevant requirements of the public governance and accountability act 2013 and the commonwealth grant rules and guidelines. The process to establish the grant included the development of grant guidelines by the department to specify the intended outcome and conditions of the grant ... And their due diligence review of the department of the foundation’s proposal responding to the guidelines. Mr Speaker, the department made it very clear, and I’m quoting the department.
The department assessed that the foundation’s proposal represents value for money and is an appropriate use of commonwealth resources. So, at the end of the day, the leader of the opposition knows the only reason he is raising this is because, under the Labor party, the environment department’s funding for research projects was around 50% lower than what it is under the Coalition. That under the Labor party, their last year in office, their funding for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was nearly a half of what it is today.
The Labor party knows, when it was in government, they put the reef on the path to the endangered list. And the Labor party knows, in government, they had no long-term plans and no funding for the reef. Only the Coalition will stand up for a regional jobs and will support the reef with a record investment funding.
Updated
Josh Wilson gets the next question:
“The people of Fremantle voted for more money for schools and hospitals not banks. Instead of giving 17 billion dollars to the big banks policy for no Liberal candidate was willing to argue why when the Prime Minister support the Labour plan to invest 5 million to build an urgent care clinic at Fremantle Hospital”
Am I the only one noticing a theme here?
Greg Hunt:
“We aren’t just investing an extra $3.4 billion in funding for hospitals in Western Australia...and you know what? It was the West Australian labour government that signs that agreement, with the Prime Minister, and reached that agreement at the COAG earlier this year on a bipartisan is this is the coming month of $30 billion increase in hospital funding around Australia, three coalition states and territories sign up to more hospital funding, what do we see in Western Australia? And Labor’s last year in government, federal funding was $1.4 billion dollars. This year, its $2.2 billion. It will grow under the Prime Minister’s agreement to$3.2 billion that will be a three point $2 billion increase in federal funding to western Australia for hospitals.
“At the same time, to know what is interesting, we know from what the West Australian government has told us, the Leader of the Opposition and the Federal ALP tried to stop, WA from signing the agreement, they tried to stop Western Australia from signing up to more hospital funding, when you understand what this Leader of the Opposition is about, this is not without more hospital funding and WA or Queensland, because he was silent and Queensland at the slashing cuts of the Palaszczuk government, it’s not about more funding in Western Australia because you tried to stop the Western Australian labour government from signing up to an agreement with the Federal Government. It is about taking any chance from taking an advantage at the cost of the beery people he purports to represent in that says history that’s as practice that is his approach when he was not just the Leader of the Opposition, not just a minister in the previous government, but when he was a union leader, ripping money off the most vulnerable workers. At the end of the day what you see is $3.4 billion of additional federal funding for Western Australia for hospitals. An extra increase from $1.4 billion to more than doubling of $3.4 billion over the period from when Labour was last in government, to win the new hospital agreement reaches its final year. That’s real investment you can only do that, you can only do that when you have the economy which supports the ability to invest in new hospitals, new treatments and new medicines.
Adam Bandt had the crossbench question today, and it was on the Neg:
My question is about the modelling underpinning the final detailed design of the Neg. In response to the questions about drops and energy prices, all that was released was a single Excel spreadsheet file, minister will you today least the full modelling of the Neg before the Coalition party room considers that tomorrow? Does the government have no modelling beyond a single Excel spreadsheet?
Josh Frydenberg:
I appreciate the Greens’ interest in the Coalition party room because they are the party of the carbon tax, they are the party in partnership with the Labour party, which saw electricity prices increase each and every year when they were in office. Each and every year! Prices doubled! Mr Speaker, the member for Melbourne should know better, the modelling undertaken by Mr Allen was for the Energy Security Board, it made it very clear in a detailed report, they allowed and made public the technology costing, they made public their fuel costing, they made public the capital costing, they made public, Mr Speaker, the exchange rate, inflation rate, all the inputs which went into establishing that, together with the national energy guarantee, Australian households would be $500 a year better off, Mr Speaker.
That would see the wholesale price of power come down by 20%. That is significant! That means hundreds of thousands of dollars to be saved by hospitals, supermarkets, millions of dollars saved by chemical manufacturers, paper manufacturers, blue-collar workers that the Greens don’t even pretend to represent, Mr Speaker, because the Greens are all about ideology. The Coalition, when it comes to energy policy, is focusing on engineering and economics, Mr Speaker. The reality is, we have listened to the independent experts. The reality is, this policy has been backed by business, industry, and consumer groups. The reality is, this policy will reduce power prices together with existing policies, by $550 a year.
But the real question now is – do these blue-collared workers also shop at K-Mart? Because that is apparently the new touchstone.
Updated
Michael McCormack does not seem to have found a question time personality during the break.
Sigh.
On this day, where I am standing here, live blogging from freezing Canberra, instead of running around in the flu-riddled sunshine of the great Queensland Ekka, a nice little reminder of home has just popped into my ears – Ros Bates, a LNP Queensland MP is visiting the house. Why? I do not know.
Updated
Justine Keay gets the next question:
The people of Braddon voted for more money for schools and hospitals, not banks. Instead of giving $17bn to the big banks, why won’t the prime minister support Labor’s plan to invest $4.5m in TasReach services, which means Tasmanians could access vital services?
Malcolm Turnbull:
I thank the honourable member for her question, and I note that – I think around 58 more electors voted for the Labor party in the byelection than they had at the general election, so there was a very small swing to the Labor party, but it wasn’t a result that would set byelection records to say the least.
The honourable member is back, and we welcome her back, and the honourable member comes back knowing that the Tasmanian economy is doing better now – better now than it has for many years – and it’s doing better now because of Will Hodgman’s Liberal government. It’s doing better now because of the pro-business policies that we have delivered, and because one small and medium business after another in the electorate of Braddon is investing and employing. In fact, in the last monthly jobs figures, Tasmania saw an extra 2,100 new jobs.
It was a very substantial increase in employment, and of course it was a result of the encouragement that we are providing to business and investment. We are providing that encouragement, and that is delivering the confidence that we are seeing across Tasmania and across the honourable member’s electorate, and I have to say to the honourable member that the greatest threat to the jobs in her electorate would be the election of the party she is a member of to the federal government.
Updated
While Scott Morrison lets some steam out of the vent which has gathered since the winter recess, NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE LOUD NOISES, THAT IS WHAT A MICROPHONE IS FOR.
A brief history on Greg Hunt’s delightful “tissue of lies”:
Apparently, you have to use the days of yore use of tissue – or tyssu, as you will – which meant: ‘an intricately woven ornamental cloth’
By the 18the century it had begun to be thrown around to mean “the intermingling of characteristics, usually of a bad kind, and by January 1800 it was in the Monthly Review in this context:
The ingenuity and cunning of politicians are not infrequently employed to conceal or misinterpret facts; and venal writers are easily found, ready to construct a tissue of lies to serve the purposes of their employers.
Which could have been written today.
You can find out more – here
Updated
Susan Lamb (to cheers) is up next:
Why is the prime minister cutting $2.9m from the Caboolture hospital while giving $17bn to the big banks?
The chamber explodes into noise.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I’ll be calling on the minister in a moment. While we welcome the honourable member back from her absence, Mr Speaker, the great lie that the government is cutting funding from Caboolture hospital is one that the minister for health will now comprehensively refute as we have done every day that Labor has uttered it.
Greg Hunt:
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I want to back up what the prime minister says. What we saw for Queensland during that campaign from the ALP was a tissue of lies. An absolute farrago of dishonesty. How can we know this? Because, in the Metro North area, which includes the Caboolture hospital, what did Queensland Labor do in 2016-17? They cut funding to their own area, to their own hospitals by $20m. These are their figures. The cuts by Queensland Labor, about which the leader of the opposition was palpably silent, about which he said nothing, about which he put them in witness protection. We saw a $20m cut from Queensland Labor. And what did we do on our side? In that period there was a $120m increase in federal funding to the Metro North area. -20 million, Queensland Labor, plus $120m, the federal Coalition government.
Those are the facts based on not just our figures but the Queensland government’s figures, and those of the independent assessors in this space. So, while we’ve got up, they have reduced funding by $20m. It means Queensland is providing less money for beds in Caboolture hospital, less money for services and other treatments, and at the same time, what we have just done is guarantee $11m for increased drug and alcohol funding in Caboolture, an issue in relation to methamphetamines and the challenge on the streets which was raised by so many people. So we are increasing funding, Queensland Labor is decreasing funding, and when it really counts, federal Labor hid the fact that their own people in their own state are taking money away from their own hospitals.
Updated
And while Steve Irons gives the first Dixer (“great question” comes from the side which wrote it) a slight correction – Emma Husar is not in parliament, so we will have to wait another week for a full House.
Updated
Question time begins
Bill Shorten opens with how it is “marvellous to see these four members back in parliament” and then launches into the first question – which is on company tax cuts:
The government said the byelections would be a referendum on his corporate tax cuts. Will he now admit that Australian voters around this country rejected his $80bn handout to big business, including $17bn for the big banks? Or does the prime minister think the voters in Perth, Braddon, Fremantle and Longman got it wrong?
Malcolm Turnbull:
We will remember the honourable member standing here some years ago, saying lower company taxes would result in more productivity, more investment, more jobs and higher wages. And we remember that, of course, Mr Speaker. The microphone was on when he said that.
Normally he doesn’t say what he is thinking when he is on mic. We saw him on his outback tour, and he was miked up, and he said, I’m on mic, I can’t say what I’m thinking. The reality is Australians can’t know what the leader of the opposition is thinking, because he says one thing to one group and another to another.
What was he saying until the $11,000-a-head fundraiser?
Was he saying company taxes should be higher? I’m sure he was trying to weasel his way around there, trying to tap back to an earlier position. You won’t get any consistency from the leader of the opposition. All we know is that time and time again he tells people what they want to hear.
He has no consistency and that is why he cannot be trusted. He has failed Australians, to give them straight answers on tax, he has failed, just as he failed his members in the Australian Workers’ Union, to protect them. He goes around and talks about penalty rates – very important part of our industrial system, determined by the independent umpire, which he always said whose rulings he would support. But then, of course, when he was the leader of the AWU, one group of low-paid workers after another were abandoned by the leader of the opposition. He failed them as he fails Australians. When he is on mic, he doesn’t say what he is thinking, so he has assured us, and when he is off mic, he is no more reliable than when he is on.
Updated
Bill Shorten is giving his own statement on the drought.
Labor supports the government’s package but thinks it should be brought forward.
He actually mentions the term “climate change”, which I don’t think is allowed or something.
Updated
Things are going really well
I raised a question on #insiders yesterday about how the reef foundation could have been so surprised by the grant if the govt had already done due diligence on it, as Josh Frydenberg revealed in the interview - this from @InsidersABC about why a tweet of my comment was removed https://t.co/VsJ2Swc4HF
— Lenore Taylor (@lenoretaylor) August 13, 2018
For the record : it seems to me the foundation itself has challenged the key premise of the complaint we received from the PMO. https://t.co/Vqw6xe9gQX
— Barrie Cassidy (@barriecassidy) August 13, 2018
Malcolm Turnbull is making a statement on indulgence on the government’s drought response package. Not that we give “a rat’s” about what caused the drought though.
Updated
New (former) members (re) sworn into parliament
Susan Lamb
Justine Keay
Rebekha Sharkie
and
Josh Wilson
have all be re-sworn into the House of Representatives, to cheers from the Labor side of the House.
And Patrick Gorman (middle name Possum for those playing at home) also gets his first swearing in ceremony – he’s warmly greeted by Julie Bishop, while the Turnbull frontbench shakes all the hands that wander past.
This may be the first time each seat has been filled in the House since February.
Updated
It’s just before question time, which means we’ve crossed over to the House in time for members’ 90-second statements, the hallowed ground on which we play “name that MP” (vale PVO and Kristina Keneally).
This is an easy one for a Queenslander – Bert Van Manen and Graham Perrett.
Updated
Tony Abbott is Leigh Sales’ guest on 7.30 tonight.
He’s just here to help, ahead of the all important Coalition joint party room meeting on the Neg tomorrow.
Updated
Deborra-lee Furness is in town – she’s still working on changes to Australia’s adoption laws.
Updated
The man dubbed the “Tasmanian tiger” by Michael McCormack when he joined the Nationals, (which was always amusing given the Tasmanian tiger is, you know, extinct. Allegedly.) has wandered across the Senate chamber and is sitting near Louise Pratt and Penny Wong as the second reading bill goes through.
Updated
Nationals senator Steve Martin – who ran on the Jacqui Lambie Network ticket, allowing him to inherit her Senate seat after her dual citizenship disqualification – has just announced to the Senate he will vote against the government on the bill to lower the student debt threshold.
Martin: “Some would say I’d be crossing the floor against my party, however I see it as staying true to my word. I’d like to thank my National party colleagues … they have supported with some understandable trepidation my independence on this topic, close to my heart.”
The bill would lower the repayment threshold for student loans to $45,000 and introduce a replenishable lifetime limit on student loans.
The Senate is dividing on the second reading stage, the bill is still expected to pass. I’ve confirmed Centre Alliance are still in support.
Updated
Steve Martin is indicating in the Senate he will cross the floor (he’s a Nat now, remember, keep up) and vote against the government’s student debt bill. Paul Karp is working a post up on that now for you
Not auspol related, but related to how I often feel about politics – we have successfully launched something into the sun.
There is hope.
Updated
Tim Watts read Barnaby Joyce’s book and well – I’ll let him tell you his thoughts:
⚡️“Australia, Take Barnaby's Book Seriously. Seriously!”https://t.co/Wy3hqbrJVY
— Tim Watts MP (@TimWattsMP) August 13, 2018
Updated
Thank you to the Australian Senate account (and their companion House of Representatives account, which is run by an entirely separate person. Allegedly) for keeping us updated:
ICYMI: the bill was defeated in the Senate at the second reading https://t.co/en20UwRJdF
— Australian Senate (@AuSenate) August 13, 2018
I’d up those Great Barrier Reef Foundation questions predictions:
24 hours. Money into the Department, money out to the private foundation. All $444m. @CUhlmann reports with new #reefgate revelations: https://t.co/OTIcS7BOc6
— Kristina Keneally (@KKeneally) August 13, 2018
It has been quite the day already and we are yet to even get to question time.
How many of Labor’s questions will be on the Great Barrier Reef foundation grant? Half or three-quarters? And how many of the answers will be variations of “we care about the reef”, “best people for the job”, “because we said so?” without actually answering the questions?
I know the government is getting testy over this – but this is a tree they have planted entirely on their own.
Updated
Further to the questions swirling around the Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant, our environment reporter Lisa Cox has written about the contradiction between what Josh Frydenberg said and what the foundation’s head, Anna Marsden, has said:
The managing director of a foundation given $443.8m for the Great Barrier Reef says she was not aware the government was conducting due diligence on the charity before it awarded them the grant.
Anna Marsden told ABC radio on Monday the government had not contacted anyone at the foundation when it was determining whether the not-for-profit could administer the grant.
“I wasn’t [contacted],” she said. “I wasn’t aware that the diligence process was under way, no.”
The comments bring into question remarks by the environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, that the government did “extensive due diligence” on the foundation before awarding it close to half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.”
You can read the whole report, here
Updated
Mike Bowers went into the chamber to capture this to show everyone he is no longer twinning with Craig Kelly.
It’s too late. We all know the truth. Inspiration can come from anywhere when it comes to fashion, and while Bowers may have chosen a strange one, it is not for me to judge.
Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant again under question
Curiouser and curiouser
The story about the Turnbull government’s grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation just keeps on giving. A representative of the foundation said as recently as this morning that no one in the organisation was contacted as part of any exercise in due diligence done by the government prior to 9 April.
But the government has offered new information as part of a complaint a government spokesman made about some comments about the story made on the Insiders program by Guardian Australia’s editor, Lenore Taylor, on Sunday. I gather Insiders was asked to remove a clip of Taylor’s comments.
Clarification: a government spokesperson told @insidersABC after yesterday's program that the Environment Department sought information from GBRF in March about its operations and structure, prior to the meeting with the Prime Minister and Environment Minister in April. 1/2
— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) August 13, 2018
As a result of this new information, we deleted a tweet from yesterday's program. 2/2
— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) August 13, 2018
The rationale for the request to remove the clip was this: the environment department sought information from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in March about its operations and structure – prior to a meeting with the prime minister and the environment minister in April.
To my knowledge, this is the first time anyone from the government has offered up this information.
Another government spokesman has said today that the department did some “preliminary” or “desktop” or “high level” due diligence on the foundation’s record before the April meeting.
We’ll pursue questions about this today. I suspect we won’t be the only ones.
Updated
Richard Di Natale has given a press conference. His first piece of business – the $444m grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation:
No transparency, and thinks that’s OK. This is a disgrace, an absolute scandal. I heard Senator Cormann saying no one appeared to be interested in this in the Senate. I’ve let him know the Greens were pursuing this at Senate estimates months ago. We were pursuing this with my colleague because we knew it was a scandal then, and it’s a scandal now. The fact that you could have $500m of taxpayer money being handed to an organisation that calls it ‘winning the lottery’ when they win that money without public oversight says everything about Malcolm Turnbull’s government. Whenever he is in trouble, he reverts to type. He hands money over to his big business mates. He tries to buy his way out of trouble.
“This is for the who’s W=who of the big end of town. It’s a disgrace and every cent should be handed back. If we had an anticorruption watchdog, this is precisely what they would be examining right now. If we had a national anticorruption watchdog, Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg would be grilled over their involvement in what is a scandalous waste of taxpayer money.”
Updated
Rod Sims is out from this address of the Nationals party room – and says that his main point is that energy in this country has to be addressed as a total package. Tl;dr: you can’t just focus on one sector – it has to be a whole package. *cough not just coal cough*
He also mentioned that the ACCC was only concerned with bringing power prices down.
Updated
Senator David Leyonhjelm is conducting a briefing for MPs and senators about the bill to restore the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory’s rights to legislate for euthanasia.
Leyonhjelm and the Greens are confident the bill has as many as 42 votes in the Senate – but with no commitment to bring it to a vote in the lower house the Liberal Democrat is keen to increase pressure on the government.
Updated
Rod Sims from the ACCC briefed the Nationals party room on the Neg.
And you thought your Monday was bad.
He’s due to emerge from the bear pit soon, so we’ll let you know what he had to say.
Woulds, not coulds, but nothing about shoulds.
Back in the Senate, Penny Wong has given notice of a motion looking at the Cambodian elections.
The motion, to be debated tomorrow, “expresses its serious concerns with Cambodia’s 2018 national election and welcomes assurances that the government has made Australia’s concerns known to the Cambodian government” as well as:
(2) Notes the election process, which has included the dissolution of the Cambodia National Rescue party (CNRP), the detention of CNRP leader Kem Sokha, and the banning of CNRP parliamentarians and officials from engaging in politics for five years, has reversed more than 25 years of progress towards democracy in Cambodia;
(3) Recognises freedom of expression and association underpin democratic
societies and affirms concerns the election took place in an environment
where not all political parties, civil society organisations and media could
operate freely;
(4) Expresses its disappointment that Cambodian people have been unable to freely choose their representatives and recognises that the development of strong democratic practices and institutions — including a free press and civil society — is crucial to Cambodia’s long-term prosperity;
(5) Reiterates that as a longstanding friend of Cambodia, Australia must continue to urge the Cambodian government to take steps to allow free and open political debate without violence and intimidation;
(6) Acknowledges the Australian Cambodian community for its tireless advocacy in support of human rights and democracy in Cambodia;
(7) Calls on the Cambodian government to immediately release opposition leader Kem Sokha;
(8) Notes allegations of involvement in illicit activities, including money laundering, by members of the Cambodian People’s party in Australia, and urges full investigation of these claims; and
(9) Calls on the Australian government to consider, in coordination with other partners, additional measures to support democracy in Cambodia.
Updated
Labor’s position on the Neg has not changed:
.@Mark_Butler_MP on the NEG: Labor does not support taxpayer funds going to an investment that the industry itself has said is ‘uninvestable’.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) August 13, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/q2MPtM7LaW #SkyLiveNow pic.twitter.com/5uQWYK3IkO
Just a bit more on coulds versus woulds from Barnaby Joyce:
What I’ll be looking for is, what is the alternative? It’s got to be real. It can’t be a statement of could. Could doesn’t carry weight. Would does. What is the would that they are going the make sure that if this comes unstuck, that both for the person most importantly who is doing it tough in the regional towns who can’t afford their bills now, what do we say to them that we, if the power prices don’t go down, we have to capacity to drive them down. We have to be able to answer that question and from a political position, you better be able to answer it before a federal election.”
Democratic crisis averted – Claire Moore is on her feet in the Federation Chamber, so it looks like someone finally made it to the speaker’s chair.
Updated
And finally, Derryn Hinch:
“I support the comments made by Senator Di Natale and Senator Wong and your own comments, Mr President,
“I noticed that as Senator Leyonheljm walked out he joked to Senator Bernardi: ‘I am walking out very proudly.’
“He has learned nothing. His comments, earlier in the session, were disgusting, and he compounded them all by going on Sky News and gloating about what he had said and why he would not apologise.
“He took some pride in the fact that he will not apologise for his comments.
I noticed Senator Hanson-Young in her workplace – and it is a workplace – in tears down here that very morning, and I thought, ‘What the hell is happening here.’ I think Senator Leyonheljm should hang his head in shame, and I’ll support any censure motion that Senator Di Natale puts forward.”
Updated
Penny Wong:
I thank the Senate. First, Mr President, can I congratulate you on your statement? I think it sets out very clearly not only the procedural issues but also the ethical issues, which go to the heart of what we are dealing with here. So can I indicate our support for not only the process you outlined but the principles which you asserted in that statement. And in particular, that we recognise that, whilst this is a place of vigorous debate – as it should be: there are matters of contest here, matters we all care about, and we have different views – but the reference to race or gender has no place in debate, in that vigorous debate.
“I endorse your view that we are capable of debate without resorting to the sorts of labels and comments that we have witnessed and that you reference.
“In terms of how we in the Labor party have sought to approach this, our approach has been, primarily, to think about how it is that we make this chamber a better place, particularly for all women, and how we make this a better place for diversity. That is why I take the view that the president’s statements contribute to that end. We certainly don’t want to get into individual partners in politics when dealing with these matters. I’m sure that all of us, at times, can behave better, but our focus will always be on how we make this a better place for women to be involved in and for people from diverse backgrounds to be involved in, and that is how we will continue to approach this matter.
“I note that Senator Di Natale has flagged a range of processes. We’ll consider them. I do indicate, given the tone of the way in which the president has dealt with this, it would have been a sensible thing to give people notice of that before indicating it.”
Updated
That sound you hear is the roster being desperately pulled up in Christopher Pyne’s office to find out who is tardy:
If you were wanting to view the Federation Chamber today don’t worry. The coalition chair hasn’t bothered to turn up so the Chamber can’t function. #chaos #auspol
— Tony Burke (@Tony_Burke) August 13, 2018
Richard Di Natale then flagged the censure motion (as my colleague Paul Karp just pointed out, the Greens are continuing to work with David Leyonhjelm on getting the euthanasia bill through the Senate, so they are still managing to work on policy while all of this is going on – as is right).
As elected representatives for the Australian community, it is our duty as senators to behave in a manner that sets a standard for respectful behaviour and decency in this country. The behaviour we witnessed from Senator Leyonhjelm towards his colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young during the last sitting week was disgraceful. It was designed to humiliate and to intimidate a fellow senator. The men who use sexism to belittle or intimidate women should never be tolerated in a decent society, let alone in this parliament. Yet in the parliament it seems that anything goes.
“Last year, we witnessed the spectacle of Senator Pauline Hanson entering the chamber wearing a burqa. It was done with the deliberate intent of humiliating an entire religious community, and for what reason? For base political motives—to exploit racism for her own personal gain. These two examples—the example of Senator Leyonhjelm and, indeed, the example of Senator Hanson—represent some of the lowest points that we have experienced in this place. And it isn’t just our fellow senators who are the collateral damage when the debate turns nasty. It is members of the Australian community who are also victims of this vicious behaviour. Our actions send a very clear message about what is acceptable behaviour.
“We will be putting forward a censure motion to condemn Senator Leyonhjelm’s actions in the strongest possible terms, condemning his behaviour towards Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. He needs to be held to account for his actions. This parliament needs to send a very clear message about what is expected of political leaders in this place. Of course, more than that, we need to ensure that this type of behaviour is not tolerated in the future. We have long advocated for a code of conduct in the Senate because our parliament should—and must—do better. We should set the standard. We should not be the example of what not to do. And if senators cannot be trusted to act with decency and integrity in this chamber, then it’s about time we all agreed on what is decent behaviour, and we hold each other to account to that standard.”
Updated
Keep in mind this is a draft – so it may not be word-perfect. But here is what Scott Ryan had to say on the comments David Leyonhjelm made against Sarah Hanson-Young before the Senate broke for the winter recess:
On Thursday, 28 June, an exchange between two senators occurred in the chamber and became the subject of substantial public debate and commentary. I believe it is appropriate to address this now, as the Senate resumes for its current session. The facts are these. An exchange occurred between senators Hanson-Young and Leyonhjelm. I did not hear any of the comments made, nor were they drawn to the attention of the chamber at the time. Technically they did not form part of the Senate proceedings. The issue was raised with me later that day by Senator Di Natale, and I pursued a resolution to the matter privately. It was then subsequently brought to the attention of the chamber. No specific action was sought from the chair at the time, and it is now a matter of public record.
In my view, had the exchange occurred as reported, as part of the proceedings of the Senate, there is no doubt that the chair would have required certain comments to be withdrawn. I have an authority, as president, to force an apology or apply a sanction to any senator. Such actions are matters for the Senate. Since these events, I have considered the application of standing orders and custom and practice to events that occur in the chamber but that do not form part of formal proceedings. The relevant standing order regarding the conduct of senators are, firstly, No 193 (3), rules of debate:
A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament … or any member of such House … and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections … shall be considered highly disorderly.
This provision specifically applies to the formal proceedings, to debate in this chamber. However, standing order 203 is broader and is entitled ‘infringement of order’. Specifically, part (1) of that outlines:
If a senator:
(b) is guilty of disorderly conduct;
(c) uses objectionable words, and refuses to withdraw such words;
the president may report to the Senate that the senator has committed an offence.
Standing order 197 provides that a senator may at any time raise a point of order arising in the proceedings then before the Senate, meaning it must be raised at the time of the incident. It has been the practice in this chamber to allow senators to raise a point of order about language used in exchanges that is not recorded in Hansard as part of the formal proceedings of the Senate. When outside the hearing of the chair, this has been followed by a request to withdraw inappropriate language if the language was used. Importantly, the practice of allowing this to be addressed immediately ensures those present are in the chamber when the matter is addressed. If a statement is not recorded in Hansard, and was outside the hearing of the chair, the chair and chamber are reliant upon the honesty of senators involved, with the understanding that it is always possible for statements to be misheard or misattributed.
Therefore, in my view, it is the established practice of this chamber that the standing orders do not simply or strictly apply to formal proceedings or records in the chamber but to other interactions as well. Any senator, not just those subject to them or involved in any exchange, has the capacity to draw comments to the attention of the chair and the chamber. I intend to write to the deputy president, as chair of the procedure committee, and ask the committee to give consideration to handling matters that occur in the chamber but that are not part of the formal proceedings and are not raised in the Senate at that time.
More generally, I ask senators to consider the following: this chamber is the prime delivery chamber of the parliament. It is far better that positive attention is attracted by our words and contributions to debate. On several occasions in recent times, this has not been the case. The standing orders and rules of this place are limits, not guides. Just because something can be said or done does not mean it should be. Common decency cannot be codified. It depends on all of us considering the impact of our behaviour on others. While this isn’t a workplace like a normal one, it is still a place where we all must work together, even across issues of profound disagreement.
We also work with officials and staff, and should consider the impact of our behaviour on them. This is rightly a place of vigorous debate, but personal abuse has no place in this chamber – particularly if it targets personal attributes such as race or gender. Nor does the use of abusive epithets or labels. The use of such language does nothing to facilitate the operation of the chamber and free debate within it, and we are all capable of vigorously arguing our case without resort to it. I intend to take a strict line on the use of such language to uphold the dignity of the chamber and to ensure it is a place where all senators representing the people of their states and territories are able to freely contribute to debate and deliberations.
Finally, it is sometimes said that parliament is at its best when dealing with issues of conscience, and all senators speak freely and personally on such issues. Throughout this week, we will have the opportunity to again demonstrate that.”
Updated
Senate addresses Leyonhjelm/Hanson-Young matter
The Senate has begun its proceedings – and has opened with a comment on what happened in the last sitting, where David Leyonhjelm made comments on Sarah Hanson-Young. I am not going to repeat them here.
The Senate president, Scott Ryan, said “the reference to race or gender has no place” in the vigorous debate of the Senate. I’ll bring you his statement in just a moment.
Richard Di Natale said the Greens would be moving a censure motion against Leyonhjelm.
Penny Wong congratulated Ryan on his statement and the position he has taken. She says everyone should be working to make the parliament a safer workplace for women.
She acknowledged Di Natale’s indication that a censure motion will be put forward and said Labor would look at it, but that she would have appreciated more notice.
Derryn Hinch also spoke. He said he believed Leyonhjelm had “learned nothing” from what happened, and had left the chamber joking with Cory Bernardi. He will support “any motion Senator Di Natale puts forward”.
Updated
And on that, one thing you may have noticed, is that Barnaby Joyce is yet to say what his alternative policy *would* be – just what it *could* be – and how much power prices would drop by, if his plan was enacted.
So basically, he gets to run around, throwing stones, dropping the weatherboard and iron, the k-marts and the local pubs, but not give any solutions.
I come from those people he talks about. I can tell you, they want solutions. They already know what the problems are. They just want some answers.
But populist politics doesn’t work that way – you just get to tell people they have a right to be angry, and that seems to be enough.
(And yes, the journalists are asking the questions – over and over and over again – but that doesn’t mean we get the answers.)
Updated
“I don’t work on coulds, I work by woulds,” Barnaby Joyce says.
Barnaby Joyce is also back and continuing his re-rebranding exercise as the bush’s number one warrior on power prices.
He says that people in “K-Mart and down at the local pub, they don’t care about the Paris agreement, it means nothing to them. It has no purpose. What matters to them is this – that they can be able to afford their power bills and they currently cannot. It is not about power prices staying where they are – they are too high – they have got to go down and when you look at the wholesale market, and I made enquiries last night of electricity broker, a major one, it is basically at the spot price for a megawatt of power is $89. For the first quarter next year, 2019, the spot price is [$105.90c – I will have to check this, as the audio dropped out] so they are factoring in a rise in electricity prices.”
Updated
Tony Abbott is on 2GB.
He is talking about his favourite topic – the Abbott cabinet – and engaging in his favourite activity – rewriting the history of the Abbott cabinet.
This time it is in relation to the Paris commitment. Times have changed, he says, therefore sensible people need to change their minds with the times.
He says he signed up when the Paris commitment wasn’t going to cost much money, but that hasn’t turned out to be the case, so that’s why he is advocating pulling out of Paris.
He, unlike Craig Kelly, has not been won over by Malcolm Turnbull’s commitment to look into coal as a baseload power source.
“I am very suspicious of governments which demand something today on the basis of vague promises tomorrow,” he tells Ray Hadley.
Updated
That awkward moment when you show up to work in the same outfit:
Who wore it better? (Thanks to @ellinghausen for the friendly fire troll) @mpbowers pic.twitter.com/i7LOeyr83z
— Amy Remeikis (@AmyRemeikis) August 12, 2018
I once turned up wearing a blue gingham shirt which was exactly the same as the one my male colleague was wearing. We sat next to each other in the office and caused much mirth for the newsroom. But I imagine it’s nothing compared to what Mike Bowers is going to get from his colleagues for wearing the same outfit as Craig Kelly.
David Leyonhjelm had a chat at doors this morning where he spoke about the deal he said he struck with the prime minister – that he would vote for the government’s bill re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission (which was controversial at the time, given libertarians are usually against red tape and further regulations) in exchange for getting a vote in both houses on his legislation to re-establish the right for territories to legislate for euthanasia.
Malcolm Turnbull has since denied any such deal was struck.
That has left the Liberal Democrats senator a bit cranky:
“[If the government continues] rejecting or denying the deal that I had with the prime minister to bring my bill to the House if it passes the Senate, I am going to be very hard to persuade with anything to do with the Neg.”
Updated
Mike Bowers was out and about and caught Craig Kelly in all his red parka glory.
To be fair it is still fecking freezing here.
Updated
Emma Husar will not be in parliament this week.
As recommended by the review, the Lindsay MP will be taking part in a return-to-work plan with the Department of Finance’s ministerial and parliamentary services.
Updated
Backbench committee gets a promotion – to the cabinet room
Little bit of breaking news for fellow Neg nerds. I gather the energy minister Josh Frydenberg has summoned the government backbench committee on environment and energy to the cabinet room at 8.30pm this evening to discuss the national energy guarantee.
The committee members will examine the commonwealth’s legislation giving effect to the emissions reduction component of the scheme, and Frydenberg is bringing along members of the Energy Security Board to answer questions the MPs might have.
Frydenberg has decreed tonight’s session is for committee members only, but it’s likely Tony Abbott will attend tonight’s meeting, given he has been attending meetings of the backbench committee of late.
It’s also likely that the folks from the ESB will have to answer some questions about how the Neg fits with separate recommendations from the ACCC to boost competition in the electricity market.
Updated
Your new, old MPs will be (re)sworn into the House at 2pm.
And Pat Gorman will be sworn in for the first time – he won Perth after Tim Hammond stepped down to spend more time with his family.
Updated
Heading into the Senate for a moment – despite chat that it’s all about company tax and its dying gasps (even if One Nation flips again, Centre Alliance are going nowhere) the only thing listed for debate is euthanasia.
That’s because just before the parliament went on recess, Labor, the Greens and the crossbench supported David Leyonhjelm in his bid to have the matter dealt with, with the end result being the government is now forced to bring this to a vote in the Senate before it can deal with anything else.
What happens after that – eg bringing it to the House – is anyone’s guess.
Just for a refresher – Leyonhjelm seeks to reinstate the territories’ right to enact voluntary dying legislation (which was taken from them in 1997, after the Northern Territory passed a bill allowing it)
Gareth Hutchens wrote about the state of play here.
Updated
Craig Kelly (wearing a fetching red parka) also had a chat to the ABC this morning – he’s happy with Malcolm Turnbull’s let’s-look-into-coal promise:
I’m still waiting to see the final details but I’m 100% behind the prime minister. He’s exactly right that we should be, as the government, underwriting the construction of new baseload power. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s coal. It will be the cheapest option, whatever can supply that electricity to the grid 24-7, 365 days a year basis, not just on some type of intermittent supply backed up for a few hours. If it’s not coal, if it’s gas or some combination of renewables … I’m more than happy for that, but as long as it’s at the lowest cost.”
Updated
Among the byelection campaigns, tax and energy talks was the slow burner of the Great Barrier Reef $444m grant, which is the government’s bad penny at the moment.
It doesn’t help that Josh Frydenberg doesn’t seem to be able to come up with an answer as to why there was no tender process. Or do much more than say they were the best group for the job. Despite there being no tender process.
Tony Burke and Kristina Keneally have led the charge from the opposition. This morning, Burke linked the reef grant with Malcolm Turnbull’s coal-fired power station sweetener to the backbench while chatting to the ABC:
We are talking about whether or not something’s a sensible investment as well, whether it’s economic and whether something’s going to be the best use of taxpayers’ money. A new coal-fired power station doesn’t tick the boxes, the only thing it does is satisfy some of the people in this government’s party room who’re obsessed with their belief that the climate isn’t changing, that Paris is a global conspiracy. If they are the people running energy policy, then Australian taxpayers can know that Malcolm Turnbull is as careless with their money on energy as he was with the Great Barrier Reef.”
Updated
Good morning and welcome back!
We start the first day of parliament after the winter recess exactly where we left off in June – arguing about company tax and energy.
And then there is Newspoll, with the government having lost their I-don’t-know-but-well-over-30th in a row, 51 to 49.
Susan Lamb, Justine Keay and Rebekha Sharkie will all be back in their seats today (along with Josh Wilson and Pat Gorman) so not a lot of changes there either.
The more things change, the more they stay exactly the same.
Coal is still on the agenda, because that’s where we are in 2018. To get the national energy guarantee through, it looks like Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg will be attempting to sweet-talk the backbench with the promise of using the ACCC recommendation for baseload power to talk coal fired power stations.
That will definitely fix it. (We really need a sarcasm punctuation mark)
But they are on a pretty tight deadline. The Labor states want the approval of the Coalition party room before they get serious about looking at the Neg (outside of Victoria’s extra demands for regulation, not legislation) which gives the government a little under a month to get things moving – Victoria goes into caretaker mode in October for its state election. Then New South Wales goes into caretaker mode in February for its election. And with the federal election being held in either March or May, that doesn’t leave a lot of wriggle room.
My prediction – the government will be heading into the election with the Neg as a policy promise, rather than a legislated deal.
We have a lot of the same old ground to cover, so let’s get started. The Guardian’s brain trust has been out and about since the crack of dawn this morning. I’ll bring you their updates. And Mike Bowers is back – follow him at @mikepbowers or @mpbowers and you’ll also find him at @pyjamapolitics with me, giving a welcome back to parliament a little later this morning.
You’ll find me in the comments, although if it is urgent, hit me up at @amyremeikis.
I am on coffee number three, so this is going to be fun. Ready?
Let’s get into it.
Updated
