And on that note, I am going to close down the blog before my head explodes.
We’ll be back early tomorrow morning. Being Tuesday, that means it’s party-room time, and there ain’t no party like a bunch-of-people-pretending-they-are-all-under-the-one-policy-umbrella party.
We’ll bring you that, as well as everything else ghost-of-climate-wars past.
A very big thank you to Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy, Paul Karp and Sarah Martin, as well as everyone else in the Guardian brains trust.
And thank you to you for following along, and all the messages. Apologies if I didn’t get back to you, it gets a bit hectic, but I do try to at least read them all.
We’ll see you tomorrow. Until then – take care of you.
Updated
Barnaby Joyce is explaining why some, including the Liberal-National NSW state government, are living in a “fairytale nirvana” by having a target of net zero emissions by 2050. He’s on Sky News.
Updated
Narrator: they did not.
After the one minute silence for Hannah Clarke and her children, will the Government support my motion to strip Bettina Arndt of her Order of Australia for the reprehensible victim blaming she has engaged in? pic.twitter.com/NJeCcgTxGW
— Larissa Waters (@larissawaters) February 24, 2020
Updated
Asked about the criticism the government has levelled at her climate bill – which includes establishing a statutory body to monitor Australia’s emissions reduction action, which government MPs have claimed would amount to an “unelected tsar” making policy decisions on behalf of Australia – Zali Steggall says:
That is rubbish, that is like saying the RBA is an unelected tsar of the Australian economy; it is a very good, expert base arbiter of what needs to be done.
At the end of the day the RBA doesn’t take what the treasurer does in the way of policy but ... raises concerns when there are issues that need to be addressed.
The commission would do the same. An expert-based commission, it would still appoint people to the commission, with appointments approved by the joint parliamentary committee – again, trying to take the partisan politics out of this and make this bipartisan approach to climate policy, the way the UK has.
I can only assume that those comments from Jason [Falinski] and Tim [Wilson] are really just trying, they are scrambling, because they know everybody needs to get to a net zero by 2050. The business community knows this, state Coalition governments know this; for some reason, they can’t seem to get their head around it.
Updated
Zali Steggall does say, though, that Bettina Arndt being awarded an Australia Day honour “cheapened” the award:
I was dumbfounded by that. Having received that medal myself I prize that in recognition of service to Australia and the community.
I felt that cheapened the award and brought it into disrepute. I can certainly sympathise with the victims out there that that award, in light of her comments, is really hard to comprehend.
Updated
Zali Steggall shaking her head, as Patricia Karvelas lays out Pauline Hanson’s comments on the Queensland man who murdered his wife and children, is all of us.
But she doesn’t say whether or not Hanson should be removed from the family law court inquiry, as the Greens are calling for.
Updated
Anthony Albanese has been on Sky News, talking to Kieran Gilbert. He is asked if Labor has learned the lesson of the last election and is prepared to put a cost-and-detail to its policy. He says, as he has all day, that yes, of course Labor has taken on that lesson, and it will consult with all the different sectors before it lands on its final roadmap.
I say this to you here, Kieran, and when did Scott Morrison go on your program or on Insiders and be prepared to subject himself to a debate about the costs of inaction?
Because I tell you what, we saw a bit of the cost of inaction over the bushfire season, when we lost 33 lives, when we lost over 3,000 homes, when we lost 12m hectares of land – when we have, who knows what the cost is.
What we know is that the cost of that season certainly won’t be $2bn that the government talks about. We know that more extreme weather events, we know the predictions are an increase in droughts. We know the consequences of dangerous climate change are catastrophic for our economy.
Global economists predict that the cost of a greater-than-2C increase in global temperatures will be between 15 and 25% lower economic growth – a greater cost than we saw during the Great Depression.
And one of the things that your job has to be, if I can be so bold, is to hold the government to account, that have Treasury, that have Finance, that won’t meet its 2030 target.
That’s why they went to Madrid and argued for an accounting trick rather than actually lowering their emissions.
Updated
And on the public spat he and Barnaby Joyce engaged in this morning, Joel Fitzgibbon tells Patricia Karvelas:
Barnaby Joyce and I having a spat in Parliament House is nothing unusual.
There are some things we agree on but plenty we disagree on, and of course he was out there spinning like he usually does, misrepresenting Labor’s position and really dancing the dance of distress because he knows that with the support of the BCA, the farmers’ federation, Meat and Livestock Australia, premier Berejiklian and other state premiers and territory leaders, Santos, BHP, they have a job ahead of them now that we’ve embraced such a sensible policy proposal to give the majority of Australians what they are looking for, and that is meaningful action on climate change.
Updated
Joel Fitzgibbon on why he doesn’t think coal jobs will be impacted by Labor’s 2050 policy:
What we are striving to do is meet the commitment made in Paris by Malcolm Turnbull and the commitment requires us to take account of the emissions here in Australia, not the emissions emitted by other countries when, for example, they buy our coal ...
There is no need to do any harm to the coalmining industry and we will not do any harm, exporting our coal to markets in Asia, earning foreign exchange, the foreign exchange which enables us to pay for the imports and cars.
Updated
Joel Fitzgibbon just had a chat to Patricia Karvelas about the problems he has with a 2030 target for Labor:
The problem with the 2030 target is that we don’t know what we’re going to inherit from Scott Morrison.
He says he has this aspirational goal target to get to 26-28% by 2030 and it’s very clear that is not going to come anywhere near close to meeting the target.
He wants to cheat by fiddling the books and using Kyoto credits. They don’t count and should not count. Let’s see where Scott Morrison is and we are two years from the election. We’ve made the commitment on zero net emissions and we’ve got plenty of time now to consult.
Updated
Current policy has us on track to +3C of global warming, so what are Govt’s assessed costs to jobs and economy of this?
— 🌏 Zali Steggall MP (@zalisteggall) February 24, 2020
This is an important costing & PM has no answer for the Aus people. Can we afford the Coalition’s bill? #auspol #climateactnow #qthttps://t.co/jdHzJ1KbMH
Question time, as seen by Mike Bowers:
Updated
Right, here is what the National Farmers’ Federation’s position on carbon neutrality is:
The current NFF climate policy does not include a reference to net zero emissions by 2050.
We have committed in the roadmap for a $100bn industry by 2030 that we want to be on a trajectory to carbon neutrality by 2030, and to do so want to work with the major commodities to develop sector plans by 2025.
Given our commitment to growth towards a $100bn sector, that has been signed on to by both major political parties, the industry would have real difficulty in supporting any target/proposal that would put the competitiveness or ongoing growth of major agricultural sectors at risk.
This is a complex issue for agriculture and we continue to seek sufficient detail on any commitments, including net zero by 2050, to inform the best policy outcome for the sector.
Updated
Before question time, the government’s bill for an amnesty for employers who failed to pay superannuation passed the Senate, despite Labor’s attempt to amend it to include an enforceable right for unions and workers to pursue unpaid super in the Fair Work Commission.
Rex Patrick told the Senate Centre Alliance he decided to support the bill after the assistant minister for superannuation, Jane Hume, made a commitment to consider Labor’s amendment separately.
Hume confirmed the government would “consider the options outlined in Labor’s amendment” in the next six months, because it believed it needed “considerable time and scrutiny” before the plan could be approved.
Hume said in a statement:
This policy is all about reuniting hardworking Australians with their super. We anticipate at least $160m of super will be paid to Australian workers who would otherwise miss out.
Since the one-off amnesty was originally announced back in 2018, over 7,000 employers have already come forward to voluntarily disclose historical unpaid super. We estimate an additional 7,000 employers will come forward in the next six months before the amnesty ends.
Employers will not be off the hook. To use the amnesty, they must still pay all that is owing to their employees, including the high rate of interest. However, the amnesty will make it easier for workers to secure the super they are owed by not hitting employers with the penalties usually associated with late payment.
Labor believes that the amount the government is claiming will be paid back pales in comparison to the $5.9bn a year that Industry Super Australia has estimated is ripped off by employers from workers.
The good news is this problem should be a thing of the past because Australian Tax Office oversight is much improved, with single touch payroll giving them real-time information when employers fail to pay super.
Updated
The last moment the House actually achieved anything:
The House rises in place as a mark of respect for Hannah Clarke and her children, Laianah, Aaliyah, and Trey. pic.twitter.com/9hyJYotCWD
— Australian House of Representatives (@AboutTheHouse) February 24, 2020
Updated
Scott Morrison keeps question time going for one last lickspittle on just how incredible the government’s climate policy is, and he responds with just how terrible Labor is.
Question time ends.
Christian Porter announces changes to a bunch of committees, removing Llew O’Brien from their membership.
Updated
Nick Champion to Scott Morrison:
My question is to the prime minister: can he confirm 42% of the urban congestion fund for South Australia is allocated to the marginal state of Boothby? Is there no traffic congestion on the seats of Hindmarsh, Spence and Kingston?
Morrison:
I refer the member to my early response when I listed quite a lot of South Australian seats which have benefited from the investment of this government, but I have to say the member for Boothby does a fantastic job.
You can find no better advocate for dealing with the issues and challenges in Boothby than the member for Boothby, that is why the member for Boothby was re-elected, because she understands what’s going on in her community and she fights for her community. And she has the ear of the government, who can deliver for the people ... that’s why the people of Boothby made the right decision to re-elect the member for Boothby, and all the other members, Mr Speaker, who sat on this side of the House, because they know when the government makes a promise to Australians, we keep it, and that is what our government is doing.
The member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint, nods along with this assessment.
Updated
The National Farmers’ Federation assures me it will be sending through a statement on what its carbon neutrality position actually is.
Question time is still going for some reason.
There has been way, way too much Michael McCormack for anyone’s liking. Including his own side of the chamber, if their faces are any indication.
He’s back again.
I read in one of Sharri Markson’s columns that he doesn’t believe he deserves to be called boring because he brings the house down when he does speeches, and dresses as Elvis.
I don’t think I’ve given a speech in the last couple of years where I haven’t had the crowds roaring with laughter.
Ring Paul Nicolau or James Pearson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and they will tell you I’m certainly not boring, and as an after-dinner speaker I’m the funniest they’ve had.
Journalists who just sit behind their computers or television studios who don’t know me from a bar of soap pile on and it’s just not true.
I’m quite a gregarious person who likes self-deprecating humour. If you can’t laugh at yourself there’s something wrong and I’m more than happy to do that.
I think anybody who goes out in his electorate and dresses up as Elvis to help tourism for one of the towns or dresses up as ABBA, I don’t think you can accuse them of being boring. I even sang Suspicious Minds in front of 11,000 people.
Wow. I take it all back. He can make people who buy tickets to see him and want to court his influence laugh, and dresses up as Elvis. What. A. Great. Leader.
John Anderson wasn’t showy. Tim Fischer wasn’t either. Warren Truss was also pretty solid and staid.
You know what they did, though? They did their job. They represented their constituents.
Spot the difference?
Stop with the ridiculous slogans and culture wars, the pitting of city and country voters against each other, the bullshit about looking steers in the eyes, and country people never telling lies and just be better.
Updated
Oh god. Now Labor is summoning Michael McCormack:
Why did 94% of the central coast package from the urban congestion fund go to one seat, the marginal Liberal seat of Robertson? Is traffic congestion in the rest of the central coast not a problem?
McCormack:
Here by popular demand, obviously, from those opposite.
The urban congestion fund ... I’ll speak slowly so they’ll understand it ... The urban congestion fund is busting congestio,n ensuring vital roadworks are being filled. This is bringing together 266 crucial projects, 70 will start construction this year, all are under way with geo-technical investigations, and other work under way on many more. We took these projects to the Australian people on May 18, remember that date?
And, guess what, we got elected, in the same way that Labor, to our understanding, I’m not quite sure of all the policies and promises, 66 election commitments and small-scale urban projects, 100%, that means every single one of them in Labor or target seats.
He keeps going, but I just hear Edvard Munch’s The Scream.
Tony Burke is not playing with his point of orders after Catherine King was kicked out, and he brings up that McCormack has not raised anything to do with the central coast.
Then Anthony Albanese pops up to say these weren’t election commitments, they were in the budget.
McCormack has another go at speaking:
These are decisions of governments, not competitive grants; we took into account other spending from the infrastructure program, thanks to the Liberal and Nationals’ government, the fact we get our books balanced, unlike those opposite, when was the last time there was a surplus, 1989 ... We take into account demand and population growth. The central coast is a growing population, and this is important, is not a joke, it’s the truth – nearly all railroad projects are decisions of government under Coalition and Labor governments.
Updated
How do you stop livestock from passing wind?
These are the same people who helped give us Twisties (among, you know, some other pretty important things) so I think they know what they are doing.
Updated
I am now rocking under my desk, so to discover just how awe-smackingly stupid this latest “debate” is, read this.
At the risk of making your head explode, in the same interview, Taylor disdained adopting a target while acknowledging that his own government had, in fact, voluntarily signed an international emissions reduction agreement with a net zero objective https://t.co/1Kjtf4olR3 #qt
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) February 24, 2020
Catherine King is booted from question time for making a “political point during a point of order”.
Greens senator Larissa Waters has asked the minister for women, Marise Payne, about Pauline Hanson’s comments on domestic violence that “these things happen” in relation to the murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children by her former partner.
Payne replied:
We have to speak right, report more accurately and empathetically about domestic violence ... [and] think more carefully about our expectations of healthy, respectful relationships ... Language does matter. We cannot tolerate public language that trivialises or distorts domestic violence. Each act of domestic violence is an individual atrocity.
Payne avoided Waters’ question about whether the government would seek to remove Hanson as deputy chair of the family law inquiry.
Asked about funding for domestic violence services, Payne had a shot at the Greens by noting that the Coalition and Labor “will not be politicising the events of last week”, then spruiked the benefits of the $340m fourth action plan on domestic violence.
Updated
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
So far in this parliament the prime minister has used his numbers to shut down debate with me on 42 occasions. If the prime minister is so confident of his position, will he agree to a climate change debate at the National Press Club before the climate change conference in Glasgow this year?
Morrison:
It’s all about you, Albo, isn’t it? When we come in here and all the leader of the opposition can complain about is that he can’t get his 15 minutes of fame – what an indulgent leader of theopposition. I tell you what, if you want to sit in this chair, you’ve got to put the Australian people first, not yourself first, and worry about how much airtime you are getting.
The problem with the leader of the opposition is he is so focused on the bubble politics of Canberra and all of this, he even forgets his own record.
This is how many closures he moved when sitting on the government’s side: 44 in 2008, 33 in 2009, 18 in 2010, 11 – they didn’t even have the numbers then – 33 in 2012, 13 in 2016. That’s 152, Mr Speaker.
There will be debates before the next election, and if you can last long enough to see me there, I’ll see you there.
Just for the record, here is what Morrison said when he returned from Hawaii during the bushfire crisis:
I am comforted by the fact that Australians would like me to be here simply so I can be here alongside them as they go through this terrible time.
Updated
Oops, spoke too soon.
David Littleproud:
The Federal Government has put it around our farmers and that with the infrastructure, roads, rail, airports to make sure that our produce gets to these supermarkets as quickly as it possibly can to ensure that our Australian consumers get that produce as quickly as possible, but there is a real threat to that and that came only on the weekend with a reckless policy of zero emissions because it’s not just farmers going up, they put a gun to the Australian agricultural sector’s head and said we believe in supporting you but we’re going to take you out but now they are going, now they are going after a checkout tax because every consumer will pay for this, not just at the farm gate, they will also pay for it at....
He’s told to pull his head in when it comes to his analogies. And rightly so. Ugh.
David Littleproud has settled on yelling at people as a political persona, but at least his sentences make some sort of sense.
Mark Butler to Scott Morrison:
Why is the government’s climate change policy still being driven by extreme climate sceptics, where net zero emissions by 2050 is supported by 73 countries including the UK, Canada, France and Germany, every state and territory in Australia, the Business Council, our largest airline and bank and mining company and telecommunications company?
Morrison:
More slogans, but no answer.
The new favourite:
The bill you couldn’t afford at the last election, Mr Speaker, is repeated by this Labor policy. It’s a reheat of the bill they couldn’t afford before and they still can’t afford it.
What’s that?
Oh, I think it’s the ghost of Tony Abbott.
Updated
Michael McCormack is now watching David Littleproud do his job.
Angus Taylor answers a lickspittle on how amazing the government is on climate, because it is not worried at all, nope, no need to talk about this, because it is totally across it all.
He is called back by Jim Chalmers with this question:
I refer to the prime minister’s earlier failure to answer the question. Has the government modelled the economic impact of failing to make its Paris agreement commitment of net zero emissions by 2050?
Taylor:
That is not what is in the Paris agreement. Article 4.1 is clear it’s about global agreement to reach net zero in the second half of the century – and our commitment, the commitment that is more pressing and that we are focused on achieving, our 2030 target, is a 26 per cent reduction, Mr Speaker.
We have a strong plan and an enviable track record and that enviable track record does not involve imposing a carbon tax. It’s about technology, not taxes.
Updated
It’s not just me.
Michael McCormack’s #qt answers are almost bearable if you imagine this song as the backing track #goyougoodthing #putagapinem https://t.co/Qb7HJGkYqK
— Tim Watts MP (@TimWattsMP) February 24, 2020
Updated
Joel Fitzgibbon to Michael McCormack (yet another of his sins):
Is the government aware that both the National Farmers’ Federation and Meat and Livestock Australia have plans for their sectors to be carbon neutral by 2030?
Only McCormack can make this three minutes stretch to four years. The election has come and gone. No one noticed because the climate wars have become so serious, Australian society is now divided by tribes, only recognisable by the shibboleth of how they pronounce “ideological”.
Oh – McCormack didn’t answer the question, because he is seemingly incapable of answering anything, unless it includes some made-up country homily that played well in front of his shaving mirror.
Updated
Michael McCormack tells Labor to 'look a steer in eye' over methane
Accidentally letting out his secrets on how he makes policy decisions, Michael McCormack advises Labor to “look a steer in the eye” and ask it how it will stop its methane.
I tell you what, methane emissions could drop right now if the deputy prime minister shut his mouth.
For the record, the National Farmers’ Federation and Meat and Livestock Australia are both aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030.
Updated
Michael McCormack has been summoned.
It’s something that happens when you place white bread in a toaster and hit the lever three times.
Zali Steggall asks Scott Morrison about the cost of climate inaction.
She receives a bunch of slogans for her troubles.
Updated
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
Does the prime minister agree with the liberal premier of New South Wales that her government’s target of net zero emissions by 2050 is consistent with both the Paris agreement and the federal government’s own commitment to the Paris agreement?
Morrison:
I refer the member to the answer by the minister for energy and emissions reduction which spells out clearly what the government has signed up to in terms of the Paris agreement, and I must say about the Paris agreement our commitment is a 26 per cent reduction in emissions over 2005, and I’m pleased to tell the House that is ... now down by 13.1%, which means we are halfway there, and we have a plan to meet the 2030 commitment. The only problem is when I look at what those opposite are talking about, they have no idea what they want to commit to for 2030.
They say: I don’t know if I will tell you before the election or not. They want to talk about 30 years from now and can’t even agree on what they want in 10 years.
It continues in this vein.
A reminder on the Morrison government's "clear plan" to achieve 2030 target. Almost 100 megatonnes, is booked to unspecified “technology improvements”. Another chunk is an EV strategy that hasn't been detailed. And about half is carryover credits, so accounting, not abatement #qt
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) February 24, 2020
Updated
Another “how amazing are we when it comes to climate” dixer (so far, it has been Jason Falinski and Dave Sharma asking the questions – two of the self-declared “modern Liberals” – so you know the government is *serious* about this, because here are two people who can say the words “climate change action” without choking).
Updated
Anthony Albanese to Angus Taylor:
Isn’t it the case cabinet committed to net zero emissions by 2050 when it signed up to the Paris agreement?
Taylor:
Mr Speaker, thank you. That’s incorrect. We signed up to the Paris agreement ... which involves the world achieving net zero in the second half of the next century.
That was our commitment, and of course we have strong targets, a clear plan and an enviable track record, as we’ve just heard from the prime minister.
Taylor to Sky News this morning:
Well, there is that targeting built into the Paris agreement, where the world has agreed to get to net zero emissions in the second half of the century. That’s already there. We’ve got to do our bit. And that’s why we’ll be focusing on technology.
Updated
The first dixer is on how amazing the government’s climate policy is.
SO, SO amazing. It’s basically as if Blue Ivy grew up to take her rightful place as the ruler of us all, it is that amazing and special.
And it’s all been achieved without a carbon price, says Scott Morrison.
Except ... it counts emissions reductions from when Labor was in power and had a carbon price, so that’s not entirely right.
Updated
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
Can the prime minister confirm he suggested to the New South Wales premier that the scope of the bushfire recovery cleanup funding proposal by NSW was not consistent with the black Saturday framework, in a bid to reduce the costs to the federal government?
Morrison:
As I confirmed to the journalist who put the same matter to us on the weekend, the proposal I put to the NSW premier was the proposal that was adopted in the proposal that was announced, the proposal that was arranged between the treasurer and the treasurer of NSW and the head of the national bushfire recovery agency and their counterparts in NSW. What we proposed is what was announced.
Updated
There is a moment of silence for Hannah Clarke and her family.
Then the questions begin.
Updated
Anthony Albanese:
I do want to say that I think we need to repel some of the attacks as well. We need to speak up when people make the sort of comments, including in the aftermath of this tragedy, that were entirely inappropriate.
The existence of a standalone, specialist family court is a Labor legacy that we will defend.
Whatever problems there are with the family law system, the existence of a standalone, specialist family court is not one of them.
It’s a necessary part of the solution. The government and opposition can work on this. All of us as members of parliament have a role to play.
The memory of Hannah Clarke and her three beautiful children must galvanise a soul in further action to galvanise against violence against women and children. We can’t accept this is normal.
We have it in us to be so much better. Lives depend on it, as we see all too often.
Updated
No one is saying Baxter represents all men.
That Pauline Hanson pulls out that card, at this time, is abhorrent.
Pauline Hanson's 'not all men'
Pauline Hanson’s statement in the Senate is long on condemnation on Rowan Baxter but its ultimate conclusion was simply this: not all men.
Hanson described the murders as the “ultimate act of betrayal” and a “calculated, cowardly and evil act”.
The incident has “further added fuel to an already twisted and difficult family law debate”, she said, adding that “many decent men are deprived of their parental rights”.
She concluded:
I am so angry at the selfish motivation [Rowan Baxter] has shown. Please do not let this bastard’s actions reflect on all men.
Updated
In the Senate, the MPs are also taking time to honour Hannah Clarke and her children.
Anthony Albanese:
Yet again a woman has lost her life to a former male partner. Yet again children have been robbed of their futures by a father who betrayed what should have been the most powerful bond of all – between a parent and their child.
We cannot let their shocking and horrific deaths be the whole story. We must hold on to their names, hold on to the image of those four faces, so happy because they were with each other.
The courage that Hannah showed, as the prime minister said, she left. That takes courage.
She took her kids to what she thought was safety, only to find that that wasn’t the case. That a man who had a record – a record – of crime, because it is a crime, against his own family conducted the ultimate crime, and in a manner which quite frankly is just beyond comprehension, really. It is just difficult to understand how that could possibly occur.
Updated
Scott Morrison:
There are never any excuses, there are none, or justifications for the evil that Hannah and her children experienced – never, not under any circumstances.
With the states and territories and together as a parliament we will continue to work together to translate these words – that I’m sure the leader of the opposition will also state with the same passion – into actions and changes that make a real difference for women and children ...
Let me read one of Hannah’s last Instagram posts. It expressed the hope. She wrote: “I am a strong woman” – no doubt she was – “I don’t sit around feeling sorry for myself, nor will I let anyone mistreat me again. I am a survivor, not a victim. I am in control of my life, and there is nothing I can’t achieve. My girls will grow up being strong women who understand their worth.”
This hope was crushed when Hannah and her children were murdered. We must work together, as we have been, for as long as it takes to restore that hope to those we know right now, today in this country, who are living in exactly the same danger as Hannah and her children.
Updated
Scott Morrison:
Murder – that’s what it is. Murder. Again last Thursday it shocked our country.
When Jenny and I spoke about it, we just couldn’t get our heads around it, as I’m sure is the case for every single parent, and it doesn’t matter if you are a parent or not – you can’t imagine it.
It is just too horrible to contemplate – the act itself and that somebody could perpetrate that act, particularly as a father. It is incomprehensible.
And such depravity, that only makes you ask: how does such evil happen in our land?
To the Clarke family, all of us here extend our sympathies and our love, but I must wonder if that could ever be enough to cover the profound grief. They have shown incredible resilience and character in the worst of all possible circumstances.
As best we can, we also send the country’s love to you. In your grief you have every right to be angry – furious – because everything we have done across this country to protect women and children didn’t protect Hannah and her children from this evil.
I believe state, territory and national governments, all of us, and importantly the judiciary, must all reflect again on these terrible murders.
We must reflect on how and where the system failed Hannah and her children, as it has failed so many others. It is so frustrating. It is so devastating.
While this was the action of the depraved and evil man, we know enough of the circumstances leading up to the murders to know this should not have happened, and there will rightly be an inquest in Queensland – and I commend the Queensland government for taking that action as they should.
It will speak the truth, I have no doubt, as so many others have spoken the truth. And we already know this: Hannah deserved to feel safe and be safe, and to watch her joyous and wonderful children grow up.
Updated
Question time begins
It starts with statements of indulgence about what happened to Hannah Clarke and her three children.
And the murders Australia just can’t seem to come to terms with.
He’s also not a fan of freedom of information requests.
George Christensen giving a speech proclaiming himself as a defender of freedom of speech.
— Tim Watts MP (@TimWattsMP) February 24, 2020
Yes, it’s the same guy who introduced a private members bill to criminalise burning the Australian flag.
Updated
Centre Alliance wants an inquiry into domestic and family violence:
Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick today announced that he will seek to establish an urgent Senate inquiry to pressure all levels of Australian government to take further action and commit greater resources to prevent violence against women and their children.
“The shocking murder last week of Hannah Clarke and her three children is the latest tragedy in an all-too-repeated horror across our nation,” Patrick said.
“As a father of two daughters, my heartfelt desire is that they are able to contribute and thrive in a society that values their opinion and provides them the opportunity to live free from harm and fear. I want my daughters, and all our daughters, and Australian women, to always be safe in their homes and as they go about their lives.”
The time for inquiries is probably done. The time for action is well past. One thing we could stop doing, though, is allowing Pauline Hanson and her ilk to lead the conversation.
Hannah and all the women who came before her – and the ones who are being failed as we speak – deserve so much more than what we’ve done.
Updated
It was inevitable the “debate” would end up here.
This sign is up in the toilets at Parliament House....
— Sarah Hanson-Young💚 (@sarahinthesen8) February 24, 2020
Begs the question if you can’t keep the toilets clean, what hope is there for cleaning up the environment.
I took the liberty to correct it.... pic.twitter.com/C8yOhKAhU5
Updated
Everything is great. From Adam Morton:
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have dipped slightly on the back of new clean energy and a sharp fall from agriculture due to the drought, but the decline was almost entirely wiped out by surging industrial pollution.
Official data released on Monday revealed national emissions were down 0.3% in the year to September.
Emissions from electricity generation fell 2% (3.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide) as the now-filled renewable energy target boosted invested in solar and wind power. Pollution from agriculture fell even further – 4.1m tonnes, or 5.8% – due to the impact on livestock of the historic eastern seaboard drought and north Queensland floods.
But fugitive emissions, released during coal and gas extraction, were estimated to have jumped 6% (3.3m tonnes). Pollution from stationary energy – which includes the manufacturing, construction and commercial sectors – was up 2.6% (2.6m tonnes).
Greg Hunt has given a short update on the coronavirus (Covid-19) situation:
All of those passengers have left the Howard Springs temporary quarantine facility and, as a consequence of that, they are now free to go about day-to-day activities. No passengers in that group were diagnosed or confirmed with coronavirus.
So I think that is a very, very important operation which has shown the importance of quarantine, and the results of the seven passengers – who came from the Diamond Princess – reaffirm absolutely not just the reason why we sought to airlift them back to Australia, but the reason why on medical advice we imposed a supervised quarantine arrangement, and I think that was strong but very clear medical advice.
He has to leave because the division bells are ringing in the House.
Updated
It is the downhill run to question time.
There is not a lot happening in the chambers at the moment.
That just gives more time for the stupid to spill into the hallways
After a letter from Anthony Albanese (which we are told was hand-delivered), speaker Tony Smith has agreed to allow the House to stand in a moment of silence for Hannah Clarke and her children, Laianah, 4, Aaliyah, 6, and Trey, 3.
And then every single MP needs to get very, very loud indeed about domestic and family violence – and those who attempt to excuse it with the abhorrent and deliberately outrageous “driven to it” lie.
Updated
Pauline Hanson was just on her feet in the Senate, arguing against Larissa Waters’ bill to close the Galilee basin, because it’s Australia and a day ending in y.
She doesn’t think we have had an “actual debate on hearing from the scientists about what global warming is about”.
Which I take to mean she either wants us to:
a) debate on whether we should hear from scientists on climate change
or
b) listen to the scientists’ debate about what global warming is about.
Hanson is paid $211,250 as a base salary for these gems. She also gets $44,100 in super contributions a year and $32,000 in electorate allowance. Plus a car. As a base.
She did manage one truth bomb, though, as she spoke about climate policy:
That’s the problem within Australia, that we have listened to the fear mongers.
Updated
The poster child for Australian Rhodes scholars.
Updated
Pauline Hanson is helping to lead the latest family law court inquiry, which was set up by the government as a salve for her, despite the government having multiple reports into how the family court system could be improved – the most latest recommendations of which have not been implemented.
She also gets paid more to be the deputy chair of that committee, and gets to comment on family court issues, because the government gave her that legitimacy with the inquiry.
Great work by all involved, really. Just brilliant.
Updated
I don’t have enough evens to can’t today.
I just don’t.
Go back to bed, everyone. Wake me up when the apocalypse is half done.
“To say we’re going to hit zero by 2050… if you think ordinary Australians voted the way they did on May 18th to live in mud huts with no electricity, than sure, that’s a good thing, but I don’t think they did” @senator_sam #auspol @SBSNews pic.twitter.com/kug5ZqwFUT
— Brett Mason (@BrettMasonNews) February 23, 2020
Updated
Larissa Waters introduced a bill in the Senate to keep the Galilee basin closed to coal mining, saying:
The Galilee basin is a carbon bomb and in reality the science demands we don’t open up a single new coal mine.
We need to keep that Galilee coal in the ground and today I have a bill that will do just that.
If the Galilee basin were to be mined and it was a country, it would be the seventh-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
Australia’s emissions continue to rise and millions of hectares of the country were burnt over summer due to climate-fuelled bushfires. We desperately need a climate plan and that climate plan means getting out of thermal coal.
The numbers are not there for it to pass the Senate – and there is zero chance of it passing the House.
Updated
Just a reminder that Pauline Hanson is paid to say things like this on the Nine Network’s Today show:
Let’s just make it quite clear: I made a very strong comment on my Facebook page. It was a horrendous act, what he did to his children.
It was a tragedy and I feel very deeply sorry for everyone, family and friends involved in this treacherous – what he did to his former wife and his children.
But Bettina Arndt should not be stripped of her Order of Australia.
She is clearly stating what she thinks and what a police officer said.
This is why I have pushed for the family law inquiry to get behind what is happening on this.
You know, this has been for a week we have been in the news nearly every day about this horrific tragedy.
But we don’t hear much about it when a woman has murdered her children by driving a car into a tree – she threw out a suicide note.
Or the woman who doused her husband with fuel and set him alight and said she was possibly driven to it.
A lot of people are driven to this, to do these acts for one reason or another. Hopefully the family law inquiry will get to the bottom of it. But don’t bastardise all men out there, or women for that matter, because these things happen.
Let’s get to the bottom of it, why it is happening, and hopefully find the answers so it never happens again.
Don’t just take my word for it – the Today show also highlighted it in a tweet:
"Don't barstardise all men out there... because these things happen." @PaulineHansonOz on the brutal murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children, at the hands of their father. #9Today pic.twitter.com/1tLQ0zf203
— The Today Show (@TheTodayShow) February 23, 2020
Updated
AAP has looked at Barnaby Joyce’s latest brain spurt, so we don’t have to:
Barnaby Joyce is sick of most senators being from capital cities and has a plan to change that.
The Nationals backbencher has introduced a private member’s bill to parliament which would split each state into six regions – like mega-electorates – that each vote for two senators.
“This is something that is so important,” he told the lower house on Monday. “We need for our Senate to have a constituency and to have the capacity to represent a geographic area.”
Joyce said that in most instances, 11-out-of-12 senators came from capital cities. He also pointed out that New York had two senators, while Adelaide had 11.
“We need to make sure that as the seats get bigger and bigger and bigger in the House of Representatives in regional areas, that this is offset by the capacity to get more Senate representation.”
Under the plan – which was seconded by independent MP Bob Katter – no region could be bigger than 30 per cent of the state’s landmass and the capital city would be confined to a single region.
Joyce said this would also help to improve indigenous representation in parliament.
The backbencher, who recently launched a failed bid to reclaim the Nationals leadership, said the proposal would not warrant a change to the Constitution. It was up to the parliament to change how senators were elected.
Senate president Scott Ryan was quick to shoot down Mr Joyce’s idea after he floated it last year.
“The current Senate is actually very reflective of the national vote despite the differences in state populations,” Ryan said. “But this proposal would destroy that.”
Updated
Father Frank Brennan, one of the Ruddock review panel members who conducted the inquiry on religious freedom, has had some interesting thoughts on the government’s religious discrimination bill and the way the debate has gone.
Brennan told the Australian Catholic University on Thursday:
“The Morrison government has decided not to pursue the Ruddock recommendation of a clean, lean religious discrimination act. Rather, in response to those who have long advocated a religious freedom act, the Morrison government is attempting to formulate what we might call a Religious Discrimination PLUS Bill which will include some bells and whistles you would not expect to find in a standard piece of anti-discrimination legislation.”
Brennan agreed with the Australian Human Rights Commission that legislating for individual cases - such as Israel Folau and Archbishop Porteous- “is not good legislative practice” and said that he is “not convinced” that the commonwealth overriding Victorian rules requiring doctors to refer patients for abortions is the best way to go.
Brennan predicted the bill will not pass, and hopes the states will fix issues with their laws without commonwealth intervention:
“I think there is little prospect of any Religious Discrimination PLUS Bill passing the Senate. When such a bill is ultimately rejected by the Senate, I do hope that our federal politicians will have the good sense to legislate a neat and clean Religious Discrimination Act, and our politicians in the NSW and South Australian parliaments will have the good sense to bring their legislation up to an appropriate standard honouring our commitments and undertakings under the ICCPR.”
Brennan noted that the Coalition and Labor had agreed that schools should not be able to discriminate against students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but said he “[despaired] at our parliament’s protracted delay and incapacity to deliver on this commitment”.
A friend of the blog has also pointed me in the direction of this handy website, which, with the help of Monash university resources, is helping to track those looking at net zero emissions by 2050
I have just been reminded by a reader of the Montreal protocol, which was signed in the late 1980s and was designed to phase out the chemicals that were harming the ozone layer.
It’s working. Practically the whole world signed up. And guess what? The world hasn’t ended.
The science outlining what was happening to the ozone layer was published in 1973. Less than 15 years later, an international agreement was created and signed.
Imagine having that “debate” now.
Updated
At the same time:
Debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill has been interrupted and the #Senate is now considering Senator @larissawaters' Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2018 https://t.co/wMivxEaaXf
— Australian Senate (@AuSenate) February 24, 2020
Updated
Just some of those driving the energy policy in this country at the moment, being completely normal humans.
Updated
One of the reasons Barnaby Joyce wants this bill is because he believes the regions don’t receive good enough representation.
The same regions which are represented by his party.
Member for New England @Barnaby_Joyce introduced Representation Amendment (6 Regions Per State, 2 Senators Per Region) Bill 2020 https://t.co/UdydVMeTZh #auspol
— Political Alert (@political_alert) February 23, 2020
Updated
At the UN conference of parties (Cop), Chile’s environment minister Carolina Schmidt laid out the alliance of “silly” countries, cities, businesses and investors who have signed up to “follow the recommendations of science as regards climate change” (as in, working towards net-zero emissions by 2050).
There are 73 parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), 14 regions, 398 cities, 786 businesses and 16 investors.
So. Far.
Updated
For the record, the list of countries who have committed to a “silly” zero net emissions target by 2050, include:
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Beliz, Benin, Cape Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Union, Federated Stated of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribat, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
Updated
It’s silly to have a target without a plan.
But apparently you can have a “strategy” without a target. Or a plan.
This is the level of stupid we have reached today.
Compounding that stupid, is the fact we have signed up to the Paris agreement. We keep hearing about how we are meeting our obligations. A big part of the Paris agreement is to work out how to become carbon neutral by the second half of the century.
Which is just another way of saying – ZERO NET EMISSIONS BY 2050.
And what did Angus Taylor say this morning, in between talking about how silly Labor’s “uncocked” policy was?
Well, there is that targeting built into the Paris agreement where the world has agreed to get to net zero emissions in the second half of the century. That’s already there. We’ve got to do our bit. And that’s why we’ll be focusing on technology.
I swear I have become dumber today just following this “debate”. I have actually lost brain cells.
Updated
Angus Taylor calls net zero emissions target 'silly'
We are literally at “YOUR FACE IS” phase of this debate.
If it's "silly" for Labor to have a net zero emissions by 2050 target, is it silly for the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and 70 other countries to have that ambition? @AngusTaylorMP #auspol pic.twitter.com/qdcct2QQHu
— Brett Mason (@BrettMasonNews) February 23, 2020
Will the long term emissions target Australia takes to Glasgow be "fair dinkum" or "aspirational"? @AngusTaylorMP #auspol pic.twitter.com/seIkM50lwU
— Brett Mason (@BrettMasonNews) February 23, 2020
*packs bags, moves to Mars*
Updated
The bells are ringing, and with it, my ears.
In the midst of all of this, the government is looking at expanding the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate – a story first broken by Annika Smethurst in 2018 – who not only got a bunch of quite personal denials for her trouble, but now lives with the threat of prosecution over her head, after the AFP raided her home and office.
The government wants ASD to be able to spy on Australians, suspected of serious crimes, within Australia. Currently, it can only focus on overseas servers. The moment an investigation reaches Australian shores, it has to stop.
The ABC reported last week the government was advancing the proposal, although it is yet to confirm it.
The argument is that Australia’s crime-fighting and intelligence agencies should have the powers they need to follow investigations into child abuse and terrorism in Australia. No one debates that. The problem is, this government has a habit of expanding national security powers without actually laying out how broad those powers are. Everyone wants paedophiles and terrorists stopped. But suddenly, it becomes anyone suspected of a crime that brings more than two to three years imprisonment, if convicted. And then a whole heap of other people are having their personal affairs opened up to spy agencies. You don’t have to be convicted. Just suspected.
This government has not been shy with the national security brush. There have been 19 tranches of national security legislation since the government came into power.
Do you know what they all do? Chances are, you don’t.
From AAP:
Opposition frontbencher Jenny McAllister is introducing legislation to enhance oversight of the increasingly powerful agencies, as recommended by a Coalition government review three years ago.
“Unfortunately, like its approach on so many matters of accountability, the Morrison government has dragged the chain on implementing important recommendations from its own review,” she said on Monday.
“Strong and effective oversight mechanisms do not stand in opposition to our national security arrangements – they are best understood as an essential part of them.”
Updated
Liberal senator Sarah Henderson has said she believes She Who Should Never Be Named Because She Feeds Off The Outrage should have her Order of Australia award revoked, given her comments following the Camp Hill tragedy.
No one knows who nominated her. Or who supported that nomination. And yet, here we are.
The not-actually-a-psychologist has made some pretty abhorrent comments before this. We all know them. And she was still given the honour. It seems almost anything is forgivable in this country, if you claim your right to free speech is under attack. Unless of course, you are standing up for a minority, pointing out an inconvenient truth or trying to point out the facts about climate change.
These comments about a man who doused his wife and children with petrol and burnt them to death are abhorrent. I don’t believe the values which underpin @thebettinaarndt’s views on this horrific family violence incident are consistent with her retaining her Order of Australia. https://t.co/gyTLUIjEQm
— Senator Sarah Henderson (@SenSHenderson) February 22, 2020
Updated
The government’s big argument against Labor’s zero emissions by 2050 policy, which is something that every single state and territory has taken up, including Liberal governments, and is something the resources industry and farmers are in support of, is that New Zealand has quarantined its agriculture industry from its target.
So suddenly, after years and years of rhetoric over how we don’t need to look to other countries for our policies, including New Zealand, in the wake of its (repeated) offer to take additional refugees from Nauru, New Zealand is the gold standard of policy.
Parliament starts at 10am.
Tellingly, Joel Fitzgibbon is on board with Labor’s plan. Here he is writing for his local paper, the Newcastle Herald over the weekend:
The aspiration of carbon neutrality by 2050 (zero net emissions) offers a conservative and low-risk path to satisfying the commitment Malcolm Turnbull made in Paris on our behalf back in 2015.
First, it provides plenty of time to think and act, including the time needed to embrace existing and future technologies.
Second, it stands a chance of securing bipartisanship and therefore, broader community support.
Third, it turns the focus to efforts to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and away from an almost singular focus on reducing emissions.
In other words, building on existing methods for drawing carbon from the atmosphere and finding innovative new ways of doing so.
This is what “net” means: working towards a time when we are putting no more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we are taking out.
For a reminder on what Labor’s policy is, here is where Katharine Murphy broke the story on Thursday:
Labor has locked in behind a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and will oppose taxpayer funding of new coal-fired power plants, in the party’s first major decisions about climate policy for the next federal election.
As well as adopting the clear 2050 target that Scott Morrison appears reluctant to sign up to, in part because of rolling combat within the Coalition, Guardian Australia understands shadow cabinet has also decided to oppose using carryover credits from the Kyoto period to meet future emissions reduction targets.
The Morrison government plans to use carryover credits to meet about half of Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target, and departmental officials have confirmed they are not aware of any countries other than Australia planning to use controversial accounting methods to meet international climate commitments.
No target without a plan, says Angus Taylor, which you would think is actually part of the government’s job – developing plans. Given it is actually in government.
“What we’re not open to, is a target, any target, which has got no plan, is uncocked and unfunded,” he says.
Why would anyone invest if they don’t know what the target is, Sky News asks Taylor.
People invest in all sorts of industries without government targets, I mean there are a lot of frustrated central planners out there.
They want to target it in every industry, but the airline industry doesn’t need one, farmers don’t need one.
Look, businesses set their own targets and get on with it.
We do have a target for 2030 for emissions reduction.
So does the government have a long-term strategy or a long-term target?
Well, there is that targeting built into the Paris agreement where the world has agreed to get to net zero emissions in the second half of the century. That’s already there. We’ve got to do our bit. And that’s why we’ll be focusing on technology.
Updated
This debate is all happening while the market is actively moving away from thermal coal. BlackRock, one of the world’s largest fund managers, if not the largest, is moving away from coal investments. India has announced it will phase out thermal coal import from the 2023-2024.
The change is coming no matter how much Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack and Angus Taylor shake their fists at clouds.
The bigger question is whether Australia’s workforce is being prepared for the inevitable market change. Based on history, it doesn’t look like it.
Updated
Is there a single voter who finds any of this productive? Who wants this? Who thinks, yes, that is what I want in my politicians?
#BREAKING: The climate wars are heating up in Canberra with an angry argument in the corridors of Parliament between Barnaby Joyce and Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon. #9News pic.twitter.com/NQicUfdNKG
— Nine News Adelaide (@9NewsAdel) February 23, 2020
“Ideological path.”
"We're going down this ideological path (net zero emissions by 2050) which is not going to decrease the temperature of the earth by one iota" - Deputy Prime Minister @M_McCormackMP #auspol @SBSNews pic.twitter.com/nciBKwvT4F
— Brett Mason (@BrettMasonNews) February 23, 2020
Updated
Good morning
As expected, the government has lost its mind over Labor’s zero emissions by 2050 policy, despite major private interests, including BHP, the Business Council of Australia, as well as the UK conservatives, and practically every single state and territory in Australia already on board.
Angus Taylor says we don’t need targets. Except for the 2030 target. That’s fine. But 2050 – pffft. What the government has is a long-term strategy. See the difference? People will just get on with it, he says. It has to be “technology not taxes which lead the way”, Taylor says. Labor has ruled out a carbon tax.
Stunningly though, Taylor hasn’t been the headline act today, because Barnaby Joyce is feelingly stunningly unleashed, and decided to bring his particular brand of discourse – yelling over people in hallways – to a press conference with Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon.
Here’s a taster from the Barnaby Joyce school of debate:
What a load of rubbish. What a load of pig manure. He’s going to reach out to you. He’s going to reach out to the coalmines. Don’t worry, fellas, we’re reaching out to you. We’re reaching out and saying you’re going to lose your job. Reaching out, that’s how you’re going to do it. You’re going to make the equation work by putting trees back on people’s properties whether they like it or not. We’re going to let the shrubs grow back on the country.
It’s not just mercury which is in retrograde – Australia’s political discourse is so backwards on this topic, it’s like watching your neighbours take up the wheel and pretending you’re fine just pushing your rocks around with your back.
Oh, and emissions in Australia dropped by just 0.3% in the year to September last year.
NAILING IT.
We’ll bring you all of the latest meltdowns, as well as everything else – hey, maybe we’ll get some legislation to talk about this fortnight – with Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy, Paul Karp and Sarah Martin at your service.
I’ve had about a third of a coffee. Blessed be.
Ready?
Let’s get into it.
Updated
