Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Amy Remeikis

Josh Frydenberg under pressure over $444m reef foundation grant – as it happened

Josh Frydenberg has defended the government’s $444m grant to the reef foundation.
Josh Frydenberg has defended the government’s $444m grant to the reef foundation. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Euthanasia bill defeated

Postscript

The Senate has voted on David Leyonhjelm’s bill to restore the territories’ rights to legislate for euthanasia and it has been voted down:

36 to 34.

That means its gone - and it saves Malcolm Turnbull from having another battle in the party room.

It won’t disappear as an issue though, so watch this space.

Updated

I’ve had a good and proper scrounge around and all has gone quiet up here on the hill.

To be honest, I think the last 24 hours has left most MPs exhausted. I don’t blame them.

The annual ABC Parliament House Showcase is on tonight, where the ABC brings its best and brightest to the capital and all the MPs get photos with the Bananas in Pyjamas.

Looking to tomorrow, there will be more Neg, more Great Barrier Reef Foundation and more euthanasia - it is possible we will get to a vote on that tonight, but there are a lot of people who have wanted to have their say on this, which could stretch us into tomorrow.

If it passes the Senate - and there is no guarantee of that, given the tight numbers game, then it becomes a problem for Malcolm Turnbull. David Leyonhjelm said Turnbull had promised him a free vote in the House. Turnbull says there wasn’t any such deal. But given the conservative pushback the prime minister is already facing from his party room, throwing in a vote on a bill which will give the territories the right to pass assisted voluntary dying laws, is not a headache he wants right now.

So keep an eye on that one.

We’ll be back bright and early tomorrow to bring you the final day of this sitting week. I don’t think I am alone in hoping we can all put recent events behind us. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there will be some attempting to take advantage of their new found infamy. We have all said our piece and we know where the parliament stands. We’ll be watching to make sure they hold the lines they spoke of today, as always, and holding them to account. The ultimate power though, as always, comes down to you, when numbering those boxes at the next election.

A big thank you to the Guardian brains trust for getting this blog though another monster day and to Mike Bowers who has been here since the first rays of sunlight peeped over the hill, capturing the days events, and is still walking the halls, camera in hand, now. Catch up with his day @mpbowers.

And the biggest thank you, to you. For reading, for engaging, for helping to keep us all sane and for reminding us what is important. Take care of you.

We’ll see you tomorrow.

The debate on restoring territory rights - so the ACT and NT can decide whether or not to pass euthanasia laws - has resumed.

Numbers are very, very tight on this. It is possible there will be a vote tonight, but just as possible we’ll be back here tomorrow.

Tony Abbott phoned in for his Wednesday afternoon chat with 2GB.

Newsflash - he is still very against the Neg.

On Fraser Anning:

The numbers on the euthanasia legislation in the Senate seems pretty touch and go at the moment.

Peter Georgiou announced this morning he would be voting ‘no’

The Greens have just managed to get a Senate committee inquiry set up into the JobActive scheme , despite the Coalition and Labor opposing it.

The Greens moved a motion for the education and employment committee to consider whether JobActive provides “long term solutions to joblessness” , whether mutual obligation requirements such as Work for the Dole are fair, and penalties against jobseekers who breach rules.

Labor senator Anthony Chisholm said the opposition would not support it because - despite advocating on the issues with jobseeker services for years - the committee already had inquiries running looking at safety issues in the cleaning industry and industrial deaths.

But then, when president Scott Ryan asked for voices in favour and against, he declared the motion was carried by the “ayes” (that’s yes). Nobody asked for a division.

Senator Derryn Hinch got up to query the result - noting Ryan had called it for the ayes despite the fact they were clearly in the minority. Ryan responded it was up to senators to request a division.

So it seems despite the parties representing the majority senators opposing it, the motion was successful.

One of the speeches I meant to come back to from this morning, but ran out of time, was Lucy Gichuhis:

Not the usual Politics Live fodder, but there is a pretty serious bushfire burning through the Shoalhaven and Illawarra region. In August.

Stay safe if you’re in that area.

Well, it looks like things are well and truly back to normal in the Senate.

In response to this motion from Cory Bernardi:

That the Senate —

(a) notes that Mr Tom Raue, recently preselected as the New South Wales Greens candidate for the inner Sydney seat of Summer Hill, once wrote in a student newspaper column “why is consensual sex with animals considered so heinous that it must be illegal? Why is it taboo to even talk about it? Yes most Australians find it disgusting, but that is not a good enough reason to legislate against it. Consensual sex with an animal should not be illegal, no matter how distasteful it may seem”;

(b)further notes that these statements are in keeping with the writings of Victorian Greens Party co-founder and former candidate, Professor Peter Singer, who has also sought to break down taboos on sexual relations between humans and animals; and

(c) rejects all pushes by the Greens and other activists to promote sexual intimacy between humans and animals.

Pauline Hanson asked: “I need clarification on consensual sex with an animal. Is the suggestion of consent for an animal one cluck for yes, or two clucks for no?”

There was no answer.

And it’s official, official

Given what has gone on in the parliament over the last couple of days, Q&A has come under some fire for its line up next week.

It has just responded:

Sussan Ley is on Sky discussing ‘borrowing’, although bringing forward is probably more accurate, water from the Murray Darling to ensure the crops can be watered during this next crucial fortnight - the crops which have been planted for the next season’s reaping need water now, or they’ll die.

She says critics have misunderstood and the environmental flows would still be there for the Murray-Darling - but that the water farmers will be getting down the track will be coming too late, which is why she is asking for it to be released now.

“It is simply about a slight change of timing in the release of water,” she said.

Updated

Asked on Sky News if the government fails to get its company tax plan through the Senate, will Scott Morrison says:

“We are putting it to the parliament..I took a promise to the last election and I said I would implement it in this parliament and that is what we are seeking to do.”

Pressed about whether or not he’ll take it to an election, if it falls, Morrison again brushes it over again.

But he says the government will “of course” take the Neg to the next election, if the Coalition doesn’t manage to get it through the Senate.

How Mike Bowers saw question time:

The Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during question time
The Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during question time Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
The shadow minister for Climate Change and Energy Mark Butler
The shadow minister for Climate Change and Energy Mark Butler Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
The newly re-elected member for Mayo Rebekha Sharkie
The newly re-elected member for Mayo Rebekha Sharkie Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Environment minister Josh Frydenberg
Environment minister Josh Frydenberg Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

And as promised - Malcolm Turnbull’s full speech from the motion this morning:

I condemned the racist remarks of Senator Anning last night as soon as I heard of them. I’ve condemned them already today and I condemn them again here in this House.

Let me say Mr Speaker, we live in the most successful multicultural society in the world and our success is built on a foundation of mutual respect. We have one of the most successful immigration programs in the world. We are a migration nation. Who could claim to have a better one? And we manage it on a thoroughly nondiscriminatory basis. It too is built on a foundation of strong leadership and the control of our borders, so that Australians know that people who come here, come here because the government has agreed to them doing so. The people’s representatives agree to them doing so.

We’ve managed that program in a world where there is so much disharmony. Where, in many places in the world, where people of different faiths and different races have lived side-by-side reasonably harmoniously for hundreds of years and now seem unable to do so.

Despite all of that, here in Australia, in the midst of our diversity, we live in great harmony.

So we have so much to be proud of, but we can never take it for granted.

We must always stand up for our commitment to an Australia that defines itself by reference to shared political values; freedom, democracy, the rule of law, a fair go. Those are our values and they are accessible to people of every race, of any religion, or none, of any cultural background. So that is how we define our nation.

Now, just a little while ago, the Leader of the Opposition and I launched together, a book by Emma Campbell called The Last Post. It tells 30 of the stories of Australian servicemen and women that have been honoured in the Last Post ceremonies at the War Memorial that all of us have attended from time to time.

It reminds us that when you fling open all the doors in this Parliament, from my office, the Prime Minister’s office at the back, through the Cabinet room where the great decisions of government are made, through the Members Hall, uniting the House and Senate, through the Great Hall, looking across the like, what do we see? The Australian War Memorial. It reminds us there, in its splendid simplicity, in its serenity, that every freedom we exercise here was hard-won and today is hard-held by the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Over 102,000 fallen Australians honoured there. They have come from every race, from every culture, from every religion and of none. Our First Australians to the most recent migrants, all of them united in their commitment to defending our values.

Now the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges it was not always so. It’s true, it was in 1965, the Labor Party abandoned, removed the White Australia policy from its charter. In 1966, Harold Holt, a Liberal Prime Minister, abandoned, repealed any legislation that enabled a White Australia Policy, or discrimination against migrants on the basis of their race or religion.

So that was a great Liberal achievement and of course, in 1967, we had the great referendum. Long overdue, but an enormously uniting statement of commitment to equality.

So we have always stood against racism, ever since those days. The days of the White Australia policy are long, long ago and our success is founded on our commitment to a shared national identity committed to those political values which unite us all.

Now, I want to refer to the remarks that have been made about terrorism. Let me say this; the vast majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims. The Islamist terrorists are, in the words of my friend President Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia, they are blasphemers. He says they are not Muslims. They are denounced and abhorred by the vast majority of Muslims around the world and particularly here in Australia.

Let’s be quite clear; those who seek to demonise all Muslims on the basis of the crimes of a tiny minority, are helping the terrorists. Let’s be very clear about this. I say this as Prime Minister, whose most solemn responsibility is to keep Australians safe. I want to say this very carefully, solemnly, seriously.

The terrorists’ argument, the Islamist terrorists’ argument to other Muslims is; “Your country, Australia, is not your country. They don’t want you. They hate you. You’re not ever going to be really Australian. Join the war on our side.” So those who try to demonise Muslims because of the crimes of a tiny minority, are only helping the terrorists.

The reference in Senator Anning’s speech to the ‘final solution’ is a shocking, shocking insult to the memory of over 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust. Can I say here in Australia and particularly in my city of Sydney and the honorable member opposite in his city of Melbourne, we have the largest number of Holocaust survivors outside of Israel.

The reference to the ‘final solution’ in that speech was appalling. We condemn that and the insult it offered to the memory of those Jewish martyrs, just as we condemn the racism, a shocking rejection of the Australian values that have made us the successful multicultural nation that we are today.

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said perhaps we should not say too much about the Senator’s remarks, at the risk that we give “oxygen to stupidity”, I think was the Leader of the Opposition’s words. I believe it’s important always, to call out racism. It is. We need to call it out.

We need to stand up for what we are; a free society, the most successful multicultural society in the world, united by democratic values that do not distinguish between race, religion, colour, cultural background.

A nation that is united in its commitment to respect, mutual respect for people of every religion, of every race, of every background.

We should be so proud of our achievement in today’s world. It is remarkable, it is the envy of the world.

We should all here be proud of this and condemn - as we have - racism and discrimination of the kind so regrettably expressed, so shamefully expressed, by Senator Anning.

On that little tidbit of the crisis talks with the backbench Tanya Plibersek asked Malcolm Turnbull about - here is how the prime minister ignored it.

The Matter of Public Importance today is on - ‘the government’s failure to invest in the early years of children’.

Question time ends.

Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:

Yesterday, the government could not explain why the government had given $440 million of Australian taxpayers’s money to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Can the Prime Minister tell us who came up with a taxpayer funded idea, or to put another way, if it was such a good idea, why won’t the Prime Minister tell us whose idea it was?

Turnbull:

Well, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has clearly not been listening to the minister who has said a number of times, as have others, that the decision to make a contribution to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation was made prior to the budget and went to the full pre budget Cabinet process, with which the honorable Member is no doubt familiar with from his time in government.

But, Mr Speaker, when it comes to ideas, at the very sad thing that we had to confront the day is the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have no ideas were cheaper electricity, they have no ideas for anything else then higher taxes, higher prices for energy, fewer jobs, less investment, and low wages. That is the melancholy list of the Labor Party’s lack of ideas, and when it comes to higher energy prices, they celebrate it and describe it as a triumph of the market working well.

Tony Burke to Josh Frydenberg:

How can the government claim there was extensive due diligence before offering the foundation almost half $1 billion when the government didn’t contact the foundation, didn’t go through the reports, didn’t know how much money the foundation had raised and as has been revealed today, is a foundation that has now had to contract out a fundraising plan consultant, which was the very issue the government had claimed was its core expertise.

Frydenberg:

Well, that fundraising expertise must have been the reason why the Labor Party welcomed the funding when we did.

That fundraising expertise must be the reason why the Member for Watson gave $4.5 million when he was last in government, that must be the reason why the Member for Grayndler has called the foundation a reputable organisation, Mr Speaker. Always rely on the Member for Grayndler for timely intervention.

Mr Speaker, asI have told the house previously, there was due diligence conducted by my department. In the first phase of due diligence, they looked at its governance, its structure, its constitution, its project management, its fundraising, its capacity for growth, its board composition and its scientific expertise, Mr Speaker.

On the second phase of due diligence, which then informed their final recommendation to me, Mr Speaker, which I signed off on the 20 June under section 71of the public governance performance and accountability, they made it very clear that they looked at the corporate information, compliance with applicable laws, litigation, asset checks, asset checks with the directors, Mr Speaker, we have to go back to the reason why the Labor Party are raising this issue at this time, and it is because when they were in office they put the reef on the path to the endangered list, Mr Speaker.

Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull:

In QuestionTime on Monday, the environment minister claimed his department undertook the first phase of due diligence which vowed to contact theGreat Barrier Reef foundation but looked at its fundraising history. In his brief to the meeting where he offered almost half $1 billion in taxpayer money, what amount was the Prime Minister advised the foundation had raised from corporate or private sources over its entire history? What was the figure the due diligence told him they had raised?

Turnbull:

I will ask the minister for the environment to answer the question but I just want to remind the honourable member that when he was Minister for the Environment in 2012 he made a substantial grant to that foundation which resulted, which resulted in the Department, which resulted in the department working closely with the foundation for all of the period since then. The Department was, and remains, very familiar with the work that the foundation has extensive experience which may well have predated the minister’s intervention in 2012 but was certainly enabled and accelerated by the minister’s decision to make a $12 million grant to the foundation.

Josh Frydenberg:

Mr Speaker, it is very well-known that the Great Barrier Marine Park foundation has been the largest charity with the Reef. The largest charity. And how do we know that? Because in 2012, when the Member for Watson gave millions of dollars to the foundation, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority announced that it was the most successful charity. We know that they the charity has told the 7.30 Report that it has been able to raise over $90 million from a range of sources, about $25 million of which is from government sources are both federal and state. Tens of millions of dollars are from the private sector and from philanthropy. But, Mr Speaker, the question is why did we not get any questions yesterday from the member for Watson? Possibly because there was a headline in the Australian...

Tony Smith:

Resume your seat. The minister will resume his seat and the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I need to say to the minister candidly, the question is why there was no question yesterday. That is not a question at all. The subject matter is now introducing does not relate at all to the Great Barrier Reef. Could not be further away. The minister needs to be relevant to the question.

Frydenberg:

The reality is that the foundation is the largest reef charity. The reality is... The reality is more than $200 million is going to improving farming practices, preventing sediment, and pesticide run-off. $100 million is going to the best available science, Mr Speaker. The reality is that money is going to tackling the crown of thorns starfish. This will create jobs in the Member for Herbert’s electorate. Will create jobs in the member for Flynn’s electorate. This will create jobs in the Member for Leichhardt’s electorate. That is why the head of tourism bodies up in the reef area welcomed our announced and said it underpinned regional jobs. I remind the house, that my department told me in writing that this contribution to the reef foundation would ensure that we would meet our commitment in protecting the reef. Representing value for money, Mr speaker, and that it was consistently combined with our accountability act. So the Labor party is only raising this issue because when they were in government they abandoned the reef.

Outlaw bikie gangs are bad. The CFMEU is bad - you are up to date with your daily Peter Dutton dixer.

Linda Burney to Michael Keenan:

I refer to the reports today that the government’s robodebt program is now charging the homeless and people with mental illness impairments and chronic illness. Given the government’s own figures show that the robodebt program has got it wrong in almost 20,000 occasions, why is the government continuing to target the most vunerable people in Australia?

Keenan:

“Can I thank the Member for that question? And it gives me a chance to correct the record, I think, from some of the inaccuracies that were contained within that report.

ButI want to start by saying that there is a fundamental principle within our welfare system, which is that when someone has been overpaid money, inadvertently because they are told is the incorrect information, or deliberately where they had told is the wrong information, they are required to be paid that money, and that is a fundamental principle of our welfare system that has been upheld by governments of this political persuasion and the government is about political persuasion.

Indeed, let me go, I have got the media release from 2011, issued by the now Leader of the Opposition and are now deputy leader the opposition, who were then the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Human Services. And the release said the welfare debt recovery process to be automated.

And the release goes onto brag about the compliance efforts that were undertaken by the then Julia Gillard government in 2011, and indeed the now deputy Leader of the Opposition goes on to say if people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover the money.

The government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover the money. Not only is this an important principle within the welfare system, it is also the law.

An act of 1991 demands that the government recover debts whether people have been paid money from the Social Security system that they are not entitled to. We will continue to uphold the principle.

The question is how do we go about that? Clearly there are groups of people who have debts to the Commonwealth who find themselves in special circumstances and when that is the case, we take into account the special circumstances in which they find themselves in.

When somebody who has been identified as vulnerable has a debt we work with them to take their income details and we understand the need to deal with these people sensitively. Debts are not raised unless a person has been contacted and discussed their individual circumstances with their department.

In cases where a debt is raised, my department will work closely with people on an appropriate repayment plan and organise options for that person to repay the money. There are 700 social workers within the Department of Human Services and help us do that. Mr Speaker, considering the vulnerabilities of some people who owe us debts, I am asking that the trial we’ve conducted here is put on pause while we make sure that when we go to recover these debt we are doing it in the most sensitive way possible.

That is why it I will not proceed until I am satisfied that is the case.

Reef Foundation members agree to appear at public Senate hearings

The chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation John Schubert, who attended the April 9 meeting with Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg, has agreed to give evidence at a public hearing for the senate inquiry examining the grant on September 18.

Two other board members - Stephen Fitzgerald and Grant King - have also agreed to appear.

The committee has also submitted questions to the prime minister and environment and energy minister asking them to produce any correspondence regarding the grant prior to the April 9 meeting.

Speaker Tony Smith just schooled Steve Ciobo on what he can and can’t say when addressing the honourable members - the opposition leader in this case - and when Ciobo talks back, he schools him some more.

Ciobo gets back the call, but you can tell that Smith really didn’t want to give it to him.

Mike Kelly to Malcolm Turnbull:

In Senate estimates, the Snowy Hydro chief financial officers was asked if the construction of new coal-fired power stations would put the viability of the Snowy Hydro in doubt, her responded simply, and I quote, ‘yes’. Prime Minister, why are you jeopardising Snowy Hydro?

Turnbull:

The government is getting on with Snowy Hydro 2.0 and it is going to be built, there will be lots of jobs created in the honorable Member’s electorate, and the reality is that nowhere hydro 2.0 will put downward pressure on electricity prices because it will reduce volatility in the electricity market, it has an enormous role to play in delivering greater security and lower prices.

I heard the honorable Member agree with me when I said it would deliver lower prices, what a pity it was not his idea or the Labor Party’s idea. What a pity, what a pity, what a pity that it fell to the Liberal Party and the National Party to come back and get that great project out of the old filing cabinet he had been left in the 1980s, to get that back and get on with it.

The Labor Party talks about energy and they talk about renewables, but theres is all ideologies and plenty of idiocies. We are providing the engineering and the economics, and the engineering and economics mean you have got to have cheaper electricity and to have cheaper electricity you need to have storage, and that is the role pumped hydro can play, and I thank the honorable Member, although he is not necessarily very factual in his responses, but I thank him for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of the great price reducing initiatives, engineering initiatives, economic initiatives of my government.

Justine Keay to Malcolm Turnbull:

In support of the Battery of the Nation states, previous modelling shows that coal was more economic. This was carried forward as an assumption in the Battery of the Nation analysis. Can the prime minister confirme that his plan to build new taxpayer-funded coal powered plants will undermine the Battery of the Nation project in Tasmania?

Turnbull:

I thank the honourable member for her question and as the first person in enthusiastic approval of doing more pumped hydro in Tasmania who coined the phrase Battery of the Nation, I am very grateful for the question. I can confirm that the Battery of the Nation proposal.

The origin of the Battery of the Nation proposal came from the speech I gave at the press club in February 2017. I spoke in November 2017 and identified the need for more storage to support the amount of intermittent renewals, and I underlined the importance of having a technology agnostic approach to energy in order to have cheap electricity.

The objective is to have cheaper electricity, the honourable member should not be so obsessed about one technology or another. Now, as it is, the recommendation from the ACCC to provide support for new generation, competitive generation is technology agnostic. It could apply to energy from a pumped hydro scheme in Tasmania, or in any other part of the country, just as it would apply to a new thermal plant, the coal or gas or a mixture of all of the above. It is technology agnostic and it has one objective and one objective alone, which is to deliver cheaper electricity. As Rod Sims said himself, if we start hitting one technology after another, that leads to higher electricity prices. You got to have a system, a plan that delivers energy at a cheaper price.

...The fact is that all technologies have a role to play and that the approach we are taking is technology agnostic because we want to deliver cheaper electricity, pumped hydro in Tasmania no doubt has a big role to play but let the market decide. It will be not one theory or another, not one technology or another ... cheap electricity, that is what the honourable member should be supporting. We look forward to her and her party supporting the national energy guarantee. Cheap electricity, that is what it is all about.

Updated

That just reminded me of something I meant to mention yesterday - Andrew Hastie is one of the MPs who has reserved his right to cross the floor on the national energy guarantee - which is interesting, because Hastie is a Western Australia MP - and WA is not part of the Neg.

That’s because the Neg focuses on the national electricity market - and the Nem doesn’t include WA.

So Hastie’s state and electorate aren’t really affected by this policy. But he is a big supporter of Tony Abbott. Who is very much against the Neg.

Updated

Justine Keay to Malcolm Turnbull:

Can the prime minister confirm that Energy Security Board modelling assumes Tasmania’s battery of the nation project won’t go ahead under his national energy guarantee?

Josh Frydenberg gets the call-up for this one:

“In fact, under the national energy guarantee, Tasmania will be one of the biggest beneficiaries. One of the biggest beneficiaries. And you know why? Do you know why? Because it has stable dispatchable power in Tasmania with so much of it being delivered by hydro facilities.

It’s the Turnbull government that are interested in supporting a second interconnector between Tasmania and the mainland, which can provide additional energy security to the people in Tasmania, while also supplying more power into Victoria.

Now, what the national energy guarantee modelling shows, is that Australian households will be $550 a year better off – $150 through the guarantee, and around $400 through other policies that are currently impacting us. So, under the national energy guarantee, Tasmania, like every other state across the country in the national electricity market, will be the beneficiary.

Updated

Taylor Swift’s biggest parliamentary fan (apparently) Scott Morrison gets the next dixer and it’s everything you ever hoped Morrison would say on energy.

Still looking for that sarcasm punctuation mark.

Updated

Rebekha Sharkie has the crossbench question today, and I miss the exact words, but it is essentially asking Malcolm Turnbull whether Mayo will still receive the funding promises the government made during last month’s byelection.

Turnbull doesn’t directly answer, only saying that there is another election coming up and:

The reality is - the reality is the government made the commitments, Georgina Downer secured them, and the government will deliver them.”

Updated

We resume usual proceedings with Tanya Plibersek asking Malcolm Turnbull:

Can the prime minister confirm reports he held crisis talks with government MPs last night in a bid to stop them voting against his energy policy? Given the prime minister has failed to appease his internal enemies by trading his convictions on climate change for new coal-fired power stations, what else is he planning to give up to the right wing of his party in order to keep his job?

Turnbull:

“It’s the Labor party that says higher prices mean the market is working. Well, it’s certainly not working for Australian families. It is the Labor party that is refusing and failing to support the national energy guarantee, which will bring down power prices. It is part of a suite of measures that we have already deployed, which is getting Australians a better deal on electricity. It’s why we are seeing the retail prices, retail bills, falling. Families are paying less for electricity already. We want to keep that trend, that momentum going. And the national energy guarantee is part of that.

“So the Labor party have lots of difficult questions to deal with - whether it is preselection or releasing lawyers’ reports, or complex technical matters, or sort of canoeing up the river, doing a bit of real estate spotting while he’s doing that. All of those challenging problems, geographic, technological.

“Here is one straightforward question – do you want Australians to pay less for electricity? Do you want Australians to have lower bills? We do. That’s our commitment to the national energy guarantee. When Labor – if it is fair dinkum about families – should back it! Should back it and stop worshipping with the lean network there at the proposition that higher electricity prices is somehow or other a good thing.”

#theprimeministerdoesnotanswerthequestion

Updated

Michelle Landry delivers a government dixer to Michael McCormack, which gives us another opportunity to find out if the deputy prime minister has found his QT personality yet....

Ahhhhh, no. Still looking.

Another 30 seconds later and Christopher Pyne is back with a point of order (it’s essentially the same point - that Shorten can only stick to the technical elements of the bill).

We have now spent more time on points of order than we have on the actual dixer.

Tony Burke comes back with the technical aspects – and that the precedent mentions “urgency in the matter” - which Burke says Shorten has been discussing.

Tony Smith says Shorten is walking the line, and Shorten finishes with:

It is urgent to deal with our proposal to restore Sunday and public holiday penalty rates because the workers of this country are going backwards under the Turnbull government and they need a wage rise!”

Updated

Christopher Pyne is very much enjoying getting to interrupt with a Tony Burke style point of order - ensuring that Bill Shorten sticks to the “technical aspects” of dealing with the bill.

Tony Smith rules that while Pyne is correct – “so far” Shorten is “completely in order”.

Updated

Susan Lamb with a question for.....

Bill Shorten.

Labor just moved an opposition dixer.

It’s allowed, because it’s on Shorten’s private member’s bill on penalty rates - but it will be treated the same way as we treat all dixers.

The House is rather subdued, even accounting for this being a dixer answer.

And in the Senate:

You can read more about Lee Rhiannon’s replacement here:

Question time begins

Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:

Today’s disappointing ABS wages data confirms that this prime minister continues to preside over record low wages growth. Given that everything’s going up, except people’s wages, why is the prime minister making it harder for working Australians to make ends meet by supporting unilateral cuts to penalty rates? Why does the prime minister only ever look at the top end of town?

Turnbull:

The wage price index increased by 0.6% in the June quarter. That’s the fastest quarterly increase since March 2014. Mr Speaker, while the growth in average wages has been relatively low, we have turned the corner on wages growth. And the increase in the June quarter is an indication of that. I repeat – it’s the fastest quarterly increase since March 2014.

As the Reserve Bank governor said only a week or so ago, the rate of wages growth appears to have troughed. There are increased reports of skilled shortages in some areas. The relatively modest wage growth shows, again, why our personal income tax relief, $530 this year for middle-income families, or taxpayers is so important. It also underlines the importance of strong jobs growth.

The reason we are starting to see a pick-up in wages growth is because of more demand for labour. The laws of supply and demand have not been suspended. The Reserve Bank governor notes that we’re seeing more demand for labour, we’re seeing skilled shortages starting to develop in some areas. Hence wages are starting to move up. And what that means is that we need to maintain the momentum for strong economic growth.

Now, all of that growth we’ve seen has been driven and enabled by our economic policies. We’re bringing down energy prices, companies are paying lower taxes, individuals are paying less tax, small and medium firms are investing, and they are hiring, and that is why last year – calendar year – we saw the largest jobs growth in any calendar year in Australia’s history. We are delivering more jobs, stronger economic growth, and that is starting to be reflected as the Reserve Bank governor foreshadowed in the wage growth figures which, as I say, is the best – the largest – well, fastest quarterly increase since March 2014.

Updated

One Nation have released this statement:

Today Senator Pauline Hanson will introduce her Plebiscite (Future Migration level) bill 2018 to the Senate. The bill proposes to give voters a say on whether Australia’s immigration levels are too high by casting a vote at the next general election.

“For years the people of Australia have had immigration and population levels dictated to them by governments that refused to listen to the will of the people,” Senator Hanson said.

“One Nation’s immigration and population policies have been responsibly developed to address issues surrounding rapid population growth, social cohesion in our communities and underdeveloped infrastructure in our cities and regional communities, with no regard to the racial background of potential migrants.”

“For years, media personalities, activists and out of touch politicians have been sneering and labelling any who dared to raise sensible objections to large scale migration as racists.”

“It is time this stopped, the people of Australia should be given a say in the future population and immigration levels of Australia and that is what this plebiscite if passed, will achieve.”

“It is time that politicians took their heads out of the sand and admitted that the lack of well-established population and immigration policies has contributed to many problems across Australia.”

“Because of failure from our leaders to act on immigration Australians are experiencing a reduction in their standard of living. We cannot ignore issues like more congestion on our road, longer waiting times for hospital beds, shortages in our nursing homes, just to name a few.”

“Because of our Government’s inability to implement sensible population and immigration policies, Sydney and Melbourne are now at capacity. In fact, they contain many federal electorates where more residents were born overseas than in Australia. Yet the Government continues to funnel more migrants into those areas.”

“The absence of any real immigration or population planning has contributed to the failure of our Governments to invest in long term energy and water infrastructure, which has led to higher energy prices and threats to our water security.

“The major parties need to accept that through their desire to appease special interests groups, minorities and big business, they are responsible for these shortcomings. It is time they accepted that everyday Australians deserve to have their voice heard.”

Updated

Julia Banks is delivering her statement - she is also in tears as she says she couldn’t sleep after reading Fraser Anning’s speech overnight.

But she says she is proud to represent the multicultural community of Chisholm - and that the display of unity in the parliament this morning has given her heart.

Moving across to the chamber, where the Members’ 90 seconds statements are on....

And Nicolle Flint has the floor.

And the national energy guarantee negotiations are still ticking over – last night, following the phone hook-up, the states agreed to release the draft exposure legislation they require to underpin those changes the Neg would bring.

You may have missed it this morning, but the government has basically conceded it needs Labor’s support to get its part of the legislation through the parliament. While the House is a problem, given the number of Coalition MPs reserving their right to cross the floor, the Senate is an even bigger one.

Craig Kelly, who has been one of the biggest internal critics of the policy, just told Sky News he would wait to see the final legislation before making up his mind on whether he crosses or not.

Updated

There is quite a bit going on today, but it is important to draw attention to this story from Chris Knaus:

Centrelink is for the first time trialling a version of its automated debt recovery system on the nation’s most vulnerable welfare recipients, bypassing previous safeguards designed to protect those with severe mental illness, intellectual impairment or drug addiction.

Welfare recipients whose files are marked with a “vulnerability indicator” have so far been exempt from Centrelink’s controversial methods of clawing back overpayments, which have received widespread criticism for their inaccuracy and unfairness since a raft of changes introduced in mid-2016.

But several weeks ago, Centrelink began sending letters to a “small number” of people marked as vulnerable in its systems.

You can find the whole story here

Linda Burney, Labor’s shadow social services spokeswoman has labelled the move “particularly cruel”.

People with mental illness, intellectual or cognitive impairment, those requiring regular medical treatment, people experiencing homelessness and people recently released from prison are among those who will now be subjected to Robodebt.

This is a particularly cruel expansion of Robodebt. People in these circumstances are more likely concerned about their personal welfare than where they have filed their payslips.”

Updated

We are sliding into question time - you know the drill, predictions below.

In the Senate, the euthanasia debate has restarted – or to be technical – the debate to reinstate the rights of the territories to pass voluntary assisted death legislation if they so desire, is being debated.

The Senate can’t deal with any other legislation until this is voted on. The speakers list has been long – and there are still quite a few to go.

Updated

I cannot transcribe all of this. I won’t. It’s wrong and it’s hateful and it’s incoherent.

Anyone who is listening to this, and still thinks Bob Katter is a harmless joke, someone who is good to make fun of in parliament, because he says his bullshit with a laugh and a reference to thousands of flowers blooming, I hope you have found your line.

For the record:

Bob Katter backed his senator Fraser Anning, said he stood by everything he said “1000%” and hopes that he says it again and again and again, because it not only gets them attention, he thinks it will get them votes.

He says it is Australia’s “great shame” that we did not protect the Jewish people before and after the rise of Nazi Germany and they are to be protected, but “them” – that would be any Australians of the Muslim faith – were persecuting the Jewish people in this country.

He cannot explain how Fraser Anning’s call for Christian migrants to be prioritised marries up with his belief that Jewish people should be respected. He cannot explain how the use of the term “the final solution” stands in support of what he claims he believes in. He believes referring to his grandfather, born of a Lebanese migrant, as being Lebanese is “racist” because he was a “proud Australian”, as was his great-grandfather.

And anyone who disagrees with him gets a flush of anger and an accusation of being a “lilipad leftie”.

That’s about all I can stomach from that news conference. Not because I am a snowflake, or a lilipad leftie or whatever term you care to use, but because I am an Australian. I am a human. And I am despairing.

Updated

Fraser Anning's speech 'solid gold' - Bob Katter.

Do you support Fraser Anning’s comments?

“Absolutely, 1000%. I support everything he said.

“...It was a magnificent speech. It was solid gold”.

Updated

Bob Katter is doubling down on Fraser Anning’s comments.

He is referring to Muslims as “them”.

I will bring you his exact words.

But I feel sick.

Some scenes from the House from this morning:

The member for Chifley Ed Husic and environment minister Josh Frydenberg embrace
The member for Chifley Ed Husic and environment minister Josh Frydenberg embrace. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
“Joined at the unhip”
“Joined at the unhip”. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Malcolm Turnbull shakes hands with Ed Husic after the House of Representatives united to condemn the first speech of Senator Fraser Anning in parliament this morning
Malcolm Turnbull shakes hands with Ed Husic after the House of Representatives united to condemn the first speech of Senator Fraser Anning in parliament this morning. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Ed Husic and Anne Aly after the motion passes
Ed Husic and Anne Aly after the motion passes. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
“I’m tired” - Anne Aly
“I’m tired” - Anne Aly Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

Bill Shorten’s office has transcribed his speech – the PMO would be doing the same thing as we speak. In case it needs to be said, the motion was carried unanimously.

I move this motion today because we need to defend the great national convention of Australian politics: race is beyond politics.

I’m asking the government, and I’m pleased the prime minister and the minister for home affairs are here, to support a motion which reaffirms the great bond of the major parties, to defend our national sense of decency, our trust in Australia.

I’m sure the prime minister will say comparable things, because I know that he is not a racist.

And this statement will be stronger if it is supported by the members of the House of Representatives.

We should do this together.

Mr Speaker,

In the corrosive and fragmented climate of public debate, it’s become unfortunately common for some to seek out attention by picking on minorities, the less powerful, by attacking in the most vile terms, normally someone who can’t defend themselves.

Around the world, right-wing extremists are turning this into a political art form.

They say something hateful or homophobic or sexist or racist, something designed to humiliate and denigrate and hurt. And then when their comments are condemned they complain about ‘political correctness gone mad’ or the ‘thought police’ stifling their free speech, all the while basking in the media attention.

I understand that in one sense there might be a reason to simply ignore it, to starve the stupidity of oxygen, to treat it as beneath contempt.

But as leaders, as representatives of the Australian people, as servants of diverse communities in a great multicultural nation, we cannot stay silent in the face of racism.

We cannot ignore the kind of prejudice and hate that the senator sought to unleash last night.

Free speech is a cherished value in Australian society but it is not an unfettered right to hurt, to bully, to intimidate, to make some Australians feel less equal than other Australians.

We have to call it out.

We must condemn it.

We have to speak truth.

We have to stand it against it, strong and united.

I acknowledge, already many members and senators, as word has gone out of this speech, have stood up and spoken out. I acknowledge their courage.

It is time for the parliament to once again draw a line, to say ‘no more’.

No more racism.

No more crossing the street, no more turning a blind eye.

No more: ‘if we just ignore it, it will go away’.

This is not commentary in the social media, this is commentary in the parliament of Australia.

It is time for every serious political party to show the courage to put candidates who advocate racism last.

Malcolm Fraser knew this, John Howard got there.

It is time for all of us to say enough.

No more deals with racist parties, no more preferences for racism.

When it comes to opposing racism, Labor will not hold back.

We will not play a straight bat, stay silent and hope for the best.

We know that racism fills the silences, discrimination thrives in the darkness.

The only way to stop it is to haul each of those hateful falsehoods into the light and expose them for the harmful fiction they are.

Labor is proud to be a party of multicultural Australia.The party of tolerance, a party to heal the nation.

Now, we weren’t always there. But modern Labor, from the time of Whitlam and Hayden, Hawke and Keating and Evans and Beazley and Rudd and Gillard. Not once has the inclination of modern Labor altered.

Yes, we can establish better processes of integration. Yes, better promotion of understanding.

But let’s be clear that Australia won’t achieve any of what our nation’s great destiny can be by pulling the racist lever.

As Senator Wong put it this morning, dividing our nation does not make us safer.

I think it’s important to quote the former head of ASIO, the respected David Irvine.

He said:

“The tiny number of violent extremists does not represent the Islamic communities of Australia…
…it is grossly unfair to blame Muslims, who see themselves as a committed component of Australian multicultural society.”

He went on to say:

“Our fight is with terrorism, it is not with Islam or with our Muslim community. The strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself.”

Senator Anning needs to understand this. What he seeks to do, when he undermines our national harmony, when he says some Australians are better Australians than other Australians, he risks weakening our national security.

Mr Speaker,

Senator Anning’s speech boiled down to one big lie about Australia: that every challenge we face can be blamed on our newest arrivals.

That all of our problems can be solved by turning back the clock and closing ourselves off from the world.

But here is the truth about Australia.

We are a nation made great by immigration.

We are strong because we are diverse.

We are a richer, smarter, more interesting and more prosperous destination because of people who have built a new life here.

Many who come here just with the clothes on their back.

People who have worked hard, started early and stayed late, opened businesses, built communities, looked after their neighbours, raised children, served in local, state and federal politics, cared for their elders, paid taxes, worn the uniform of our country.

People from all traditions, who have added their story to our own.

People from every country who have made us a better country.

People of every faith who share a common belief in Australia.

What Senator Anning and Senator Hanson and some of the rest pine for is the supposed ‘good old days’ of White Australia.

But they’re not just insulting new arrivals. They are denigrating everything that all Australians have put together in the last half century, whether their families have been here for one generation, eight generations or two thousand generations.

And people who seek to lecture others about ‘Australian values’ need to know that racism is not an Australian value.

Mr Speaker,

As for the Senator’s use of the term ‘final solution’.

A phrase torn from the darkest pages of human history.

Two words which speak for the brutalisation and murder of millions.

Two words that evoke fear and grief and trauma and loss in diasporic families all over the world, and many others.

The senator ridicules his critics by saying these words need to be seen in their context.

Well, that is exactly the problem.

This wasn’t a piece of Twitter stupidity composed in haste. It was a first speech nine months in the making.

The context of these words is prejudice, it is a speech filled with prejudice.

And this, like everything else, deserves nothing but condemnation.

It has always been easy for candidates who style themselves as ‘outsiders’ or ‘mavericks’ to blame minorities, to demonise difference, to try and divide Australia by putting the blame on one particular group or another.

And truth and consistency doesn’t trouble these people.

They say migrants are bludging on welfare – but they’re also buying all our houses.

They say they’re uneducated – but also filling our universities.

The list goes on.

Let’s be very clear about this. Let’s just speak truth.

Traffic jams on freeways and overcrowded trains aren’t an argument against migration, they’re proof that we need to build more better roads and public transport.

Low wages aren’t an argument against migration, they’re proof that we need policies to boost pay, improve bargaining and restore penalty rates.

The argument that people are being locked out of the housing market isn’t an argument against migration, it’s an argument for a fairer tax system and a level playing field.

Crime is not a migration problem. Violence is not a migration problem.

No one on this side of the house is minimising the challenges that real people face in their daily lives, this parliament should put forward plans and policies to help.

But we do not seek to insult the intelligence of the Australian people by blaming every problem in this country on decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who are just trying to make this a better place.

In recent times the great national convention of Australia - that race should be above politics - has been breached.

Now it is time for all of us who seek to represent the national interest to support this motion, to prove that the convention has not been broken.

To show that Australia’s major parties stand against racism and prejudice.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is a lot of debate about the Australian identity and what makes a ‘good Australian’.

But today I want to say that what makes a good Australian is not governed by the number of generations you’ve been here. Two thousand generations, eight generations or one.

What makes a good Australian is not what god you worship, not where your ancestors come from, or how much money you have.

It is not your skin colour, your postcode, your occupation or your gender.

What makes a good Australian is what is in here, in your heart.

What makes a good Australian is are you a good neighbour?

Do you raise your family, do you pay your taxes, do you obey the law?

Good Australians are not just born, they can become good Australians by choice.

Good Australians are people who stand up for minorities, for the less powerful, for the fair go all round.

A good Australian is not dictated by skin colour or worship.

It is not dictated by what faith you adhere to.

It is whether or not you adhere to our laws and raise your family well.

A good Australian is the kindness you show in another’s trouble and the courage you show in your own.

A good Australian is someone who adheres to our values - and our values include standing up for the less powerful.

Thank you very much.

Tim Soutphommasane, in his final email as race discrimination commissioner, sent this out today:

“As I warned in [my farewell] speech, we are now unfortunately seeing a triple threat to our race relations: the return of race politics, the fuelling of racism by some sections of the media, and sustained attempts to weaken our institutional stance against racial discrimination. Last night’s speech by Fraser Anning in the Senate, praising the White Australia policy and calling for a ‘final solution’ to Muslim immigration, just underlines the dangers.”

“In my last public speech at the Whitlam Institute at Western Sydney University (6 August), I reflected on the past five years in race relations. It has been a turbulent period, with contests over the Racial Discrimination Act – but the community support for racial equality and multiculturalism remains strong.”

Updated

'I'm tired of fighting' - Anne Aly

I am going to try and get the video of this speech and put it up, because my transcription does not show the absolute raw emotion and power of someone who has had to fight their entire lives - not just for themselves, but for their children and those who came after them - for acceptance and suddenly finds themselves exhausted by that fight.

And then discovers they are not alone:

“I came in here with a speech prepared. I came in here, ready to roll up my sleeves and to fight. And to defend as I have had to so many times over the last 30 years.

“And I have sat here for the last hour and I have heard the leader of the opposition, the deputy leader of the opposition, the prime minister. And the minister for home affairs, and the member for Chifley speak and the deputy prime minister speak and I am tired of fighting.

“I am tired.

“I’m tired of having to stand up against hate. Against vilification. Time and time and time again.

“And I wrote in this speech that I have, that I was proud to be a member of the Labor party that today honours the tradition of Bob Hawke in 1988 when he stood up and put a motion in this parliament confirming Australia’s non-discrimination immigration policy.

“But I am also proud to be a member of this parliament – that is united today. Thank you.

“That is united today in its condemnation of those terrible words that were spoken in the other place yesterday. But that pride is tinged with sadness.

“It is tinged with sadness that we have had to do this for 30 years. For 30 years. You know, I once attended a seminar which was put on for young migrant kids in my electorate and they all stood up and talked about some of the challenges to them in their young lives – these were kids who were 15, 16 right up to the age of 18. And I sat there listening to them and I started crying.

“I am a big sooky la-la at the best of times, let’s just put that out there – weddings, funerals, speeches in parliament – everything. And they came up to me and they said ‘Anne, we didn’t mean to make you cry’ and I said, no, you don’t understand. Your challenges today are the same challenges that I had 30 years ago.

“And I’m – I just want to know when it is going to change. When it is going to change for our future generations.

“When is it going to get better? For them? But today, this morning, I see hope.

“I see possibilities. I see opportunity. I see leaders on both sides who are willing to stand up. And I see that I don’t have to fight alone any more. Thank you for that. Thank you. It means a lot.

“It means a lot to me. It means a lot to my kids. It means a lot to my mum, who was told to stand at the back of the line every time she went to get on a bus, while she struggled with two toddlers. Told to stand at the back of the line and told to repeatedly say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ before she was allowed on that bus.

“This today means something. It means something. It means something to Australia. It means something that all of us here stand up against this racism, stand up against this racism. Stand up against the disgraceful, disgraceful use of that terminology, that neo-Nazi, white supremacy terminology. It wasn’t an accident and I won’t accept it was an accident. That was a deliberate use of a heinous, heinous word that brings back so many painful memories and sets a precedent for the future of our country that we need to stand up and stop.

“So I just want to rise up today and say thank you. I am not going to say any of this speech that I wrote.”

Updated

Ed Husic:

“There are a few improbable things in this place – one of them which is remarked upon from time to time is my friendship with the member for Kooyong. The two of us are properly the biggest dags in parliament – I don’t know if that is parliamentary, but we are.

“Here we are, joined at the unhip.

“From different parties, from different parts of the country, different faiths. But actions matter more, in terms of being able to find common ground and my contribution today – we can focus on the people who are trying to divide us or focus more on the things which bring us together as a country.

“This is a moment which is supposed to do just that. And I remember on my election here, when he used to be known as the member for Wentworth and is now remarked on as the prime minister – calling me to congratulate me on my election.

“I have never forgotten. We all in this place can recognise moments where we have taken a little bit of a step as a nation together. The things that bring us together matter more.

“The things that can allow us to be a better country are things that are worth celebrating. That is why I focus on these things today – not to focus on the things that divide us, and that have caused great anger and annoyance, those that have sought to drive division or fuel fear, but to recognise that this is a moment that we will be judged on both sides, not just in terms of my words, but the actions of a prime minister or a leader of an opposition to bring a country together.

“And reminding us that we all have an obligation to make the place a better place.

“And I’ll end on this observation – people ask me because of my Muslim faith – do I have a problem with the Lord’s prayer at the start of parliament? No I don’t. When you hear God’s words, you hear God’s words. They are good words – and in particular – ‘and forgive us for our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us’ - it’s not an exhortation for the moment.

“It is a reminder for us to live a better life that is not myriad in the negative, but in something that is better. And this is the moment that we can build on.”

Updated

“I say to people all the time, who say to me ‘we should stop Muslim migration, or we should stop people coming into our country’ – intellectually, it is incompatible to say that you can have a migration program where we think every person from a particular race or religion is bad or good.

“As I said before, there are the vast majority of people who come from many communities, who are good people, who deserve to live in our community and will make a wonderful future. And those who don’t, don’t belong in our country. And we are very clear on that and the government’s position won’t change.

“But today we celebrate what is great about our country and we turn it into an opportunity to talk about the success – not just of the Chinese migrants growing up in my community in the 70s, not just the people who have been here for generations before that – regardless of their path or their means to our country, people have made a wonderful contribution, we owe them a lot for what they have contributed, we work with them shoulder to shoulder to protect our values and to protect our future, but today we do call out that which is wrong, that Senator Anning has detailed as his view in the Senate and we will work together, we will renew our efforts to make sure this country remains as great as it has always been and I am very pleased to join with the prime minister, leader of the opposition, deputy leader and subsequent speakers on this very important topic.

-Peter Dutton

Updated

Anne Aly stands to speak to the motion, crying before she has even said the first word:

“This, today, means something,” she says.

Updated

The Courier Mail confirms that Katter’s Australia party will continue to support Fraser Anning, with the party president Shane Paulger saying it was “very supportive” of his speech.

From the CM’s report:

“Immigration is something this country needs to come to grip with, we need to strengthen our ties with people from similar backgrounds to what this country was founded on, Christian beliefs in general,” Paulger said.

“We’re a multicultural nation, we’re first to admit that. We need to have people who have similar beliefs and ideals and ideologies to what we have.

“I’m not saying we have to reduce immigration, it’s got to be immigration from the countries that assimilate very closely with ours.”

Asked if he was comfortable with the use of the term “final solution”, Mr Paulger said:

“We have no affiliation with Nazism and fascism or anything like that,” he said.

“We’re very strong on this immigration issue.”

Updated

Word is beginning to filter through from north Queensland that Bob Katter plans on keeping Fraser Anning on.

He’s due to hold his media conference at 12.30pm.

Updated

Ed Husic and Josh Frydenberg have hugged each other following Husic’s speech, condemning Fraser Anning. Husic, a Muslim, quoted the Lord’s Prayer and said it never bothered him to hear it at the beginning of parliamentary sittings, despite his different religion, because “God’s word is God’s word”.

Updated

I don’t have a list of everyone who shook Fraser Anning’s hand or congratulated him after his speech yesterday – to be honest I was triple checking my tape to ensure I had not misheard anything and that he had used the term “final solution” – but here is the footage from just after the speech:

Updated

Bob Katter is due to speak on the issue in less than two hours (he is in Cairns, not Canberra, for what we understand to be a long-standing commitment).

Peter Whish-Wilson, who has worked with Katter on things such as the banking royal commission and regional issues – and who has a strong, working relationship with the Queensland MP, despite their different political ideologies – has personally called on him to show leadership.

Updated

Peter Dutton is speaking in the House in support of Labor’s motion and has congratulated Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull for their speeches.

We owe it to those people who have gone before us that we condemn that racism ... it is inconceivable that reference to the final solution could be derived with any other meaning, any other intention and it should be condemned.”

Updated

Labor did not support the Greens’ censure motion in the Senate. Here is what Penny Wong had to say about the reasons:

Can I thank all senators for their contribution to this debate? Can I restate the importance of making a positive statement in response to the comments that we’ve been discussing of Senator Anning? Can I thank and acknowledge and reflect to all Australians, the overwhelming support across the chamber for this motion?

We have no intention of making Fraser Anning a victim. We have the absolute intention of both condemning these remarks and of taking on his arguments because they are wrong. I think today, what the Senate has shown, is that the best way to deal with division is to come together. The best way to deal with prejudice is to assert acceptance and tolerance. The best way to deal with people going low is to go high and, today, I think this is a chamber in the parliament of which Australians can be proud.

Updated

Fraser Anning walked out shortly after Penny Wong began her motion.

Senator Fraser Anning in the senate chamber of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, ahead of the condemnation of his maiden speech
Senator Fraser Anning in the senate chamber of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, ahead of the condemnation of his maiden speech Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

He came back into the Senate when the Greens were attempting to suspend standing motions to move a censure motion, and took his seat, realised what he was voting for, then got up and moved.

Updated

'You are only helping the terrorists' – Malcolm Turnbull

The prime minister is speaking to the motion Bill Shorten has put forward:

I’ll put up the speech in full (as I will with Shorten’s) as soon as I am able, but he included this in his condemnation of Fraser Anning’s speech and the use of the term “the final solution”:

Now, I want to refer to the remarks that have been made about terrorism. Let me say this, the vast majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims. The Islamic terrorists are, in the words of my friend, president Joko Widodo, president of Indonesia, they are blasphemous.

“He says they are not Muslims. They are denounced and abhorred by the vast majority of Muslims around the world, and, particularly here in Australia.

“Let’s be quite clear, those who seek to demonise all Muslims on the basis of the crimes of a tiny minority are helping the terrorists. I’ll be very clear about this. I say this as prime minister whose most solemn responsibility is to keep Australians safe. I want to say this very, very carefully, solemnly, seriously;

The terrorists’ argument, the Islamist terrorists’ argument, to other Muslims is your country, Australia, is not your country. They don’t want you. They hate you. You’re not ever going to be really Australian. Join the war on our side.

“So those who try to demonise Muslims because of the crimes of a tiny minority are only helping the terrorists.”

Updated

Labor has indicated it will not support the suspension of standing orders for the Greens censure motion to be heard.

Pauline Hanson:

'Appalled': Pauline Hanson condemns Fraser Anning’s speech
‘Appalled’: Pauline Hanson condemns Fraser Anning’s speech. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Let me make it quite clear that I was not in the chamber yesterday for Fraser Anning’s maiden speech, and also the fact that I did watch it from my office and I was appalled at his comments and his remarks. To actually hear people say now that, as Senator Hinch said, it is like hearing Pauline Hanson on steroids – I take offence to that, because – why relate it back to me? I think that it’s questionable. I have raised issues in this parliament, but I’ll get into that.

Fraser Anning, I can assure you, did not write that speech. He delivered it, but he is responsible for it. The speech was written by a Richard Howard, straight from Goebbels’ handbook from Nazi Germany. Richard Howard worked for the military propaganda specialist. He was one of the staffers when Richard Howard actually did work in Senator Malcolm Roberts’ office and was sacked out of that office. He actually was one of the staff – he did ask me for a position in my office after Senator Roberts lost his position in this parliament, which I refused to take him on. When he then went on with – he got a job with Senator Anning when he was elected to the parliament under the banner of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, yes, but at no time has he ever held a seat in this parliament under Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. From day one when he was sworn in, he was an independent.

When Richard actually was one of the staffers that I warned Fraser Anning not to take on, he disregarded my warning and took him on. So that was his decision. Now, as I said, I’m appalled by Fraser Anning’s speech. I have always spoken up on issues with regards to our country and I will stand by those views that I have. We are a multi-racial society. I have always advocated you do not have to be white to be Australian.

We have called for people coming here to give their loyalty, their undivided loyalty, to this country that you be Australian and proud of this country and abide by the laws. I suggest that you actually go and have a look at the immigration policy of One Nation and read it

I suggest that you actually go and have a look at the immigration policy of One Nation and read it thoroughly.

Might I also bring to your attention that our candidates standing under One Nation come from all different ethnic backgrounds. And I would like to say that our member for Mirani, Stephen Andrews, he’s the first South Sea islander to hold a position in parliament as MP for Queensland, so I think you need to devote your criticisms elsewhere. You say that you sat here through the speech, and you actually now are appalled at the fact you went up and shook Fraser Anning’s hand, especially in light of the speech, you sat here and you listened to it. Well, how gutless are members in this parliament? The fact is, if you were so appalled, you should have got up and walked out of the place. And the thing is, that now that it’s turned and the public are now having a say about this, you’re here on the floor of parliament, I do support the censure. I don’t agree with it either. When Senator Cameron makes comments about my racist comments in this parliament, what are the racist comments?

To make comments about our immigration, that we have a right to say, the numbers we have in Australia, that is very important to our future and wellbeing of this country. And I will continue to stand by it. So... What I would say to people of this... Don’t, because you may have your grievances and what Fraser Anning has said, don’t direct them at me. Because it’s got nothing to do with me. Go and talk to Bob Katter.

Last I knew, he went and joined Katter’s party. I haven’t heard one of you mention Katter’s party. I want to ask the Labor party, do you intend to put Bob Katter’s party last ... Please refer to Mr Katter by his title. Sorry, Mr Katter. You want to go and ask, where are you going to put your preferences now?

Is the Labor party going to put the Katter party last on the how to vote cards? This will be quite interesting how they’re going to put their how to vote cards.

As I said to you, I have always advocated for equality, right across the board, for everyone in this country. I have my views about different things, and I made them quite clear on the floor of parliament, the a lot of Australians support my views. But I do believe that Fraser Anning, Senator Anning, went too far in his speech yesterday, and it’s unacceptable, it’s not One Nation policy, we do not stand by this, I was the one not in the chamber, I never shook his hand and I do not stand by it, and I support the censure motion.

Updated

Derryn Hinch:

Senator Derryn Hinch wipes a tear after admitting he regrets shaking Fraser Anning’s hand following his speech
Senator Derryn Hinch wipes a tear after admitting he regrets shaking Fraser Anning’s hand following his speech Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The Justice party totally supports all the comments by Senator Wong, Senator Cormann and Senator Di Natale. I just want to place on record an action I took last night in this August chamber that I sincerely regret. Out of respect for this establishment I sat through the whole 30-minute diatribe, categorised as a first speech, from Senator Fraser Anning. I did not walk out, as one senator did during my first speech. At the time, I criticised the Greens for ostentatiously walking out on camera during Senator Hanson’s first speech. I believe in free speech, especially in these houses of parliament, but there are limits. That is why I voted in favour of the censure motion yesterday – of Senate Leyonhjelm, who made disgusting personal comments about Senator Hanson-Young.

I listened to Senator Anning’s speech in full. It was one of the most disgraceful, racist, homophobic, divisive, misogynistic, spiteful and hateful speeches I have ever heard anywhere in 50 years in journalism. It was Pauline Hanson on steroids. As I said on the ABC today, I felt like I was trapped in a Ku Klux Klan rally. I want to apologise to the Senate and the Australian people that, after that vomitus poison last night, I then stupidly, recklessly and unthinkingly – I did think about it – followed Senate protocol and dutifully lined up here and shook this unworthy man’s hand. I want to go on record and say I then went home and I washed my hand.

Updated

Richard Di Natale:

The Greens will absolutely be supporting this motion. We are a proud nation of immigrants. The things that bring us together are far more important and far more significant than the things that divide us. We should be very proud of the multicultural story here in Australia. Multiculturalism is often framed in language around people from multicultural communities needing to accept Australian values, but there’s something much deeper going on. What that means is that people who come here from right around the world actually enrich our values. They make us better. They make us think more deeply about our national character. They help us to reflect on those things which we can learn from those communities that come here, make a contribution and make Australia a better place.

Of course, we know that despite the fact that multiculturalism is embraced by the wider community, it’s something we never have to stop fighting for. If recent events have shown us anything, it’s that we have to redouble our efforts as a parliament to continue fighting for that great multicultural experiment that began several decades ago, which has made us the most successful multicultural nation on earth. That’s why that speech yesterday was just so disappointing. What it meant was that Australia was forced to confront the fact that there are individuals who will seek to exploit questions of race, ethnicity and religion for base political motives. We are very pleased that we are coming in here today and re-committing to the notion of a multicultural Australia. It has never been more important.

Updated

Mathias Cormann:

Mathias Cormann and Lucy Gichuhi as the Senate chamber condemns Fraser Anning
Mathias Cormann and Lucy Gichuhi as the Senate chamber condemns Fraser Anning. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The government will be supporting the motion moved by Senator Wong. Australia is a great migrant nation. Australia is a country which has welcomed people from all corners of the world. Australia’s a country that whatever your background, you will have the opportunity to contribute, to reach your full potential, to build a life for yourself and your family. Ours is a nation where all Australians, whatever their background, should be judged by the content of their character and actions and not by the colour of their skin, their religious faith or any other consideration. So it is in that spirit that on behalf of the government, I’m speaking in support of this motion.

This chamber in many ways is a true reflection of what a great migrant nation we are. We have in this chamber representatives of our Indigenous community. We have in this chamber representatives of Australians whose families have been here for generations, who are the descendants of migrants to Australia of more than 100 years ago. We have in this chamber first generation migrants from Kenya, Malaysia, Belgium, Germany and Scotland. What a great country we are – where first-generation Australians can join first Australians and those Australians whose families have lived here for more than 100 years and all work together to make our great country and even better country.

I very much support the sentiment in the motion that says that since the Hawke government with the support of the Labor party at the time initiated the dismantling of the white Australian policy Australia became a better country and it has served us well as a country domestically and it has served us well as a country internationally.

Updated

In putting forward the motion, Bill Shorten says he understands the desire not to give attention to views such as those of Fraser Anning – but that a line has been crossed, and the parliament must stand up against it.

He says it is rare for the parliament to unite against the words of one MP – but that Anning has managed to do this.

Labor’s motions have not called to censure Anning, but instead, to recommit the parliament to supporting immigration and multiculturalism.

Updated

Tim Storer on why he shook Fraser Anning’s hand, despite his objections to the speech:

I like to think that I am a courteous and polite individual. That was the reason I was in the Senate yesterday to listen to Senator Anning’s first speech. It is Senate practice to shake the hand of senators after they have delivered their first speech, which I did.

That act was not an endorsement of the contents of Senator Anning’s speech, just a common courtesy and in line with Senate protocol.

I found much of what he said to be incendiary, offensive and factually incorrect.

To be clear, I am a strong supporter of the bipartisan immigration policies backed by successive parliaments in the years since Liberal prime minister Harold Holt, at the head of a government in coalition with the then Country party, who started to end the White Australia policy, not Gough Whitlam, as stated by Senator Anning.

We are a better multicultural country as a result, and I will always stand up for a generous, non-discriminatory immigration policy.

It is those you disagree with most who you should seek to reach out to in the hope that you can bring them into the light.

Updated

We have moved across to the House, where Bill Shorten will move a motion acknowledging Australia’s multiculturalism.

Tim Watts has given us the historic context for this:

Penny Wong’s speech in full – I will note, that this was, as were most of the speeches we saw this morning, delivered off the cuff:

Labor senate leader Penny Wong condemns Fraser Anning for his first speech
Labor senate leader Penny Wong condemns Fraser Anning for his first speech Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Yesterday in this chamber we saw a speech which was not worthy of this parliament. We saw a speech that did not reflect the heart of this country. We saw a speech that did not reflect the strong, independent, multicultural, tolerant accepting nation who we are.

We saw a speech that did not reflect a nation which has been built by people from every country, every part of this world, a strong, independent, multicultural nation.

Instead we saw a speech that sought to divide us. We saw a speech that sought to fan prejudice. We saw a speech that sought to fan racism. And I say again, and I know this is a statement that so many in this nation support, a nation that is divided is never safer. A nation that is divided is never stronger and making others lesser, fanning prejudice and discrimination, has never made a nation safer.

It is so important, it is so important, that we in this chamber express our view, our positive view about what values matter to us. Because we have built this country, a country that is the most multicultural nation on the face of this Earth, not because we have allowed prejudice to persist, not because we have allowed discrimination to exist, not because we have accepted division, but because we have stood against it.

We have built this country because we have stood for unity, for a collective, for community, for values of acceptance and respect, Values that are intrinsic to who we are.

And what we must do as a parliament, and this is what this motion does, is assert those values again.

There are many times in this chamber – and we saw them in question time yesterday and no doubt we’ll see them again – when we have a bit of a barney, when the partisan system is at its finest or perhaps at its least fine.

But the times in our history which have been of most importance on these issues have been because our parties have worked together, because our parties have stood for the values that have built modern Australia, because our parties have stood for values of acceptance and respect and have stood against discrimination and prejudice. That is the history of Australia, and it is your history as much as it is ours.

So today let us demonstrate that again. Let us demonstrate again that it is with bipartisan support for those Australian values of inclusion, acceptance and respect; a belief in equality; the rejection of racism; the rejection of prejudice; and the rejection of division – and instead the support of tolerance and acceptance of respect and equality. Let us stand for that because that is the best of this country.

I want to say something on a human level. Think of what might be happening in some of the schoolyards in Australia today, because those of us who have been on the receiving end of racism know what it feels like and know that what leaders say matters.

Because to be prejudiced against a group, the first thing you have to do is diminish them, is to say that they are somehow less and not deserving of the empathy you would want for yourself and your family.

That is the worst thing about the speech we saw last night, because it sought to make one part of Australia less worthy of empathy. That is the first step in prejudice.

So I ask this chamber to support this motion and I ask us to reflect on what is the best of who we are and why it is so important that we do not allow any of our fellow Australians to be as diminished as they were in yesterday’s speech. But more importantly, why we must go forward, particularly the parties of government, adhering to the central values that are at the heart of the Australian nation – tolerance, respect, acceptance, equality.

Updated

The Senate votes in favour of Penny Wong’s motion.

David Leyonhjelm didn’t speak and neither did Cory Bernardi.

Richard Di Natale is now seeking to move the Greens’ censure motion.

Updated

The chair of the Anti-Defamation Commission, Dr Dvir Abramovich has commented:

What a poor and inappropriate choice of words by Senator Anning to make a point about immigration. I will remind him that the Nazis’ ‘Final Solution’ was the deliberate, systematic and mechanised extermination of European Jewry. Invoking terminology from the darkest and most unique tragedy in human history cheapens and taints this important debate. Mr Anning is entitled to his views, but he discredits himself and his argument by irresponsibly referencing an evil plan that led to the calculated murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust. This is historical trivialisation of the worst kind imaginable. As we remember those who lost their lives as a result of Hitler’s Final Solution, let’s hope that Senator Anning refrains from indulging in the future in such misplaced rhetoric.

Updated

Peter Whish-Wilson calls on Bob Katter to act:

“Bob, expel this senator from your party.”

Given Fraser Anning is from Queensland and its state leader is of Polish descent, I see a few of you have asked what Annastacia Palaszczuk has to say:

Updated

Lucy Gichuhi is talking about her own citizenship journey and how because “Australia is Australia” she has found herself in the Senate. But she seems absolutely fed up.

“Senator Anning is a leader ... what am I going to say to my daughter?

“This is Australia. It is first world. It is not third world. Can we do leadership first world?”

Updated

Malcolm Turnbull says Senator Anning’s remarks “are appalling. I condemn them and I reject them in their entirety.”

We are a nation that does not define its nationality, its identify by reference to race or religion, or cultural background or ethnic background. We define ourselves by commitment to shared political values of freedom, of democracy and the rule of law. And people from every corner of the earth, from every religion or of none, and every race, can connect, be inspired by, be part of those values. That is Australia. So we reject, we condemn racism in any form, and the remarks by Senator Anning are justly condemned and rejected by us all.”

Updated

The Centre Alliance and the Nationals have also given their support to Penny Wong’s motion.

It is exceptionally rare for so many in the parliament to be on the same side of something.

Updated

Right.

So the Greens were moving to censure Fraser Anning.

Penny Wong’s motion is not a censure motion – it calls for tolerance.

That the Senate –

1. acknowledges the historic action of the Holt government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia policy;

2. recognises that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National party governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national, and international, benefit of Australia; and

3. gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them.

Sorry for the confusion – but most of the senators are also saying they support the “censure motion” so I think the Greens and Labor’s intentions were conflated this morning.

Updated

This may be the first time many people have heard of senator Fraser Anning, so here’s a brief reminder on how he got into the Senate.

On 8 May 2016, Malcolm Turnbull called a double dissolution election, at which the entire Senate was emptied and up for re-election. Double dissolutions tend to favour minor parties because the quota to be elected is halved with 12 senators elected from each state rather than six at a regular half-Senate election.

In Queensland, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation received 250,126 first-preference votes, enough for 1.19 for quotas. After distribution of preferences, two PHON senators were elected from Queensland: Hanson, and the second on her ticket, Malcolm Roberts.

In October 2017, Roberts was disqualified by the high court for having dual UK citizenship.

Anning, who was third on the One Nation Queensland ticket, was selected by a recount of the votes at the 2016 election as his replacement.

Anning quit One Nation in November and in June joined Katter’s Australia party.

Updated

Pauline Hanson 'appalled' by Fraser Anning's speech

Pauline Hanson says she was “appalled” by the speech. She was not in the chamber, but watched it in her office.

But she says Fraser Anning did not write it – he delivered it – but it was written by Richard Howard, who she says is a former propaganda specialist and one of the people she warned Anning against hiring, which contributed to the split between them.

She asks “how gutless” the senators who shook Senator Anning’s hand were, and says they should have walked out if they were so appalled.

She supports the censure motion and is furious at the comparisons to herself.

“Because you may have your grievances ...

Updated

Doug Cameron:

I thank Senator Cormann for the contribution he made. He is a first, you know, a first generation migrant himself. But I would say to Senator Cormann, make sure the rest of your senators, make sure the rest of your MPs understand how difficult it is for migrants when they come to this country. They are faced with challenges and they don’t need Senator Anning and they don’t need Pauline Hanson trying to rip them down. It’s just unacceptable. We are a better country than this. And we need to stand up, we need to stand up for the issues that are important to this country – treating everyone fairly, treating everyone equitably. I support this resolution. I support it because it’s the right thing to do. Because when we allow racism to run unchallenged in this place, if we can’t deal with it at the apex of our constitutional operation, then what happens out in the streets will become even worse.

Updated

Tim Storer is also explaining why he shook Fraser Anning’s hand – “a common courtesy” and following Senate protocol.

He says he found the speech to be incendiary and supports the Senate motion to censure Anning.

Updated

Doug Cameron says Fraser Anning’s speech is the first maiden speech he has walked out on, in more than a decade in the Senate.

He did so shaking his head.

And I’ve witnessed some terrible things here with One Nation and some of the nonsense we hear from One Nation. But this took it to another level. And my concern is that as long as we sit in this place, and we say nothing about that type of race-baiting, then we weaken democracy in this country. I have taken the view that free speech is important. But I did follow one senator on the doors this morning who was arguing that this was free speech in action. This was not free speech. It was race hate. It was racism of the worst kind.”

Updated

Derryn Hinch apologises for “stupidly, recklessly and without thinking about it” shaking Fraser Anning’s hand following his speech yesterday.

He wasn’t alone. Several members of the crossbench and the government congratulated Anning on his speech, as is traditional, overnight.

Hinch says he regretted his action almost immediately.

“Out of respect to this establishment, I sat through the whole 30-minute diatribe, categorised as a first speech by Senator Fraser Anning. I did not walk out as one senator did during my speech. At the time, I criticised the Greens for walking out on camera during Senator Hanson’s first speech. Especially in these Houses of Parliament. But there are limits.

It is why I voted in favour of the censure motion yesterday of Senator Leyonhjelm. What a racist, hateful speech I’ve ever heard anywhere in 50 years in journalism. It was Pauline Hanson on steroids. As I said on the ABC today, I felt like I was trapped in a Ku Klux Klan rally. I want to apologise to the Senate and the Australian people that after the vomitous poison last night, I then, stupidly, recklessly and unthinkingly, and I did think about it well. I followed Senate protocol and I should have lined up here and shook this unworthy man’s hand. I just want to go on record and say – I then went home and I washed my own.

Updated

Mathias Cormann said in support of the censure motion:

The government will be supporting the motion moved by Senator Wong. Australia is a great migrant nation. Australia is a country that has welcomed people from all corners of the world. Australia is a country where, whatever your background, you have the opportunity to contribute, to reach your full potential, to build a life for yourself and for your family. And ours is a nation where all Australians, whatever their background, should be judged by the content of their character and their actions and not by the colour of their skin, by their religious faith or any other considerations. So it is in that spirit that on behalf of the government, I’m speaking in support of this motion, and I mean, this chamber, in many ways, is a true reflection of what a great migrant nation we are.

Updated

Labor’s motion in the Senate, which has the support of the government and the Greens, is:

That the Senate acknowledges the action of the Holt government, with bipartisan support for the Labor party, in dismantling the White Australia Policy; recognises that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal party National governments have pursued the non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming and international benefit of Australia; and gives unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the idea that whatever criteria are applied by Australian governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origins shall never explicitly or implicitly be among them.

Updated

In the House, Bill Shorten has announced he will be seeking to move this motion later this morning

That this House:

1. acknowledges the historic action of the Holt government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia Policy;

2. recognises that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National party governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national, and international, benefit of Australia; and

3. gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them.

It is essentially the same motion as the one Bob Hawke moved in 1988, but with the inclusion of faith.


Updated

Penny Wong is delivering a very emotional speech on the censure motion, condemning Fraser Anning’s speech, where she talks about the history of Australia and the bipartisanship of the parties standing against racism, prejudice and division, and how it needs to happen again.

I want to say something on a human level – think of what might be happening in the school yards of Australia today. Because those of us who have been on the receiving end of racism know what leaders say matters. Know what leaders say matters.”

I will bring you the whole speech as soon as I can transcribe it.

Updated

Bob Katter has called a press conference for 12.30 in Cairns.

Updated

Greens and Labor to move censure motion against Fraser Anning

For the second time in as many days, Richard Di Natale and the Greens will move to censure a senator for what was said in parliament:

“I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate censure Senator Anning for:

1. The racist hate speech in his First Speech, in particular;

a. references to the need for a “final solution”, a phrase commonly associated with the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis;

b. False, misleading and hurtful statements relating to Muslim Australians and other immigrant groups;

2. Bringing the Senate into serious disrepute.

Labor also has a censure motion.

Updated

The bells are ringing - parliament is about to begin.

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten will both be a the launch of ‘The Last Post: a ceremony of love, loss and remembrance” this morning.

Ahead of the event, Shorten had this to say about Fraser Anning’s speech:

There is no place in the parliament for these outdated and racist views. This nation works best when we work together. When I see some people advocating picking on minorities, who contribute to this country, it’s repugnant and disgraceful.

No doubt Senator Anning and some of the few people who share his views say it’s political correctness to stand up for minorities. It’s not. It’s just good manners. The idea in this country that someone’s face makes you first- or second-class Australian is rubbish.

I’m heading down to the War Memorial soon, a simple survey of the sacrifices made in both the first and second war show that Muslim citizens of their countries stood up and fought alongside all other citizens in the Great War and the Second World War. I want to say to people of faiths which are not the majority in this country, you pay your taxes, you’re good parents, you’re good neighbours, I respect you, and most Australians do not want to see us going back to 1958.

...When you say that you don’t want people of a certain religion in this country, you can pretend it’s whatever it is, but it’s just racism.

We are not being swamped by Muslims in this country. Let’s just say it as it is. All people who come to this country should adhere to our laws and to Australian values. But I do not like seeing majorities pick on minorities. That is not theAustralian way. And it’s certainly a view which has no place in our society and in our parliament.

Updated

Peter Khalil spoke to the ABC this morning:

You hear the ultimate right and extreme right hide behind that cloak of free speech to make hurtful comments and remarks, free speech has never been unlimitless under the law, which is why we have defamation laws that guard against vilification or incitement of hatred but it is about something else, about common decency, and a form of respect and empathy for fellow human beings and there is a misunderstanding of the human condition when you are judging someone by their skin colour as a group whether they are able of being part of a society.

That is a view I utterly reject. I don’t look at you and think – white male, I judge you based on, you are a good journo, you ask the tough questions, you are friendly. If my starting point was the white male, I would associate you with the white males and the experience of racism I went through in the 70s and 80s in Australia, but I don’t.

I don’t put you in that group. We need to have the ability to empathise people based on them being individuals and their character, not their ethnicity, or race.

Updated

Katter – Australia's refusal to give Jews escaping Hitler entry visas a 'great shame'

A lot of people have asked what Fraser Anning’s party leader, Bob Katter, whose grandfather Carl migrated to Queensland from Lebanon, has to say about Anning’s use of the phrase “the final solution”.

Katter hasn’t said anything as yet.

But going through his 2012 book An Incredible Race of People, Katter had this to say:

At a symposium in Brisbane in 2002, Professor Ted Coulson, head of the school of economics at the University of Queensland, said that the three great shames of Australia were:

    • the way we treated the First Australians
    • the way we treated the servicemen who returned from Vietnam and
    • what was done to the dairy farmers.

I commented to the respected academic beside me, ‘I’d add our participation in the Boer War’. Twenty-eight thousand Boer women and children perished in British concentration camps during that war, and it’s claimed that Hitler ofter reassured his senior ministers about the ‘final solution’ for the Jews (what we now call the Holocaust) by saying that the British and Turkish had got away with it and no one even mentions them.

I said I’d also have to include our refusal to give entry visas to the Jews trying to escape Hitler in the late 1930s and during the war. Australia only allowed in around 15,000 Jewish immigrants, yet 6 million were to perish under Hitler in the gas chambers. After World War II, Australia was taking in around half a million migrants a year, almost all from Europe, yet hardly any were Jewish. There were very few Jewish people left in Europe – they had almost all been murdered.”

(Chapter 37, page 607)

Updated

David Leyonhjelm gave his views this morning:

It is an overreaction to a term which has multiple meanings. Nobody owns the term “final solution.” There was plenty in the speech with which I disagreed. I don’t agree with him on banning Muslim immigration. I don’t agree on reinstating the White Australian Policy. And he does. And I don’t agree on having a government bank to lend money to farmers who will simply lose the money. There are many, many things in his speech which I don’t agree with, I don’t share his views.”

So while he doesn’t agree with a lot of the content in the speech, it’s his usual argument that you choose to be offended:

Reporter: Do you think his views will have a damaging impact within the Australian movement?

Leyonhjelm: As if he is the first who has said that, what a ridiculous discussion. If you are a little snowflake, you can go rushing around, taking offence at all kinds of things.

Reporter: Are you calling Australian Muslims thin-skinned?

Leyonhjelm: No, you are, you are saying they are thin-skinned snowflakes and suggesting they will take offence, I don’t think they will.

Updated

Fraser Anning was questioned as he walked through the press gallery this morning:

Reporter: Senator, is there anything you want to say to the Jewish community this morning, when you spoke that language last night?

Anning: No, I have always been a big supporter of the Jewish community. And they know I have. There is nothing I need to say to them, apart from, you know, we’ll continue to fight for their rights.

Reporter: [You] say it was unintentional but clearly if your comments have caused offence, you should apologise.

Anning: I don’t apologise for anything I say.

Reporter: Is this an attempt to boost your profile? You got into the Senate by less than the usual means and you will have to face re-election. By making such comments you are getting a bit of attention.

Anning: It wasn’t an inflammatory comment. It was two words used. It is the thought police who believe it was an inflammatory comment.

Reporter: Do you believe it is a popular idea?

Anning: I’m not sure what you mean.

Reporter: Do you think the idea of cutting Muslim immigration and forcing only immigration from white, European, is a popular idea?

Anning: Absolutely. I didn’t ever say “white” by the way.

Reporter: What were you hoping to achieve from this speech?

Anning: It is a popular idea. Talk to the people of Australia like I do in bars and places and you will find most would like to back exactly what I say.

Katter Australia senator Fraser Anning in the press gallery of Parliament House, Canberra
Katter Australia senator Fraser Anning in the press gallery of Parliament House, Canberra. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

Labor’s immigration spokesman, Shayne Neumann, released this statement:

Australia is a nation built on migration and our non-discriminatory immigration policy is our strength and our pride, having allowed for 7.5 million migrants to call Australia home since World War II.

Following the White Australia policy being dismantled, the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by the Whitlam government in 1975 to ensure Australia would not return to the backward, unjust and discriminatory days of yesteryear.

Labor condemns the views expressed by Senator Fraser Anning in the strongest possible terms and his attempts to undermine and attack Australia’s non-discriminatory immigration policy.

Over the past 40 years, migrants have helped build Australia into the strong, vibrant, and multicultural society it is today contributing to our shared society and economy regardless of their background.

The Australian story is one to which migration in inherently linked with the 2016 census showing nearly half of all Australians having either been born overseas or having at least one parent born overseas.

Migrants have helped drive our economy with one in three small businesses in Australia being run by migrants and migrant business owners employing 1.41 million people across Australia.

The disgusting, denigrating and divisive language like that shared by Senator Anning undermines Australian society as a whole and our shared values. It has no place in the parliament, it has no place in Australia and should be condemned by all sides of politics.

Labor believes in a fair go for all and we will always stand up for the multicultural and migrant communities of Australia and defend our non-discriminatory immigration policy.

Updated

And just in case we need to say it, this has nothing to do with shutting down debate. We spend more time in this country debating immigration than almost anything else lately. And given the amount of broadcast time and column inches dedicated to that debate, it is absolutely laughable to suggest that anyone is trying to silence the discussion. Our political landscape is made up of people who have been elected on that issue, and given the biggest platform of all to espouse their views until they are blue in the face.

This is about a senator standing up in the Australian parliament and invoking the term “the final solution” in relation to his extreme immigration plan, which called for the complete ban on Muslims and a return to the “pre-Whitlam” days – which was the White Australia policy.

This is not something the “thought police” have “jumped on”. This is not about choosing to take offence. This is about lines we absolutely have to draw in this country. Because otherwise what the hell do we actually stand for?

Updated

Sky News was criticised for featuring Blair Cottrell on one of its shows.

But Kieran Gilbert’s interview with Fraser Anning this morning was a different affair.

Updated

Good morning

Well. What a day yesterday was.

And it has spilled into today.

Fraser Anning said he will not apologise for invoking the term “the final solution” in his maiden speech, in the context of immigration, and his desire to ban all Muslim immigration and essentially return to the White Australia policy.

His exact words were: “The final solution to the immigration problem, of course, is a popular vote.”

Late last night, Anning released a statement blaming “the left” for the outrage at his use of a phrase used to describe the murder of millions of people Nazi leaders had deemed undesirable.

“Claims that the words meant anything other than the ‘ultimate solution’ to any political question is always a popular vote are simply ridiculous,” Anning said. “Anyone who actually reads them in context will realise this.

“Some in the media and leftwing politicians are simply afraid of the Australian people having a say on who comes here.

“As I called for a plebiscite on the immigration mix, this baseless and ridiculous criticism is simply an effort to play the man and not the ball.”

This morning, Anning has followed that line.

Labor MPs and the Greens came out swiftly yesterday to condemn Anning. It took government MPs a little longer but eventually we received this from the prime minister.

Josh Frydenberg, whose family came to Australia fleeing Nazi sympathisers in Hungary, told Sky:

These comments, by a member of the Australian parliament, were ignorant and insensitive, they were hurtful and they were divisive. I call on Fraser Anning not only to apologise but also to go and visit a Holocaust museum and to hear first-hand from the survivors how the pain is still raw.

But Anning said because he didn’t mean to use the term “the final solution” in the same way the Nazis did, and because he’s sure the Jewish community knows how much respect he has for them, he won’t apologise for anything he says.

Meanwhile, the government has all but admitted it needs Labor’s support to get the Neg through the parliament, with Frydenberg admitting the Coalition will struggle to get the numbers it needs in the Senate to pass the bill, if the opposition opposes it.

Mike Bowers has been out capturing the early morning events – I’ll bring you some of that soon. You’ll find more of his work at @mikepbowers and @mpbowers. You can catch me in the comments or at @amyremeikis.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
The Bored Panda Community Weights In On What Causes A Woman To Suddenly Lose Interest In A Man (37 Answers)
Romantic interest isn’t always lost in dramatic fashion. Often, it’s a seemingly small comment, behavior, or attitude that quietly flips the switch. We’ve rounded up the most interesting responses from the Bored Panda community about what causes women to suddenly lose interest in a man.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
“I was super flattered to be invited back into The Simpsons universe, and particularly with this grand message of great hope”: Michael Stipe returns to Springfield to sing a rewritten version of one of REM's biggest hits
It’s his second appearance on the show
MusicRadar
MusicRadar
Songwriter Billy Steinberg, who wrote monster hits for Heart, Pat Benatar, The Bangles, Madonna, The Pretenders and more, dead at 75
Songwriting legend Billy Steinberg passed away in Los Angeles on February 16
Louder
Louder
Stargate: Everything we know about Amazon's new Stargate series
Amazon's new Stargate show is on its way, so here's a complete guide on all the latest news and details for the upcoming sci-fi series
Total Film
Total Film
Rihanna Declares a Mysterious Pair of Slim Pumas Her 2026 It-Sneaker
Could there be a new Fenty x Puma collab in the works?
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
“We spent the night in a BDSM dungeon and our tour manager slept in a coffin”: The story of Worm, the battiest band in modern black metal
Inspired by black metal doc Until The Light Takes Us, the musician known as Phantom Slaughter launched an unhinged project endorsed by Megadeth’s Marty Friedman
Metal Hammer
Metal Hammer
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play