The parliament is winding down, so we are going to leave the blog here today.
Scott Morrison will head off to the G20 tomorrow after question time. He’ll be back in time for Monday’s question time, so you won’t get the Michael McCormack hour.
Thursday is the last sitting day off this week and then it’s just next week and BAM we are done for the year. At this stage, the parliament will reconvene on February 12. Then it’s budget, then election and then, who knows.
So pay attention to what will absolutely, be a bumpy ride.
A massive thank you to everyone who sent messages and asides, let me know when I messed up (truly) and then came along and cleaned up those messes I missed. Thank you.
And as always, thank you for following along with us. It really does make it easier.
We’ll be back early tomorrow morning, so, as always – take care of you.
The intelligence committee which is looking at the encryption laws is moving ahead with its public hearings:
The chair, Andrew Hastie, and the deputy chair, Anthony Byrne, of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security make the following joint statement:
“The parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security is assessing the timeframe for its report. The committee continues to operate in a cooperative and bipartisan manner as it considers the telecommunications and other legislation (assistance and access) bill 2018. The committee has met today and confirmed that the scheduled hearing for Friday will proceed.
“The public hearing on Friday will include representatives from industry and community groups. ”
A program for the hearing will be published later today.
Updated
It is not just Australia – New Zealand is now also banning Huawei from being involved in its telecommunications. From AAP:
New Zealand’s electronic intelligence agency has told the country’s largest internet company it can’t use technology from China’s Huawei to upgrade its network due to significant security concerns.
The Government Communications Security Bureau has notified telco Spark that using Huawei RAN equipment in its introduction of 5G would raise a national security risk.
Spark said in a statement on Wednesday it would review the decision before deciding if further steps were needed and that, while disappointed, it was confident of meeting its 2020 network rollout target.
Updated
After her “this is the natural government for Australian women” comment, which was followed with a nod to Julia Gillard and the “I will not be lectured” speech, Kelly O’Dwyer has gone on a tweet storm:
Under the Coalition there are more women in work than ever before: 5,945,100 (up from 5,278,900 under Labor).
— Kelly O'Dwyer (@KellyODwyer) November 28, 2018
The Gender Pay Gap is at a record low under the Coalition Government at 14.5% (down from 17.2% under Labor).
— Kelly O'Dwyer (@KellyODwyer) November 28, 2018
Plus! Women's labour force participation rate reached a record of 60.6% in 2018 under the Coalition Government.
— Kelly O'Dwyer (@KellyODwyer) November 28, 2018
Updated
The tampon tax is (almost) no more.
From Kelly O’Dwyer and Josh Frydenberg:
The Coalition government has today signed the determination that will remove the goods and services tax (GST) on feminine hygiene products from 1 January 2019.
The determination delivers on our government’s commitment to achieving this long overdue reform to remove GST from feminine hygiene products.
The determination follows the completion of a public consultation on the definition of feminine hygiene products to be exempt of the GST.
Eighteen submissions were received during the two-week consultation process, from product manufacturers, retailers, taxation experts and members of the public.
Items included in the final definition include tampons, disposable and reusable menstrual pads, menstrual cups, panty liners and period or leak-proof underwear.
This definition was developed in collaboration with the Department of Health, and approved by the Office for Women.
The change will be made effective on 1 January 2019, removing the 10% GST that currently applies to these products. The treasurer has directed the ACCC to monitor the market of these products.
This reform is the result of the Coalition government putting this issue on the agenda of the council of federal financial relations meeting in October, where treasurers unanimously agreed to remove the GST from these products.
Updated
Breaking back into the state sphere, Gracemere residents in central Queensland are being evacuated to Rockhampton, with fire conditions now “catastrophic”.
Resident of Gracemere, please evacuate to Rockhampton Showgrounds. Look out for one another, make sure your neighbours are aware and help the elderly. pic.twitter.com/d737Y5uwDa
— Annastacia Palaszczuk (@AnnastaciaMP) November 28, 2018
Updated
Labor has also tried to find out what the go was with the au pairs, but lost the vote after only Derryn Hinch voted with them on this motion from Louise Pratt:
Response to Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report—Allegations concerning inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers with respect to au pairs—Attendance of minister (altered 17 October and 13 November 2018 – SO 77)
Here is a video with Barry O’Sullivan’s comments in the Senate yesterday, followed by Richard Di Natale’s response. Earlier today, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young delivered her own riposte.
Speaking of the Senate, Jenny McAllister has successfully moved a motion for the production of documents on the rollout of the financial capability and wellbeing grants.
McAllister said the government has made five flips on this in the last two weeks, so she has asked for it to produce the documents that have led to the decision.
The motion reads:
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
(1) that the Senate notes that:
a. the Department for Social Services recently completed the tender process for grants for the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity, and began notifying applicants of the results in October and November 2018;
b. the tender decisions resulted in a number of organisations receiving real cuts to their funding;
c. these cuts were scheduled to take effect in a matter of weeks;
d. over the last fortnight, the Minister has back flipped and extended selected organisations’ existing funding.
(2) there be laid on the table by no later than 3:30pm on 4 December 2018 by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services any documents containing the following information:
a. the list of applicants who were successful in the 2018 tenders for each of the grant programs within the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity, including the amount of funding received and the service area to which it relates;
b. any variations or amendments to the tender outcome;
c. the list of existing grant holders who were unsuccessful or received real cuts in funding in the 2018 tenders for each of the grant programs within the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity, including the amount of funding lost and the service area to which it related;
d. the list of organisations who were offered extensions of their existing funding after the conclusion of the 2018 tenders for the Financial Wellbeing and Capability grants; including the amount of funding received, the length of the funding extension, and the service area and grant program to which it relates; and
e. any correspondence between the Department and the Minister’s office relating to (a) – (d) above.
Updated
Senate changes procedures after O'Sullivan comment
In the fastest I have seen the Senate work since I stepped into this place two and a bit years ago, the procedures committee have come back after Scott Ryan suggested changes to how formal business motions are dealt with this morning, and came back with a resounding, yes, do that.
So now, during formal business, when motions get moved, senators will no longer be able to debate before attempting to suspend standing orders, to bring the debate on.
What we are talking about here are some of the crazy motions we have seen put forward in recent months. ‘Formality is denied’ – ie, the Senate says no, but then the Senator can move to suspend standing orders. During that procedure, we have increasingly seen the suspend standing order debates being used as a sledging fest. And it’s all been getting a bit gross. The senators know that the motions have no chance of getting up, that standing orders won’t be suspended, so they use the time as a slanging match.
And a cohort of senators, the collective of which is known as a “Jurassic”, have been using that to go nuts.
But no more.
Now, for at least the duration of this parliament, when someone wants to suspend standing orders, there will be no debate – just a division.
Which takes a way one of the main forums for some of the, shall we say grotesque unpleasantness we have seen in the Senate over the last couple of months.
Updated
Marise Payne’s office has given us an update on where we are with Afghanistan:
Australia will join key partners at the Geneva Conference on Afghanistan to reaffirm our commitment to support Afghanistan’s transition to stability and self-reliance.
The Geneva Conference takes place as momentum builds towards meaningful discussions on peace in Afghanistan. Australia welcomes renewed efforts to find a durable and inclusive, Afghan-owned and Afghan-led, political solution to the ongoing conflict.
At the conference, Australia’s ambassador in Geneva will reaffirm Australia’s commitment to helping the Afghan people chart a course towards peace and a more secure and prosperous future.
Australia will announce a $5 million contribution to provide emergency assistance to almost 1.4 million Afghans who are on the verge of acute famine. This is in addition to the $5 million the then foreign minister announced in July 2018 to support the most vulnerable to gain immediate access to specialised nutritional products.
In addition to humanitarian assistance, Australia’s aid program is assisting Afghan farmers to increase community resilience, improve agricultural productivity and access markets, enhancing their economic opportunities.
Australia’s aid also assists women to escape violence and access justice and has helped thousands of girls to attend school, particularly in remote and rural communities.
This development assistance is made alongside our longstanding defence commitment to Afghanistan, which includes deployment of around 300 Australian defence force personnel and an ongoing commitment to strengthening the Afghan national security and defence forces.
Updated
It really says something about this week that the election date being all but announced is not the biggest news.
And it’s only Wednesday.
The green folder never lies.
He calls an end to question time.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Can he confirm that this government last year cancelled an entire week of parliament, this year shut down parliament and next year will come to parliament just 10 days in eight months, creating the first part-time parliament in Australian history. If ordinary workers skipped work like this, they’d get the sack. Why is it there’s always one rule for this divided, dysfunctional and chaotic government and another rule for everyone else?
Morrison:
I can confirm the budget is being brought forward by a month. And the sitting schedule has been prepared to reflect the bringing forward of the budget by a month.
Mr Speaker, and the number of sitting days that will take place that are scheduled between the start of the year next year and 18 May is exactly the same as it is this year.
We’re bringing the budget forward a month. And in that time before the budget the treasurer and I and the members of the expenditure review committee and the cabinet will be preparing a surplus Mr Speaker. That’s what we’ll be doing at the start of next year, Mr Speaker.
(He is back to yelling. He has had enough)
Our government will be delivering and preparing the first surplus budget in over a decade. That’s what we’ll be hard at work doing at the beginning of next year ...
Those opposite haven’t delivered a surplus budget from the year Taylor Swift was born in 1989, and now they want to shake it off, Mr Speaker, as if there’s some sort of way of walking away from their failure to deliver a surplus when they were in government, Mr Speaker.
He continues, but he has his yelling voice turned up to 11 and it is hard to hear what he is saying. Then again, I don’t think we could have expected Morrison to make it through two whole days without yelling in question time. He is only human, after all.
Updated
Greg Hunt takes the last dixer.
Scott Morrison is almost ready to go – you can tell, because he starts putting his papers in order and he puts his green folder on top.
It’s a fun organisational tic he seems to have.
Updated
Chris Bowen to Josh Frydenberg
Does the Treasurer agree with himself then he said, ‘If you believe in lower power prices, if you want to see Australian households $550 a year better off if you want to see the wholesale price down by 20 per cent... You get behind the National Energy Guarantee.”
Frydenberg:
Well, as the Prime Minister made very clear, the Leader of the Opposition, when the National Energy Guarantee was being discussed, called it a Frankenstein policy, Mr Speaker, and in doing so he revealed everything that he’s about. Just politics. It’s all about politics. It’s not about reducing power prices.
Frydenberg continues with almost the same answer Scott Morrison gave just a bit ago, which is not surprising given Morrison quickly scribbles down a note, circling part of it and moves it in front of Frydenberg.
You can say one thing about Cory Bernardi – he is incredibly consistent.
This week we also saw the Greens party’s prime show phony Sarah Hanson-Young claim her turgid performance and histrionics over the past decade has been due to sexism. She clearly doesn’t realise that her hopelessness and rotten ideas aren’t a product of her gender but of the loathsome ideology she espouses.
There was even a claim by a Labor senator that, the ‘tone’ used by a Coalition Senator during a formal motion was sexist. Honestly, you cannot make this garbage up. But such nonsense isn’t confined to the kooky Greens and Labor.
Lady Liberals are now piling on to the supposed endemic sexism and bias in the party. Surprisingly, they remained silent while they rose through the ranks and participated in every Machiavellian maneuver to advance their careers but now they can afford to ‘speak out’ to ‘make change’.
Mark Butler to Scott Morrison:
“Does the prime minister agree with himself when he said ‘the national energy guarantee achieves lower energy prices?’”
Morrison:
The misrepresentation of the National Energy Guarantee as being some measure that the opposition has somehow taken from the Coalition I think is deeply misleading.
I’ll tell you why.
In the proposal considered by the government the emissions reduction target was 20%. It wasn’t 45%. The Labor party cannot use the National Energy Guarantee as some sort of trojan horse to legislate a 45% emissions reduction target, Mr Speaker.
The Australian public should not be fooled by this lie, Mr Speaker, because it is a very tricky and shifty lie from the leader of the Opposition.
Very tricky and very shifty. 45% emissions reduction target will turbo-charge electricity prices high, Mr Speaker.
That will hit pensioners, it will hit families, it will hit small businesses, it will hit the agriculture industry. It will help the smelting industry. It will hit businesses and regions all across the country, Mr Speaker.
If you’re interested in taking electricity’s prices down, you do not have reckless targets when it comes to managing your emissions. We have a sensible target. It’s 26%. We’re committed to it and we will continue to meet it.
Scott Morrison is attempting to tell parliament the NEG isn’t the NEG if it has a 45% target. Strange, then, the ESB officials saying constantly the NEG target was scalable and that was a key feature of the design #qt
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) November 28, 2018
Updated
Barnaby Joyce asks David Littleproud a dixer.
The most I can take from this is Littleproud has been attending the same non-yelling lessons as the prime minister.
Kelly O'Dwyer 'this is the natural government for Australian women'
Eventually, Tony Smith allows the question.
Kelly O’Dwyer:
I thank the member for her question. It gives me an opportunity to be able to explain again to the House how this government is the natural government for Australian women.
I can’t tell you what she says next, because I don’t think I have ever heard Labor exclaim so loud.
They are unable to control themselves. Julia Banks does not look up from her bench. Neither does Julie Bishop. Labor looks like it has been handed a Bob Hawke for a new generation for Christmas and no one is even pretending to hold themselves together.
O’Dwyer:
As I said, we are the government that naturally represents Australian women. We represent their hopes and aspirations.
(interjections)
Tony Burke asks for the answer time to be extended.
O’Dwyer:
You won’t listen to a woman at the despatch Box, so I will not take a lesson from you on that.
“Well done, Kelly,” say Coalition MPs. “Disgraceful”. Clare O’Neil and Madeleine King get thrown out under section 94a.
O’Dwyer continues listing the government achievements, but Labor has made its point.
Updated
Linda Burney to Kelly O’Dwyer:
The minister failed to answer the question yesterday, so I ask – does the minister agree with herself and this Liberal Government that – that this Liberal Government is widely seen as, I quote “homophobic, anti-women, and climate change deniers”?
Tony Smith raises the issue that the question sounds the same as the one which was asked yesterday. Tony Burke says the question is different, and that the rule only applies if the question is fully answered.
Burke says how answered the question was is not a judgment Burke can make.
Updated
The clayton’s crossbencher, Kevin Hogan (he still goes to the National party room meetings, but has moved to the crossbench – it’s complicated) is the latest visitor to Julia Banks’s bench.
Updated
Kelly O’Dwyer is giving a dixer answer on the women’s economic security statement.
She mentions the gender pay gap.
“What’s the gender pay gap in the Coalition,” Julian Hill yells.
He’s thrown out under 94a.
You may have noticed the theme of the government’s answers today “by contrast”.
It’s in almost all of them.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Why won’t the prime minister listen to the member for Curtin and work with Labor on the National Energy Guarantee, a policy which the current treasurer designed and the current prime minister said would lower power prices?
Morrison (who has done a lot of work in non-yelling rehearsals):
The leader of the Opposition referred to this policy as a Frankenstein policy, (he did, I just missed the preamble) Mr Speaker. So what will that demonstrate? You can never believe anything this bloke says, Mr Speaker. He is for everything and he’s against everything. You have no idea...
...After five years the Australian people have come to a conclusion on the leader of the Labor party and that is he can’t be trusted. He can’t be trusted on anything. He will blow with the wind whichever way political opportunism follows, Mr Speaker. That is the nature and the character of the leader of the Opposition.
If you scratch him, you won’t find a belief, if you scratch him, you won’t find a conviction. All you will find is rank opportunism and hubris. All you will find is ambition, Mr Speaker as he took down one leader after the next, Mr Speaker.
Labor explodes into a cacophony of theatrical outrage at this.
That’s his bag, Mr Speaker. That is his bag.
That is what he’s known for. That is why people don’t trust him and that’s why all of his backbenchers don’t trust him either, Mr Speaker.
The leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted. He can’t be trusted by his colleagues. He can’t be trusted by the Australian people when it comes to the economy, he can’t be trusted by the workers of Australia, who he sold out as their advocate, Mr Speaker.
He sold them out as their representative as a union, Mr Speaker, for nothing other than his own vain ambition. The Australian people have a clear line of sight on this bloke, and they know he cannot be trusted.
By contrast, Mr Speaker, what we’re saying when it comes to electricity prices is we are working to bring them down and as the energy minister has clearly stated today, both AGL and Energy Australia have taken decisions after discussions with the government, which have resulted in actual, real savings for hundreds of thousands of Australians on their electricity bill. Now, those opposite do not support the big-stick legislation that will take it to the electricity companies to ensure we keep them in line. The Labor party are not – they’re going to side with companies that have been increasing their profits at the expense of householders.
“Oh the BIG STICK” yells Labor.
Updated
The minister for reducing electricity prices and also big sticks, Angus Taylor is up next with the dixers, which perks Labor up, because there is nothing they seem to like more these days, then referencing big sticks.
Anne Aly to... Josh Frydenberg
I refer to reports that the treasurer has cancelled his planned trip to meet with his international counterparts at the G20, because of government chaos and division. Now, given the treasurer’s recent success as a cinematographer, has the treasurer considered sending a video message to the G20 instead?
There is laughter, and Frydenberg looks jovial as he approaches the despatch box (I mean, you have to find the joy where you can, right? And if you can’t laugh at your own accidental hostage video homage, what can you laugh at) but Scott Morrison gives him the little shake of the head.
Which means – serious face.
Frydenberg pivots mid answer.
Both the prime minister and I are having a session with Mark Humphries shortly.
The reality is the economy is a serious business. The Australian economy and the jobs of more than 100,000 young people who have been in a job, put in a job as a result of a strong economy, that we have helped create is a serious business. The Labor party left us an economy where there was unemployment that was rising, investment that was in free-fall and debt was rising and as the deputy prime minister reminds this place, confidence was falling. Now, Mr Speaker in contrast, we have delivered what Liberal and National parties do – more jobs, lower taxes and unemployment which is now at its lowest level since 2012.
The prime minister will represent this country at the G20 meeting, accompanied by the finance minister and he will be talking Australia up, unlike the Labor party, which talks Australia down.
Updated
Parliament House is experiencing a few temperature issues at the moment, and half the building is freezing and the other half is hot.
Given that the house of reps is in the half of the building which is distinctly icy these days, it is, entirely possible that hell has actually frozen over.
Updated
Dear Beyonce, I don’t know what hell mouth has been opened, but Josh Frydenberg is being forced to answer his third question in a row, and really no one, no one deserves that sort of punishment.
He was just forced to make a Taylor Swift joke.
Updated
Oh this is why he’s here – Bob Katter has the crossbench question.
And he is taking advantage of every extra second given to the crossbench to ask their questions – it’s the Katter rule, because he never managed to get a question in under the 30 seconds. But Katter is yet to give a question he can’t pontificate on, so here we are.
Treasurer, biggest farm in Australia, dairies owned by China, second biggest one owned by China, biggest grain farm owned by China, Kidman’s, controlled by China, states two and three owned by China, Australia’s most strategic port, Darwin, owned by China, tax hire industry, foreign-owned, car manufacturing, glass, texttiles, white goods, all gone overseas. To Australians free trade means jobs exported, cheap labour imported. Treasurer, do we have a new regime that won’t continue to sell off Australia or is it business as usual - Australia for sale?
(I’ve seen this ad. It was awful)
Josh Frydenberg:
Foreign investment, Mr Speaker, is absolutely critical to lifting Australia’s living standards, to jobs and to growth in the Australian economy.
And it’s about meeting the savings gap that we have in Australia, which is about 3.5% of GDP ... Now, we have put in place a number of safeguards around the agriculture space in relation to foreign investment. We’re now requiring more transparency and openness around the sales process. When it comes to critical infrastructure we take the advice and the input that comes from not only the foreign investment review board led by David Irvine but from the Critical Infrastructure Committee which involves a number of the leading agencies.
I would say to the member for Kennedy, it’s about getting the balance right. And that balance is about foreign investment, which is in Australia’s national interests.
It’s a very serious topic. It’s not a free for all. There’s considered opinions and inputs that are taken and whether it comes - whether it’s in the agriculture or in critical infrastructure or other aspects of the Australian economy, the Morrison government, the Liberal and National government will always take decisions in the national interest.
Updated
Chris Bowen to Josh Frydenberg:
Why has the treasurer cancelled at the last minute his planned trip to meet with his international counterparts at the G20, the leading forum of the world’s major economies?
Frydenberg:
“Well, as the member for McMahon would know, it’s a leaders’ meeting...
Labor loses its mind at this statement.
Ed Husic is living his best life heaping heckles on his mate, (“Josh, you’ve changed – I never thought you were that modest”, but is asked to leave. Frydenberg keeps talking, prompting Tony Smith to say “treasurer, just stop talking for a moment” and Husic leaves, having delivered his gift.
Frydenberg talks more about Australia’s economy being the envy of the world, but there is room for only one star here, and for this brief shining moment, it’s Husic.
Updated
Craig Laundry has the next dixer. And if things weren’t despairing enough in that corner of the Liberal party, it’s to Michael McCormack.
Labor asks him when he’s coming over to the crossbench. He does seem to look over there for a moment.
But then Bob Katter (he made it!) wanders over to talk to Julia Banks, and the moment is lost. The grass, it seems, is not always greener.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Can the prime minister confirm that since moving on Malcolm Turnbull, the government has cancelled parliament because they couldn’t decide who is the prime minister, lost two government members and its majority, and next year will run a part-time parliament? Has the government given up on even pretending to govern? Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull still the prime minister of Australia?
Morrison:
This goes on for a while, but it ends with this:
This is a government that knows how to keep our economy strong, how to keep Australians safe, Mr Speaker. We are getting on with the job of doing all of those things. This is a leader of the Opposition who thinks all he has to do is to turn up in parliament”
Which is an interesting way to end the ‘your face is’ point, when you have only scheduled about 10 sitting days before the election next year.
Updated
We have got to the bottom of the seating plan confusion.
A seating plan was released yesterday after Julia Banks moved to the crossbench, which showed Julie Bishop to have no seat mate.
But then another one was produced sometime between then and now, which moved Jane Prentice next to her.
Queensland again gets the first dixer (holy moly, anyone would think they need that state). Ross Vasta asks something about can the prime minister explain how this is the best government to ever govern, ever and are there any alternatives.
Updated
Question time begins
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
The government has discontinued funding to the Keeping Women Safe in their Homes program, which helps protect women who experienced family violence. This program improves security for women and children, including changing the locks on the front door and sweeping for listening devices in the home. Australian women shouldn’t have to choose between staying at home or staying safe. So will the prime minister match Labor’s announcement from yesterday and commit $18 million to continued support for this vital program?”
Morrison:
As the leader of the Opposition would know, this is a program that had a set period of funding and we are in the process of working through interest consultation phase of how that funding can be extended and we’re working through that in the normal budgetary process. (Kelly O’Dwyer interjects that it is still funded until June).
It is still funded until June, Mr Speaker. We are providing that funding to address the serious issue of preventing domestic violence.
Now, Mr Speaker, preventing domestic violence is a shared commitment of every single person in this place.
Mr Speaker, I must say I’m a little disappointed that the leader of the Opposition would seek to make some political capital of this issue in this place.
Mr Speaker, our national plan to reduce violence against women and children from 2010-22 is a commitment from all governments through COAG. It will again be addressed at the meeting this year.
Since the national plan has been in place the Commonwealth has invested over $700 million to reduce domestic violence.
There’s an additional amount for the 1800 RESPECT service. It will increase the amount of people to ensure people can get help.
In 2018 they answered almost 100,000 telephone and online contacts, which was a 54% increase from the previous year.
This year the service is expected to answer more than 160,000 such contacts and through the women’s safety package, the Commonwealth gave some states and territories supplementary funding for the Keeping Women Safe in their Homes and local support coordinator’s program.
Mr Speaker, we are getting on with the job of delivering these essential services and we should be committed as an entire parliament, together with state and territory, to address the very serious issue of addressing domestic family violence.
We’re committed to that. I have no doubt that other members in this place, those who sit opposite, in the crossbench, are also committed. I would ask we continue to address these issues in a bipartisan way and not seek to play politics with it.
Updated
Meanwhile, Jane Prentice has been moved to sit next to Julie Bishop in the House.
Bishop seemed a little confused as to what was happening at first, and consulted the new seating plan, (at least that is what it looked like from up here in the press gallery benches) but all is sorted now.
We enter in time for who’s that MP?
It’s Keith Pitt.
Scott Morrison moves to a statement on indulgence on the fires in Queensland and the rain event in NSW.
I’m just about to run into the chamber for question time – so let me know what you think is going to happen.
What’s your bet on first question?
Richard Di Natale has had a chat to Sky about the code of conduct he is (again) trying to introduce to the Senate:
.@RichardDiNatale on Senate conduct: We are a Chamber that should be setting an example for people all around Australia.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) November 28, 2018
Asking people to behave better is not working, that is why I have announced the introduction of a Code of Conduct.
MORE: https://t.co/LFchC4I3td #newsday pic.twitter.com/YxNevkYct5
Updated
Kerryn Phelps *plans* on introducing a private member’s bill to amend the Migration Act to get any remaining children off Nauru (with their families). It will be introduced on December 3.
At this stage it looks to be lacking the absolute majority needed to suspend standing orders to bring on the debate.
Updated
The modern slavery bill – which aims to stop slavery, rather than you know, introduce it – should pass the Senate today.
It aims to “establish a Modern Slavery Reporting Requirement to require certain large businesses and other entities in Australia to make annual public reports (Modern Slavery Statements) on their actions to address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains’.
Updated
Queensland is on fire and NSW is under deluge, so Canberra is taking the opportunity to let mother nature take centre stage for a moment.
But question time is coming.
Updated
This is a little bit of late shade, after a certain Queensland MP (Andrew Laming) made some ill-advised comments about how many holidays teachers had each year.
Shout out to all the MPs and candidates who have commented about teachers not working full time... 🤓👩🏫 https://t.co/byQyRRKYKC
— Daisy Turnbull Brown (@MrsDzTB) November 28, 2018
Updated
The Greens are once again trying to get a code of conduct into the Senate. Richard Di Natale is giving notice of this motion:
I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that –
(1) That the Senate adopts the following code of conduct, to be introduced into the standing orders –
The [House of Representatives and the] Senate have reached agreement on a code of conduct which is to apply to all members of parliament.
Members of parliament recognise that they are in a unique position of responsibility in influencing the nature of civic conduct in Australia.
Members of parliament recognise that their words and actions in the Senate (and the House of Representatives) influence issues in the public debate. These include issues relating to multicultural affairs, migration and citizenship, gender equality and professional conduct in the workplace.
Members of parliament acknowledge that parliamentary privilege protects the right of members to participate freely in debate in the parliament without fear of prosecution.
Members of parliament recognise the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner and a failure to do so may have serious implications for individuals and groups of the Australian community and may diminish the social cohesion that is essential to our national character.
The code
1. Uphold the honour of public office
a. Members of parliament will take all reasonable steps to represent public office in a manner that is consistent with the values of respect and inclusion.
b. This includes behaviour and language during parliamentary proceedings, including interactions with parliamentary and electorate officer staff.
2. First Peoples of Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
a. Members of parliament recognise the value and contribution of the First Peoples of Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
b. Members of parliament recognise that with the exception of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Australia is a nation of migrants.
3. Respect Australians’ diversity
a. Members of parliament recognise that Australia has been enriched by the diversity of colour, ethnic origin, culture and religious belief that exists within our nation.
b. Members of Parliament recognise that principles including respect for religious and cultural diversity, tolerance, and justice should be upheld in parliamentary debate in a respectful manner.
4. Respect gender equality and diversity
a. Members of parliament recognise that women and LGBT+ individuals are more likely to experience gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.
b. Members of parliament recognise that the Australian parliament, including the Senate and House of Representatives chamber, is the primary workplace for elected representatives.
c. Female and elected representatives from LGBT+ communities should be free from gender and sexuality based bullying, harassment or abuse of any kind in their workplace.
5. Reject discriminatory or exclusionary statements
a. Members of parliament will not knowingly humiliate or degrade an individual or community based on their colour, national or ethnic origin, culture, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation.
b. This includes acts which are intended to incite hatred or create fear of a community.
(2) That this resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
Updated
Why is Labor so exercised over the sitting week claims from Christopher Pyne?
Well it’s the vibe, it’s Mabo, it’s the constitution.
In that, the constitution, as my resident constitution expert reminds me, won’t let the parliament sit beyond the 15th of April, which is the last date Scott Morrison has to call the house of representatives election. (He will call both houses at the same time, but there is a bit of extra time before, constitutionally, the Senate has to go to the polls)
tl:dr – constitutionally, the parliament can not sit beyond April 15, without an election.
Anthony Albanese told Adelaide radio 5AA why he thought next year’s parliamentary sitting calendar put out by the government was rubbish:
The fact is that – I’ve done the sitting timetable on six occasions and what you do is you look for when Australia Day is, and parliament comes back the week after Australia Day. That’s the normal process. The parliament also sits in March. There is either five or six sitting weeks in the schedule prior to April, and there is no reason why you can’t have five or six sitting weeks prior to the April budget. The only reason why there is not, is because they are running from democracy.
Christopher Pyne said it was totally different next year because of the April budget. Or something:
The budget has been brought forward a month. So it’s actually a completely different sitting schedule. There are 17 sitting weeks next year, which is the average, is the norm and everyone knows that – 17 sitting weeks next year.
Albo says there are 10 sitting days until August. Pyne says he has his “maths completely wrong”.
But that’s because Scott Morrison all but said the election would be in May. It’s just whether it is 11 May or 18 May which is the issue. He want the budget handed down before the election, and that is happening on 2 April. There are two sitting weeks scheduled before then. Then it’s budget week. And then, presumably, parliament is dissolved for the election. Ipso factso – that’s not a lot of sitting days before the election.
Updated
Something we missed on Tuesday afternoon: the education minister, Dan Tehan, has announced the next round of Australian Research Council grants after a controversy about the Coalition vetoing $4m of grants in previous rounds and Labor’s Kim Carr criticising them for delays.
The Universities Australia chief executive, Catriona Jackson, noted that three researchers whose grants had been vetoed by the former education minister Simon Birmingham were successful in this round.
“Of course, that still leaves eight research grants that were rejected by Senator Birmingham that remain unfunded by the ARC,” she said.
Tehan said those three grants had been successful this round because they are “now markedly different”.
Carr said they had been approved after “minor changes to titles”:
- ACU – Masculinity and social change in Australia (previously A history of men’s dress)
- UNSW – Rioting and the literary archive (unchanged)
- ANU – Art of cultural diplomacy (previously Louis XIV prints, medals and materials in the global exchange)
Updated
Ayes 97
Noes 5
That is not a vote result you see every day in this place.
Labor did a deal with the government to ensure that the legislation would get through.
Updated
Funny scene in the House right now – it has divided on the social services amendment bill, which will make new migrants have to wait even longer for access to Newstart and the like and the whole chamber, except for five crossbenchers, is voting for it.
Updated
The Big School Walkout for Climate Action has come to Parliament House – and the students are now being let in after a misunderstanding with the police.
An organiser, Georgie Burgess, told Guardian Australia that police had believed the students were coming to protest and conduct a sit-in at parliament but the children were just joking.
“Our plan is to have calm, polite conversations with politicians – we do not want to have any protesting inside the house,” she said.
Carys, from Dickson College, said the students “have come out to show politicians that climate change is an issue that we can’t ignore any more, so much so that we need to strike from school, we need to stop our learning, because our future is at risk”.
Us kids we really need them to help us because they have our futures in their hands, we’re going to ask them whether they’re willing to say no to the Adani coalmine, whether they’ve going to reduce our carbon emissions to zero, whether they are committed to make us a greener country and world leader in climate action, which we are not at the moment – we are the laughing stock of the world.
The students – from Dickson College, Orana Steiner school and Chapman primary school, among others in the ACT – are now entering the building.
Updated
Scott Morrison said school students should be in school.
The Greens passed a Senate motion which basically said go well, protesting school students and stick it to the man.
Then some students turned up at Parliament House and were delayed from entering by police, who have since permitted them entry.
It’s quite the lesson in democracy so far.
Dickson college students at Big School Walkout for Climate Action at parliament house. Now getting let in after hold-up with the cops. pic.twitter.com/UNcOjurmPz
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) November 28, 2018
Updated
If only there was a forum for parliamentarians to parley that wasn’t social media ...
Complete lie from @Tony_Burke and he knows it. There are 9 weeks scheduled for the first half of the year and we have to have an election: like we do every 3 years! #auspol https://t.co/351kXR6PVg
— Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) November 28, 2018
Updated
Re Senate behaviour:
— Melissa Clarke (@Clarke_Melissa) November 28, 2018
Simon Birmingham notes Barry O'Sullivan lost his pre-selection: "Perhaps means that he becomes even harder to influence from time to time in terms of what he says or does - but the [National] Party has taken its actions...."#auspol @abcadelaide
A spokesman for the prime minister says there is no concern about the lack of a formal sit-down with Donald Trump at the G20 (remember there are opportunities for lots of “informal chats” at dinners and in corridors and at photo ops and things).
The PM will no doubt have the opportunity to touch base during the G20 meetings.
But given we have no pressing bilateral issues at the moment, and the PM had an extensive opportunity with Vice-President [Mike] Pence, there is no pressing need for a formal bilateral at this stage.
The relationship is being well-managed.
Julie Bishop also spoke on this:
I’m not involved in the prime minister’s scheduling, nor that of President Trump, so I’m sure if the meeting can take place, it will, but if scheduling conflicts occur, that’s what happens in some of these meetings. The G20 meetings are hectic. They are, from my experience, very busy and you don’t always meet with every one of the other leaders at that time, but there are many opportunities for world leaders to meet, and the Australia-US relationship is strong and deep and it will continue, whomever is in the White House, whomever is in The Lodge.
Updated
Julie Bishop on Dutton: 'Every member has a responsibility to ensure they are eligible'
Julie Bishop has held a short press conference in Canberra before her donation of her now infamous red shoes to the Australian Museum of Democracy.
She had a bit to say about all the shenanigans, and it is best to let her say it. Or not say it, as the case may be *cough Peter Dutton referral cough*.
On whether Peter Dutton should be referred, and whether Christopher Pyne should threaten the crossbench with referrals:
This is a matter for themselves to be eligible to sit in the parliament ... I wasn’t present when Christopher Pyne spoke with or spoke about Kerryn Phelps: I’m not aware of the terms of what he said, but my point is every member has a responsibility to ensure that they are eligible to sit in the parliament. Every member should take their advice. Where there is doubt, then in the past, the people have referred themselves or have been referred. So it is a question for everyone to look at their own eligibility. I’ve certainly considered mine, and I’m perfectly satisfied that I’m eligible and have always been eligible to sit in the federal parliament.
On Julia Banks and women in the Liberal party:
Julia informed me after she had made the statement in parliament. In fact, she informed a number of us after she had made her statement …
Well, it was apparent to everyone who follows politics that she was not happy with the leadership change in August. She put out a statement at the time, so you only have to read her statement that she was obviously not happy with the outcome of that issue …
It is quite evident that there are now a number of women sitting on the crossbench who hold what were once considered safe Liberal seats and that of course is a matter of concern, and I know the party is concerned about that.
In the case of Julia Banks, I’m disappointed that she felt the need to leave the Liberal party, and she had got to that point. However, knowing her as I do, she obviously gave it a lot of thought and she must believe that this is how she can best represent the interests of the people of Chisholm. I believe I can best represent the people of Curtin by being a member of the Liberal party.
On Kelly O’Dwyer’s reported comments that the Liberal party is now viewed as “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers” and on the number of women in the Liberal party:
I understand that they were comments that were attributed to Kelly O’Dwyer. I’m not aware of whether she actually said them. They were attributed to her by someone who was apparently at a meeting, but I think Kelly has expressed before her concern about the level of female representation in the Liberal party.
Indeed, she set up a fighting fund to which I’ve donated money to support women who are contesting marginal seats because she believes that more money is needed to support them and I agree. So, Kelly has long been on the record expressing her concern about the level of female representation on the part of the Liberal party …
What I think is interesting about today is that we have an initiative in the parliament called Girls Taking Over the Parliament ... they have come to parliament to see how it operates, to see what opportunities there are. There are bright young women “taking over parliament”, so there clearly is a need for us to discuss the level of representation of females in the parliament. There is a need for us to increase that. When I talk about a nation not reaching its potential unless is fully harnesses the efforts and energies and skills of 50% of the population, that goes for organisations as well, and that includes the Liberal party.
On Barry O’Sullivan’s comments yesterday in the Senate:
I wasn’t there, I didn’t hear them. I have heard fleetingly reports on it, so I won’t give a running commentary on what goes on in the Senate, but we all have to take personal responsibility for our behaviour, and of course we should be respectful towards each other whether it’s in the parliament or outside the parliament …
I wasn’t here in Canberra yesterday. I had a pair. I was attending a number of meetings in Sydney that were very important, so I wasn’t here. I’m not going to give a running commentary on what every senator says in the Senate. My overall point is that we take personal responsibility, each of us, for the way we behave.
Updated
Mathias Cormann has got the call-up for the G20.
He will replace the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, who now has to remain in Canberra, because, well, it is all a bit of a garbage fire at the moment.
Updated
Jumping to state politics for just a moment – in news which will surprise exactly no one, Matthew Guy has resigned as the Victorian opposition leader.
Ahem, government MPs – might want to check your schedules.
It’s 4 minutes past 10am & no Governemnt MP has showed up for the Federaltion Chamber to start, denying a quorum. The Libs chaos is now undermining the functioning of parliament. pic.twitter.com/F4OPOtIRDL
— Matt Thistlethwaite (@MThistlethwaite) November 27, 2018
Updated
Di Natale calls three senators who walked out 'cowards'
Richard Di Natale:
It is not my intention to disrespect the Senate or its processes. I have great respect for this institution. It is one of the honours of my life to be standing here representing the people of my home state and leading the Australian Greens. It is a privilege and an honour to do it, and I reflect on that every day.
This is a place where all of us can help shape the nature of our society. Indeed, we can be a force for good. Mr President, that’s why I couldn’t withdraw my statement yesterday, because the repeated shaming and innuendo directed and not just across at this side of the chamber but directed right across the Senate is reinforcing a culture of workplace harassment and the open harassment of women in our society.
Australia does have a deep and disturbing problem of violence against women. I remember Malcolm Turnbull, the former prime minister, saying that not all disrespect towards women leads to violence but that’s where all the violence against women starts.
We in this place should be setting an example for the nation, and and yet one of the most powerful institutions of the country allows men to openly and brazenly shame, insult and harass female members of parliament – and it reinforces that culture that leads to 72 women are being murdered by their partners this year.
Abuse against women is everyone’s business. All of us have a role to play in that. There is a great reckoning going on in our society, where all of us are reflecting on our behaviours in the past and are trying to do what we can to help lead the change we need to see in our society. As men, we have been perpetrators, we have been responsible for responsible for creating that culture, and that’s why it is up to men to make a stand and to call it out.
We must no longer tolerate workplace harassment in the chamber. It must stop.
There has been a repeated pattern from a small number of men in this chamber who, either through whispers or, sometimes, on the record, make the most demeaning and insulting comments directed against many of my colleagues.
When this was raised some time ago and you made your statement, Mr President, I had a conversation with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young that forced me to reflect on my own role in this – that I’d not stood up, that I’d stayed silent, that I’d assume this was just part of what it means to be a senator in this place.
I apologised to Senator Hanson-Young and I said that I would now stand up and call it out whenever I heard it, that she would not be alone. And yet, despite your statement – a very welcome statement, Mr President – this behaviour continues. They do it over and over and over again. Sometimes you don’t hear it but we do.
Sometimes they put it on the record. It’s deliberate. It’s calculated. Then they withdraw it. But those words can never be taken back. They hurt and they damage. That’s why yesterday I made the statement I did.
I also want to give some context to what happened yesterday.
The day before I approached the deputy president of the Senate because that behaviour that occurred yesterday had occurred the day before and on the back of months of a pattern of behaviour.
I indicated to the deputy president that I would be writing to you, Mr President, to inform you that, when a senator yells across the chamber to a female colleague, ‘Going to have a cry,’ because they don’t like what they’re hearing, that’s unacceptable. It would be unacceptable in a classroom, it would be unacceptable on the factory floor, it would be unacceptable in a business and it’s unacceptable in the Senate.
Yesterday Senator O’Sullivan used words that were designed to hurt and humiliate a fellow colleague.
The day before other senators in this place used words that were aggressive and threatening. I want to thank Senator O’Neill for standing up and calling them out when she heard them.
The question for us now as a chamber is: our words are not? Is a call to people in this place to lift the standard of behaviour enough? I don’t think it is, Mr President, because we have heard it time and time again.
When in September 2017 Senator Hanson wore a burqa into this Senate I sought for the Senate to adopt a code of conduct that would prevent this offensive and harmful behaviour.
In August this year, following a horrific first speech, again I sought to have a code of conduct adopted, and was rejected by both the government and the opposition. The current rules are not working. We are allowing harassment and we are allowing women to be demeaned in this chamber.
They stand on all sides of the chamber but predominantly they are those people who are walking out right now who aren’t strong enough, who simply cannot hear the truth.
They are the cowards here. It’s very clear that, despite your words this morning, Mr President, they take no heed of the call on all of us to improve the standards in this place.
The men who use sexism to belittle or intimidate women should not be tolerated in any society and they most certainly should not be tolerated in the Australian Senate.
Mr President, we accept your recommendation in terms of the way we will handle the discovery of formal business but we need to do more than that. We need to ensure that there are strong rules and a strong code of conduct that does not allow this offensive behaviour to continue.
Updated
Penny Wong:
Ultimately this debate is about what sort of place we want this Senate to be. This is a great institution of the Australian democracy and it is incumbent upon all of us to live up to that standard. The approach Labor took yesterday is very clear: we will not tolerate sexist and abusive behaviour.
We will not tolerate it in the Senate and we will not tolerate it anywhere. We also believe parliament cannot function without the respect for the presiding officers and the rules that parliament has agreed to regarding appropriate behaviour.
But I make this point: the Senate itself will not be respected if the behaviours exhibited in here demean it.
That goes not only to rules but also to standards and expectations. The people of Australia who elect us want to see us interacting with each other as adult human beings. We on this side of the chamber recognise that this is a place of robust debate. We have a battle of ideas in this chamber. The battle of ideas can be robust, but it can be respectful of each other and of this place.
There must be a distinction drawn between what is acceptable argument and personal smears and innuendo.
We saw those expectations trashed yesterday by Senator O’Sullivan – and he is not the first person in this chamber to do so – by his engaging in deliberately offensive personal remarks. The community rightly expects a higher standard of debate than to make insinuations of a personal character.
Such personal comments, including references – oblique or otherwise – to people’s personal lives, should always be off limits. This has been long-recognised not only in our standing orders but also in the standards of behaviour we expect of each other.
When it comes to treatment of women in this place there are some who should particularly reflect on their actions and words. I ask them to consider whether their partners, wives or daughters would permit themselves to be treated in such an offensive way.
The shaming of women has been used for decades, even centuries, as a tool of control by those in power. It is odious behaviour, it has never been appropriate and it is not acceptable in this place.
To use a sporting analogy: play the ball, not the man or woman. There are some people in this place who I believe need to find a map and compass how to conduct themselves in debate and in other fora, including committee hearings, without going after women personally.
Our colleagues and our daughters deserve no less. Mr President, I indicate the opposition’s support of the approach you have flagged in relation to the discovery process.
Updated
Mathias Cormann:
Mr President, the government supports your statement and your actions in the chamber yesterday. In supporting your statement let me also reflect that ours is a chamber in which of course we engage in the battle of ideas on behalf of the communities, states and people we represent, and at times that debate can become quite robust, but there is always a requirement and a responsibility on all of us to engage in the debate in a way that is appropriately robust but also appropriately respectful.
It is true that in recent times we’re getting to that point of the cycle where tensions increase somewhat in the natural course of events, but it is very important for all of us to remind ourselves of the standards that people expect us to observe as we engage in important business as an important part of our parliamentary democracy.
My point of view is I have always sought to engage willingly but also very respectfully in the debates that we inevitably enter into, and I think it is incumbent on all senators to engage in those debates in the same spirit.
From the government’s point of view we also will consider any proposals that will come forward through the procedure committee to improve what has become an increasingly contentious part of Senate business during the day, and I think that the proposition that you’ve put forward has a lot of merit.
Updated
As promised, here are the Senate speeches on behaviour:
Scott Ryan:
Senators, when parliament resumed in August this year, we discussed certain events in June and committed to reflecting our better selves in this place and the aspirations of those we represent, rather than sliding into abuse. One of the things I said at the time was it is far better that that positive attention is attracted by our words and contributions to debate. On several occasions in recent times, this has not been the case. As a chamber, we did not meet this standard yesterday. I state again: unparliamentary, offensive epithets and abuse have no place in this chamber. This is rightly a place of vigorous debate, but personal abuse has no place, particularly if it targets personal attributes such as race or gender, nor does the use of abusive epithets or labels.
I will use every authority granted to me by the Senate when I personally hear such abuse or when it is brought to my attention. But this is not just a matter of rules. This is a matter of respect of each other, of the institution, of those who elected us and in whose interests and names we act. I reiterate what I said yesterday, and it’s a simple principle of decency we should all aspire to reflect. Every senator should reflect not just on what they think they’re saying but how it may be received or interpreted by another with a different life experience or perspective than yourself. We need to lead by example for, if we cannot debate and act civilly in this chamber, then how can we expect people outside the chamber to debate and argue and disagree in a respectful manner as well? But I will make this important point to all Australians, that, while none of us here are perfect – and I certainly am not – the overwhelming majority of time in the Senate does meet this test. The overwhelming majority of senators always aspire to represent the best interests and act accordingly.
Now to the specific matter of conducting Senate business. A number of proposals have been considered to deal with what has become, frankly, the most unedifying period of the Senate day – general business. What was once a time to deal with matters that didn’t require debate or amendment has become a pseudo debate where senators are required to vote on matters without an opportunity for discussion. What was once non-contentious is now the most combative period. It isn’t serving its purpose and is rapidly cascading into farce. As a means of dealing with this, I’ve asked the deputy president and the Senate procedure committee to bring forward a temporary order that would remove the ability to debate a proposed suspension of standing orders to enable the Senate to deal with a motion if leave to do so is denied. The effect of this is simply that, if formality for a motion is denied and a suspension of standing orders is moved to ensure the motion can be dealt with, there will be no debate on that procedural motion. Whether this is adopted is, of course, a matter for the chamber itself.
Updated
Right now, no one has the numbers to refer anyone.
Labor is closer to having the numbers for Peter Dutton and potentially, Chris Crewther, than the government is to having its target list – and it has been issued as a target list – referred.
Because they both need the crossbench.
And I am not sure of the government strategy of trying to piss off the crossbench in a minority parliament, but better minds and all that.
I mean, Sun Tzu probably wouldn’t have recommended it.
Labor has given no indication of what it plans on doing, in terms of timing – which is more in line with Tzu’s advice to let “your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt”, but that is probably because it isn’t actually sure it has the numbers either.
Updated
Earlier this morning, Rebehka Sharkie repeated that she believed Peter Dutton should have his section 44 concerns addressed.
She would know, having gone through the process herself:
I think it’s quite clear Peter Dutton has a case to answer and he hasn’t provided any information to the parliament. I don’t think he’s done that as yet. And I believe even the solicitor general’s advice was a little unclear. So I think the best thing that Peter Dutton could do would be to refer himself. The government really could take the lead on this. They could refer Peter Dutton and it’s these sorts of issues that make the Australian public frustrated with the parliament, but also frustrated with the government.
Dutton is still on medical leave, having injured his arm mending a (literal) fence.
Updated
These three were named by Sarah Hanson-Young yesterday as among, in her view, the worst offenders of throwing out disparaging remarks.
Here is the moment senators O'Sullivan, Anning and Leyonhjelm walked out as Greens leader Richard Di Natale spoke about the treatment of women in the Senate #auspol pic.twitter.com/2zNAQqfuwP
— Brett Worthington (@BWorthington_) November 27, 2018
It’s all going great.
After 20 years in Parliament and over half of that time as deputy leader of our party, I think I can 'cut it'. 😊 https://t.co/qdEA5IniM3
— Julie Bishop (@JulieBishopMP) November 27, 2018
Updated
I am working on getting you those Senate speeches – they were very good. And needed.
Barry O’Sullivan, Fraser Anning and David Leyonjhelm walked out as Richard Di Natale was talking.
O’Sullivan lost Senate preselection and ends his term next year.
Leyonjhelm is most likely going to the NSW upper chamber.
There is as much chance of me turning into Scarlett Johansson as there is of Anning returning to the Senate next year.
Christian Porter is in the House introducing the Australian citizenship amendment bill – which would make it easier for the government to strip citizenship from terrorists. Paul Karp will bring you something on that soon.
Updated
Mathias Cormann, Penny Wong and Richard Di Natale have all given speeches about some of the comments aimed at Senate colleagues – mostly women – and how they need to stop.
Di Natale says he spoke to the deputy Senate president the day before about some of the comments being thrown towards his colleagues, such as “go and have a cry”, as context for why he refused to withdraw his comment. He says there is a precedent for senators making comments and, if they are caught, withdrawing them, then nothing further is done – “but everyone has heard them”.
He wants a code of conduct adopted within the Senate.
The current rules are not working, we are allowing harassment and we are allowing women to be demeaned in this chamber.
Every time the camera goes to Barry O’Sullivan he is shaking his head in disbelief.
Updated
Scott Ryan starts the Senate with a reminder of what he said to the senators in August – about behaviour and language and how senators speak to each other.
He said that yesterday the Senate again fell short:
This is not just a matter of rules, this is a matter of respect, of each other, the institution, of those who elected us, and the [people] whose interests we represent.
Ryan says if the Senate can’t debate matters of gender, race and differences respectfully, then how can we expect public debates to be any better?
He is putting forward a motion to minimise the debates that get out of control – which is the general business. He wants to allow motions to suspend standing orders but not the debate.
It will be up to the Senate to decide if that change can be made.
Updated
The bells are ringing, which means parliament is about to start.
After refusing to withdraw a comment that Barry O’Sullivan was “a pig” yesterday, and getting suspended from the Senate, Richard Di Natale is allowed back into the chamber this morning.
Updated
What’s the point of referring Peter Dutton if the high court won’t get to it until just before the general election next year, anyway?
Chris Bowen says it is the principle.
Well, that’s a matter for the parliament and the high court. I mean, we’ve known about this cloud over Peter Dutton for several months. So to the extent that your point is valid and it’s a legitimate point you make, it could have been dealt with if he was referred several months ago. Now it’s up to the parliament to consider its options if Peter Dutton doesn’t have the courage to refer himself to the high court, the government doesn’t have the courage to refer one of their own to the high court, as I said, in fairness, both sides have done previously.
And I see, frankly, reports that the government is engaging in a smear campaign against Kerryn Phelps and others. I mean what an act of low-rent desperation to say, ‘Well, if he gets referred we are going to refer to all these people.’ I mean, we’ve been through that, the Australian people are over that. Every member of parliament declared, in the audit process, in a declaration their issues in relation to section 44, and citizenship in particular. We been through the process. Peter Dutton is the member of parliament with questions to answer and to try, in some sort of desperate dirty-unit campaign, smear independents and others is pretty low-rent pathetic activity by the Morrison government.
Updated
Craig Kelly still won't rule out moving to crossbench
On Monday, Katharine Murphy reported that Craig Kelly was considering moving to the crossbench if he lost preselection in Hughes.
Now that has as much danger for the government as George Christensen’s threats to move to the crossbench. One of the most conservative members of the Coalition is not going to suddenly start supporting Labor policy or moves in the House. Plus, he is running out of time – parliament only has four days of sitting left this year. And then there are only 10 before the budget is handed down scheduled for next year.
But Kelly knows the power of the threat, particularly after Julia Banks’ move, so he just made it again on Sky News. Asked by Laura Jayes if he accepted that he was increasing instability by not ruling out a move to the crossbench, Kelly answered:
“No, no I don’t … There are no threats, whatsoever.
My job here is to talk up and explain the great work that this Liberal government has done, and also, to explain and expose the dangers and continue talking about the risks of a Labor government, that is my job, that is what I am concentrating on.
Updated
A note on the Liberal party and the number of women within its parliamentarian ranks.
Of the government’s 74 lower house MPs, 12 are women.
Of that 12, Jane Prentice and Ann Sudmalis lost preselection – Prentice, formally, and Sudmalis, who quit before she was pushed, having lost control of the branch.
Of the 10 who remain, four – Nicolle Flint, Lucy Wicks, Michelle Landry and Sarah Henderson – have a margin under 3%.
In the preselections, (some of which are still to be completed) women have been chosen in just two winnable seats – Macnamara and Chisholm.
From that, the Liberal party is looking at retaining six women MPs at the next election. If some miracle occurs and the government holds every single seat it now holds, the number of women they now claim still drops by two.
The last time things were that bad in terms of gender parity for the parliamentary Liberal party, Meat Loaf, Whitney Houston and Sonia Dada were topping the Australian charts and Paul Keating was prime minister.
And while they keep pointing to the Senate, they also bumped Lucy Gichuhi, so the net gain in the red chamber is still just two.
Updated
Further from the Our Watch event, a new report has found that the NBN is leading to more Australian women starting businesses.
From AAP:
The number of self-employed women working from home grew at twice the rate in NBN-connected areas, compared with places without fast broadband.
The Connecting Australia report, commissioned by NBN Co, found an additional 52,200 women are expected to be business owners by 2021 due to NBN access.
There was a 2.4% jump for female self-employment in regional Australian towns with NBN connectivity.
The latest NBN progress report has 4.5m homes and businesses connected to a broadband plan, up from 3.1m at the same time last year.
But it means 3 million people have access but do not have a plan, with the ready-to-connect figure at 7.5 million, up from 6.4 million a year ago.
The National Press Club is addressing this today:
What is driving women towards female self-employment and what impact is this having on the nature of work? How can female entrepreneurship benefit regional communities? How can we encourage today’s girls & young women to be business leaders of the future? #NPC #enterprisingwomen pic.twitter.com/n33XPuvbvs
— National Press Club (@PressClubAust) November 26, 2018
Which prompted a Coalition MP to contact me to point out that the Liberal party is managing to “lose women, in a week all about women”.
It seems to be a common theme this morning – someone else has pointed out the “ridiculously irony” the government finds itself in this week – having defended its NBN model for years, “when the data finally shows the network is changing things and encouraging a significant jump in female self-employment, the party’s treatment of women overshadows it”.
Updated
Josh Frydeberg pulls out of G20
As first reported by Phil Coorey and Tom McIlroy at the AFR, Josh Frydenberg has cancelled his planned trip to the G20.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has pulled out of this weekend’s G20 summit in Argentina, opting to remain in Canberra amid parliamentary chaos for the Coalition.
Mr Frydenberg had been due to travel to the annual leaders meeting in Buenos Aires with Prime Minister Scott Morrison after Parliament rises on Thursday, but the defection of Victorian Liberal Julia Banks to the crossbench on Tuesday has rocked the government.
Mr Morrison will still attend the meeting, but is now not expected to have a formal meeting with US President Donald Trump after being left off a list of bilateral sit downs announced by the White House.
The government is considering whether Finance Minister Mathias Cormann should attend the meeting instead.
Updated
Parliament held an Our Watch event last night.
"Let's spare a thought tonight for all the women & children for whom help has not yet arrived" Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. @billshortenmp. #auspol #violenceagainstwomen #preventingviolence #changethestory pic.twitter.com/QW82cknJQq
— Our Watch (@OurWatchAus) November 27, 2018
Our Watch Chair @NStottDespoja, Minister for Women The Hon. @KellyODwyer & Our Watch Board Member @DrPhilLambert at tonight's event. #violenceagainstwomen #changethestory #auspol pic.twitter.com/Gfm4Sjg3I9
— Our Watch (@OurWatchAus) November 27, 2018
As far as I know, Scott Morrison did not attend, but Kelly O’Dwyer did.
Speaking to ABC this morning, Natasha Stott-Despoja said there was still a lot of work to be done:
If we’re talking about structures, norms and practices that are unequal and, therefore, give rise to this violence, if we note that gender inequality is linked with violence against women, then certainly we have to look at how women are portrayed, represented and reflected throughout society especially in our powerful institutions, and that includes parliament.
So it’s a long time ago that I first walked into this place – 23 years ago today, in fact – and the parliament then was around 14.9% female. Did I think in the last 20-odd years those numbers would merely only double? No, I didn’t.
So, yes, I think that there is a problem when you don’t have parity in our decision-making institutions and, yes, I do think there’s a problem when our diversity and differences are not reflected and represented. That will make a difference.
Updated
Katharine Murphy reported on this last night, but John Howard has been sent in to rally the Liberal troops.
Given that he is only deployed in marginal seats and when things are looking dicey, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of how confident the Liberal party is feeling right now.
Here is some of what he had to say to Leigh Sales:
The Liberal party is obviously going through a difficult time at the moment, but I’m still convinced that we can win the next federal election. And I think one of the things that people have got to understand is that there’s a long history in Australian politics of a disconnect between a heavy defeat at a state level and victory at a federal level. I would say to Liberal supporters, understandably depressed at what happened in Victoria, I think it was overwhelmingly for state reasons. And can I give credit where it is due.
I think Daniel Andrews is a very good campaigner. I think he’s an extremely good communicator. He explains things clearly, simply and well. And Victoria has had a history for quite some years now, some decades in fact, of being slightly more to the centre-left – the Massachusetts of Australia some people call it, than the rest of the country.”
Given that Australia only has six states, compared with the 50 in the US, this is not exactly a winning argument. And, as one Coalition MP said to me last night, Victoria isn’t an anomaly – it is Australia. And it is no more progressive than other areas of Australia, it is “just at the head of the wave”. But then again, Wentworth wasn’t Australia and Mayo wasn’t Australia, and Braddon and Longman weren’t Australia. We’re starting to run out of Australia in Australia under this argument.
Updated
On Julia Banks, Scott Morrison says he did not know she was planning to leave the party and he found it “disappointing, as all of our colleagues were disappointed”.
“You know, we are not going to stop Bill Shorten becoming prime minister by sitting around and being disappointed,” Morrison says.
Alan Jones reacts as though this is the funniest thing he has ever heard. I guess he has to look at himself in the mirror every morning so the bar for humour is probably quite low.
“We are going to stop him by actually getting out there and prosecuting the case.”
Updated
Just a reminder that Barnaby Joyce, Fiona Nash, Sussan Lamb and Justine Keay all had very strong legal advice that they were fine too.
Christopher Pyne has certainly escalated that tit-for-tat referral threat.
Yesterday, when talking to Sky News, he only implied it with the “you may say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment”-style defence:
There’s very strong advice that Peter Dutton doesn’t have a section 44 issue. Of course there are a number of Labor MPs – Anne Aly, Emma Husar, Tony Zappia, Kerryn Phelps herself, in fact, in terms of her involvement with Medicare, potentially might have a problem. She says she has advice to say that she doesn’t, so does Peter Dutton. Mike Freelander, of course, he is in the same boat, so we can all sit here and throw stones at each other around section 44. I think the public are thoroughly sick of that and want us to just get on with the job, and that’s what we’re doing – delivering sound government to the country. But we don’t intend to move the referral of those members who’ve had questions raised any more than I think Peter Dutton should be referred to the high court.
Updated
Kerryn Phelps has responded with a yeah, but nah, your face is.
But much more elegantly.
Kerryn Phelps on Pyne threat to rher and 2 other MPs if Dutton referred to high court: it is "dirty tactics" and she "won't be intimidated". Still considering her vote. It is "outrageous" to conflate Dutton's childcare centre with Medicare rebate to patients. #auspol
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) November 27, 2018
Christopher Pyne threatens Kerryn Phelps over eligibility
The government leader in the House, Christopher Pyne, is doing his level best to deter MPs from referring Peter Dutton to the high court to determine his eligibility under section 44 of the constitution.
Pyne told Radio National he is not threatening other MPs with referral, then proceeds to do just that:
We have very firm legal advice that Peter Dutton doesn’t have a constitutional issue under section 44. But if he does, if the parliament decides that he does and he should go to the high court, well that’s the same problem that Mike Freelander has, that Kerryn Phelps has and that Tony Zappia has, so it would behove the parliament if they vote to send Peter Dutton to the high court that those three MPs would also have to be sent to the high court. My original position, of course, is that we don’t have a constitutional issue but if they decide that he does and they want to send him there, they’ll have to send the other three as well.
Pyne said the government would “definitely” move to refer the three MPs if parliament referred Dutton.
Updated
After conflating weather with climate change (say it with me: weather. isn’t. climate) Alan Jones gets round to the big issue: gender.
He asks Scott Morrison about what the prime minister calls “all this nonsense”.
Asked what omnigender or neutrois means, Morrison says he has no idea.
Asked what demigender means, he responds: “I don’t ... it sounds like an alphabet.”
Morrison says he called on Bill Shorten after the “ridiculous” vote in Tasmania (which would remove gender from birth certificates) to say the Labor party won’t support any gender changes at a federal level. Jones points out that the Tasmanian vote got through with a vote from a Liberal MP, the Speaker.
Morrison says, “The Labor party runs people out for expressing their views, the Liberal party has never had that approach,” which may come as a surprise to Tim Nicholls, Steve Minnikin and Jann Stuckey, who are facing being run out of the LNP for voting to decriminalise abortion in Queensland.
Anyways, Morrison wants it to be “Labor party policy at a federal level and for [Bill Shorten] to go to that federal conference and put an end to all of this nonsense”.
“I mean, it is ridiculous, I know and you would know too, there are Australians who at birth and for physiological reasons, there are genuine issues here to address and we should respect, and everyone thinks that. Australians are fair-minded people. But we are not mugs and we don’t have to spend our time, you know, getting drawn off into these things every single day.
“It is not going to get unemployment down, it is not going to make sure we get the budget back in the black, it is not going to pay for one extra hospital or one extra school, which is what I am focused on.”
But it just might save a life. Because respecting someone’s pronouns and identity may not lead to infrastructure, but it has a worth beyond measure for someone who may be struggling to find the acceptance those who are already sure of their identity take for granted every single day.
Updated
What did I tell you? The tit-for-tat has started.
.@cpyne has warmed up on referrals this morning. Last night the threat to refer @drkerrynphelps and others was implicit on @SkyNewsAust Now it’s explicit. He told @RNBreakfast if Dutton gets referred, others will too @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) November 27, 2018
Updated
Good morning
Scott Morrison is about to jet off to deal with the tensions between China and the United States at G20, but first he has to get through the tensions in his own party room.
Julia Banks’ move to the crossbench not only makes “getting on with the job” harder, it also puts in doubt Peter Dutton’s protection from a high court referral over section 44 concerns.
Banks was one of the MPs Labor thought it could potentially convince to vote for a referral before she left the party. Her move to the crossbench clears the pathway for her to vote in favour of it. Labor just needs most of the crossbench to vote for it. It’s not guaranteed and there are already tit-for-tat claims floating around from those on the government side (Kerryn Phelps is potentially in their sights because she received Medicare co-payments while a doctor).
So it’s a mess. But it’s a growing one. It’s not one which is necessarily even going to change anything – by the time the high court got around to dealing with any referrals, we would be pretty close to the May election anyway, and each election resets any section 44 issues.
So it’s a watch-and-wait kinda issue.
The government has been out trying to hose down claims it is taking the piss with the parliamentary sitting calendar it released late yesterday. As it stands, there are just two sittings before the budget is handed down on 2 April. Given that we’ll be going to an election straight after, Labor is saying there is not enough time before the budget to scrutinise government policy and it’s hiding. The government says that’s rubbish.
All I know is that we finish up next week and we don’t come back until 12 February.
Meanwhile, Alan Jones has the prime minister dialling in from Canberra to complain about global warming claims because it is raining in Sydney.
Good. Times.
We’ll be following along with all the day’s events, as crazy as they may be. You’ve got me and the Guardian brain’s trust along for the ride and you can catch us on Twitter or in the comments.
I’m as ready as I’ll ever be, so let’s get into it.
Updated
