Things are winding down here this afternoon – and we have a big few days before Scott Morrison heads over to the US to meet Donald Trump – so we are going to call it a night, a little earlier than usual today.
It is party room and caucus meeting day tomorrow, so that should be fun. Plus, Frank Bainimarama will probably have some things to say about climate change. Plus, there is big stick legislation, and who doesn’t get excited about a big stick?
Who knows where the Gladys Liu story will go tomorrow, if anywhere.
And will we ever find out why Bob Katter covered his face?
Find out by tuning in tomorrow to latest episode of the 46th parliament.
A very big thank you to Mike Bowers and to the whole Guardian brains trust for everything they do to keep this blog up and running. Big shout out to our tech people, who managed to fix the internet issues which have been driving me absolutely bonkers these past few sitting days.
We will be back early tomorrow morning. Enjoy your evening and please – take care of you.
Updated
Meanwhile, Nick Douros, a former ACT Young Labor president who resigned as a federal staffer because he was found to have bullied a fellow member has been appointed national secretary for Australian Young Labor.
He was elected at the AYL conference over the weekend, despite an internal party investigation finding in February that he had contravened the party’s code of conduct for bullying a female party member and calling her a “rat” during a preselection battle for Canberra’s three federal House of Representative seats.
Updated
More question time from Mike Bowers:
Updated
This Royal Tenenbaums reboot looks like a bust:
Updated
Things none of us can explain in this place, episode #409,765:
Things I can’t explain in a sitting week #1. Bob Katter sat down next to Gladys Liu during a division and covered his face for nearly the whole time the votes were tallied @AmyRemeikis @murpharoo @GuardianAus #PoliticsLive https://t.co/5w0i9l2fJW pic.twitter.com/HLdmLkQx51
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) September 16, 2019
Updated
Labor focusing in on the Gladys Liu matter and Scott Morrison’s use of ‘Shanghai Sam’ - in both the House of Reps and the Senate. pic.twitter.com/c3pW0m4tle
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) September 16, 2019
This also happened during the weekend Nationals party conference (I guess George Christensen isn’t aware of peer reviews):
Labor is concerned by the motion passed at the Nationals’ Federal Council calling for a national science watchdog to oversee scientific papers.
The member for Dawson, George Christensen, moved the motion calling for the watchdog to provide “quality assurance and verification of scientific papers which are used to influence, formulate or determine public policy.”
Having already cut investment to science, research and innovation, Labor is concerned this is an attempt by the Government to undermine the integrity of peer review with political intervention and also an escalation of the government’s War on Science.
At a time when the Great Barrier Reef is dying, threatening both ecosystems and the tourism jobs it sustains, Labor is concerned such a watchdog would be used for political purposes.
While we don’t have details of the composition of the watchdog, science and research does not need a minister with an ideological bent, or a highly subjective panel, dictating without explanation the legitimacy of a peer reviewed researcher.
The Australian Research Council (ARC) already has one of the most rigorous and comprehensive peer review process in the world when it comes to reviewing research grant applications.
This recent Australian National Audit Office audit of the ARC concluded that the ARC’s administration of its grants program is effective, and the guidelines align with the government’s research and innovation objectives.
In rare exceptions where a minister vetoes a grant, they should be required to publicly and transparently explain their decision.
Updated
Jacqui Lambie to John Setka 'I can only appeal to whatever is left of your sense of honour and decency'
Crossbench senators Rex Patrick and Jacqui Lambie have issued a pointed warning to embattled construction unionist John Setka, who reportedly told a union meeting that there would be “consequences” for senators who vote with the government to facilitate deregistration of unions.
Patrick said that Centre Alliance and Lambie are giving “careful consideration” to a range of responses including referring the matter to the privileges committee, police, or inviting Setka to explain the comments to a Senate committee, explaining they will “likely” respond with a combination of all three.
Lambie said it was “completely inappropriate” to seek to influence a vote through violence or intimidation.
“The comments are entirely beyond the pale. Politics can be brutal but should never become violent ... To John: I can only appeal to whatever is left of your sense of honour and decency, and call on you to do what is plainly in the interests of your members to stand down and resign.”
Updated
And question time ends.
It now looks like Bob Katter has left the chamber.
Bob Katter has kept his head in his hands, covering his face, for about three minutes now.
This is the exact reaction I have after a bad haircut, and I can tell you, it does not work. People still know who you are.
Updated
Ayes - 73
Noes - 64
That’s to no longer hear Anthony Albanese.
Tony Burke attempts to second.
“When he opens his mouth it is opposite day. Opposite day every single time,” he says.
He is also shut down. A new division (to no longer hear him) is called.
But Scott Morrison has opened his mouth today. So if it *is* opposite day, do the ayes really mean nays?
Bob Katter, who voted with Labor in the last division, is now sitting next to Gladys Liu in this division, clutching his head, Katharine Murphy tells us.
Trying to understand Katter is one of the great mysteries of life.
Seconded.
“In this House, where words carry consequences” @AlboMP says in the suspension. Given the crap that routinely gets shovelled up in #qt without any consequences or sanction, this sounds incredibly quaint #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) September 16, 2019
Updated
Here’s the original motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister has refused to sack the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction despite the Minister admitting on radio he was acting for private interests instead of the public interest and despite the Minister’s clear and repeated breaches of the Prime Minister’s Ministerial Standards;
(b) the Prime Minister has prevented the Member for Chisholm from providing a full statement in her own words to this House where words carry consequences and instead relied on a statement prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office issued outside the House;
(c) on Friday, the Prime Minister denied using the phrase “Shanghai Sam” despite using it at least 17 times, including twice in the House; and
(d) the Prime Minister’s attempt to cover up his untruth on Friday with another untruth is just the latest in a long line of misdirection and obfuscation from this Prime Minister; and
(2) therefore, condemns this Prime Minister for repeatedly abandoning any sense of integrity whenever it is politically expedient for him to do so.
This suspension of standing orders appears to be on not just Gladys Liu, but Angus Taylor, his use of ‘Shanghai Sam’ and then his explanation.
tl;dr - Labor is attempting to suspend standing orders so it can condemn the prime minister.
Christian Porter shuts him down.
We now have a division on Albanese no longer being heard.
Labor accuses PM of "repeatedly abandoning any sense of integrity whenever it is politically expedient"
Anthony Albanese is moving to suspend standing orders.
TWICE IN ONE DAY
Updated
It’s time for your daily dose of ‘unions are terrible’, with Christian Porter.
Carry yourself with the confidence of a Christian Porter.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
My question is again to the prime minister and I again refer to his previous answers. Is the reason he used the phrase Shanghai Sam 17 times the same reason he supported weakening protections against racist hate speech and university level English testing for new citizens?
Scott Morrison goes to read from a transcript, which sends Labor into hysterics, given his attack on Albanese, not three minutes ago, which included this:
....Pouring over transcripts, worrying about this word and this word. This country is in drought! Facing natural disasters, severe economic challenges, the leader of the opposition is running around like a researcher looking up words!
Grow up!
But to this answer:
The leader of the opposition once said at the National Press Club, he said this...
...Talking about serious people, serious times. I’m not going to table it, he gets enough publicity carrying on about this every single day, I am asked about the government and its views on the integrity of the immigration system in the rules we imply, rules we impose to make sure the surety of that system and to ensure cohesion in Australian society.
Our government makes no apology for our policies when it comes to the integrity of the immigration system, no apologies for the work we have done on border protection that has kept the borders that you and make sure all Australians can have confidence in an immigration system that has made this country the most effective and most successful immigration nation on earth. Multicultural Australia...
...I was about to speak about the importance of multiculturalism in Australia, we have the most successful multicultural record of any nation today. The policy we have pursued as a government can only make that stronger. We will continue to make them stronger.
....On the first matter the member raised, the reason we have foreign interference laws in Australia, is because of the former Senator bestiary and the Labor party should well know that, their record on this issue is a shambles, they can try and distract attention from their own woes, whether it is because of the New South Wales ALP branch of the Labor party and their bags of cash, or the disastrous role of the former Senator Dastyari and how he had to resign because of his own actions.
They can run but they cannot hide from what the Labor leader of New South Wales said, before the last state election, that Asians would take Australian jobs.
Updated
Angus Taylor says some things.
Moving on.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
My question is again to the Prime Minister, I refer to his previous answer, in a statement to the media he said he had not used any of those phrases. If one of the phrases he thought he had been asked about was an accusation something was racist, what was the other phrase if it wasn’t Shanghai Sam?
Morrison:
Mr Speaker, I refer again... I refer the Member to my earlier answer. The phrase racist was used twice in the question, that’s what I heard and that is what I was referring to.
Mr Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition, honestly thinks, that this, this is the best he can do, last week the Leader of the Opposition came up here and did something, Mr Speaker the Leader of the Opposition really does unless he thinks he has locked it up when they call on me to have one of my members resigned.
You don’t do that lightly. He did that in this place on one day, the next day he did not mention it. It is the weakness and lameness of this Leader of the Opposition, what is he doing all day?
Pouring over transcripts, worrying about this word and this word. This country is in drought! Facing natural disasters, severe economic challenges, the Leader of the Opposition is running around like a researcher looking up words!
Grow up!
So we have moved from ‘it’s a grubby smear’ and accusations of racism, to ‘there are very important things happening in this country’.
Someone is wearing his cranky pants today. And I say that as someone who has at least four pairs a week to choose from.
Karen Andrews delivered a lickspittle answer, complete with a ‘I want to speak to the manager’ finger point, and accuses the opposition of being smug.
Fairly panicked scenes on the Coalition frontbench trying to get Mathias Cormann notes as he faced a Murray-Darling Basin question from Sarah Hanson-Young #auspol
— Brett Worthington (@BWorthington_) September 16, 2019
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
My question is addressed to the prime minister. Why did the prime minister deny using the praise Shanghai Sam, something he did at least 17 times, including in this House?
Morrison:
I understand the leader of the opposition is a busy member of parliament, he may not have had the opportunity to hear the interview I did later that afternoon, when I returned from visiting the bushfires, with the member for Wright, the question was put at the end of the press conference when I was standing next to the recovery centre, I heard the word racism used twice and that question is what I was referring to.
If the best the leader of the opposition can drum up, is that withering attack, then I’m sure there is a lot of optimistic people that sit on the back bench of the Labor Party that see a big opportunity for themselves.”
There’s a whole 30 minutes left in this hour. Aren’t we lucky?
Updated
As Australia burns, Angus Taylor asks Labor if they are “for or against” coal.
Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus.
Scott Morrison:
I tabled the document because I undertook to do so outside of this place at a press conference, and I always follow through on my word.
Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:
I refer to his tabling of the written statement by the member for Chisholm during question time last week. During that answer, was he aware that by tabling the statement instead of having the member speak directly to the house, the house would be prevented from holding him to account for any inaccuracies in the statement? Why did he take that action rather than let the member stand in Parliament and make a statement in her own words?
Christian Porter:
For a start, it contains imputations about inaccuracies without identifying any, and secondly the standing orders are not inside the responsibilities of the prime minister.
Tony Smith:
I’m going to hear from the manager of opposition business.
Burke:
Both in the preamble and quite specifically on the question at the end, I have asked about an answer that the prime minister gave in the house and why he gave it in a particular way.
Smith:
The point that the manager of opposition business makes I think is right. The question is about an action the prime minister took during question time in answer to a question last week, so for me to prevent questioning of something the prime minister had said in an answer, I don’t think that would be right. I’m going to call the prime minister.
Updated
Do we have a ‘parliamentary friends of banning the phrase the reality is’ yet, and if not, why not?
Centre Alliance is pushing for a significant overhaul of Australia’s objectively terrible donation disclosure laws. Crossbench MP Rebekha Sharkie introduced a draft bill to the lower house this morning that would compel political parties to disclose donations within five days. This would effectively enforce the real-time declaration of disclosures and mirror arrangements in place at a state level in Queensland and Victoria. The bill has a difficult path before it.
But if nothing else, this latest reform attempt reminds us of the parlous state of funding transparency in Australian politics. Currently, we only find out who has donated to political parties once a year in February. That means the public won’t find out who bankrolled the Labor and Liberal election campaigns until nine months after the fact.
Even then, parties are only required to disclose donations above $14,000, a threshold well above states like NSW and Victoria, where disclosure is compulsory for amounts above $1000. This leaves us unable to identify the sources of vast amounts of money being funnelled to political parties. The Grattan Institute last year estimated hidden sources gave major political parties more than $62m, about 30-40% of total donations.
The technology is available to easily institute real-time disclosures. Polling also shows widespread public support for real-time disclosures. All that’s needed is political will.
Updated
Labor’s second Senate question time sortee is also directed at Liberal MP Gladys Liu - questioning why Scott Morrison has not said she is a “fit and proper” person to sit in parliament.
In response, Cormann repeated several times that the prime minister has “full confidence” in Liu. He accused Labor of “trickery” by suggesting that Liu is a spy. “You’re not naming it, you’re not saying it, but that’s what you’re trying to spread,” he said.
Cormann dismissed quotes of concerns from unnamed Liberals as sour grapes from people who lost preselection contests, and accused Labor of “grasping at straws”.
Bob Katter gets the next question:
Energy minister, are you aware of the crisis in North Queensland with untenable electricity prices jeopardising $400 million a year of national income? Also will you as the grandson of the man who built the Snowy visit our triangle of power as have deputy PM Michael McCormack, as have Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese? The Tully Hydro Riordan alignment, a triangle that would generate 5% of Australia’s electricity, clean, cheap, renewable and forever, all dependent on the production of copper transmission lines.
(In a marked departure from many of my friends from north Queensland, Katter does not end his sentences with a questioning lilt - even when they are questions. So his sitting down is often the only indication you have that he’s done.)
Angus Taylor says he would love to visit. And also the government is working on it. And also it is the Queensland Labor government’s fault (despite the Queensland government not selling its power assets to take advantage of the Abbott-Hockey $5bn assets recycling pool).
Updated
Anthony Albanese to Angus Taylor:
Will the government adopt a key recommendation released today by the ACCC that the National Energy Guarantee be implemented to achieve, and I quote, the objective of reducing carbon emissions at low cost while promoting investment in a manner that ensures demand for energy is met?
#WelldoneAngus
He will recall that the NEG had to pass. The first part was a reliability obligation, and the ACCC tells us the Australian government has implemented the reliability components of the National Energy Guarantee.
The second part, of course, of the National Energy Guarantee was the 26% emission reduction target, and we will reach that in the national electricity market, which is what it was focused on, eight to nine years ahead of schedule, by 2021 or 2022. The reason for that is very simple.
We are seeing record levels of investment in solar and wind in our national electricity market right now. Three times the level per capita, on average, across the UK, France and Germany. These are record levels of investment, and we will reach our emissions target years ahead of time. More broadly across the economy we are also on target to reach our emissions obligations. Our 2020 obligations, other Kyoto obligations...
Albanese asks about relevance, and Taylor is allowed to continue, but told to stick to the topic.
It ends shortly afterwards.
Updated
Labor has started Senate question time with questions about Liberal MP Gladys Liu and $1m of political donations she raised for the Liberal Party.
Liberal leader in the Senate, Mathias Cormann replied:
“The prime minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm. Questions in relation to declaration of political donations are a matter for party organisations. The member for Chisholm has stated at all times she has complied with federal and state donation laws.”
Cormann dismissed the “ongoing smear” as a non-story, arguing it was hardly breaking news that a “long-term member of Liberal Party has supported the Liberal Party”.
Penny Wong attempted to force Cormann to withdraw the suggestion Labor is engaged in a “smear” against a Chinese-Australian, but Senate president Scott Ryan noted that comments directed at a party (but not an individual) are not generally considered unparliamentary.
In response to a supplementary, Cormann claimed that Labor backbenchers he encountered at Canberra airport told him there was “concern” from opposition members about its approach to the Liu issue.
Updated
Michael McCormack, fresh from his war on frogs and other pesky native animals that have the audacity to exist in areas he wants to build a road or dam (eventually, I mean, just look at the infrastructure plan - it is over 10 years), Michael McCormacks his way through another dixer.
Steamed rice has more personality.
Updated
Jim Chalmers (who is made to withdraw an unparliamentary comment I missed before speaking) to Scott Morrison:
Prime minister, why, in this House does the prime minister ignore the seven public months, by the reserve bank governor since the election, about the need for economic stimulus and pretend they were never made.
Morrison:
I thank the member for the question I was just going to that point about the government fiscal policy in my response to the previous member’s question. We believe it is important to maintain a surplus, that side of the House haven’t seen a surplus since 1989. I have to once again remind the House of the testimony given by the governor of the reserve bank, and evidence to the house of Representatives standing committee, where he said, and I quote, if the government economy is not doing well, the global economy is not doing well we need all arms of public policy to support the Australian economy.
That is not a call for the government to do what I want to be clear about. That is the statement on the 9 August by the government of reserve bank to the house of Representatives standing committee on the economy, if the Labor Party can’t understand the plain English towards a committee of this House, where the governor has been crystal clear about what his view is and they want to verbal the reserve governor.
This is the difference, our government understands the need to continue to show measured discipline when it comes to the managing of government finances.
Those opposite were unable to do that, they settled this country up for a debt we will be paying for the next decade. When we come to this dispatch box and we say you can’t manage money you can’t run the country, that is what happens when they couldn’t pay for pharmaceuticals, they had to tax the Australian people to respond to disasters.
Updated
A lickspittle on natural disaster turns into a political attack by the government on Labor’s economic record. As you do.
Scott Morrison must be really, really upset by the Sharks loss, given his mood in QT this afternoon.
So Asio has taken the fairly rare step of publicly speaking out against a government policy.
Peter Dutton’s citizenship-stripping laws may have thwarted police from pressing criminal charges and increased the risk of terrorism, Australia’s spy agency has warned.
The Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation issued the warning to an inquiry examining provisions that automatically strip dual nationals of their Australian citizenship if they engage in terrorism-related conduct.
Asio has called for the powers, introduced by the Turnbull government in 2015 at the urging of Dutton, now the home affairs minister, to be replaced by an optional power to cancel citizenship only if it is in Australia’s interests.
It submitted that it was “too early” to determine if the laws had acted as a deterrent. It accepted that they prevented people re-entering Australia, meaning they were “unable to physically execute an attack in Australia or undertake any face-to-face radicalisation, recruitment or capability transfer” but said this needed to be “balanced against the security challenges arising from locating the individual offshore”.
Updated
Question time begins
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison (who is starting off very shouty)
Until this year the prime minister repeatedly promised better wages under this government. Is the reason the prime minister has gone silent on that repeated promise because his government has presided over the worst wages growth on record?
Morrison (but with added shouting)
I remind the leader of the opposition in the most recent national accounts, real wage growth was up 0.7% through the year.
If they say that is the worst on record why wasn’t 0.5% through the year when we came to government? Real wages growth, and the most recent quarter is higher than the last quarter then it was in the quarter we inherited from the Labor government. I would ask the treasurer, if you would like to add further to the response, we have a plan to grow wages, and increase wages as we have seen and the overall compensation of employees grew by 5%, how is that happening?
We are investing in infrastructure, expanding trade barriers, investing in skills, making sure we are giving Australians back the money they earn so they can keep more of what they earn, directing two key sectors like water, infrastructure or agribusiness, to the digital economy becoming a reality under policies of this government, which increases cash flow for small to medium-sized businesses, we are taking the regulation monkeys off their back, that is how you grow an economy, you don’t grow it by putting $387 billion of higher taxes on the hard work of Australians, and the small business community of Australia.”
Josh Frydenberg gets up and says pretty much the same thing, but with less shouting. Perhaps he could pass on what he has learnt about microphones to the prime minister.
Updated
Who is that MP?
It’s Lisa Chester.
She asks if the Nationals MPs will be happy when non-cow’s milk, milk-like product is called ‘white liquid for your tea’ after the resolution that the party will move to crack down on plant-based products being named like-animal products.
Updated
He followed up with this:
And let’s remind everyone here that it was not Labor that began this pursuit.
Labor did not make the member for Chisholm go on Sky on Tuesday night and give a disastrous interview where she contradicted long-standing bipartisan policy on China and then repeatedly gave misleading answers about her knowledge of, and association with, a number of organisations.
It has been journalists and commentators, not Labor, who have been raising day after day, serious questions about the member for Chisholm.
So, is the prime minister saying that Andrew Bolt was being racist when he asked the member for Chisholm whether she agreed with Australia’s long standing bipartisan national policy on the South China Sea?
Is the prime minister saying that it is racist to ask why the member for Chisholm falsely claimed to have nothing to do with a number of organisations that she never declared to her party, or this parliament, and which she now admits she was a senior member of?
Is the prime minister saying that journalists are racist for asking whether he, and other ministers, were told by security agencies not to attend fundraising activities organised by the member for Chisholm?
Is the prime minister saying that Andrew Bolt is racist for posing a series of perfectly reasonable questions in the Herald-Sun newspaper just today? Questions such as:
Why did the member for Chisholm first say she couldn’t remember being a member of (the Guangdong chapter of the China Overseas Exchange Association) then deny it, and the next day, when she was caught out, finally admit it?
Why did the member for Chisholm, in her application to be a Liberal candidate, list her membership of 17 community groups — from the Box Hill Chess Club to Rotary — but not her links to at least four organisations tied to China’s United Front Work Department?
How did the member for Chisholm, when not yet even a candidate, manage to raise more than $1 million for the Liberals?
Why did ASIO’s boss reportedly warn then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull against going to a meeting the member for Chisholm arranged with her donors?
Those are Andrew Bolt’s questions in The Herald-Sun today.
If, as has been reported, our agencies did issue warnings about the member for Chisholm, would that have been racist?
Updated
If you want to know where question time is going to be going today (at least as far as I can guess) I would say these parts of Mark Dreyfus’ speech on the latest attempt to suspend standing orders gives an idea:
This prime minister has shown himself to be very skilled at dodging questions he is frightened of. It’s an ‘on water matter so I won’t answer.’ ‘It’s a bubble question so I won’t answer.’ ‘It’s a question I answered yesterday so I won’t answer’, even when it turns out he never did answer that question the day before.
And now he’s at it again – he says he can’t answer these important questions, this time it’s because he’s claiming, in a display as cynically self-serving as it is dishonest, that anyone asking those questions about safeguarding our national security must be a racist.
I want to be very clear: the ONLY person linking these questions to the issue of race, and in the process smearing the entire Chinese-Australian community, and also people on his own side concerned about issues of national security, is this prime minister.
That same prime minister who, in 2017, on no fewer than 17 occasions, used the offensive slogan “Shanghai Sam”. The same prime minister who denied ever using the phrase, despite posting video of himself saying it to his own Twitter and Facebook accounts with the caption “Shanghai Sam”!
If harm is being done here, it’s being done by this desperate and wounded prime minister, as slippery as he’s ever been, trying to blame everyone but himself.
Updated
In a somewhat rare divisional appearance, Bob Katter voted with Labor on that one (as did Adam Bandt, Rebekha Sharkie, Zali Steggall and Helen Haines).
Updated
That division was won by the government 69 to 72.
Moving on to 90 second statements.
Also known as time-to-eat-before-QT.
Updated
Christian Porter is not in favour of the suspension.
The division bells are rung.
Updated
“Prime minister, this is not going away, and no attempt at this fruitless smear, will make it go away,” Mark Dreyfus says, adding that the bulk of the questions have been driven by the media, not Labor.
Scott Morrison tabled the statement Gladys Liu put out through her office in the last sitting day, last week, but it is not counted as a statement to parliament.
This will take us up until question time.
Which, given this motion, is probably going to be more on the same topic.
Here is the motion
Latest attempt to suspend standing orders pic.twitter.com/MoZWscJpuc
— Amy Remeikis (@AmyRemeikis) September 16, 2019
Labor moves to suspend standing orders over Gladys Liu
Mark Dreyfus is on his feet, asking the House to suspend standing orders so it can discuss Gladys Liu.
Updated
This is fine.
Check out the predicted impact of climate change on Australian grain, cotton and sugar crops, via @TheAusFarmer @farmingforever pic.twitter.com/MR6F0yrVae
— Kath Sullivan (@KathSully) September 16, 2019
Just now while I remember it (I have only just got around to looking through the Hansard) here is the full text of the speech Russell Broadbent gave at the end of the sitting last week:
This job can be challenging. I have been in a position where I have been opposed to my own party at different times. These issues are normally resolved in our party room; at other times they become more public. What are our responsibilities? I know I’ve got a responsibility to the people who put me in the place—the electors of Monash and my party, those who work hard in the Liberal party right across the electorate of Monash and decide to support me into this place at each election campaign. And I have a responsibility also to the party room, which is quite separate from that again, which may have a different view to what my party members might decide is the right thing to do. And, over and above that, I have a responsibility to this parliament and the people of Australia.
Can I act every time on my conscience, my compassion and my heart over what my head wants to do? No, I can’t. There are issues deserving consideration where the head must rule over the heart, because that’s what the nation deserves, what the people of Australia deserve. More importantly, and over and above all those things, I offer my electorate, my party, my party room and the people of Australia my judgement on an issue. My judgement may not be in accordance with how people perceive this parliament and how it should work, and how I should just obey the command of the prime minister of the day or of my party or of the whip of the day. It’s actually about the challenges we face, which I mentioned earlier. It’s very, very important to me and to this nation that the right decision is made, and that right decision, in my view, in my judgement, at times may not be that of my party, of the people of Australia or of those in my electorate broadly, as a whole. That doesn’t mean I step back from what I view as being the right at any given time. In essence, in the end, when it comes down to it, I always offer the people that I represent, this parliament and this nation, my judgement as an individual on any given issue.
Having said that, it doesn’t mean I’m about to move in any particular direction. But for those who have deigned to offer their advice to me in very strong terms: I need to explain to you that this is the position I take. Many members on different issues will take that stance on behalf of their community sometimes, when they need to represent their community in a fullsome way because their constituents are directly affected by an individual matter. These issues are important, and when it comes to matters of principle where you have taken a stand for a long time, I don’t believe the nation wants members of parliament who say one thing on Monday and then, under pressure, say another thing on Friday. It doesn’t mean a member of parliament can’t be advised, for instance, over embryonic stem cell research, where I had a conservative position until my genuine staff at the time said, ‘Before you take that decision, let’s go talk to the experts.’ After I did I changed my position and supported the legislation in this House on embryonic stem cell research. It gained me a lot of criticism from other areas at the time, but it was the right decision. In the long run, the first position I took was proved wrong and the position I took after further information was right. It’s not that we do not have a position to change our mind on a particular principle; we have. But it is important. In this parliament, in this place, principles are important. The practices of the parliament are important, the rule of law is important, and what surrounds that rule of law is important.
Updated
Companies can speak up about social issues, BCA head Jennifer Westacott has told ABC radio - but they should also be speaking up about the economy.
That’s a clarification of the comments reported in the Australian.
As AAP reports:
Companies should be free to speak out about social issues, but the business lobby also wants them to speak out about the economy.
Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott says firms can do both.
“Many companies feel strongly about (social) issues, and their employees expect them to stand up for them, that’s perfectly legitimate,” she told ABC radio on Monday.
“But at the same time we need companies speaking out on economic issues and we need them to be signalling the virtue of being successful, of creating jobs, of paying people wages, of expanding.
“Both of those things are not in conflict.”
The Business Council is in Canberra to speak to MPs about making business conditions easier in the face of sluggish retail spending.
“I think companies have got an obligation to talk about the economy, because they employ so many people,” Ms Westacott said.
“Particularly large companies, large employers, they are the people doing the hard yards on the international scene, they can see the headwinds coming in the direction of our country.
“They can see how to make our economy more competitive, how to make it more productive, how to pay people more.”
Ms Westacott says businesses want Australian politicians to cut red tape and incentivise investment.
“What we do over the next 18 months will set the company up for the next 18 years,” she said.
“If we make some wrong choices then we will be potentially condemning our country to a very long period of low growth.
“That’s not good for people’s wages, it’s not good for the revenues governments need to get the services people want.”
Anyone who has criticised or made a ‘joke’ about Frank Bainimarama’s traditional dress in the comment stream really needs to take a look at what they are doing and how they are coming across.
We have been through this multiple times now. Stop it.
Bainimarama:
Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. Prime minister, I look forward to advancing the respect and openness that has and must continue to define our engagement between our governments. We will only have the chance to speak one-on-one and talk through some pressings ahead of this official bilateral meeting.
Neither of us baulk at speaking our minds, and I believe we both hold a clear view of our priorities and a shared understanding of how we can live up to the high aspirations of the partnership.
In Fiji, the partnership means family. For Fijians the bonds that binds families together are a sacred, unbreakable connection. It’s about more than being good mates to one another.
It’s about the connection, it demands a level of understanding unprecedented in the relations between our governments but has been long evidenced in the general affinity shared by the Fijian and the Australian people. Members of any family are entitled to their disagreements.
No-one expects that our differences can be resolved quickly or easily, but we must never fall down in forging common ground and common ground is what I intend to seek in our discussion on the issues that impact the lives of Fijians, Australians and all the Pacific people this morning. Mr Prime Minister, as I said to you before we came in, I - I was hoping that I’d be at the grounds watching the Fijians kick the Welsh out!
Updated
In what is always a totally normal and natural way to hold a conversation (it must be done, but it is always so awkward) Scott Morrison and Frank Bainimarama have said their official hellos in front of the cameras.
Morrison:
Prime minister, it’s wonderful to welcome you here to Australia as an official guest of government. It was wonderful to stand by your side this morning as you were - you received the Federation Guard and were able to inspect the guard in the most important places of Australia, looking out on the War Memorial and to be the prime minister who was able to welcome you here in this special way and to acknowledge the great friendship that Australia and Fiji has, but the great friendship that you and I have built up. It’s a great pleasure to be Australia’s first prime minister to go to Fiji on a bilateral visit, it was a surprise to me it has taken so long, but you said, I remember on that night - many invitations have been offered and this one has been accepted and I was very pleased to accept it and join you and Mary in Finland but today to be able to welcome you here and to be with you yesterday, I think, has been very special as part of our partnership and the work that we begun when I was in Suva with you and we will bring to completion today after this meeting as we sign the partnership.
The thing I love about how we have expressed it, it’s a term of intimacy, it’s a term of family and that’s very much has always been the basis of our relationship.
The people-to-people relationships, the strategic relationships, the economic partnerships, they’re not new, they go back many, many, many generations, and for whatever other complexities there are in the world today, one certainty is the relationship that exists between the people of Australia and the people of Fiji.
And I think that will always endure. It is just too familiar, it is too close and will always be enduring. I want to thank you and all of your delegation, a very large delegation, who has been able to come to Australia. I look forward to the discussions we’re about to have on many issues and thank you for the discussions that we have just had between us ourselves as leaders. I want to thank you for your leadership in the Pacific, the Pacific is a place that we have great passion about and particularly with yourself as a key leader in the Pacific, and standing up for the Pacific, and the interest of the Pacific peoples, not just the peoples of Fiji, I think has shown tremendous leadership and we want to acknowledge that here as well. I look forward to those discussions and I thank you for your accepting our invitation to be here on this occasion. It’s a very important day, I know, in our relationship but also between our two countries.
Updated
Meanwhile, in the Senate:
Should be a quick debate.
— Kenny Devine (@TheKennyDevine) September 16, 2019
h/t @shalailah pic.twitter.com/vYMNHNbWXx
Updated
Scott Morrison and Frank Bainimarama are holding their bilateral meeting in the cabinet room right now.
Mike Bowers tells me it was a full room. But deputy prime minister Michael McCormack was not there.
It couldn’t at all be because he said this not so long ago:
“I also get a little bit annoyed when we have people in those sorts of countries pointing the finger at Australia and say we should be shutting down all our resources sector so that, you know, they will continue to survive,” he said.
“They will continue to survive, there’s no question they’ll continue to survive and they’ll continue to survive on large aid assistance from Australia.
“They’ll continue to survive because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit, pick our fruit grown with hard Australian enterprise and endeavour and we welcome them and we always will.
“But the fact is we’re not going to be hijacked into doing something that will shut down an industry that provides tens of thousands of jobs, that provides two-thirds of our energy needs ... and I’m only talking coal, let alone all of our other resources.”
But he apologised if anyone took offence, so cool beans.
Updated
Guardian Australia understands that the electoral law challenges against treasurer Josh Frydenberg and embattled Liberal MP Gladys Liu alleging misleading conduct in the election over Chinese-language signs have been listed in the court of disputed returns on Wednesday in Melbourne.
These are just directions hearings - so they will iron out practical details about when the final hearing will be held, whether the high court will handball the case to the federal court or who on the high court will hear it - but we won’t hear substantive arguments.
I don’t believe the separate Michael Staindl section 44 challenge against Frydenberg is listed.
Updated
I think we all know how this will go.
Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up to work on Friday is a bum.
— Adam Bandt (@AdamBandt) September 15, 2019
Students have asked workers to join the Sep 20 climate strike.
Workers have a constitutional right to go, but so it's crystal clear, I'm intro'ing bill to guarantee the right to strike for climate action.
Updated
Bill Shorten tells Sky that it would be “arrogant” for the party not to review it’s policies, given the election loss.
Bill Shorten is speaking to Annelise Nielsen in the Sky studio in Canberra, from his office in Canberra.
Which is a little strange, given the studio is just a short walk away. The last time Shorten was in a studio in Canberra, he was bombarded with journalist’s questions in the hallway as he left (press gallery hallways are one of the only places we can ask questions).
Shorten supports the call from disability advocates for Barbara Bennett and John Ryan to stand down from the disability royal commission over conflict of interest concerns.
Updated
Nothing like an official parliamentary welcome to let you know what it would sound like if parliament was under attack.
Seems a bit early for the Yelp review, though.
Updated
Confirmed: raptors are narks.
🦅 🦉 A trio of beaked bouncers have been brought in to restore some law and order to Parliament House #auspol https://t.co/TxJ3LxuCpL 🦅 🦉 pic.twitter.com/ASzVxgzTyf
— ABC Politics (@politicsabc) September 15, 2019
Updated
And for more on why we are looking at four-year terms, here is the official release:
Should Australia move to fixed four-year parliamentary terms? A parliamentary committee will hold a roundtable discussion on this topic on Thursday 7 November 2019, and has invited questions and views from the public.
Andrew Wallace MP, chair of the House Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, says the Australian Parliament’s House of Representatives is the only lower house in the country with three-year parliamentary terms.
“Four-year terms could address the community’s concerns about the revolving doors of politicians and policy by providing more stability and opportunities for longer-term outcomes,” Wallace said.
“All of our state and territory parliaments have four-year lower house terms, with Queensland moving to four-year terms in 2020 following a successful referendum in 2016.
“On the other hand, there may be downsides to fixed parliamentary terms. Current events in the United Kingdom show that this issue is one that needs careful consideration.”
The roundtable will consist of a panel of constitutional experts including laureate professor emeritus Cheryl Saunders, professor Gabrielle Appleby, professor Anne Twomey and professor George Williams.
“Any change to parliamentary terms would require popular support from voters, so we’re offering voters the opportunity to be involved in the process from the very beginning,” Wallace said.
The roundtable will be open to the public and streamed live on the parliament’s website. You can participate by submitting your questions and views via the roundtable website.
The committee will also consider questions posted live on Twitter on the day of the roundtable. The House’s Twitter account, @AbouttheHouse, will post live commentary from the event.
Following the roundtable, the committee intends to present a short report to the House reflecting the issues discussed.
For more information go to the committee’s website.
Updated
The only acceptable answer to this question, is yes.
Is it time for the House to move to four year terms? The Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee will hold a roundtable in November to discuss the issue and answer your questions. More: https://t.co/AoRlMdWyC5
— Australian House of Representatives (@AboutTheHouse) September 16, 2019
Then we will all know when the election is and not have to spend 18 months waiting for the call.
But if you want to have your say, head to the committee page.
Updated
Gladys Liu is still a top of conversation.
Jim Chalmers says Labor just wants her to give a statement to parliament clearing up some of the issues:
Every day there are new questions raised by the media about the affiliations and actions and donations involved with Gladys Liu. Every day the prime minister tries to duck and weave from these questions. Every day he tries to evade responsibility for what’s going on here. We call on the prime minister and Gladys Liu to come clean on these donations and these affiliations. The best place for Gladys Liu to do that is in the parliament. She needs to make a full, complete statement about what’s gone on here. Remember that this prime minister may have put winning a marginal seat ahead of Australia’s national security and that’s a very, very serious thing if it’s true. So we do need to get to the bottom of it. Scott Morrison needs to stop ducking and weaving, and Gladys Liu needs to front up to the parliament and make a complete statement about what’s gone on.
Question: Do you think it’s rubbish that the government is saying that this is a racist attack?
Jim Chalmers: I do. I think the only person in this conversation who is trying to pretend that what is going on around Gladys Liu is about an entire community in Australia is Scott Morrison. That is entirely reprehensible. It is offensive and absurd and unfortunately for Scott Morrison, true to form that he has made this ridiculous smear.
All we are asking for, all the media is asking for, all the Australian community is asking for, is an assurance from the prime minister that he hasn’t put winning a marginal seat ahead of Australia’s national security. All we’re asking for is for Gladys Liu, as a member of parliament, to stand up in that parliament and give a complete statement. The time for prime ministerial ducking and weaving is over. The time for Gladys Liu avoiding her parliamentary responsibilities with a full statement is over. We need to get assurances that Scott Morrison hasn’t put winning a marginal seat ahead of national security in this country.
Updated
The Australian Farm Institute will launch a report calling for a national strategy on climate change and agriculture today.
About 20 farmers will arrive at parliament to discuss the report with environment minister Sussan Ley.
Updated
The bells are ringing (and the guns have officially saluted Frank Bainimarama) so GET EXCITED.
Updated
Mark Butler has responded to the ACCC’s second report into energy affordability:
Labor welcomes the slim reductions through the ACCC recommendation of a default market offer, a policy Labor adopted before the Coalition.
However, as the ACCC notes, the default offers will only apply to less than 10% of households.
What the ACCC have specifically called out is the government’s lack of national energy policy which would reduce power prices, ensure reliability and bring down emissions, “The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission restates its support for the National Energy Guarantee as a settled policy framework.”
Angus Taylor has failed to live up to Scott Morrison’s KPI as minister for lower power prices; analysis from JP Morgan shows under the Morrison government’s energy crisis wholesale electricity prices across the four NEM states – Victoria, South Australia, NSW and Queensland – rose to $83/MWh in August, up 12% from June despite lower demand.
And prices are set to continue to rise; forward prices are now 29% higher than a year ago, averaging $94/MWh.
Ever since the Liberals’ energy crisis started in 2015, wholesale electricity prices have risen 158%.
Updated
Speaking of China, Kerry Stokes, the chairman of Seven West, among a bunch of other businesses, told the Weekend Australian that Scott Morrison needed to visit:
“Australia’s entire future is based on our ability to trade and China is our largest trading partner, Mr Stokes, the executive chairman of the Seven Group, said.
“Our whole standard of living is virtually determined by the exports we make to China.”
It’s a little hard without an invitation though. An Australian prime minister has not visited China since 2016, although there have been sideline chats at events like the G20.
Updated
China blamed for parliament cyber attack – report
Remember this story from 8 February 2019, before the election:
Australia’s security agencies are urgently investigating an attempt to hack the federal parliament’s computer network, with the parliament unable to rule out a foreign government being behind the attack.
In a joint statement, Scott Ryan and Tony Smith – parliament’s presiding officers – reported a “security incident on the parliamentary computing network” occurred overnight and into Friday morning.
No data breach has been reported, and they said all passwords had been reset out of “an abundance of caution”.
Well Reuters has just released this report:
Australian intelligence determined China was responsible for a cyber-attack on its national parliament and three largest political parties before the general election in May, five people with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
Australia’s cyber intelligence agency – the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) – concluded in March that China’s Ministry of State Security was responsible for the attack, the five people with direct knowledge of the findings of the investigation told Reuters.
The five sources declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue. Reuters has not reviewed the classified report.
Updated
Jim Chalmers dropped by doors to give Labor’s message for the day:
The Liberal government is into its seventh year and into its third term, and the defining feature of that government is that they’re always looking for fights to distract from their failures on the economy. The economy is slowing not because business leaders have a view about social issues; the economy is slowing because the Morrison government doesn’t have a plan to turn things around.
Every day as they try to point the finger and try to shift the blame there’s a new target. Sometimes it’s business leaders, sometimes it’s GetUp, sometimes it’s the unions. Almost always it’s the Labor party, sometimes it’s the states. These characters never take responsibility for the fact that the economy is growing at its slowest pace in 10 years, household debt is at record highs, Australians are struggling under the rising cost of living, wages are stagnant. The list goes on and on and on.
Australians need a government 100% focused on them, on the economy, on living standards, on cost of living pressures, on stagnant wages. Instead they have a government 100% focussed on shifting the blame and picking fights to distract from their failures on the economy.
Now the mainstream view of many employers around the country, is that Australia does need responsible and affordable stimulus to get the economy going again. The government doesn’t have to choose between a surplus and some responsible stimulus. The budget should, if anything, be strengthened by the fact that higher resource prices and a lower dollar have bolstered profits and the budget bottom line. So the government doesn’t have to choose between surplus and stimulus. It’s possible in the current circumstances for the
Government to do both. We call on them to come up with a plan to turn the floundering economy around, come up with a plan to responsibly and affordably stimulate the economy so that we get wages and living standards going again. So we can turn around an economy which is floundering on the Liberals’ watch.
Updated
The Business Council of Australia head, Jennifer Westacott, has told the Australian that businesses need to think about their involvement in “activist” campaigns. From the report:
The key is to get the balance right between those things that people who work in companies expect their CEOs to talk about, but making sure we never take our eye off the real virtue of business, which is the jobs we create, the contractors we create, the small businesses we create, the shareholders we pay,” Westacott told the Australian.
“We should make a virtue of being profitable companies. I think there is absolutely a virtuous circle of well-run companies, ethically managed companies, making good profits, paying their shareholders, employing their people, paying them more.
“That is the virtuous circle of business, which of course is the employer of 11 million people. This is not an abstract concept.”
The thing with business though, is that they don’t do anything that won’t actually help their bottom line. That’s kind of their thing. So supporting social justice campaigns, or moving into a more energy-efficient space has to work for them on some level.
But they could always just go back to their knitting.
Updated
Meanwhile, there are warnings that the price of oil is about to increase after the drone attack on one of Saudi Arabia’s supply wells.
Australia only has about 28 days worth of supply in reserve, something which the government has decided to do something about, because, well, it’s not great. I have seen 28 Days Later. (If only we had some sort of policy to move us off oil-dependent vehicles or something.)
Angus Taylor was asked about oil prices this morning:
Well, I’m not in the business of forecasting oil prices and the government isn’t. That’s not what we do. What we have to do, though, is make sure that we do everything in our power to make sure there’s no threat to Australia’s fuel supplies and we are told by the IEA [International Energy Agency] that there is no immediate threat to Australia’s fuel supplies. There are ample commercial stocks globally. This is a global issue and it will impact globally, not just locally.
But don’t worry – the US president says everything is fine.
PLENTY OF OIL!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019
Updated
Anthony Albanese on the “big stick” legislation:
We haven’t seen it. It’s a good idea for public policy, to see legislation before you decide whether you’re for it or against it. But, I’ve got to say, the starting point is the title which is Orwellian. This is a government that doesn’t have a policy on climate change or energy, and has come up with a rather juvenile term, to be frank, of calling legislation “big stick” legislation. I mean we’re meant to be adults. And the problem for this government is that it doesn’t have the maturity as a political organisation to actually come together with a coherent policy.
Updated
Of course that means we have acting prime minister Michael McCormack in our immediate futures.
Frogs beware.
And a statement on that visit has just landed in our inboxes from the PMO:
I will travel to the United States of America with my wife Jenny, from 19-27 September, visiting Washington DC, Chicago, Ohio and New York.
It was an honour to accept President Trump’s generous invitation for an official visit with a state dinner at the White House.
I look forward to meeting again with President Trump and members of his cabinet, including vice president Pence, secretary of state Pompeo and secretary of defense Esper to discuss how we can further strengthen our alliance and already close partnership.
There is no deeper friendship than that which exists between Australia and the United States.
We see the world through the same eyes, with shared values and a deep commitment to promoting peace, liberty and prosperity.
This visit will be a valuable opportunity to further strengthen our security and economic partnership.
Our alliance is stronger than ever – a partnership first forged on the battlefield, when we fought alongside one another at the Battle of Hamel in 1918.
Since then, we have stood side by side in every major conflict since the first world war – in the defence of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Our economic partnership is just as strong and this visit will further strengthen it.
The United States is Australia’s largest economic partner.
Investment between our two nations is worth more than $1.2tn, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement itself is a shining example of our shared commitment to economic growth and prosperity – with our two-way trade growing by almost 60% since it was signed.
However, our economic partnership is more than just trade.
I will visit the Nasa headquarters and welcome greater US-Australia cooperation on space, and other cutting-edge science and technology initiatives.
I will also meet young Australian tech entrepreneurs working in the midwest.
I also look forward to taking the opportunity while in the United States for this official visit to engage with our other partners at the 74th regular session of the general assembly at the United Nations. I will deliver Australia’s national statement and advance Australia’s interests in the protection of the oceans and preventing terrorist use of the internet.
While in New York, I will also meet senior business representatives to further enhance the economic partnership between Australia and the United States.
Updated
Scott Morrison will head to the US later this week, for an official visit for his own with Donald Trump. Trump is putting on what is only his second State Dinner since becoming president for Morrison.
The US is making quite the fuss - Trump will travel with the prime minister to Ohio for a tour of an Australian owned manufacturing facility.
Beautiful Saturday on the South Lawn of the @WhiteHouse. Members of the military are rehearsing for Friday’s State Visit with Australia. Thank you to all who serve our great nation! pic.twitter.com/ZNpTFk72If
— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) September 14, 2019
Frank Bainimarama will meet Scott Morrison today – it is his first visit since becoming Fijian prime minister.
The parliament is all set up with the official welcome mat – there will be cannons – and we’ll have the happy cool friends photo opportunity a little later this morning. It’s also the pair’s first meeting since Bainimarama criticised Morrison’s attitude at the Pacific Islands forum but both have since said everything is fine.
Updated
The other big issue apparently keeping the National party up at night is plant- and legume-based foods and liquids being sold with the same terminology as animal products.
Because apparently, vegetarians and vegans are very, very confused and don’t realise that almond milk doesn’t come from cows. As Helen Davidson reported at the weekend from the National party conference:
The Nationals meeting also voted in favour of a motion to lobby the federal government to change labelling requirements on vegan food, preventing products such as soy milk, almond milk and vegan meat from being branded as such.
Under current laws, only milk from cows can be labelled “milk” without an added qualifier.
“I’m not anti plant-based protein foods, I think they’re going to have a role to play in the food proposition going forward,” said agricultural minister and deputy Nationals leader, Bridget McKenzie. “But that means then we need to be very clear with consumers about what they’re purchasing.
“So if you want actual chicken, then that’s what it should be called. If you want plant-based protein that tastes like chicken, then that’s what it should called.”
An August report from IBIS World found the soy and almond milk production industry, which also included rice and coconut milk, was expected to have grown by 8.3% in five years by 2019-20.
The growing market demand for non-dairy milk was attributed to consumer health concerns, and while soy milk had been the dominant non-dairy choice, its share of the market was declining against alternatives such as almond milk.
Updated
We have reached the part of the 46th parliament where Pauline Hanson will take the contrary view to anything Jacqui Lambie suggests.
Which is how I dealt with my teenage years, so I know that it is not the most effective strategy of all time, but still. We can’t all be Sun Tsu.
Lambie has suggested some sort of conscription like system to have people as emergency service volunteers. Hanson is against it. As she told the Today show, which has picked up where Sunrise left off and given her a platform on national television:
Don’t head down this path. We have volunteer rural firefighters in Queensland, plus also we have the same in the CFA in Victoria. Now, you can’t send out volunteers to work as volunteers and fighting bushfires. It is training that they need to go through …
You just can’t go out and send people to do these volunteer jobs. A lot of these kids can’t turn up for a job application. Or turn up to get a job. It all sounds great but look, if it’s going to work, fine, give it a go. But I think it is going to be awfully hard.
Lambie has emerged as the powerbroker of this Senate, along with Centre Alliance. It has kind of put One Nation in the shade. That is until Gerard Rennick ends up doing what a lot of his Queensland colleagues think he’ll probably do, and moves to the crossbench. Then – game on.
Updated
Michael McCormack has started Monday in the most Michael McCormack of ways – blaming frogs for getting in the way of dams.
AAP reports:
“You’ll always get some environmentalist who will find a frog or something to roadblock a dam or a road,” Michael McCormack told ABC Radio on Monday.
State and federal National Party politicians are ramping up calls to fast-track the planning process for dam construction, as parts of regional NSW rapidly run out of water due to the ongoing drought.
How. Dare. They. It’s almost like native animals think they LIVE in the environment or something.
Updated
Anthony Albanese says Labor is looking at the “big stick” legislation and is yet to make up its mind on whether or not it will support it.
He says the party needs to look at the bill to see if the concerns it had last parliament have been addressed.
“But at this stage we have a slogan dressed up as legislation,” he says.
Updated
Good morning
Welcome to the fourth last joint sitting week for the year.
We start this week as we finished last week, with the government still working on getting Senate crossbench support for its welfare and union bills, and people still talking about Gladys Liu.
At the weekend Scott Morrison was forced to “clarify” his use of the name “Shanghai Sam” after he first denied using it in relation to Sam Dastyari, but, faced with video evidence from his own Facebook page, then said he had misheard the question.
Except this was his response:
I didn’t use either of those phrases, so … I think people here today are focused on the fires, not Canberra.
I am not sure how you can say you didn’t hear something when you use “I didn’t use either of those phrases” in the answer, but I guess that’s just more Canberra bubble shiz.
So the “nothing to see here, keep it moving” train continues with Liu.
Meanwhile, the government has decided now is the time to bring back its “big stick” energy legislation, which (after warnings, and then if the federal court says so) would allow energy companies to be forcibly broken up.
That means we get more Angus Taylor – the emissions reduction minister has been on ABC and on Sky this morning and continues to present information like the second speaker in a high school debate. Improvisation is not his strong suit.
The ACCC is to release its first update since the July 1 Energy Retail Code came into effect, which will report that hundreds of thousands of Australians have received savings of up to $190 under the changes. Before it came into effect, Taylor had promised savings of up to $800. But, just like internet dating, reality rarely lives up to the sell.
We’ll have all of that and more this morning, with Mike Bowers helping to bring you all the expressions and body language, with Katharine Murphy, Sarah Martin and Paul Karp to help break down what it all means.
I have found a coffee. So let’s get into it.
Updated
