The house of representatives is ringing its adjournment bells – looks like we are all very keen to get out of here after this week!
The Wentworth preselection will be decided tonight. But the battle for Wentworth, especially if Kerryn Phelps decides to throw her hat in the ring as an independent, is going to be very, very interesting – and potentially decide how the rest of this parliamentary term plays out.
That won’t be done until October 20. But let’s all just take a moment and remember that the Liberal party is very, very worried about losing a seat it won with 62% of the vote just over two years ago.
Labor and the Greens look like they will be waiting until the Senate inquiry into Peter Dutton’s au pair visa intervention reports back next week, before deciding whether to have another crack at referring him to the high court.
The government’s argument that everyone is just over section 44 and it’s a “lawyer’s picnic” are ringing a little shallow, given that this is an actual issue that could impact the 46th parliament. The high court needs to rule on whether or not this is considered a direct or indirect interest, and whether family trusts – held by so many MPs it is not funny – is enough to protect them from a section 44 conflict.
Will Julie Bishop cross the floor? Will Peter Dutton be made to refer himself? I think the Barnaby Joyce’s argument that Malcolm Turnbull is potentially risking the seat of Dickson is a little bit of a stretch, given the timing of where we are in the electoral cycle. It’s not as if the high court moves fast, and Dutton would only have to resign if the bench found he was in conflict. Realistically, even if the government’s worst case scenario played out and Dutton was found to be in breach, we would be pretty close to when the general election has to be held anyway.
But these are all next week problems. Roman Quaedvlieg will learn next week if he gets to reply to Dutton’s parliamentary attack, so no matter what the government does, this issue will be at their footsteps in the second parliamentary sitting.
Won’t that be something to look forward to!
We’ll be covering all the general news in the normal fashion tomorrow, but we will be back with Politics Live on Monday, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and ready to count all the sacred lapel pins of Australia-ness. Someone has to make sure that all those drop bears keep their wings.
A massive thank you to Mike Bowers who, as always, has gone above and beyond this week, along with the Guardian brains trust – Katharine Murphy, Gareth Hutchens and Paul Karp, as well as all the people behind the scenes who come in and tidy up my brain’s tired interpretations of those ... word things. This is absolutely a group effort and I am incredibly grateful for the group I have.
Just as I am grateful to you, everyone who reads and interacts and keeps this little blog trucking along. Make sure you all take time out this weekend to stare at a wall, or even better, count some grains of sand or blades of grass and give those brains a break from the relentlessness of this place for a bit. Who would have thought I could miss talking about energy policy?
We’ll see you back here early Monday morning. In the mean time, you know what to do – take care of you.
Updated
Nine News is also reporting Julia Banks was offered the three-months in the UN secondment – which Cory Bernardi and Warren Entsch have also been on – in a bid to keep her out of parliament in the crucial September to December time period.
You’ll find that story, here.
September to December is important because that’s all the Morrison government gets to define itself. Beyond that, we are into the summer dead zone, and then its a slide towards the election. It’s obviously going swimmingly so far, but it looks as though, going from these reports, the leadership is quite worried about what Banks will say.
Kristina Keneally has addressed the story in the Senate. You can see her speech, here.
Updated
Nine News NSW political editor Chris O’Keefe is reporting Malcolm Turnbull has also weighed in on the Wentworth preselection – also advocating for Dave Sharma.
Given that Turnbull’s former pick, Andrew Bragg, withdrew after polling showed he would struggle to win it – but a woman could – all this is very interesting.
Updated
It’s that time of the day - for you to see the chamber through Mike Bowers’ eyes:
Updated
And reviewing question time:
Strong count: 34
Fairfax is reporting John Howard has intervened in the Wentworth preselection battle (which is to be decided tonight), by asking Dave Sharma – Alexander Downer’s preferred candidate – not to withdraw from the race.
This happened very shortly after Howard was identified as the “gold standard” in former PMs – because he didn’t interfere in the parliamentary party matters.
I only mention this of course, because Scott Morrison reportedly wants a woman preselected in that seat. Sharma may be many things, but to the best of my knowledge, he is not a woman.
Updated
Thrown out of Parliament for highlighting the PM’s promotion & authorisation of a video attacking our farmers. @AlboMP rightly asks: “why can’t we ask the Envoy a #drought question”? #auspol #qt pic.twitter.com/4WBFImQSq4
— Joel Fitzgibbon (@fitzhunter) September 13, 2018
Scott Morrison ends question time ... and we finish the first QT in quite sometime without Peter Dutton’s daily dose of “just how safe are you?”
Strong choice, obviously.
Updated
Great Barrier Reef grant update from AAP:
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has been asked to appear at an inquiry into a $444m grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
Inquiry chair Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said on Thursday his committee had resolved to write to Mr Turnbull – who quit parliament in the wake of losing the Liberal leadership, to attend a hearing.
Mr Turnbull was a key figure in approving the controversial grant which Labor has flagged it would rescind if elected to government.
Updated
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Could the prime minister please explain why quotas for the National Party are OK, but quotas for women are not?
Morrison:
“Once again, the leader of the opposition doesn’t know what he is talking about ... he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
“And we know that by the questions he has been asking today. It has been all week. What the Labor party has been focused on is politics, lawyer picnics and all of this sort of nonsense.”
He goes on to list the questions the Labor party should be asking – like the drought. Shorten asks about relevance, and Tony Smith says he was going to rule the question out of order, but didn’t, so the prime minister has some latitude. Morrison continues, but Smith pulls him up, as it strays further away from the question.
Anthony Albanese makes a point of order – that Labor can’t ask the special drought envoy any questions as Barnaby Joyce does not sit in the ministry – and then gets thrown out under 94A for his troubles.
Sidenote: it is amazing that now, any referrals to the high court are now a “lawyer’s picnic”, when just a short time ago, when Labor was under the pump, it was the most important thing the parliament could talk about. And Labor’s arguments about why its members didn’t need to be referred, closely mirror what the Coalition is coming up with now.
And round and round and round we go.
Updated
Jenny Macklin to Scott Morrison:
Why is Malcolm Turnbull not prime minister?
I thank the member for her question and the rousing spirit in which she delivered it, and in this place I was very proud to serve with Malcolm Turnbull as the prime minister as his treasurer, I was very proud to serve with the member for Warringah when we worked together on immigration, border protection, achieving in that space, stopping the boats, and in social services as well, as a result of the reforms we put in place during my time there and those that followed from the now attorney-general and others, we’ve been able to reduce welfare dependence of the working-age population to its lowest level in 25 years, as standing with the former prime minister as the treasurer, I had the privilege of being able to work to ensure that the economy that we see today, which has 100,000 and more extra young people in place, just as of the last12 months, out there in work, a similar number and more of people aged over 55, particularly men out there in places where they didn’t think they would get jobs again have been able to get back into work. This is our government, Mr Speaker, this is our government. I’m proud to lead it now. I know Prime Minister Turnbull was proud to lead it, and I know former prime minister Abbott was proud to lead it. Over the last five years we’ve delivered more than a million jobs, Mr Speaker.
“... Three strong leaders who have achieved strong results for the Australian people.”
There is that word “strong” again. This time in the context of leaders who were so strong, the party was forced to replace them.
Updated
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
“Was the member for Brisbane [Trevor Evans] describing government policy when he rejected gender quotas on the basis that female politicians are ‘all a cardboard cut-out’. Does the prime minister agree? Why are quotas for the National Party OK but for others are not?”
Morrison:
“I’ve learnt in this place as a minister and now the prime minister you can never believe anything the Labor Party put in their questions. They are so used to ‘verbaling’ people in the union movement and they seek to verbal people in this place, Mr Speaker.
“When it comes to the selection of candidates to represent the Liberal Party in this place, Mr Speaker, that is done by our rank and file membership which is made up of men and women from all walks of life throughout the country, and they will be doing that in Wentworth tonight, Mr Speaker, as they select their candidate. But what I know about the Labor Party, I know who picks their candidates, Mr Speaker. I know exactly who picks their candidate.
“The unions, Mr Speaker. The militant unions, the deals between the CFMEU, the deals between militant unions – they are the ones who decide who sits on the Labor Party benches in the parliament, whether it’s here, whether it’s in the place, whether it’s in the New South Wales parliament, the Victorian parliament. I asked them the or day to put up their hands if they were a former trade union official. I will ask them again. I will give you another go. Nothing. Still nothing? You must be so proud. I will ask those on this side of the house. Who has run a small business here. There we go. Who has ever worked in the private sector here. There we go. Who has ever been a police officer here. A police officer up the back.
“Who is a farmer on this side of the house. Farmers over here.”
Rolling on...
Difficult to digest the unpalatable self-congratulation of the PM in QT on his government’s support for mental health policies when he lets a cabinet minister use mental ill health in an attack one day and then use parliamentary privilege to continue that attack days later #RUOK?
— Roman Quaedvlieg (@quaedvliegs) September 13, 2018
This would be the ‘who me?’ moment Murph was referring to:
Julie Bishop reacts to a question from the opposition about Peter Dutton’s eligibility to sit in the house during #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive https://t.co/bX0lbzzGmc pic.twitter.com/Wwqn92TYfi
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) September 13, 2018
Catherine King to Scott Morrison:
I refer to the Prime Minister’s answers about bullying inside his government. Is the Prime Minister aware the member for Curtin has said in some instances illegal behaviour may have taken place? Does the Prime Minister have any reason to doubt the member for Curtin’s statement that illegal behaviour may have taken place?
Morrison:
As the father of two daughters, I have no truck with bullying in this place or anywhere else and I don’t think anyone in this house would have any truck with it either. I have said on a number of he cases in this house that the process we have on our side of politics to ensure the proper care and welfare of our members and exactly the same as that followed courtesy by the opposition through the Whip, and that is what we have done. I have had the opportunity to speak to members of my own team about these matters and I do not believe that there are the sort [of behaviour] described in the question in those terms.
Mark Dreyfus to Peter Dutton:
“Yesterday the minister said he declared interests in child care centres in government discussions out of an abundance of care. Why won’t the minister apply the same standard to doubts about his qualifications to be a member of parliament under section 44 under the constitution and to be a minister in the government under section 64 of the constitution?”
Dutton:
“As I’ve stated before, I have complied with the requirements under the statement of ministerial standards, and the cabinet handbook and I have taken advice in relation to my position which put the question beyond doubt.”
Updated
Terri Butler to Scott Morrison:
“Can the prime minister explain why there is one rule for the member for New England and another for the minister for home affairs when it comes to qualifications to be a member of parliament and a minister in the government? Doesn’t this sort of double standard just confirm the prime minister’s own description of his own government as the Muppet Show?”
Morrison:
“I don’t agree with the member’s premise of her question and therefore there is no response to make.”
Updated
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
“Is the Prime Minister aware of a chance meeting today between the member for Curtin [Julie Bishop] and the entire press gallery where she said it was up to the minister for home affairs to refer himself to the high court saying, ‘We all have personal responsibility... steps taken by members of parliament to clarify their status.’ Isn’t the referral to the High Court the only step to clarify whether the minister for home affairs is qualified to be a member of parliament and to be a minister in his government?”
Morrison:
“Yes, I’m aware of those comments, and, no, I don’t agree with the assertion put as to what the next action is.”
Katharine Murphy, who is in the chamber, tells me Bishop smiled as Morrison concluded his answer and also threw her hands up in the air in a “who me?” gesture when Dreyfus referred to her “chance” meeting with the press gallery.
Updated
If. There. Is. One. Thing. The. Last. Year. Of. Section. 44. Insanity. Has. Taught. Us. It. Is. That. Legal. Advice. Means. Nothing.
If the only poll that counts is the poll on election day, then the only advice that counts is the one that the HIGH COURT HANDS DOWN BECAUSE THAT IS ACTUALLY HOW WE INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS COUNTRY.
Updated
Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:
“Can the prime minister confirm that vote was before the solicitor general had provided advice and that referrals defeated by just one vote, the vote of the minister for home affairs? Why should the minister for home affairs be allowed to hold the casting vote on his own referral to the high court when even Malcolm Turnbull says he should be referred?”
Christian Porter takes this one as well:
“Well, it is the case, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for his question, that there are now four pieces of legal advice which are in the public domain, one which was commissioned by the national secretariat of the Labor Party which sat to one side for 126 days, one from the solicitor general, two commissioned by the member of Dickson, three of them concluded that the best view is that there is clear eligibility, one of them commissioned the Labor Party, interestingly gives a view which is not the same as the other three, but that is a view about ineligibility, and when you take the time ... that sat in someone’s drawer for 126 days, the last paragraph of the advice says this, ‘It is clearly arguable that this at least represents an indirect pecuniary interest.’ And then after the words ‘at least arguable’ 36 words comes a later rolled gold conclusion.
“‘As such, it is our conclusion that Mr Dutton was incapable.’ That is one of the curiously conducted pieces I’ve seen. I rarely have seen a legal advice go from reasonably arguable to rolled gold conclusion that someone is incapable of sitting in 36 words. It is absolutely remarkable.
“The more reasonable appraisal is the one contained in the solicitor general’s advice which has been published which is fully available for anyone who wishes to read it, and whilst the solicitor general concludes that this is not an uncomplicated matter. He concludes at paragraph 4 the better view is that Mr Dutton is not incapable of sitting as a member. So now what have we got? We’ve got one advice from Labor which then provided another rolled gold guarantee — we’ve had a few of those from Labor before — of ineligibility.
“The solicitor general’s advice, advice from two other senior counsels who says while there is never absolute certainty in matters of this type, the better view is that there is no incapacity to sit. Now, Labor says something that they sat on for 126 days is now critically urgent and raises such terrible doubt to the integrity of the parliament that it must be acted on 126 days later, and the answer really here is that if the new standard that is being set by Labor is that anything short, any absence of absolutely certainty is now the standard for referral, then what next? Who else is to be referred? There are a number of people sitting here and indeed a couple of can think of on that side where that standard that you’re now suggesting should exist, an absence of absolute certainty should warrant a referral. Perhaps another question so we can go and talk about those people, but the reality is that there has been publicly seen advice times four...”
He runs out of time.
Updated
Might be worth noting there, that Porter’s performance wasn’t exactly a defence.
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
“I refer to Malcolm Turnbull’s statement overnight that he has told the prime minister and other colleagues that given the uncertainty about the minister for home affairs’ eligibility, acknowledged by the solicitor general, the member should be referred to the high court, as the member for New England was to clarify the matter. Does the prime minister agree with that statement from Malcolm Turnbull?”
Morrison says the House voted against the referral not so long ago, and then hands it to Christian Porter.
Porter:
“The question is on how did Labor live with the uncertainty for 126 days? How did they get through it? Virtual dolphin therapy with their support animals, emotional support animals helping them through? We asked the question earlier this week, Mr Speaker, why was it that Labor believed the advice that they had commissioned and received concluded something that was utterly critical to the integrity of this parliament — if they truly believed that, why did they sit on it for 126 days? Who knows they may have been busy.
“It wasn’t the only advice they had to deal with. The rolled gold advice. You might recall the Today show where the leader of the Opposition was asked, ‘Can you guarantee no Labor members will be caught up in this?’ Yes. A rolled gold guarantee — yes. But of course it wasn’t his fault, remember that. It was the lawyer’s fault.
“That’s what our lawyers were saying to us. We followed the legal advice.’ Which then raises, Mr Speaker, a secondary question: If Labor was so willing to waive privilege after 126 days on one piece of advice, why can’t we see the rolled gold advice? That is a matter of consumer protection. Mr Speaker, it’s OK, because we had it all cleared up on the David Speers Show.
“We had Mr Speers ask the shadow attorney general, ‘Have you been sitting on legal advice for 126 days?’ His answer was, ‘We’ve got an advice from April.’ And the question was put again: ‘So you decided to sit on that advice?’ And the answer was, ‘No, well, we put it to one side.’
“... Perfectly clear. That is the legal advice version of smoking but not inhaling. ‘It is OK, we didn’t sit on the advice, Mr Speaker, we just moved it to the side.’ They are very good at taking the reservation, not very good at reserving the car. And when you look at this – when you look at this...
“Can you imagine, can you imagine the shadow attorney general preparing with his staff ... what do I say when he asks the obvious question of why did you sit on it for 126 days?’ Just say you didn’t sit on it, you put it to one side.’
“For you to come in here after 126 days and pretend the certain is too much, the doubt is too worrying is an absolute joke.”
Updated
The newly engaged George Christensen gets the next “strong” dixer.
Which gives us Michael McCormack. And a Michael McCormack pun.
“I thank the member for his question and he is very engaged today. Very engaged today.”
DO YOU GET IT? DO YOU? BECAUSE HE’S ENGAGED.
rotfl
Updated
Andrew Laming is officially on my list for interjecting so loudly, Bob Katter is asked to repeat his question, inflicting more Kattering on all of us, in what has already been a day with too much Katter.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
“Why does the prime minister refuse to tell Australians why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the prime minister of Australia? The people of Australia deserve an explanation. Why can’t he answer this simple question? Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull still the prime minister of Australia?”
Morrison:
“There was a spill motion. It was carried. My colleagues elected me to be the leader of the Liberal party and hence the prime minister of the country, and that’s what I’m focused on.
“...I tell you what, they’ve had a good look at me but they’ve already had a good look at you, and they don’t want you.”
Updated
The Greens are pushing for 10 days’ paid leave for victims of domestic and family violence, after the government introduced a bill allowing for five days’ unpaid leave.
“We acknowledge the government’s small step forward on this but it fails to recognise the needs of victims and won’t actually help keep women safe,” the Greens spokeswoman for women, Senator Larissa Waters, said in a statement
“Australia is experiencing a domestic violence crisis and the government should be helping women, not adding insult to injury by denying them paid leave to get safe.
“We welcome the ACTU’s strong stance on this issue, which the Greens have backed since 2014, and Labor’s subsequent support for paid leave. Support for women fleeing violence should be above politics, and the legislation should be coupled with an increase in funding for frontline services.
“Instead the government is pre-empting employers crying poor despite small and medium sized businesses just receiving a corporate tax cut and DV leave being an investment in workers, delivering continuity in the workplace.”
Updated
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
“I refer to his answer to the first question and to the deputy prime minister’s explanation today. Whose ambition and which Newspolls are the reason Malcolm Turnbull is no longer prime minister? And is this why the prime minister has described his own government as a Muppet show?”
Morrison:
“Thank you for the question, speaking of questions, here are some other questions, in fact, here is a list of questions. You mentioned a question. I am familiar with questions, in how they relate to [topic I want to talk about] …”
#theprimeministerdoesnotanswerthequestion
It seems that Morrison has decided the best way through this question now, after yesterday’s “get over it” didn’t land overly well, is just to ignore it, while treating it as a padding exercise when you didn’t study enough for the essay test.
Updated
Ahhhh, there is that word again – “strong” – popping up in the first dixer.
My eye tends to twitch each and every time I hear the word “strong” because of the 2015 Queensland election campaign, where the LNP ran on “strong plan, strong team, strong choices” as its platform.
I am pretty sure that was a Crosby/Textor-advised campaign. Strong often turns up in Crosby/Textor campaigns – it’s a real buzzword for them.
Curious that it is turning up with such regularity here, all of a sudden
Updated
Question time begins
Michael McCormack’s “ambition, Newspoll and opportunity” answer to the question about why Malcolm Turnbull was turfed as prime minister, gets a run straight out of the blocks.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
“Does the prime minister agree with the deputy prime minister’s explanation of why Malcolm Turnbull lost his job, that it was ambition, Newspolls and opportunity?”
Morrison:
“Ambition, Newspolls and opportunity – the leader of the opposition knows all about that, Mr Speaker. He knows all about that. That’s what he has been doing as the leader of the Labor party for the last five years. What do we know about the leader of the Labor party? It’s all about opportunism, Mr Speaker, all about politics, all about coming in here and the games that are played which the Australian people are absolutely sick and tired of.
“My colleagues have elected me to be the leader of the Liberal party and to lead this government, our government, because they believe in an even stronger Australia, they believe in a stronger Australia where we keep our economy strong, where we continue to see the engine of jobs growth, continue to perform in this country, as we’ve just seen today with the release of the latest employment figures which again show, over 40,000 jobs being created.”
He goes on to talk about how great and “strong” the economy and country has been under the Coalition – which again just underpins the ridiculousness of a leadership change.
Updated
Before question time starts – there was strong contribution in the TPP debate from Labor MP Pat Conroy.
Conroy warned that the TPP waives labour market testing for Canada, Peru, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam. He said this would prevent Australia from regulating temporary labour migration and job security, accusing the Coalition of “giving away our immigration policy” to help the big companies in the mining and agriculture sectors.
He said:
“I support permanent migration. They should be permanent – and have all the rights of native-born Australians. They aren’t afforded those on temporary skilled visas – they have no rights because they have no bargaining power. Employers can sack them at the click of a thumb and they get deported overseas.”
Recognition of training standards as equivalent would mean that a Peruvian, Mexican or Canadian electrician would be the “equivalent of an Australian electrician”. Conroy said this was “abhorrent” because it created a safety issue.
Conroy gave a serve to independent MP Bob Katter for “continuing to give confidence to a government that gives away those rights”.
He said when Jason Clare became trade minister he would “very quickly and directly” negotiate side letters to restore labour standards with those six countries and remove the investor-state dispute settlement clause with Canada.
Updated
Question time is just about to begin
Barnaby Joyce is “very disappointed” in Malcolm Turnbull.
(Still not the Onion)
“I think that first of all, I am disappointed that the person who was the prime minister of Australia and had the great honour of having his photo on the back wall [of the party room], elected by his party would first of all, go and say ‘oh, I am out, so I am going to resign and you might lose the seat of Wentworth and therefore, you could go towards the government’ – the government which he relied on a one-seat majority.
“And then the next iteration of that is really an active campaign to see if we could lose another seat, which is the seat of Dickson, and I didn’t know, I didn’t know why the Liberal party changed leaders, I didn’t get that.
“But I will be quite frank – I am starting to get an inkling now.
“… Why is Malcolm doing this? What is the purpose of it? … I don’t know, but it is not good. The best thing Malcolm has got, and I am not sure if he is listening, but he has a legacy, a good legacy and he shouldn’t impugn it, with actions subsequent to what I know is the great hurt of losing your position. These things, they just are starting to look like malice and not like anything to do with the reflections of a former prime minister of Australia.”
Updated
Kelly O'Dwyer calls for 'independent and confidential process' to deal with bullying complaints
Julie Bishop was asked about those who have been talking about naming names, in regards to the Liberal party bullying claims, and responded with this:
It’s a very difficult situation where you are accusing others of behaviour that could be, well, in some instances, illegal, to name them, and I believe that the Liberal party is seeking to resolve these issues internally. That’s what I would expect any organisation to do, and if the women or men who feel this way are confident that their concerns will be taken seriously and will be considered and investigated, then there’s no need for them to name them publicly.
Kelly O’Dwyer was asked about if she knew of any potential illegal behaviour and answered thusly:
Look, you know, as minister for women, as minister for jobs and industrial relations, I believe very strongly that men and women have got an equal place in our workplaces right across this country and that there are certain behaviours at work that are acceptable and certain behaviours that are not acceptable. Those behaviours ought to be called out. Now, I know that the prime minister has said very, very clearly that he will not stand for bad behaviour. He will not stand for bullying in the workplace. That is a high standard that is part of his new generation of Liberal-Nationals leadership, and, you know, I think I should add that we have got very sound processes in the parliament.
“We have got very sound processes, certainly, on the Liberal side of politics with our whips’ processes, which have been strongly enhanced by the PM’s authority, fully backing them, and, of course, the prime minister has said that he has been talking to both myself and the chief whip, Nola Marino, in relation to any further steps that can be taken.
“You know, I have made recommendations that the party organisation have an independent and confidential process that can assist when and where concerns are raised with the party organisation. But I am not going to go through a public commentary in relation to these matters day in, day out. My job - my job, my primary job is to focus on the jobs of millions of Australian men and women and I am 100% focused on that task.”
For what it is worth, I took Bishop’s answer as meaning it may be potentially illegal to name names – because of defamation risks.
Updated
The minister for women, Kelly O’Dwyer is being asked about quotas now, after Julia Banks’ speech:
Look, let me make a broad statement in relation to quotas and to targets. It won’t surprise anybody to learn that there are a diversity of views in this place on the issues of quota and targets. The one thing that everybody absolutely agrees on is that we need to see more women elected to the parliament and more women in leadership positions in this place irrespective of what side of politics you’re talking about. Now, I have longed advocated for targets, but also making sure that those targets are realised by having measurements along the way so there is a clear pathway to actually achieve and reach those targets.”
Updated
Since Labor had a fierce caucus debate about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, several unions including the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and Electrical Trades Union have criticised its decision to support the trade deal (albeit with many caveats).
The enabling legislation is being debated in the House of Representatives – giving us the first on-record comments from the dozen or so Labor MPs were who spoke up against it in caucus.
MP Susan Templeman, a member of the joint standing committee on treaties, which examined the deal, clearly has big problems with the TPP-11.
Templeman told the house that business groups including the Minerals Council, Business Council and National Farmers Federation “weren’t really satisfied with the modelling done” on the deal, so commissioned their own. It found that the agriculture sector stands to make “zero” gains, while the durable manufacturing sector will shrink 2%.
“Any increase in exports will be completely offset by an increase imports,” she said.
Templeman also said she had “huge concerns” about the investor-state dispute settlement clauses, and noted that New Zealand had done side letters to remove these clauses from the agreement.
The member for Batman, the former Australian Council Trade Union president Ged Kearney, is another critic. Kearney said the agreement had a labour chapter but warned it “has very few teeth”, did not reference International Labour Organisation conventions nor enforcement for violations.
Kearney said waiving labour-market testing was “another area of contention and concern”.
Updated
Just to clear something up, yes, Peter Dutton used parliamentary privilege to describe Roman Quaedvlieg as having “groomed a girl 30 years younger than himself”.
Quaedvlieg’s partner is a 22-year-old woman.
The key word Quaedvlieg himself, and others, have taken umbrage at, is “groomed”.
When we refer to the comments, we use the key word “groomed”, while also acknowledging she is a woman, not a girl.
We have reported what Dutton said, under privilege, but it would be irresponsible to continue to refer to Quaedvlieg’s partner as a girl when she is not, particularly in a blog, where not everyone reading always has all the context.
Updated
Roman Quaedvlieg has given me an update on the right-of-reply, it is still with the privileges committee.
He said: “They are still considering my submission. It has asked me to not discuss the details whilst it’s deliberating. And I wish to respect that request.”
So perhaps “wonderfully efficient” was an expression of hope it would be dealt with quickly and I was overeager in predicting we’d see it today. More details when I have them.
Updated
One for the history buffs – Bill Shorten is now the 11th longest-serving opposition leader, passing John Howard’s four years, nine months and 17 days on 30 July.
In fact last week, Shorten moved passed Frank Tudor’s 4 years, 10 months, 25 days.
You’ll find out more here – and depending on when the election is, and the outcome of that election, Shorten will move into the top 10 of longest-serving opposition leaders on 25 November. That’s when he would, if still in the role, surpass Bill Hayden’s run of five years, one month and 12 days.
Updated
The unemployment rate has remained steady at 5.3% (seasonally adjusted), while trend unemployment has moved from 5.4% to 5.3%
Updated
Julie Bishop did not come to play today, apparently.
JulieBishopMP liked this tweet: https://t.co/z4otMg9xAp
— Auspolwatch (@auspolwatch) September 13, 2018
What's the 'wonderfully efficient' process for Quaedvlieg's right of reply?
Just a bit more information about Roman Quaedvlieg’s tweet about his right of reply.
Quaedvlieg submitted to the speaker of the house Tony Smith that he wanted a right of reply over Peter Dutton’s comment that he had “groomed” a young (but adult) woman.
The process for these complaints is that they are referred to the privileges committee, which I understand met last night.
Quaedvlieg has said that the process is “wonderfully efficient”. This process is in the form of a statement – usually given the next day – which is presented to the house and incorporated into hansard.
If that were the case, we would see Quaedvlieg’s reply very soon – and because it will be in hansard it has the same status and protection as Dutton’s original statement, said under parliamentary privilege.
Updated
Mike Bowers was working last night – the man doesn’t stop – and caught some of the arrivals to the Midwinter Ball, including Adam Bandt’s partner Claudia Perkins, who let her hair, and accessories do the talking.
You’ll find that gallery, here.
Updated
Clare O’Neil has called on Scott Morrison to address the complaints of bullying from the women within his party.
Speaking to Sky, the Victorian Labor MP said it was time for the prime minister to acknowledge what he was being told.
“What we need right now, is for Scott Morrison, the prime minister of this country, the leader of his party, to step back and acknowledge that this is an issue – and say I am going to tackle this in a genuine manner.
“We have not heard anything like that from Scott Morrison – he is not able to bring himself to say bullying – he called it gender-specific lobbying. What weasel words that is. I want the prime minister, who represents 25 million Australians, half of them female, to come forward and accept this is a significant problem, it is affecting public policy in Australia and he actually has to have a crack at fixing it.”
Updated
Following the Midwinter Ball, the Greens (many of which were present at the ball) are now calling for lobbyists for the banking sector to be banned from parliament until the Banking Royal Commission hands down its findings:
“Last night we saw the CEO of Westpac chumming around behind closed doors with the prime minister and leader of the opposition at an off the record event here in parliament house, just hours after we heard fresh horror stories about Westpac’s abuse of its customers and complete disregard for the law,” Richard Di Natale said.
“It is completely inappropriate for lobbyists for the big banks, super industry and other financial services to be lobbying behind closed doors the very same politicians who will be deciding whether or not to extend or broaden the scope of the royal commission and, of course, ultimately whether or not to implement its recommendations.
“That’s why I’ve written to the the speaker of the house and president of the senate, who have the authority to suspend or cancel sponsored passes, asking them to put the Australian people before their big corporate donors, and revoke these passes until the conclusion of the royal commission.”
“Obviously we need wholesale donations reforms if we are going to tackle corruption and restore faith in our democracy and our major financial institutions. But in the short term, this is a concrete, commonsense step that we can take to restore a measure of faith that decisions are being made for ordinary Australians, not just the corporations that donate the most money to the two old parties.
“And if Labor and the Liberals are serious about fixing this problem, they will also extend this ban to their shadowy business forums, where big corporations pay for access to our politicians out of the public eye.
Updated
Tick, tick, tick
Well, it turns out that named citizens do have access to a right of reply to slurs and errors made under parliamentary privilege by members, and a wonderfully efficient Secretariat which administers those complaints.
— Roman Quaedvlieg (@quaedvliegs) September 13, 2018
'We want clarity' Julie Bishop hints at voting to refer Peter Dutton to the high court
And for the record, here is the whole exchange between Julie Bishop and members of the press gallery about the possibility of referring Peter Dutton to the high court:
Journalist: Tell us if you agree with Mr Turnbull that Peter Dutton should be referred to the high court?
Bishop: Well clearly that’s a matter for the prime minister or indeed the leader of the opposition to determine. If there’s a vote on the matter, well, I’ll make my mind up at that time, but of course we want clarity around the standing of all the members of parliament.
Journalist: Are you saying there isn’t clarity around Peter Dutton? Should he voluntarily refer himself to the high court?
Bishop: That’s a matter for Peter Dutton. We all have personal responsibility to ensure that we are eligible to sit in the parliament and we’ve seen in recent times steps taken by members of parliament to clarify their status, but it’s a matter for each politician, each member, senator to make that determination. Of course others could well seek to refer it but it’s a matter for them.
Journalist: So you’re saying there’s a lack of clarity around Mr Dutton?
Bishop: No don’t – don’t put words in my mouth. I said each person has responsibility to ensure that they are eligible to sit in the parliament and in a number of instances recently we all know that politicians have taken steps to clarify that. Now, Mr Dutton has stated that there is no issue concerning his eligibility to sit in parliament, it’s then up to others to demonstrate that that statement is not correct.
Updated
In her moving doorstop interview, where she trolled Peter Dutton, by saying she would make up her mind about whether or not to refer him, if or when the question came up, Julie Bishop was also asked about the Liberal party and its issue with female representation.
There are a number of ways of increasing female representation but we need the best people to represent our electorates so our preselection process is designed to ensure that people of calibre and merit, the most appropriate person in that electorate, and how that is achieved, there are very different views about it. I have a long history through my legal career and political career in encouraging more women to enter these particularly male-dominated spheres through mentoring and support and advice, through being a shoulder to them to lean on when times become challenging.
There are more formal mechanisms. I believe in targets. In the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, we have a target to increase the number of female diplomats and we have virtually achieved that target.
Likewise, the Turnbull government had a target of 50% female representation on government boards and we were making significant progress. I’m not in the cabinet I can’t give you the updated but I do understand they are making significant process. My former portfolio, 49% of the position is available on government boards and agencies and councils are now being filled by females.”
And on the claims of “appalling behaviour” Bishop had this to say:
Of course, you all attend question time, you see the behaviour of question time. Would that be tolerated in any workplace? Despite the best efforts of the speakers and the standing orders, we see the name-calling and the shouting. Tell me another workplace where you could do that?”
Updated
It has fallen off the agenda a little bit, but the Senate inquiry into My Health Record has commenced. There are still quite a lot of concerns about the system.
The Women’s Legal Service Queensland have put a submission into the inquiry, where they raise the issue of whether or not domestic and family violence victims could be found by those they are fleeing, through the system.
From its statement:
A loophole exists in the My Health Record system, which allows a parent who does not have primary custody to create a My Health Record on their child’s behalf, without the consent or knowledge of their former partner.
An abusive ex-partner can thereby gain access via the My Health Records system to
details, including the location of medical practitioners and pharmacies attended by the child with their primary caregiver, potentially narrowing down the location of victims in hiding.
WLSQ CEO Angela Lynch says the current system has serious implications for victims fleeing violence.
“The current approach may create situations where a woman fleeing domestic violence may be forced to decide between taking their child to a health professional and potentially identifying their location to the perpetrator or not seeking necessary treatment,” Ms Lynch said.
“Many perpetrators retain shared parental responsibility of their children, even if domestic violence protection orders or family law orders are in place. Domestic violence protection orders frequently do not name children as protected parties or if they do they do not stop the perpetrator’s contact with the child or affect their parental rights.”
Updated
And this is still ticking over as well:
Goes from a searing media statement questioning my mental health & integrity, to attacking me appallingly under parliamentary privilege, to an apparently begrudging acknowledgement of my career & a confected sympathy. Ridiculously flailing in my view. https://t.co/JpaOC6NZ5Z
— Roman Quaedvlieg (@quaedvliegs) September 13, 2018
Let’s sprinkle in the word ‘discredited’ at every opportunity and hopefully it’ll become synonymous with my name. Transparently preemptive it appears from my perspective.
— Roman Quaedvlieg (@quaedvliegs) September 13, 2018
Updated
Julie Bishop on whether or not Peter Dutton should be referred to the high court:
That’s a matter for the prime minister or the leader of the opposition to determine – if there’s a vote, I will make my mind up at that time. But of course we want clarity around the standing of all the members of parliament.
“... We all have personal responsibility to ensure we are eligible to sit in the parliament, we’ve seen in recent times, steps taken by members of parliament to clarify their status. But it’s a matter for each politician to make that determination.”
Updated
The Wentworth branch will decide its candidate for the October 20 byelection tonight.
Here’s who former South Australian minister, Alexander Downer would like to see take up the mantle:
Good luck to Dave Sharma in #Wentworth preselection. He’s brilliant and brings ethnic diversity to @LiberalAus. Need not just women but ethnic diversity.
— Alexander Downer (@AlexanderDowner) September 13, 2018
Well, well, well
Julie Bishop just told me she will make up her mind on how to vote on a High Court referral for Peter Dutton should it come to a vote in the House of Reps #auspol
— Bevan Shields (@BevanShields) September 13, 2018
Given that Bob Katter is in parliament today, and usually votes with the government on this stuff, if Julie Bishop voted to refer Peter Dutton, then Labor would need just one more government MP to cross the floor to get it across the line.
Any takers?
Updated
George Christensen has announced his engagement.
You can read more about the happy couple, here.
Updated
Peter Dutton has responded after Malcolm Turnbull intervened with colleagues by asking them, as first reported by Fairfax, to refer Dutton to the high court to have his potential section 44 conflict tested:
Mr Turnbull never raised once with me any issue around section 44, his staff never asked me, [they] never asked for the legal advice which showed I had no problem at all.
Dutton said people could also “draw their own conclusions” but reminded listeners that Turnbull voted against Labor’s high court referral motion.
He also mentioned that John Howard was the “gold standard” in how former prime ministers should behave. Howard, you may remember, went off the radar for quite some time, and only emerged when the Tony Abbott issues started popping up.
But then again, Howard never got the chance to sit and stew on the backbench. He was voted out of his seat when his government was voted out of power in 2007, so he had no one to snipe against.
Updated
This shovel was ahead of me in the coffee line this morning. Now I know why.
.@RealBobKatter says the shovel is the only weapon needed to fight the drought.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) September 12, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/ykweMevBOK #SkyLiveNow pic.twitter.com/no7AUXivkW
‘Ambition, Newspolls and opportunity' are why you have a new PM
Well Australia, you finally have that answer on why Scott Morrison is now your prime minister.
It just might not be one which the government wanted attached to that question.
Talking to Sky News, Michael McCormack, the Nationals leader, was asked why he thought the Liberals did it, and came up with this:
.@M_McCormackMP: The fact is ‘ambition, Newspolls and opportunity’ are the reasons why @ScottMorrisonMP is Prime Minister.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) September 12, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/pIh8EeVvXy #amagenda pic.twitter.com/VIwjxqvdIu
Updated
You may have seen this from Gabrielle Chan already – late next month, Catherine Marriott will be speaking about sexual harassment at a rural and regional womens’ event.
Rural advocate Catherine Marriott, who lodged a complaint against the former National party leader Barnaby Joyce, will speak publicly against sexual harassment in an event organised by an influential rural network.
Marriott will share the stage with journalist and campaigner Tracey Spicer at #UsToo, in an event billed as “Lessons from the leaders in Australia’s crusade against sexual harassment” and organised by the Rural, Regional, Remote Women’s Network of Western Australian.
Marriott took to Twitter to suggest change was happening when it came to sexual harassment in Australia.
Updated
Morrison and the heckler
Folks who follow the goings on in Canberra will know that last night was the midwinter (in early spring) ball that the press gallery puts on every year to raise big bucks for charity. Many readers will also know there is controversy about whether this event is on or off the record.
The organisers have decreed the ball is an off-the-record event. But I’ve long argued that an event where politicians give speeches in front of hundreds of people, most of whom are not bound by an off-the-record convention, cannot be off the record.
I’ve raised this with the organisers of the event, who, for now at least, want the event to remain off the record. I told the organisers this year I would not accept this ruling, because it is practically unenforceable and professionally indefensible. Off the record is a convention that requires consent between journalist and source. To cut a long story short, I don’t consent. I indicated to them I would be reporting anything that was newsworthy.
So was anything newsworthy?
Not massively. Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten both delivered speeches that were lighthearted and, in Shorten’s case, almost entirely self-deprecating. Morrison obviously had the tougher job. Shorten has done this event every year he’s been opposition leader and is now well practised. Obviously, it was Morrison’s first outing, and the weight of recent events was very much in the room.
The new prime minister got through about 70% of the speech before being heckled. A woman shouted “Bring back Malcolm”.
The intervention literally stopped Morrison at the podium, and the room as a whole. I think it’s fair to say there was a collective intake of breath, because it wasn’t clear who had provided the free feedback, and it goes without saying that the government has endured a torrid month. Morrison was obviously taken aback, but he gathered himself quickly and kept going.
Fortunately for the prime minister, it turns out the heckler was the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, rather than a disgruntled colleague who had downed one wine too many. I gather the interjection was intended to be lighthearted, and she apologised.
The ball, in times of political drama, has seen worse. But it was certainly a moment.
Updated
For those who haven’t seen it, here is what Julia Banks said in full.
She has not backed away from what she said when she announced she would not contest the next election – and it is worth noting that she made this speech on the same day her colleague Linda Reynolds, who had made similar claims, said she would not speak on the matter further.
Recently, the context of a moment of reflection struck me. It occurred in a quintessential Australian setting. I was walking along the beach, a girl skipped past me in the opposite direction and she was wearing a T-shirt which had emblazoned on it ‘Equality always wins’. In the business and political world, sometimes you have to take action against appalling behaviour. Appalling behaviour is an umbrella descriptor for bullying, intimidation, harassment – sexual or otherwise – or a lack of integrity. In my political journey, a culture of appalling behaviour has been widespread, pervasive and undermining, like white ants. Sometimes the most effective and palatable action is to walk away. That’s not the same as saying you are walking past the behaviour. Walking away is very powerful and there are many men, but particularly many women, in the workplace who’ve done this. Similarly, there are thousands who’d love to but can’t afford to for a raft of reasons, including fear of reprisals or possible financial and career detriment. These are usually the same reasons that prevent women from calling out or from filing official reports of the behaviour.
To all those women, this speech is for you.
My experience has taught me that the importance of having a job outside the political world cannot be underestimated. My husband and I, the dual working couple in the private sector with two young children and ageing parents, manage the juggles and joys of life in this our beautiful country as millions of Australian men and women do every day.
There was a problem though in the business world – that was the lack of women in leadership positions. The business world addressed this issue years ago – I know; I was there.
The political world is five to 10 years behind business in so many ways. The business world embraced this need for change in a multitude of ways but there’s still a way to go. This included using targets. Targets work in business because they are tied to KPIs and incentives. Targets are a measure that work in business. The reaction to my statement two weeks ago today stunned me for so many reasons. From across the political divide, there was both the groundswell of heart-warming support received from both in and outside this place to the reprisals and retribution – the old nothing-to-see-here, no formal complaints, no evidence, name and shame et cetera et cetera – and to the Labor party bizarrely trying to argue their behaviour within their ranks is squeaky clean, as campaigned and role modelled by union thugs.
Australians have bought none of it. In fact, this reaction has just made the support from Australian men and women even more emboldened. I’m reading all their emails, thank you. The support has come from Australians from all walks of life, men and women who want real change and who are fed up with the major parties treating such issues as either something they want to be swept under the carpet, to be managed as a media or crisis management optics issue, or for political point scoring as the Labor party have attempted to do.
How do we fix this? There is no panacea to fix this but a good start is to increase the representation of women in our parliament. This creates a level playing field. Only gender quotas will work in politics, not targets, because you cannot tie political office to salary or incentives as you can in business.
It seems that quotas are only resisted when they are related to gender. Quotas are not demeaning to women and nor will women will regarded as a ‘quota girl’.
The concept that this will begin that path to destruction of micro quotas depending on people’s sexuality or ethnicity is ludicrous. We are talking about quotas for women, who represent more than half our population. The meritocracy argument is completely and utterly flawed. There are an equal number of meritorious women out there in the real world as there are men, but they won’t come if the barriers to entry and mountains to climb are too high.
Liberalism embraces freedoms, individual enterprise, reward for effort, strong economic management and equal opportunity for all. Liberalism is underpinned by pragmatism and should move with change. Quotas would be a reset mechanism. They would create a level playing field. We already have a quota system with our Coalition partners and we use the principle of quotas to ensure geographical state-based distribution on the frontbench.
An equal number of men and women should run for preselection. It’s really simple. If you only have a man running and you can’t find a woman, find one; they are out there. They represent half the population and so should a modern Liberal party.
Before that little girl on the beach is an adult, this parliament must be represented by a 50/50 split of men and women in both major parties, a parliament which truly represents the principle that equality always wins.
Updated
On Julia Banks and her speech, Scott Morrison had this to say:
I have been talking closely with Julia now for several weeks and it’s been a pretty harrowing time. My approach is to get around and support colleagues and ensure there’s the support available to them that they need.
Updated
Good morning
Just as the annual midwinter ball began winding down overnight, Malcolm Turnbull helpfully confirmed a Fairfax story that he had been lobbying colleagues to refer Peter Dutton to the high court over a potential section 44 conflict.
The point I have made to @ScottMorrisonMP and other colleagues is that given the uncertainty around Peter Dutton’s eligibility, acknowledged by the Solicitor General, he should be referred to the High Court, as Barnaby was, to clarify the matter.
— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) September 12, 2018
Dutton is not a dual citizen, but his wife does have childcare business interests. When the government switched up the childcare subsidy, moving it from paying parents to paying the centres directly, it also potentially put Dutton in the constitutional crosshairs, because it says a MP can’t receive a direct or indirect benefit from the commonwealth.
Dutton has legal advice from the solicitor general saying he is probably fine. But then so did Barnaby Joyce. And Fiona Nash. And Labor’s legal advice may not have been from the commonwealth’s second law officer but the party had plenty of advice saying Justine Keay, Susan Lamb and Josh Wilson were fine.
And the high court ruled them all ineligible.
Labor attempted to refer Dutton amid all the leadership drama but the government voted against it and the motion failed.
Now Turnbull is saying that maybe it might not be a bad idea for the high court to make a decision on what is a direct or indirect interest in terms of childcare subsidies. Scott Morrison has said thanks, but no thanks.
“Someone once told me in this job, all contributions should be gratefully received. They are,” he said this morning.
“But as the prime minister, I’ll obviously make the decisions in relation to our government on what I believe is in the national interest and based on the most recent and most timely information that I have available to me. And I will always continue to do that as people would expect me to do. Obviously I have a lot of respect for the former prime minister – but as the prime minister now, I’ll make the decisions that I believe are in the best interests of the nation.”
Expect this to roll on today.
Meanwhile the outgoing MP Julia Banks has joined the ranks of Liberal MPs calling for the party to get behind gender quotas. While her senior colleagues were at the ball, Banks was in the chamber making an adjournment speech, where she said it was time, while once again calling out bullying within the party.
“In my political journey a culture of appalling behaviour has been widespread, pervasive and undermining like white ants … Quotas are not demeaning to women and nor will women be regarded as the ‘quota girl’,” she said in her speech, a nice little return serve to Eric Abetz and co.
So that issue isn’t disappearing any time soon, either.
Mike Bowers is already out and about – you can follow along with him at @mpbowers and @mikepbowers. The Guardian brains trust is on the job – follow along with @murpharoo @paul_karp @garethrhutchens. You’ll catch me in the comments and @amyremeikis.
I am only on coffee number two, but I expect that to change very soon.
Ready? Let’s get into it.
Updated
