On that note, we are going to wrap up Politics Live for the day.
A lot of coffee has been consumed. Along with a lot of sugar. I can hear colours.
We’ll be back bright and early tomorrow, when no doubt we will be once again wondering ‘WhOSe SiDE aRe YOu oN’ will come up, when the ensuring integrity (unions are bad) bill comes into the House, along with what ever is left over from Peter Dutton’s latest national security palooza – which includes the medevac repeal (which is in committee, but will pass through the house)
We live in truly blessed times.
A massive thank you to Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy, Sarah Martin and Paul Karp for everything today, as well as all of those behind the scenes who keep this little blog that could ticking along.
But as always, the biggest thank you goes to you, for following along with us. We’ll be back at sparrow’s tomorrow. In the meantime – take care of you.
Updated
Labor’s amendments on the temporary exclusion bill have been officially defeated – Peter Dutton has just called for the third reading and the bill will be off to the Senate.
A totally normal reaction.
Much adulation. Many congrats
It’s great that the 2019 parliament lets me throw back to 2013 memes
Updated
Just so we're clear, under this bill Dutton can unilaterally stop Aust citizens from ever re-entering Aust, even when they've committed no offence, and his decision can't be challenged in court.#Greens working hard to oppose this gov's excesses, but we'd like Labor's help. pic.twitter.com/lhxkHFHb62
— Adam Bandt (@AdamBandt) July 23, 2019
The House is going through the pretence that Labor’s amendments are going to change anything (the government has already said no, and Labor has already said it will vote for it anyway).
If you want to know what a temporary exclusion order is about and why Labor has some concerns about the legislation (it is now going to vote for) Paul Karp has done up an explainer for you.
All of these speeches are for when there is a challenge or failure of the legislation and Labor can say “told you so”.
Updated
Police have committed a series of illegal metadata searches, including Western Australian police obtaining invalid warrants targeting journalists and ACT police accessing data 116 times without proper authorisation.
The breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act are revealed in a Commonwealth Ombudsman report for the period July 2016 to June 2017, tabled in parliament by the government on Monday.
In addition to one instance of the Australian federal police accessing a journalist’s data without a warrant reported in 2017, the ombudsman discovered two instances where the WA police applied for – and obtained – a journalist information warrant from a person not authorised to provide it.
“This occurred due to a lack of awareness by WA police regarding to whom an application for a journalist information warrant could be made,” the report said. “In response to this issue, WA police took steps to quarantine all information obtained under the invalid warrants.”
The report also revealed that between 13 and 26 October 2015 “all authorisations within ACT policing were made by an officer not authorised” by the relevant section of the law.
“This issue affected 116 authorisations during the period,” it said. “This issue also affected a large number of authorisations dating back to March 2015, which precede the commencement of our office’s oversight on 13 October 2015.”
Anyone wanting some context for Greg Hunt’s victory yell - you might remember that Julia Banks left the seat of Chisholm (which Gladys Liu won) to challenge him in Flinders.
So it was less about Liu and more about hyping himself up.
That was some Kanye level love right there.
Some of how Mike Bowers saw the day
Peter Dutton is now on his feet, confirming the government will not be accepting Labor’s amendment to the temporary exclusion order.
Labor has already confirmed it will vote for the bill, even if the government rejects its amendments.
Greg Hunt just held up Gladys Liu’s hands like a boxing champion and yelled “YEAH” in the chamber.
This is an actual thing which just happened.
Meanwhile
@RichardDiNatale on the Labor party : They’ve given the Coalition everything they’ve asked for these last few days. They need to show a bit of courage and be an Opposition.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) July 23, 2019
MORE: https://t.co/kxAbpxNwlI #speers pic.twitter.com/1PIZ4Svp0m
The first speeches continue – Gladys Liu is delivering hers now.
Updated
The government has just released a review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal conducted by former high court justice Ian Callinan.
The structure of the AAT may sound a bit nerdy, but it is super important because the AAT reviews government actions including refugee cases and robo-debt decisions.
The report paints a picture of a massive backlog of cases - particularly in the migration division - and members without legal training struggling to write decisions. Throughout the last term of parliament, Labor accused the Coalition of stacking the tribunal with its mates.
The review recommended:
- Appointment of no fewer than 15 to 30 members to the migration and refugee division
- All further appointments, re-appointments or renewals of appointment to the membership of the AAT should be of lawyers, admitted or qualified for admission ... and on the basis of merit
- The practice of seeking advice from staff by members should be restricted to 12 requests for the provision of relevant material from the library. Any request by a member, for the review of or advice on the drafting of decisions is not acceptable.
- Appointment of counsel assisting the migration and refugee division “as an advocate, as required, in the public interest”. “The presence in different and complex cases of such a counsel would relieve the member of the onerous duties that the members now have and assist unrepresented applicants.”
- Abolish the second tier of review by the general division of the social security and child support division
- Extend the power to make oral decisions to decisions to vary or set aside a Centrelink decision
Callinan also suggested consideration of “a new information rule conferring a wide discretion upon the AAT to receive or refuse evidence not before the original decision-maker”. That was because of evidence from several members of the migration and refugee division “that during delays in hearings not a small number of applicants contrived situations to support a favourable decision, or ground for appeal to the courts”.
The attorney general, Christian Porter, acknowledged that “since amalgamation, the tribunal’s workload has increased significantly, particularly in the migration and refugee division”.
He said:
“The government is carefully considering the recommendations from Mr Callinan’s report and is committed to improving the efficiency of the tribunal and maintaining the integrity of Australia’s migration policy.”
Updated
Anyone who caught Ed Husic on Sky and wondered who he was talking about when he said this:
Labor MP Ed Husic: Opposition has absolutely very little going for it and I think the trip would be made a lot easier if some people would share the benefit of their thoughts behind closed doors rather than rushing to do an anonymous leak.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) July 23, 2019
MORE: https://t.co/3Kdz06fzRp #newsday pic.twitter.com/sF1LdJBU8K
It was in relation to this
Ok. The whiny loser is this mystery dude / lady. This person 👇👇 pic.twitter.com/yKBilYYBkp
— 𝕤𝕒𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕒 𝕞𝕒𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕟 (@samanthamaiden) July 23, 2019
And the terms of reference for that inquiry are below:
That the following matters be referred to the environment and communications references committee for inquiry and report by the third sitting day of December 2019:
a) disclosure and public reporting of sensitive and classified information, including the appropriate regime for warrants regarding journalists and media organisations and adequacy of existing legislation;
b) the whistleblower protection regime and protections for public sector employees;
c) the adequacy of referral practices of the Australian government in relation to leaks of sensitive and classified information;
d) appropriate culture, practice and leadership for government and senior public employees;
e) mechanisms to ensure that the Australian federal police have sufficient independence to effectively and impartially carry out their investigatory and law enforcement responsibilities in relation to politically sensitive matters; and
f) any related matters.
Updated
Senate will hold inquiry into press freedom and whistleblower protections in Australia
A Senate committee will look at press freedom. From Sarah Hanson-Young (who will chair it):
This week’s arrest of four French journalists highlights how badly we need to rethink press freedom in Australia.
Press and whistleblower protections have been steadily eroded and the government just wants to sweep this under the carpet.
Today the Senate voted for an inquiry into press freedom and whistleblower protection showing that there are some in our parliament who care about a frank and fearless media.
The raids on the ABC and a News Corp journalist sent chills through the country. The erosions of freedoms in Australia must be wound back.
The ability of citizens to speak truth to power must be maintained and that is why whistleblowers must be protected and journalists allowed to do their job.
This inquiry will get to the bottom of what has gone on and ensure a future for a free press in Australia.”
Updated
Anyone looking for the stories Anne Davies and Lisa Cox wrote on Angus Taylor can find them here and here.
Updated
PHRASING boom!
Mark Butler demands answers from Coalition on nuclear power
Following question time, Mark Butler sent out this press release:
Australians deserve to know exactly where the Morrison government would build nuclear power plants under the intensifying Coalition campaign for Australia to develop a nuclear power industry.
In question time today energy minister Angus Taylor said he had an “open mind” on the use of nuclear energy. Industry minister Karen Andrews and several other MPs have made similar comments, while prime minister Scott Morrison has said nuclear power is “not not’’ on his agenda and Queensland MPs Keith Pitt and James McGrath have called for a parliamentary inquiry into the issue.
Earlier this week maverick National Barnaby Joyce ramped up the pressure for change by proposing authorities could get around public concerns about safety of nuclear energy by giving people free power if they could see a nuclear reactor from their home.
Nuclear energy is banned in Australia.
But with so many Coalition MPs now advocating its use, Australians deserve to know where the government is headed on energy policy.
In particular, it should explain where nuclear power plants might be built, particularly since these facilities need to be sited near large bodies of water.
If Mr Morrison is open to using nuclear energy, would he be prepared to have a nuclear power plant built in the Sutherland shire, in his own electorate?
Given her position, Ms Andrews should say whether she would welcome a nuclear power plant in her community on the Gold Coast.
With Mr Pitt and senator McGrath advocating a parliamentary inquiry, they should say whether they would support construction of nuclear power plants in Queensland coastal towns like Townsville, Rockhampton, Gladstone and the Sunshine Coast.
The Coalition should also say whether they believe coastal centres in New South Wales, such Coffs Harbour, Wollongong and Nowra, or Western Australian cities including Perth, Bunbury and Geraldton would make good sites for reactors.
The Coalition is struggling for an answer to six years of failure on energy policy. If it sees nuclear power as that answer, it should be more open with Australians about its intentions.
Research by the parliamentary library has confirmed there are literally dozens of sites around the nation where nuclear power plants could be constructed.
Just this week the Australian Nuclear Association called for the construction of 20 nuclear energy plants and nominated potential sites including the Latrobe Valley, Albury and Whyalla.
Updated
Scott Morrison leaves the chamber with Angus Taylor, as Anthony Albanese stands on indulgence to congratulate Amanda Rishworth on the birth of her son, Oscar.
Christian Porter seconds the congratulations from the government and compliments the “beautiful name”.
Anne Aly wants to note that she has been misrepresented – but it is not time for that yet.
“Don’t forget me,” Aly says.
Tony Smith promises that he won’t.
Updated
Scott Morrison calls time on question time, adding:
“And I would invite the opposition to ask me a question tomorrow. You didn’t do that today. Maybe tomorrow”
Karen Andrews Karens her dixer again:
We have committed to an additional $5m to promote globally the Australian-made logo because we want everyone across the world, when they see that green and gold label, to go, how good is Australia?”
Updated
While Karen Andrews takes the next dixer, Scott Morrison caucuses with Michael McCormack, Greg Hunt and Josh Frydenberg and the cameras go off madly, capturing it.
David Littleproud finds this hilarious.
To be fair, question time has a very low bar for what is funny.
It is back to Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
“Why won’t the minister tell the House whether or not a compliance officer was present at the meeting?”
Taylor:
At the time, 2017, when I was in a previous role, I had no idea who was coming to that meeting, I didn’t appoint, I didn’t ask those people to come to a meeting. My understanding that there was a compliance officer there ...
It is very clear, Mr Speaker, that on that day I received a briefing from departmental officials on technical aspects of the revised listing. This is a big deal for farmers, something that those opposite wouldn’t understand. It affects the small businesses and farms in my electorate and all of those businesses that depend on them. And it is my job as a local member to make sure they get a fair deal. As I said in the previous answer, an independent review by Wendy Crag identified there was serious issues and I am pleased now that the government is acting on, which will ensure that farmers are better able to work with the EPBC act and hopefully will reduce red tape for farmers who are the greatest custodians of our environment.”
Updated
I have just been told that the government didn’t miss a question. It was waiting for the crossbench to jump, and Andrew Wilkie didn’t.
So I take back my Bert van Manen sass. He remains out of the principal’s office.
Updated
Andrew Wilkie gets the crossbench question and it is to Greg Hunt:
“Hobart city council yesterday voted in support of pill testing at major events and festivals. Now we know pill testing saves lives and health experts agree a harmonisation approach is the only sensible response to illicit drug use.
“Yet the Tasmanian government is clinging to an ideological opposition to harm minimisation and pill testing in particular and refuses to back the council’s position.
“Minister, ... government like Tasmania’s have shown they simply don’t understand the issue. So will you as health minister put the issue of pill testing on the Coag health council?”
Hunt:
The answer is no. Yesterday I respectfully disagreed on the proposition. Today I will respectfully but categorically disagree with the member. What he has proposed is, I believe, a dangerous and unfounded course of action.
Let me say this, whether it is tested or not, MDMA, ice, certain opioids can be deadly in their purest form. These are drugs which are illegal for a reason. They are drugs because they can kill. They are drugs because the nature of the response may not be known in an individual case, at the very moment that this parliament, that this government and the entire nation is seeking to deal with some of the challenges of amphetamines and of opioids, the idea that we would be condoning, encouraging and supporting the expansion of their consumption is, to mind mind, utterly unthinkable, and so this is not a position which the Australian government will be adopted.
It is an position the Australian government will be opposing ...
Even if it makes it clear that it is a pure form of MDMA, or a pure form of ice, or a pure form of fentanyl, that is not going to save a person. They may take an overdose or even if they take what they believe is an appropriate dose, that can be enough to take their lives.
That is why these drugs are dangerous, that is why these drugs are illicit and that is why we will not be adopting the approach which the member I believe foolishly and dangerously has advocated.”
Lucky alcohol has never killed anyone. Oh, wait ...
Updated
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to his previous answer. When seeking the assistance of the treasurer to arrange a meeting with departmental officials about critically endangered grasslands in the Monaro region, did he disclose his personal interest in the matter?
Taylor:
Mr Speaker, I have always disclosed my personal interest, any interest, that may have an impact on my role. I have been clear about that, but is my job and I do it all the time. Now as I said, at this meeting the member opposite refers to, I received a briefing from a departmental official, some technical aspects of the revised listing, but I would point out that an independent review since then by Wendy Craig released only about one month ago found that there have been major deficiencies in how the act is understood and how in particular farmers are dealt with.
And I am pleased that this review specifically identified the very issues that I have previously raised and that were raised in this meeting, Mr Speaker, and that is because I will always act in the interest of farmers. Perhaps those opposite could learn a little bit from that.”
Updated
For the second day in a row, a government MP forgets to jump when it is their question and Terri Butler gets a second go.
Scott Morrison’s head swivels to the backbench so fast he would have put Jim Carrey in his prime to shame.
Someone from the government says “no” and Tony Smith tells them there is no “no” and that he looked to the government side, and then to Labor and “only one person jumped”.
Bert van Manen, as the chief government whip, can probably expect a call to the principal’s office.
Updated
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to the minister’s previous answer and I asked again was the compliance officer present at the meeting?
Taylor:
I have dealt with this in the previous question, I have dealt with this in the previous question. This was not a discussion, this was not a discussion about a compliance action. It was a discussion, it was a discussion – let’s be clear, let’s be clear – the discussion was about the impact of a revised listing on farmers in my electorate. And there were two affected electorates, Mr Speaker, my electorate and my neighbour’s electorate. I care about the farmers in my electorate. I will always act in the interest because that is my job.”
Updated
Taylor:
Now, Mr Speaker, it is simply not enough to have power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. We need it 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. And that is why we sharply focused on keeping our existing coal and gas generation in the market, running at full tilt. But there are alternative approaches.”
“What about Barnaby’s proposal,” Labor yells.
Labor asks questions about carbon emissions then ridicule a key global provider of zero emissions, nuclear. For @PatConroy1 he should realise that his position on putting his workers in the power industry out of a job without an answer is a bad election tactic.
— Barnaby Joyce (@Barnaby_Joyce) July 23, 2019
Updated
Angus Taylor says questions about land he part-owns are 'a grubby smear'
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
Was the compliance officer from the department of the environment present at the meeting referred to in his previous answer with departmental officials about the listing of critically endangered grasslands in the Monaro region affecting land he part owned?”
Taylor:
Thank you for the question but look this is a grubby smear from those opposite, one of many that have been made and were made during the election campaign and I have been very clear on this. This was not a discussion about compliance action; it was a briefing from departmental officials on technical aspects of a revised listing under the EPBC act!
And the secretary of the department has made very clear, and I quote, ‘I can be very clear that minister Taylor has never raised the issue.’ This is the point. And I make no apology, Mr Speaker, I make no apology for acting in the interests of the farmers in my electorate and it is about time those opposite, it is about time those opposite stood up for the farmers in their electorates.”
Labor points out that Monaro is not his electorate. Tony Burke gets up to ask a point of order, but Taylor has finished his answer.
He also gets the next dixer, which makes the Labor benches laugh.
Updated
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
“In the meeting he referred to in his official answer with members of the department, did he disclose his ... [interest] or in compliance investigation into land clearing in that region?”
Taylor:
“I have always disclosed my interests, I have always disclosed my interests, and I have been clear about those.
“In 2017 before I was the minister in this role, as I answered in the previous question, I received a briefing from departmental officials on technical aspects of a revised listing under the act and the reason is that those changes impacted the farmers in my electorate.
“I care about the farmers in my electorate. I care about the farmers in my electorate. I wanted to see the drought fund go through yesterday, despite, despite the protestations from those opposite.
“Unlike the member for Eden Monaro who takes no interest in the farmers in his electorate!
“The department for environment has confirmed the briefing did not discuss compliance action. They have confirmed that when raised in Senate estimates in April 2019 the secretary of the department of the environment said: ‘I could be very clear that Mr Taylor has never raised an issue with me.’ ”
Updated
For someone who doesn’t talk about “on water matters”, Peter Dutton certainly likes talking about on-water matters. When it suits.
There have been 34 attempted boat arrivals since the Coalition came to power.
Also, it is not illegal to seek asylum.
Peter Dutton is now explaining how the most recent boat arrival attempt is Labor’s fault.
Six years after Labor was last in government.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to the minister by the appointment to environment and energy including all matters to the department made on 29 May. Can the minister confirm the company in which he has an interest is now being investigated by his own department in relation to the alleged illegal land clearing of critically endangered grasslands?
Taylor:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the question. I have been very clear about this in public. I have no association and I have remained unlinked from the company. In 2017 I received a briefing from departmental officials on technical aspects of a revised listing under the act and I make absolutely no apology for seeking and receiving a briefing on policies that seriously impact farmers in my electorate because I care about farmers in my electorate.
I care about farmers in my electorate and ... what the people expect from me as their local member, the most remarkable fact is that other affected members such as the member for Eden Monaro did not do the same. I will always stand up for the people of my electorate. I will do the right thing by them at every point in time.”
Updated
Christian Porter is continuing the JUST HOW SAFE ARE YOU: WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON segment that Peter Dutton started.
He mentions something Anne Aly said during the debate, about it not being “impactful” legislation. It was a bit more nuanced than that, but Tony Smith tells Aly that if she wants to dispute it, there are other ways to do it.
Porter continues.
“Oh, my God, read a book,” Aly says, which is an excellent Archer reference, whether she knows it or not.
Updated
Pat Conroy to ...
ANGUS TAYLOR
***Ding-ding-ding***
“Is the government working on a policy proposed by the member for New England where, and I quote, ‘If you can see the nuclear reactor from your house, your power is for free. If you are within 50km of a reactor, you get the power for half price.”
The response from a potential-future-Liberal-prime-minister: “The answer to that is no.”
Updated
It’s time for Peter Dutton’s JUST HOW SAFE ARE YOU segment.
VERY SAFE. As long as you pass all his legislation.
This has been JUST HOW SAFE ARE YOU: WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON edition.
Justine Elliott to Angus Taylor:
Does he rule out a nuclear power station being built in northern New South Wales, or on the Gold Coast?
Taylor:
I am delighted to receive questions from those of us who are here today because during the election campaign they steadfastly refused to answer questions about their real plan, which was to establish a carbon tax, double the price of electricity and triple the price of gas for all Australians. That is what they intended to do and that is why the member for Maribyrnong and the member for Port Adelaide’s steadfastly refused to answer questions throughout the campaign ...
The government’s priority is on getting energy prices down for all Australians, hard-working households and small businesses while we keep the lights on and we have steadfastly said that we will focus on cuts ...”
Tony Smith tells him his preamble is over.
Taylor:
We’re not focused on the fuel source, we are focused on the outcome and we currently have a moratorium on nuclear power generation in Australia, and the government has no plans to change that. Now we always approach these things with an open mind, but we do not have ...
We do not have a plan to change the moratorium. I tell you what we will do. We will steadfastly focus on affordable, reliable energy for all Australians and we will not put in place policies that are going to double the price of electricity and triple the price of gas as those opposite proposed at the last election.”
In the meantime, Luke Gosling is thrown out for a very loud interjection.
Updated
'Emissions go up and down' – minister for emissions reduction
Tony Smith is dealing with points of order on how Angus Taylor is not actually answering the question.
They have called in Christian Porter to answer whether or not Taylor was answering the question.
Taylor is back:
Mr Speaker, and as I was saying, emissions in that year were 100m tonnes, over 100m tonnes below what was forecast by the climate change authority in 2013, and now it is true Mr Speaker, it is true Mr Speaker from year to year and quarter to quarter, emissions go up and down. That is what happens, Mr Speaker.
But it is all LNG’s fault.
He is done.
Taylor is not having a good day.
Updated
Speaking of the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten is back from leave and in the chamber.
Mark Butler to ...
#WELLDONEANGUS
It’s like watching a wounded gazelle being slowly cut off from the pack.
“My question again is to the member for emissions reduction: did Australia’s total annual carbon emissions rise in the year to December 2016?”
Taylor:
As I say I am delighted* to take questions from the member for Port Adelaide. He absolutely refused to answer any questions on his policy during the election campaign. And the member for Maribyrnong was not much better, Mr Speaker, wasn’t much better. I have already answered this question, Mr Speaker, in the previous answer but what I can tell you, what I can tell you is that in 2013, in 2013 ...”
*He was not, in fact, delighted.
Updated
Michael McCormack is attempting to answer a question his office wrote.
It’s going about how you would expect.
Bob Katter has a question for Scott Morrison about dams – I think.
It includes the phrase of whether or not this would make Morrison “the modern day Moses”.
Morrison asks if Katter was in the back row of his church because they were just talking about Moses on Sunday.
This is all going into Hansard.
Updated
“Watch your temper,” someone from Labor yells at Taylor as he takes back his seat.
He may have caught on to Labor’s strategy. There are graphs on the paper he is looking at. Greg Hunt has come over to talk to him. There is a lot of hand waving.
Updated
Mark Butler to Angus Taylor:
Did Australia’s total carbon emissions rise to the year to December 2017?
Taylor:
I’m delighted to take these questions from you because during the election campaign you were not able to answer a single question on the cost of impacts of your energy policies, Mr Speaker! Not a single question! Mr Speaker, we have seen again in the last year a reduction in emissions per capita in emissions intensity and in the electricity sector and it is true of the absolute level there was a small increase in the last 12 months. That was driven entirely, entirely Mr Speaker, by a growth in LNG exports and ...”
And he’s decided he has finished his answer.
Updated
Yesterday it was the day of the female MP dixer. Today, so far, it’s Queensland day, with Julian Simmonds followed by Phil Thompson.
The government is still talking about its tax package, which has passed.
Updated
Tony Smith is triggered by the LNG export reference, so he again pulls Angus Taylor, the Rhode’s scholar (how do you know he’s a Rhode’s scholar? He’ll tell you) and tells him to answer the question.
#WelldoneAngus:
Thank you, and as I said, we are at the lowest levels of emissions per person in 29 years and they have been falling year on year, and it is true from year to year they bump up and down, and in the last year there is no doubt, there is no doubt that LNG exports have had an impact, have had an impact on our emissions.
There is no doubt about that. But let’s talk about that because in the last year our LNG exports reduced global emissions by up to 26% of our total emissions, because when you sell LNG up into China and Korea and Asia, even though there were the increased emissions from the extraction of that LNG, we see a reduction in global emissions.”
Updated
Mark Butler to Angus Taylor:
Did Australia’s total emissions rise in 2018?
Taylor:
As I said, we are in our 28th year of economic growth and the emissions per capita are the lowest years, the lowest level in 29 years. From year to year emissions ... we inherited from you opposite a 700m tonne deficit. But there is no doubt that there was upward pressure in recent years on emissions driven by growth in LNG, and that growth in LNG.”
I get it. My weight has been subject to upward pressure, too.
Updated
The first dixer goes to Julian Simmonds, who has asked Scott Morrison just how safe and secure Australia is.
VERY is the short answer.
The rest of it is about tax relief and border security which, now that has been signed off on with the help of Labor, is about the sum of the government’s agenda.
Updated
Angus Taylor starts talking about LNG exports. Tony Smith pulls him up before Labor even has a chance to laugh, and tells him he has strayed way off topic.
Smith also tells Josh Frydenberg to stop interjecting.
Meanwhile, some wags from the Coalition backbench ask about Labor’s primary vote, saying that has gone down.
It did. The Coalition’s primary wasn’t exactly historic either. But you know what hasn’t gone down? Australia’s emissions.
Anyway, the answer is emissions are going up.
Question time begins
Anthony Albanese to Angus Taylor
(I miss most of it, but it about whether greenhouse emissions are going up or down.)
The minister for emissions reduction:
“I would like to inform the house that Australia is currently in its 28th year of economic growth and emissions per capita ...
“As I was saying, the lowest level of emissions per capita in 29 years, Mr Speaker, and the lowest level of emissions intensity in 29 years. Our electricity sector emissions are down 6.5 million tonnes on the year to December 2018. We have seen during that year the highest level of renewable investment in the world. Double the next country in the world. And we are on target to exceed our Kyoto obligations for 2020 by 367 million tonnes.”
Albanese says the question was easy: up or down.
Tony Smith goes to answer the point of order, and Taylor gets back up, to which Smith tells him to sit down because he hasn’t be called to do anything yet.
#welldoneAngus. He’s a Rhode’s scholar don’t cha you know.
Updated
Scott Morrison is in the House.
Question time is about to begin.
It’s time for “Who’s that MP?”
It’s Kevin Andrews, making yet another invaluable contribution to the Australian parliament from one of the safest electorates in the nation.
Updated
We are just about to head into the chamber for question time.
Paul Karp has your Senate needs covered.
Hit me up with your QT predictions. I have a feeling this one will be quite interesting.
In other non-surprising news, Labor is also going to allow the (soon to be $5bn) future drought fund to pass through the Senate.
The government had the numbers on that anyway. Labor had said it would pass “any number” the government wanted, as long as it was new money. The government plans on redirecting the funding from the Building Australia Fund, which was a Labor initiative which has largely sat dormant under the Coalition.
Updated
Thank you to the secret squirrel who reminded me of the metadata report the government was due to table yesterday.
It did table it. It’s here.
It is for July 2016 to June 2017.
The date on the report cover sheet is November 2018.
It was tabled yesterday, 22 July 2019.
That’s a two-year-old report that sat somewhere for nine months.
Updated
NB: the Greens disagree with the characterisation (by Labor) of it as a money bill, because it includes "a provision to indicate that any appropriation required is to be provided for elsewhere".
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) July 23, 2019
This is the amendment Labor will attempt to move on the temporary exclusion order legislation, before the government ignores it, and then Labor supports the bill anyway.
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the government has failed to implement in full at least 10 recommendations of the bipartisan parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, without explanation;
(b) this is the first time since 2013 that this government has ever openly rejected recommendations of the bipartisan committee; and
(c) this rejection constitutes a significant breach of the compact between the opposition and the government on national security bills, which is premised on an understanding that the recommendations of the bipartisan committee are to be respected and implemented; and
(2) is of the view that:
(a) it is not the job of this parliament to act as a rubber stamp for government bills; the parliament’s job is to get legislation right;
(b) this bill should therefore be amended so that it conforms faithfully to the detailed recommendations of the bipartisan parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security; and
(c) this bill should be referred back to the bipartisan parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security for further scrutiny.”
Updated
Also a substantial discussion about the James Cook University academic Peter Ridd. Craig Kelly, George Christensen, Warren Entsch, Paul Scarr and James Paterson raised concerns. PM said let's make this about academic freedom @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) July 23, 2019
tl;dr - shut the hell up.
I'm also told @ScottMorrisonMP told backbenchers who have been out and about on issues, including, lately, superannuation, to calm their farms and work through party processes. Words to that effect @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) July 23, 2019
You know what it absolutely is not and was never going to be? A third chamber.
I'm told @SenatorMcGrath raised constitutional recognition in today's party room meeting. He asked what the position was. @ScottMorrisonMP and @KenWyattMP told him the voice could be many things & constitutional change wouldn't be radical @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) July 23, 2019
Updated
Just more on what Labor has decided re Newstart.
Linda Burney brought the submission to caucus – that Labor not only wants to review the Newstart payment, but increase it. Before that was just the implied position.
So it will now head to the Senate standing committee on economics, but there won’t be a dollar figure put on the rate.
Labor wants to know who is having trouble finding work and why, as well as what will be the economic value to raising the rate.
Labor won’t vote for the Greens bill because it does not want to support a dollar amount figure just yet. Plus you can’t have money bills originate in the Senate (under the constitution, it can’t deal with finances).
Updated
I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED* I say, about the findings of this study from RMIT.
A study of dictators over the past 150 years shows they are rarely associated with strong economies, and quite often with weaker ones.
Autocratic leaders are often credited with purposefully delivering good economic outcomes, such as the late Lee Kuan-Yew, who is widely credited with Singapore’s prosperity.
But new research published in the Leadership Quarterly journal by researchers from RMIT University and Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia, challenges that long-held assumption.
RMIT economist Dr Ahmed Skali said robust analysis of data on economic growth, political regimes and political leaders from 1858 to 2010 found dictators rarely oversaw strong economies.
“In an era where voters are willingly trading their political freedoms in exchange for promises of strong economic performance to strongman figures like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin or Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it’s important to understand whether autocratic leaders do deliver economic growth,” Skali said.
“ ... Autocrats whose countries experienced larger than average economic growth were found only as frequently as you would predict based on chance alone.
“In contrast, autocrats overseeing poor economic growth were found significantly more frequently than chance would predict.
“Taken together, these two results cast serious doubt on the view that autocratic leaders are successful at promoting economic growth.”
*Not actually shocked. I am Lithuanian after all.
Updated
Anyone who is surprised by Labor’s position on the temporary exclusion orders shouldn’t be. This nation has had a bipartisan position on national security, pretty much since we were sent to war after 9/11.
And it was so successfully weaponised that any questioning of any legislation which has a national security element leads to WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON attacks.
And so we have yet another national security bill about to sail through the parliament.
Even though there are concerns over the bill. Even though a joint, bipartisan committee, which is government heavy, has recommendations the government is not accepting.
Updated
That pesky constitution again
Labor has a newish position on Newstart- calling on government to review AND TO INCREASE Newstart. But opposing Greens bill for $75 increase because they don't want a specific dollar figure and money bills in Senate don't work. #auspol @AmyRemeikis
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) July 23, 2019
Labor will support temporary exclusion orders bill
Quelle surprise
Labor supports the temporary exclusion orders bill. Will try to refer back to PJCIS and then if that doesn't work it will move amendments. But if govt pushes through, Labor will pass. #auspol #auslaw @AmyRemeikis
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) July 23, 2019
Updated
New LNP senator Gerard Rennick has made quite the splash at joint party room, urging any colleague who is close friends with Christopher Pyne or Julie Bishop to tell them to step down from their jobs, because it's an embarrassment for the government. @SkyNewsAust
— Tom Connell (@tomwconnell) July 23, 2019
And just in case you missed Murph’s story from this morning:
The independent health advice panel overseeing medical transfers for asylum seekers languishing offshore says there were 73 admissions covering 43 people at the RPC medical centre on Nauru in the first quarter of 2019, with ‘the majority’ relating to mental health conditions.
The first quarterly report of the independent panel, obtained by Labor under an order for the production of documents in the Senate, found that in addition to the 73 admissions, with stays ranging between one and 44 days, there were 8,260 medical consultations provided to people on Nauru in the quarter – mostly for mental health problems.
The new figures underscoring significant problems with the mental health and wellbeing of asylum seekers, and people whose asylum claims have failed, came as the Liberal backbencher Russell Broadbent declared on Monday Australia could not continue with ‘indefinite detention’.
Updated
It being Tuesday, party rooms are under way.
The Greens have resolved to try to amend the government’s drought legislation to say it should not be funded by the Building Australia Fund but instead by the petroleum resources rent tax.
Given the Senate can’t actually impose that change without creating constitutional issues, this proposal will be put in a second reading amendment just as a proposal. I’d be surprised if that got wide-ranging support in the Senate but strange things happen and I will keep an eye out.
Other amendments are proposed to increase transparency from the fund, make the grants and the investment mandate disallowable, and ensure practice is consistent with the Murray-Darling Basin plan.
A couple of insights too, from the Greens national conference at the weekend.
We’ve reported that there has been some internal debate about a proposal to give party members a say in electing the federal leader.
The conference resolved to make a final decision on the model for giving members a say by next May (bearing in mind that this discussion has been going on inside the Greens since 2016).
The Greens will also attempt to build support in this parliament for declaring a climate emergency.
Updated
Joel Fitzgibbon responded to Michael McCormack’s comments, also on Sky, saying his “just move” policy was not a stroke of genius, but something you say when you have no policy.
Updated
I am sorry, but that is such a privileged view from our deputy prime minister. Let’s assume you are in the best case scenario to take up his advice, and don’t have children or dependants – for whom you would need to find care while you move to a place where you know no one – are healthy, have previous experience and no pets.
You still need money to move. Best case scenario that will cost you $2,000, and that is doing it yourself, with limited furniture. You need bond money – again, let’s assume rent of $200 a week, so that is $800. We’ve hit $3,000 and you haven’t even hit the pavement yet.
Politicians receive more travel allowance in a day when they are in Canberra than people on Newstart receive in a week. Those extra payments the government harps on about, at best, add about $10 a week.
It is not as easy as “move and you’ll find work”. And that has nothing to do with talking regional communities down, which is one of Michael McCormack’s favourite complaints about city media. Many of us come from rural and regional communities, have family and friends there. Living in a city doesn’t mean you have no understanding of how the rest of the nation works.
But living in a privileged position and pretending you don’t need to raise the unemployment benefit – the benefit that everyone from social service councils to the business community say needs to increase because it’s been close to 20 years since it was seriously reviewed – and people can just “move” to get jobs? That’s some bubble bullshit right there.
Updated
Michael McCormack says Newstart 'not meant to be a living wage'
Michael McCormack on Newstart, after questioning from Kieran Gilbert on Sky News:
There are jobs out there in regional Australia and there are good paying jobs and what I think we do need in this country is a more mobile workforce.
And so people have to be prepared to move sometimes out of their comfort zone and their home town and move to the next town to take a job.
There are jobs there – it is just that you’re not always going to get a job in the home town you’ve grown up in; you’re not always going to get the job that you actually want for the right here and now.
But a job, any job will be better than none at all and it will be better than living on welfare.
Certainly with Newstart, it is that safety net measure. It is not meant to be a living wage.
What we support is more jobs growth, and we’ve already through business helped create the economic conditions to grow [jobs].”
Asked how people are supposed to live and feed themselves on Newstart – and look for work, given the transport and accommodation costs – McCormack says:
“Indeed, and it would be a very meagre existence, but it is only supposed to be a safety net out there, between jobs. There are jobs out there, and that is why I encourage people who have either slipped through the cracks, and they just can’t find work at the moment, to look around. There are many jobs.
“You go into Dubbo and it is almost full employment in Dubbo and you go up the main streets of some regional towns, indeed, regional capitals, and there are notes in the windows that say ‘job available, apply within’ and there are so many jobs, and people have to have the wherewithal to go to those places and have the capacity and indeed have the innovative spirit to actually move out of their home town where they have lived all their life and go to a town where there are jobs available.”
You know what it takes to move towns? MONEY. Which people on Newstart DO NOT HAVE.
Updated
Michael McCormack sees jobs, people.
Party room and caucus are on right now, which is why it is so quiet.
We’ll bring you the updates when those meetings break.
Updated
The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance is a bit cranky with the government over its proposed legislation to tackle (illegally) phoenix businesses – companies which are deliberately liquidated to avoid debts, and then restarted as a new business. From its statement:
The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance (ATA), a 75,000+ member national grassroots advocacy group that represents the nation’s taxpayers, today condemned new powers proposed for the Australian Taxation Office under the Morrison government’s Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 which is listed for debate in parliament this week.
“By granting the ATO the power to make its own arbitrary estimates about how much GST a business will owe without any independent review or appeals process prior to the imposition of liability, this shocking new legislation is likely to drive innocent and hardworking taxpaying businesses bankrupt,” said Satya Marar, ATA’s director of policy.
“Taxpayers nationwide should be even more concerned as these powers will be backed by the threat of withholding tax refunds and making small business owners personally liable before any legal or factual dispute is resolved.”
Updated
Side note, but lovely news: Labor MP Amanda Rishworth welcomed Oscar Walker into the world yesterday, making him the first baby of the 46th parliament.
Updated
And just in case it is of interest, there have been 33 boat turnbacks since 2013, when the Coalition was elected.
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the official report on it, which was largely created from numbers provided to Senate estimates.
Updated
Anthony Albanese says the government is behaving like an opposition in exile
After two and a bit days of actual parliament sitting, Anthony Albanese finishes with this view on how he sees the government’s behaviour so far:
This government is obsessed by looking for arguments rather than looking for solutions.
They won the election in May. And ever since then they’ve acted like an opposition in exile.
They looking for wedge politics. On each occasion they are putting up legislation they are not saying we’re putting this forward because it’s in the national interest.
They saying we’re putting this forward because it’s a test for Labor. That’s a bizarre way for a government that was elected just two months ago into its third term to be behaving.
That follows Scott Morrison’s assertion during question time on Monday that Labor, under Albanese, was back to being the opposition with a capital O.
Which is, you know, strange, given that so far Labor has voted with the government on all its major pieces of legislation – namely the tax package and drought funding, even if it has expressed concerns with parts of the bill.
Updated
Asked by Sky News’s Laura Jayes about Labor’s position on the temporary exclusion orders, Anthony Albanese had this to say:
What we’ll be doing is, one, Kristina Keneally has written to Peter Dutton asking for the legislation to be referred back to the joint intelligence committee.
The joint intelligence committee has operated very well. These are difficult circumstances. We live in an unsafe world.
And the joint intelligence committee has been able to receive briefings from the security agencies, has been able to come to positions on a unanimous basis.
It’s chaired by Andrew Hastie, there is a majority of government members on that committee, and every single one of its recommendations for a number of years have been adopted by the parliament and supported by Labor and the Coalition.
Now, what’s happened with the temporary exclusion orders is that a number of the recommendations that were made unanimously by the committee chair, Andrew Hastie, had been rejected by the government.
The government hasn’t made a case of why that is, why that’s occurring. Some of those recommendations are based upon international experience, for example, that it should be under the UK legislation – it’s a judge who’s able to make the determination rather than the minister.
The government hasn’t put forward a reason why that should be done any differently.
It also has a recommendation that we needed to take into account whether there is somewhere else for the person affected by the order to go.
And the reason why that was the case, of course, was because of people concerned about legal challenges on these issues.
So a commonsense approach is what we’re taking, Laura, an approach that’s consistent with what was previously a bipartisan position.
Updated
One of Peter Dutton’s main reasons for wanting to repeal the medevac legislation is that it contains no processes for returning asylum seekers or refugees to Manus Island or Nauru once their treatment has been completed.
Which is interesting, given that the vast majority of people brought to the mainland for treatment under the previous government regime (which often involved the federal court ordering the government to bring people for treatment, a judicial power the government was attempting to challenge) are still in Australia, receiving treatment.
Anyone brought to Australia for treatment remains in detention. They are not released into the community and are escorted to their appointments. They remain under guard.
Updated
Anthony Albanese was on Sky this morning and had this to say about the report a boat from Sri Lanka was intercepted on its way to Australia:
This is only been put in the Australian newspaper by the usual, the usual suspects.
And I am prepared to say that has obviously been put there by the government ...
Well because – who else has put it there? The asylum seekers themselves?”
On the medevac repeal legislation, which has been sent to a parliamentary committee for review and report back in October (meaning it probably won’t hit the parliament again until November), Albanese had this to say when asked if Labor was willing to “tweak it”:
No.
The fact is, it’s working. If the government has any practical suggestions I can put them forward, but they haven’t done that. They’ve just engaged in rhetoric.
There are some 90 people who have been brought to Australia under the medevac legislation; there’s 900 who have been brought to Australia by the government itself prior to the medevac legislation being there.
So the government hasn’t, I don’t believe, made a case for change. This legislation was pretty straightforward. It allowed for the minister himself to appoint the committee that makes the decisions about these matters.
Indeed, a number of the objections have been upheld by the committee when issues have been raised.
Quite clearly, the government rhetoric was if this legislation was passed last December, then there would be floods of boats coming and everyone who was currently in offshore processing would be brought to Australia. That hasn’t happened.
And indeed, the numbers of 90 are very modest compared to the numbers of 900 which occurred previously.”
Updated
Not a total surprise, given the first week was mostly taken up with pomp and ceremony, but the Senate sort of ran out of legislation to debate last night.
Penny Wong’s eyebrows were at peak Penny Wong as she delivered this spray to the government in the Senate just before 8.30pm:
It’s the Monday of this sitting week, and we have the government saying, ‘Guess what? We have run out of legislation in the Senate. We want to go to the address-in-reply.’ The same old tried and true delaying tactic that governments use when they have to fill Senate chamber time. They’ve already gone to that at 8.25pm on the Monday night of the sitting week. What is the government’s agenda? Where is the government’s agenda? The government doesn’t have an agenda for the Senate. Do you know why? Because you’ve just spent the day in the House of Representatives trying to gain a wedge on the Labor party to abolish the Building Australia Fund because you want to talk about drought.
You’ve had a situation where the prime minister is so focused on playing politics that he hasn’t even wanted to allow the shadow cabinet to meet to determine a position. He hasn’t wanted to allow the caucus to meet to determine a position. He’s so desperate to make sure he gets a political wedge up, and you come in here and, so embarrassingly, don’t have any legislation for the Senate that you have to go to the address-in-reply at 8.25pm on the Monday night of a sitting week. What are we all doing? We’re all sitting here waiting for Mr Morrison to get the votes through the House of Representatives, which he hasn’t got as yet, on legislation to abolish the Building Australia Fund because he wants to try and wedge the Labor party on drought.
If you ever wanted an example of a government that doesn’t have an agenda, you have it now. You have it with senator Ruston sitting here saying, ‘You do what you want, senator Wong, because we don’t have any legislation. I’ve got an address-in-reply I want to get in. That’s what I want to do because I want delay tactics, as the government manager, as long as possible.’
Here is senator Cormann. He’s coming in to make up an agenda. You’re on to the address-in-reply at 8.25 on a Monday night because you haven’t got any legislation. I say the Senate should adjourn until you’ve got an agenda to debate.
The reason you haven’t got an agenda today is because you’ve been so focused on playing politics in the lower house and you haven’t got any legislation through. You could have put legislation through the lower house today. But you haven’t. Instead you’ve chosen to delay because you want a political debate on the Building Australia Fund abolition. That is entirely what is occurring.”
Updated
Good morning
Welcome to day two of parliament – which is day 15 for the year.
Because 2019 is the new 2004, we are talking national security and WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON.
Peter Dutton has decided temporary exclusion orders, which have been in place in the UK since 2015, is URGENT with a capital POLITICS and is pushing the parliament into passing the bill, without taking into account all the recommendations from the joint parliamentary security committee.
That committee is headed up by Liberal Andrew Hastie, and recommended a range of changes, including that there be some judicial oversight of any temporary exclusion order.
Labor has said it is willing to support the spirit of the laws, but wants a tad more oversight. Cue all of the WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON rhetoric. Or, if you are Michael McCormack, WHICH SIDE DO YOU SIT ON.
Kristina Keneally had this to say, this morning:
Labor has always supported the intent of the temporary exclusion order (TEO) legislation and any claims otherwise – such as this bill being a “test for Labor” – are nonsense.
Labor and the Liberals have already come together in agreeing to support the TEO laws subject to the bipartisan recommendations made by the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security (PJCIS), a Liberal-dominated committee which is chaired by Liberal MP Andrew Hastie.
The PJCIS has operated for years to achieve bipartisanship on national security legislation. Since 2013 the government has not explicitly rejected a recommendation of the PJCIS.
The cooperative value of the PJCIS to reach consensus and improve national security legislation provides significant benefit to our national security agencies and to Australians. The government should not jeopardise or politicise the important work of the PJCIS.”
Meanwhile, the fact a third boat from Sri Lanka had been intercepted on its way to Australia managed to find its way into the Australian newspaper, just as Dutton and the government attempt to gain support to repeal medevac. Yes, medevac has been in place since February, but there was also a pretty awful terrorist attack in Sri Lanka earlier this year, but that doesn’t tend to get mentioned.
We’ll bring you all of the national security argy bargy, as well as the fight over drought funding, as this brave new civil parliament enters its second week of sitting.
Mike Bowers is out and about, and you’ll also have Katharine Murphy, Sarah Martin and Paul Karp helping to steer the ship.
Ready?
Let’s get into it
Updated
