Good night good people
Well, the parliament is grinding along but I think we’ll pull up stumps for now. Thanks for your very fine company throughout Monday.
Let’s conform with our usual practice and wrap up the key events of the day.
- Malcolm Turnbull arrived in Paris for climate talks but felt a tug on his coat tails from conservatives at home. The Nationals made it clear nothing agreed in Paris should spell the end of the diesel fuel rebate. Warren Truss ended the short lunge for the smelling salts by confirming that absolutely nothing agreed in Paris would wind back the diesel fuel rebate. It was a little internal Coalition proxy war about climate policy that can be characterised as some mildly interesting ado about two fifths of bugger all.
- With Turnbull in Paris, key colleagues like Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison tried to pretend that Labor was (in contrast to the government’s sober sensible climate actions) proposing a carbon tax that would slug the economy to the tune of $600bn. Party like it’s 2013, except it isn’t. And Labor isn’t actually proposing a carbon tax, but don’t let that check anyone’s profound feelings about imminent economic vandalism.
- The Climate Change Authority for its part thought it would be nice if Australia’s climate debate could be reset and conducted on terms in some proximity to facts and good sense, including consideration of a new emissions trading scheme to lower dangerous greenhouse gas emissions at least cost. In that, the CCA’s worthy desire can be summarised as party like it’s 2007. Pity about all that muddy water under the bridge.
- Some government folks thought now was a good time to publicly consider and debate the problems of Islam, which was, essentially, the problems associated with violent extremism and Death Cults coming to get us. Labor MPs, including Tim Watts and Laurie Ferguson, begged to differ. Now might be the time to promote a bit of cohesion they thought. That tends to keep us all connected to one another, and safer as a consequence.
-
Scott Morrison rejoined the intra-day merry-go-round concerning whether or not Malcolm Turnbull had offered him the treasury portfolio in the lead up to the leadership spill which didn’t manage to unseat Tony Abbott in February. Haters gonna hate, Scott thought. No, sorry, he didn’t. He thought he might shake it off by characterising past transactions or aspirations associated with leadership transitions as the stuff of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists and authors in hot pursuit of Christmas sales. Interesting that some government people have an interest in training all eyes on Morrison (the covert progressive) though, I reckon.
- And speaking of shaking off, Mal Brough is finding it impossible to shake off a persistent parliamentary inquisition by Labor about whether he should remain the special minister of state given his actions during the Ashby affair. It was another bad day at the office for Brough.
- Late in the day, the House of Representatives passed the bill that will strip people of their citizenship if they engage in terrorist activities, High Court willing (presuming senate willing, which looks a certainty.)
That’ll do. Have a great night. See you all in the morning.
Updated
Boom. There it goes. The citizenship revocation proposal has just cleared the House.
This package is about to go through the House now, with or without Green objections. Ring the bells, lock the doors. Here comes the third reading vote.
Greens MP Adam Bandt is .. I think the technical term is going the nut .. in the chamber now. He says parliament has had no chance to scrutinise the citizenship bill amendments even though they were signed off last Friday. They haven’t even been scrutinised by the “closed shop” of parliament’s joint intelligence committee, Bandt says.
Parliament is about more than a back room deal between Labor and the Liberals.
Bandt says it is entirely possible this package contravenes the rule of law and will have unintended consequences.
This is a Tony Abbott bill that will do nothing to make us safer.
They’ll talk about dual nationals now, they’ll come back for sole nationals later.
He says this is bad law making and the Greens will not be a party to it.
The citizenship debate has come on in the House of Representatives. The shadow immigration minister Richard Marles is currently at the dispatch box. He’s speaking about the last-minute amendments from the government to try and ensure the bill is constitutional.
It is of course for the government to be confident of the constitutionality of this package.
(Marles really means Labor isn’t going to be responsible in the event this package is found wanting in the High Court, and, in essence, is proceeding tonight in good faith on government assurances.)
He says he believes this package gets the balance right between safeguarding individual rights and liberties and collective security.
The funny little tale that is Paris versus the diesel fuel rebate is continuing to bounce through the political day. It’s an interesting little proxy battle, this. Lest Malcolm Turnbull feel inclined to lurch too far forward on the Paris climate commitments, we’ll yank him back.
My colleague Daniel Hurst has been chasing voices since I first referenced this breakout this morning. The quotes in this post are from him.
If you weren’t tuned in earlier and you don’t fancy checking the blog post at the live link today’s concern in Coalition ranks relates to one of the Paris communiques that will deal with fossil fuel subsidies. The concern is the communique might lock Australia into winding back the diesel fuel rebate.
Former resources minister Ian Macfarlane, explains.
If at some point in the future an international agencies or body such as the IMF define the diesel fuel rebate as a subsidy not a rebate we’ll then find ourselves in a position where we’re being asked to honour a commitment we signed in 2015 which ipso facto means we will be under pressure to end the diesel fuel rebate. That would be met with complete dismay from anyone who represents farmers and regional Australia.
Nationals leader, Warren Truss, says there is really nothing to see here.
Nothing that comes out of Paris will affect or have any impact on the diesel fuel rebate.
Updated
Back to another one bites the Brough – given his name check in parliament today, I’ve called the former journalist Steve Lewis to ask him whether he can corroborate Brough’s very emphatic statement to parliament today: that he never supplied Peter Slipper’s diary to “any journalist”.
Lewis has declined to comment.
Just by way of background/context and other deeply unpopular things that journalists sometimes invoke to the chagrin of readers, I’d caution folks not to read anything in to Lewis’s ‘no comment’ for a number of reasons. Journalists don’t talk about sources or people who others suspect might be our sources. It’s actually a breach of our professional obligations if we do. Apart from professional obligations, it is also prudent not to comment if matters are under investigation. The Australian Federal Police last week executed a search warrant on Brough’s Sunshine Coast home seeking documents relating to his contact with Peter Slipper’s former staffer James Ashby.
Thus ends my context.
ETS, 2.0
Ok, let’s blast on.
Given we are firmly in the shadow of Paris, and, if today’s back-and-forth is a reliable guide, firmly in the grip of another ‘I’m with stupid’ outbreak on climate policy – it’s interesting to note the Climate Change Authority has just produced a new report which recommends Australia contemplate emissions trading once again.
The work made public today is in response to the minister for the environment requesting a special review under Part 3 of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011. If memory serves, this special review was a demand by Clive Palmer back in the days when he held defacto balance of power and was fond of standing up with Al Gore in mildly eccentric press conferences.
According to the CCA, the terms of reference for this review include whether Australia should have an emission trading scheme and any conditions for introducing such a scheme. It requires the authority to consider whether the climate policies of other countries, including the USA, China, Japan, Republic of Korea and the European Union are equivalent to an emissions trading scheme. The authority must also consider what Australia’s contribution should be to an effective and equitable global response to climate change.
The statement released by the CCA acting chair Stuart Allinson notes that the polarisation in the domestic climate policy debate hasn’t served the public interest. He suggests that we have in fact lost sight of the goal, which is to reduce emissions in order to safeguard the natural environment. He says the debate should go back to first principles.
It is, however, a bit hard to see that happening when Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison pretend the ALP has a policy for a carbon tax that will cost the economy $600bn. It’s complete nonsense, honestly, and they both intelligent enough to know it.
John Connor, from The Climate Institute, on today’s CCA work and the return of ‘I’m with stupid’:
Unfortunately recent days have seen a flashback to more toxic times and sloganeering. The reality is that policy design matters and that Australia will need a portfolio of policies to meet the initial 2030 emission reduction targets of all significant parties. This is especially so as the debate shifts to the recognition that our emissions intensive economy needs to be transformed to net zero emissions over coming decades. This, as well as the goal of avoiding 2 degrees warming, now appears to be a bipartisan position with discussion only on the date for that outcome – the ALP now says 2050 with the government yet to indicate a date. It is clear that the portfolio of policies will need to include a way to replace some of the aging and inefficient coal fired power stations which are unlikely to be affected by the carbon pricing or regulation policies of either major party before 2030.
Suffice to say Brough wasn’t a good look last week, and it doesn’t look any better today.
Mr Bowers calls this sequence: because I’m happy.
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper. I’ll bring you some chamber pictures in a minute, then we’ll regroup for the afternoon.
Updated
Dreyfus.
Q: My question is again to the special minister of state. I refer to the minister’s answers in Question Time last week and today. On the 29th of March 2012 James Ashby sent a text message to the minister which included pages of the Speaker’s official diary. The minister sent a text back “Can that be emailed, James, it is hard to read.” The initial copy may be blurry but isn’t it crystal clear the minister should resign?
Brough continues with his formulation that this has all been considered by the federal court.
But then he says this:
I would further confirm for the member who continually asks these questions I at no time passed any diaries to any journalist.
(I’m not sure Brough has said that before. Can any reader enlighten me if he has said that before and I’ve missed it?)
Updated
Dreyfus again.
Q: I refer to the minister’s answers in question time last week and today. On 29 March 2012, now former journalist Steve Lewis sent an email to the minister which read: “On how many occasions has Peter Slipper travelled to New Zealand since July 2010? Can these provide the following dates?” Did the minister agree to obtain pages of the diary for a journalist? Does the minister now give unauthorised copies of other documents to journalists?
Brough, unhappy.
Mr Speaker, the answer is no.
The long march.
Dreyfus is persisting. Brough says he’s failing to grasp the import of this latest question, but in any case ..
Brough:
I can assure you that every document that I have received is in the federal court.
Updated
Dreyfus, to Brough.
Q: Did the minister receive those unauthorised copies of the Speaker’s diary? Is conduct of this nature consistent with the standards the government applies to this minister’s portfolio?
Mal Brough:
I refer the Honourable Member to the findings of the Federal Court which brought down their findings on 27 April 2014, particularly you might wish to refer to paragraphs 122-124.
Another one bites the Brough
While the constituency questions start from the other side, Labor has reached the Brough/Ashby/Slipper juncture.
From the shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus to Mal Brough:
Q: My question is to the special minister of state. I refer to the minister’s responsibility for the Members of Parliament Staff Act. As a matter of government policy, does the minister ask the Australian federal police to investigate when staff members employed under that act provide unauthorised access to a member of parliament’s official diary?
Mal Brough, looking uncomfortable:
Thanks, Mr Speaker. I can inform the honourable member that occasion hasn’t arisen so I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss such a matter.
Dreyfus has a second go.
Q: My question again is to the special minister of state. I refer to the minister’s previous answer when I asked “does the minister ask the Australian federal police to investigate when staff members employed under that act provide unauthorised access to a member of parliament’s official diary”. The question is not whether this event has happened. The question is how does government policy dictate the minister should act?
Brough responds thus.
In this year of ideas I would suggest what I would do is take advice, appropriately, and act, appropriately.
Updated
Labor pivots to childcare.
Q: When will the government release the detailed modelling of its childcare package that shows who will be worse off, including how many families that rely on grandparents for childcare will lose access to the registered childcare benefit? And does this modelling include the impact on childcare of a 15% GST?
The burden of this falls to Luke Hartsuyker for reasons that currently escape me. Right now, Hartsuyker is saying don’t you worry about that.
Updated
The health minister, Sussan Ley, has a Dorothy Dixer allowing her to sell the mental health reforms the government unveiled last week.
Bowen circles round to the GST: Isn’t it correct that when the GST was introduced Australia saw the worse six-monthly performance of the economy in the last 20 years, including the global financial crisis?
From memory, that is true.
Morrison, by way of riposte, launches a long discussion about Labor’s ambition for higher taxes.
They are out there with the high tax cheer squad and saying Australia’s got a revenue problem.
(Presumably the high tax cheer squad includes the former treasury secretary Ken Henry, who noted recently Australia had a revenue problem.)
Updated
Warren v Tanya, by Mr Bowers.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen.
Q: My question is to the treasurer. (Treasury official) Mr Nigel Ray has said under the Turnbull government Australia is experiencing “a prolonged period of below par growth, the likes of which we have rarely seen outside a recession”. Is Mr Ray correct? Is this the economic leadership he promised when he knifed the member for Warringah?
Scott Morrison returns zinger:
The member for McMahon would be familiar with knives as would be the member for Fowler who is his current target at the moment, Mr Speaker.
Updated
Labor is persisting with the ‘Scott Morrison: one thing in public, another thing in private’ theme. Morrison talks about respecting people’s intelligence. I’d say see previous post.
Our economy does face headwinds, Mr Speaker, but we are realistically optimistic.
This is the treasurer, Scott Morrison, partying like it’s 2013. He’s thundering about Labor’s economy-crunching and job-munching carbon tax.
It’s a bit hard to fathom what this carbon tax might be, given Labor isn’t actually proposing one. That minor inconvenience isn’t worrying Morrison.
What is it about carbon taxes? They can’t leave them alone. They are like that little child who has to keep touching it and touching it. They cannot leave it alone ...
(If you could see me, my eyebrows have just disappeared into my hairline.)
Updated
The member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, wants to know when stronger regions grants will be announced.
Warren Truss says soon.
The assessment is in an advanced stage and I would expect an announcement about the successful projects in this round will be made within the next week or so.
Cheeky, from Tanya Plibersek to treasurer Scott Morrison.
Q: My question is to the treasurer. Deloitte Access Economics says the budget has deteriorated by $38bn. How much of that deterioration occurred since he became treasurer and how much occurred during the months he was conspiring to become treasurer?
(You see what she did there, right?)
Bishop ends by claiming Labor’s alternative climate policy will cost the economy over $600bn.
It won’t, actually.
New politics. A concept with a limited shelf life.
The first Dorothy Dixer is on childcare policy and the regions.
Then Labor is back on climate. Again, to Julie Bishop: What is the government’s emissions reduction target given reports the prime minister might offer a higher target in Paris?
Julie Bishop:
The prime minister reiterated in Paris and to the Australian newspaper that the targets of 26% to 28% will not be negotiated at the Paris climate change conference. I have a mandate from the Australian government that was passed by the cabinet, endorsed by the party room, for 26% to 28%. That is our target, that is the target the PM was speaking about.
He was not changing government policy. Government policy remains the same.
Our target is 26% to 28%. What he was referring to, if the member had bothered to read the article, it is government policy to look in 2017 at the question of the use of international units. That has always been our policy. It is also government policy to consider reviews for all countries, all countries that sign on to reducing greenhouse gas emissions reductions in five years’ time.
(It hasn’t always been policy, actually. Once, international permits was a thought crime. Ah, here’s the clarification.)
Julie Bishop:
This has been government policy since August.
Updated
Question time
It being 2pm .. it is the (apparently) melancholy duty of Warren Truss to inform the chamber that he will be in the big chair for question time today and tomorrow. Truss looks like he’s delivering a valedictory.
The deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek skips solemn and sprints to the dispatch box. Plibersek asks, given reports that Australia will make innovation the centrepiece of the Paris climate summit, is it still government policy to abolish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the very agencies which drive innovation in clean technology?
Foreign minister Julie Bishop initially requires a prompt about where the Arena and CEFC abolition is up to.
Julie Bishop:
I’m informed, Mr Speaker, it remains our policy, it’s been rejected twice by the Senate but it’s still our policy.
Updated
Right now the Liberal MP Wyatt Roy is bouncing in the prime ministerial seat, which for me, feels all kinds of wrong. No offence intended.
The House has moved to member’s statements, which means question time is just around the corner. With the two leaders elsewhere, Warren Truss and Tanya Plibersek will take their turn in the big chairs.
IsloFarmia.
The vine of @CraigKellyMP claiming @TimWattsMP of racism and Islo-what statements?? https://t.co/tVqdgz4bEQ
— Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 30, 2015
Watch out. It could be contagious.
And for readers very closely interested in the climate developments here is our latest news wrap from Paris, which leads on the innovation angle I shared a bit earlier.
Closer to home on Paris, the Greens leader, Richard Di Natale.
What we saw from Malcolm Turnbull when he took on leadership was a commitment to have science at the heart of his prime ministership, and that’s a good thing, but it’s really important that it’s not just empty words and that the rhetoric is backed up with action. So when it comes to discussions in Paris, there are some key things that need to happen.
The first thing to demonstrate that is genuinely committed to changing direction when it comes to Abbott’s climate policies is to revise our targets, and our targets are an international laughing stock, based on 2000 levels, we are talking about a 17% reduction by 2030.
I mean, they are an international embarrassment, and Malcolm Turnbull must be supporting those targets knowing that on one hand he says he supports science, and on the other hand he has taken what are profoundly anti-science targets to Paris.
The Greens leader says Australia should also offer financing to developing countries to reduce their emissions, and keep coal in the ground.
Malcolm Turnbull is probably far enough away right now not to care that he is currently the subject of a brisk tug-of-war between progressive and conservative forces over climate policy.
It is, after all, situation normal – but all the jockeying does, as I said this morning, highlight what will be a very important moment of transition in his prime ministership. Lots of people watching intently right now.
More snippets on climate. From Tom Arup, The Age’s environment editor, on developments in Paris.
Australia has signed-up to a multi-billion dollar global innovation plan that will require it to double the government’s investment in clean energy research and development over the next five years. Australia joins 18 other countries – including the US, China and India – as part of the clean technology push to be launched at the Paris climate summit, which will kick off in full force late on Monday night Australian time when world leaders will address the negotiations.
Pass the bills pronto or no play lunch
As predicted earlier, there is now correspondence circulating between offices about an extension to the parliamentary sitting hours this week. The government Senate leader, George Brandis, has called party leaders, whips and crossbench senators to a meeting after question time today to consider variations to the program. The draft variation of the routine of business says if citizenship and four other bills (including one on multinational tax avoidance) have not passed the chambers by Wednesday lunchtime then government business needs to take precedence over all other matters until it’s all done.
Updated
President Obama at the Bataclan.
Politics in two hemispheres, this lunchtime
Monday, Paris, Canberra.
Let’s take stock.
- World leaders, including Malcolm Turnbull, are currently converging on Paris for the UN-led climate talks, and are calling past the Bataclan theatre to honour the victims of the terror attacks in the city a fortnight ago. Turnbull at the Bataclan laid a wreath and pledged solidarity with France. The climate summit is underway properly tomorrow. Ahead of that, some Coalition folks are in a lather about the impact of one of the Paris communiques on Australia’s fossil fuel subsidies.
- In Canberra, MPs have returned for the final parliamentary sitting week of the year. Citizenship revocations and the government’s childcare package are both high on the agenda. I predict with some confidence that we’ll be fighting about extended sitting hours by close of business. It always happens.
- Scott Morrison is once again having to defend his actions during the February leadership spill after a smartly written refresh of largely known material by Peter Hartcher – specifically that Malcolm Turnbull offered Morrison treasury during the upheaval that resulted in Abbott keeping his job.
- After being asked several weeks ago by his media mate Ray Hadley to swear on a bible that he had not wronged Tony Abbott when Turnbull took the leadership – one of the more bizarre media moments of recent times – Hadley declined to interrogate Morrison when the two met for their regular Monday chat on 2GB. With apologies to tweens everywhere, Ray’s perspective was this was all soooo yesterday (Hillary Duff), and for his part, Morrison expressed an inclination to shake it off (Tay Tay.) Don’t punch the wall kids, there’s days of this week to go.
- Various government folks are showing an inclination to debate the Problems with Islam and violent extremism (that Death Cult, coming to get us) at a time when the prime minister has tried fairly hard to calm down those sort of debates in an effort not to amplify the agenda of truly wicked people and also allow security agencies the space to do their work.
- Queensland’s George Christensen thought today would be a good day to have a parliamentary motion debating extremism. Labor speakers begged to differ. Christensen also seemed to divert past Hawaii during his contribution. Lest you think I’m joking:
Please enjoy this vine of “allahu akhbar” said with a Queensland accent https://t.co/dhEIaRHDBq
— Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 30, 2015
It’s hard to know how we’ll move onwards and upwards from this, but I’m sure we will.
Somehow.
Updated
While I prepare our lunchtime summary, if you are interested, here’s one of the contributions during the Christensen motion earlier on extremism, from Labor’s Tim Watts.
Another breaking snippet.
To sign this is madness. It will cost jobs & give greens ammo to attack coal further. #COP21Paris #COP21 @cop21 pic.twitter.com/f8lhn5zNXI
— George Christensen (@GChristensenMP) November 30, 2015
Fresh from his parliamentary motion on extremism, George Christensen is going nuts about one of the communiques associated with the UN climate talks – one that concerns fossil fuel subsidies.
Right on cue, Phil Coorey in the Australian Financial Review.
Sources have told The Australian Financial Review that agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce and former industry minister Ian Macfarlane are among those exercised over a communique Australia is being pressured by New Zealand and others to sign on the sidelines at Paris. The Coalition MPs are arguing it would pose a risk to the multi-billion dollar rebate on diesel excise that farmers and miners enjoy.
Updated
Seems ridiculous to term such a small thing “breaking” but it is new: the Labor caucus has just signed off on the amendments to the government’s citizenship laws.
Less than half of Australia is “very concerned about Islamic extremism" https://t.co/piXKByHkS7
— Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) November 30, 2015
Partners against the tyranny of political correctness.
I should do readers the courtesy of explaining my “not entirely helpful” characterisation of the discussion around Islam and extremism that we’ve seen in the past 24 hours.
Of course the security risk posed by extremism is a serious issue. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Equally serious is the fact that no one quite knows whether deradicalisation programs actually work.
But declaring, as Craig Kelly just did during that brief debate, that the future is what we see in Brussels is unhelpful at a number of levels. Declarations like that (as Malcolm Turnbull pointed out in a speech to the Sydney Institute earlier this year in relation to Death Cults coming to get us) risk amplifying the extremist’s agenda, which is fundamentally about creating an environment of fear and division.
Security agencies need good links into communities in order to do their job, and to borrow a point from Scott Morrison earlier today, our great strength in Australia is the cohesion of our community. Not defaulting automatically to fear of the “other” is more than a worthy abstraction: it makes us safer.
So these blowhards can posture all they like, feeling brave and unshackled by the constraints of the thought police, but there’s a simple bottom line here: it might appeal to a particular constituency, but it doesn’t make us all safer.
Updated
Minister not required to consider every revocation: citizenship
Daniel Hurst has been on the trail of citizenship amendments and has this update.
I understand the planned last-minute changes to the citizenship laws involve two elements. The first amendment is largely uncontroversial and involves an apparent drafting error involving the use of an “or” rather than an “and”.
I have been told the second amendment relates to the immigration minister’s powers in the case of a dual national who has gone offshore to fight for a terrorist group and is taken to have automatically renounced their Australian citizenship by their conduct. I understand the previous version of the bill would have required the minister to consider in each case whether to exercise a power to rescind the revocation and allow the person to keep their citizenship. The new amendment would continue to give the minister the power to overturn the revocation, but would not require the minister to consider every single case.
This tweak essentially boils down to a question of administrative law, and is designed to firm up the commonwealth’s position in the event that a high court challenge is brought against the bill.
Liberal Craig Kelly declares the tyranny of political correctness is stifling an examination of Islam’s role in extremism.
Labor’s Laurie Ferguson is quoting the New York Review of Books in this debate. I suspect that’s not what Christensen had in mind.
Debate on the motion has now adjourned.
'The problem with Islam: discuss, the sequel'
The House has begun its sitting for the day. George Christensen, the LNP backbencher who doesn’t mind stumbling inelegantly where angels fear to tread, has moved the following not entirely helpful motion.
Mr Christensen, pursuant to notice, moved
That this House:
(1) notes the threat of violent extremism to Australian society;
(2) further notes the:
(a) acts of terrorism committed by violent extremists within Australia against Australians;
(b) specific terrorism incidents:
(i) the attack on police officers at Endeavour Hills Police Station in 2014;
(ii) the seige at Sydney’s Martin Place which resulted in the death of two Australians; and
(iii) most recently the murder of Mr Curtis Cheng at Parramatta Police Station; and
(c) significant number of Isil recruits coming from Australia;
(3) commends the Australian police forces for their efforts in countering terrorism;
(4) notes the numerous acts of terror which have been prevented because of police efforts, in particular the:
(a) attempt by the ‘Sydney Five’ to commit acts of terrorism in the city of Sydney in 2005;
(b) Benbrika Group’s planned bombing of various sporting events in 2005 and 2006 as well as a plot to assassinate former prime minister the Hon. John Howard; and
(c) 2009 plot to storm the Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney;
(5) praises the prime minister for his statement in response to the recent terrorism incident in Parramatta, that it is not compulsory to live in Australia and if one finds Australian values unpalatable then ‘there’s a big wide world out there and people have got freedom of movement’; and
(6) calls for continued action in countering violent extremism and in particular, radical Islam within Australia in order to prevent further acts of terrorism within our borders.
Labor’s Tim Watts has just gone ballistic in response.
This debate is being hijacked by ignorant and irresponsible members of the Coalition, he says.
Updated
With climate change the other big issue of the week, I really can’t resist this counterpoint.
The environment minister Greg Hunt was asked on ABC radio this morning whether the Paris talks would “succeed” (ie: produce an agreement) because the bar is being set too low.
Q: Is that a risk here?
Greg Hunt:
No, I don’t think so. I think that there is a sense of gravitas, importance and responsibility.
Now my colleague, Lenore Taylor, on the real world scenario confronting the planet post-Paris due to past inaction.
Even if every pledge is met in Paris (they have so far been received from 166 countries responsible for more than 90% of the world’s emissions) global warming will still hit at least 2.7C and might even rise to 3.5C – an outcome science tells us will still cause Australian cities like Perth to experience 50% more days with temperatures over 45C, reduce winter and spring rainfall in the southeastern Australian food bowl, increase the frequency and severity of droughts and increase the number of days of extreme fire danger in southern eastern Australia.
Without an agreement, those impacts would be worse.
One man’s gravitas ..
If like (e’hem, me) you need to jolt your brain back into active service on the current state of play about citizenship, my colleague Daniel Hurst produced this news wrap late last week.
Here’s what the attorney general, George Brandis, said about the late amendments.
They don’t reflect a policy change, they don’t reflect a change at substance, don’t reflect a change to the machinery or operation of the bill. They are essentially of a technical, constitutional character.
Today, we’ll see if that characterisation is correct.
There is talk about there being an additional amendment to the citizenship package that wasn’t expected. I’ll follow as this comes together over the course of the morning. Colleagues are chasing particulars as we speak.
Can you ‘run aground’ in the high court? You sharp folks know what I mean ..
Special caucus meeting to consider the citizenship package
I haven’t had much of a chance to get into the citizenship laws, which are on the notice paper for debate in the House of Representatives. Labor has convened a special caucus meeting to discuss the government’s legislation at 11am. We expect the government will amend its own legislation in an effort to try and make the package constitutional. There have been a range of expert legal opinions suggesting that the citizenship revocation proposal originally framed by the government would run aground in the high court.
I should have noted before that the Labor leader Bill Shorten stopped off to visit Australian troops stationed in the Middle East en route to the climate talks in Paris.
A statement from the Shorten office characterises the visit thus:
I acknowledged that for many, their deployment will mean they’re away from friends and family for Christmas. These men and women are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances. Their bravery, professionalism and skill is a credit to them and a source of pride for all Australians. While visiting, I was briefed on operations across the Middle East, had discussions with Australian forces and took time out to go for a jog with personnel.
The questioning turns to the budget.
Still in shake it off mode, Morrison bats back the dire sounding Deloitte budget forecasts this morning. We’ll give you the full picture in Myefo, he says, until then just wait patiently.
Morrison:
What you will get from me as treasurer, what you will get from the prime minister, what you will get from this government is a very honest and sober view about where we are heading but an optimistic view which is based on realism. You won’t hear me making ambitious targets around these issues on when we return the budget to surplus.
What we will do is the work that is needed to be done every day to return the budget to surplus. The projections of that will be subject to many variables, some of which go well beyond the government’s control. Previous governments have stood stood there hairy chested at the dispatch box and promised four years of surpluses. Treasurer Swan as a result looked quite foolish. I am not going to go down that path. I will go on about the work of restoring the budget.
(Budget emergency over then it would seem.)
He’s asked about the childcare package, which is one focus of this final parliamentary week. Will the government proceed with the childcare spend if it can’t get the savings from cuts to family tax benefits?
Morrison:
We have made it very clear, we pay for our commitments. You don’t run a budget by announcing more spending and proceeding with the spending without making the save.
Morrison questioning, continuing:
Q: Do you agree with Josh Frydenberg there is a problem with Islam and this is resulting in terror attacks?
I think all religions go through phases in this country. My own, many others, over a period of time ... the components (of religion) become more indigenised. That is true of Christianity, the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith. The cultural representation of Islam in the Middle East is different to what it is in Malaysia, in Indonesia, or Africa or different parts of the world. I think one of the positive things about Australia is it’s such an overwhelming cultural set of values that those always have an influence over time and I’m sure that will continue to be the case and that will lead I think to a more accessible and a more open and transparent way of doing things. That’s been the case with other religions. I have no reason to believe it won’t be the case with Islam.
Q: When you talk to Muslim leaders in Australia, do you think they are facing up to the problems within Islam that are highlighted by events like the Paris terrorist attack? Do you think Muslim leaders in Australia are facing up to that?
Morrison:
Look, there are many different leaders within the Islamic community. It is not the sort of representational structure that you see in other organised religions in Australia. It’s quite different. I think the commentary that assumes very similar structures fails to get it, frankly. The grand mufti is not like the senior cardinal in Australia or whoever. It is a very different structure. So they are working through those issues. They are matters for them.
I think they’re positive discussions, particularly among younger people of the Muslim faith. They have very different views to their leaders as well about how things should be managed. That’s a positive discussion for them to have. Look, I think that’s the reality of it.
I think there is not an Australian of any faith who was naive to the very real risks of terrorism and the very real risk of extremism and how that can lead to violent extremism. That’s why I think all Australians should be on their watch, whatever faith they are a part of, or of no faith at all. The best thing we can do is continue to strive to further improve the great cohesiveness we have as a society. This is our greatest defence against extremism. The cohesive nature of Australia. We are the most successful immigrant country on earth.
Q: Do comments like what Mr Frydenberg said yesterday undermine that social cohesion, they point the finger of blame at one religion over another?
Morrison:
No, I don’t think that’s what he did. What doesn’t help is those sorts of characterisations of what he said.
Updated
After that flogging by a wet fish Morrison has now been discovered by press gallery types keen to pursue the various threads of the morning. They start with Hartcher. What anyone said to anyone else on the leadership is an issue of no consequence, Morrison says. The stuff of tin foil hat conspiracies.
Mind the alfoil.
Scott Morrison:
What happened in February and what happened later in the year were completely different issues and you should shake it off.
Just in case we missed the Tay Tay reference, Morrison demonstrated the technique for photographers in the 2GB studio just before.
Haters gonna hate. You know it.
Updated
Ray moves on by wondering why Morrison is not out and about expressing the Josh Frydenberg deep feeling on Islam and the Grand Mufti (that I drew our collective attention to earlier on this morning). Once he was the great attack dog, now he’s ScoMo 2.0.
Ray notes that he used to advise Tony Abbott to “give it to these people” and “get off the chain.” But Tony thought he’d better focus on being prime minister.
Have you lost your voice Scott, Ray wonders?
No, Ray, says Scott.
I think I’ve been very consistent on this over a long period of time.
Morrison notes that the government needs to work closely with the Islamic community in order to enhance the security environment. For the record, he agrees with Frydenberg that the Mufti “let down his own people.”
Hadley goes to water
Mwah. So sweet.
Ray Hadley is gearing up for his weekly chat this morning with Scott Morrison this morning by reading Peter Hartcher to his listeners. It sounds ominous. Ray reminds his listeners that he tried to made Morrison swear on the Bible that he had not done wrong by Tony Abbott. He notes their relationship reached an impasse, but now it continues.
But rather than accelerating towards his normal outrage, Ray is deflating before our very eyes. Ray thinks he’s heard all this before. It’s now boring. Will he subject Captain Cronulla to a grilling? No, he won’t.
I’ve done all this before.
Scott Morrison agrees an interrogation on this subject would be a terrible waste of Ray’s time.
It’s old news.
Updated
'The problem with the budget: discuss'
It’s the deficit, stupid. My colleague and the co-owner of this blog, Gabrielle Chan, reports this morning budget deficits to 2018-19 will blow out to $38bn larger than expected, according a Deloitte Access Economics report, which blames the China slowdown and “gridlock” in the Senate for a cut in revenue.
My neighbour Shane Wright, economic correspondent for the West Australian, meanwhile reports that the mid year budget update (one of the great joys of December) will be released in Perth the week after next.
Perth? Wut?
(A little birdie tells me the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, is expecting a new baby very soon. The finance minister calls Perth home. I suspect the assorted Canberra pol/eco hackery will be setting their GPS due west once the parliamentary year ends.)
Updated
'The problem with Islam: discuss'
Other bits and pieces in the news cycle this morning.
Various government types are out reflecting on what we can term “the problem with Islam: discuss”.
The resources minister, Josh Frydenberg, thought on Sky News yesterday morning that members of the Islamic community must acknowledge that a “small but significant” number of its adherents are extremists. He also gave the grand mufti a swift kick on the way through.
Josh Frydenberg:
We have to acknowledge that religion is part of this problem. I would say it is a problem within Islam.
Then a number of colleagues thought they might join in via comments to Rosie Lewis in the Australian. Andrew Nikolic felt terrorists had “hijacked” Islam for their own “perverse, barbaric purposes”.
It is therefore vital that the Muslim leadership or grand mufti are speaking with one voice in those issues. The last thing we want is mixed messages to young Muslims who seem to be attracted to transnational terrorism in increasing numbers. I think the grand mufti failed in that role with his initial response … when religious motivation for these attacks is very strong.
Over in the Herald Sun, Andrew Hastie had some feelings too.
Modern Islam needs to cohere with the Australian way of life, our values and institutions. In so far as it doesn’t, it needs reform.
In case you haven’t been following this debate, in recent times the prime minister has been going out of his way to hose down this sort of talk in an effort to build bridges with the Islamic community.
Watch this space.
Updated
Meanwhile, on a tennis court, not that far away, it’s the match of the century – the serially competitive Albo versus the serially ebullient Bruce Billson.
Thwock. Boom. Blast.
Good morning Mike Bowers.
I think Turnbull’s contribution at the UN climate summit is tomorrow our time but The Australian is telling us this morning the prime minister will hold open the prospect of increasing Australia’s current emissions reduction target – which, if true, would not be a shock, given he’s been laying the ground for that over quite some period of time.
Turnbull has been trying to walk a line with climate policy: not upending the Direct Action policy he inherited from Tony Abbott (that would be an act of war with the conservative wing of his own party) but signalling it and other climate actions might change if they need to change. When he was in Manila recently for the Apec summit, Turnbull said rather airily the government might draw on international permits to boost the overall emissions reduction effort (a perfectly sensible concept that was regarded as a thought crime in Tony Abbott’s time.)
How Turnbull pivots out of Australia’s currently suboptimal climate policy into a more workable system is one of his key tests as prime minister. Turnbull knows Direct Action is a dud, he’s said as much publicly. If he persists with Abbott’s policy framework over the long haul without any adjustment it will expose him as being completely devoid of principle.
But he has to carry the party with him, and this is the same party that elevated idiocy to an art form with Tony Abbott’s populist, anti-reason assault against carbon pricing. The timeframe Turnbull’s working on is careful iterations now and adjustments after the next federal election, should the government be returned.
Labor is attempting to make sure Turnbull doesn’t, as Bill Shorten puts it, sell out to the right of the Liberal party on climate change.
Shorten, as I’ve mentioned, is an observer in Paris, attempting to play externalised conscience. The Labor leader has done a radio interview in Australia this morning, on the theme of “Malcolm Turnbull in Tony Abbott’s clothing” at the Paris climate summit.
Shorten says he gets Abbott being a climate change wrecker but ...
.. what’s Malcolm Turnbull’s excuse?
He gets climate change.
Updated
Thanks to my colleague Shalailah Medhora for the Morrison quotes, which are from the Viewpoint show.
Scott Morrison, fire fighter
To Scott Morrison now, and the events of February. Morrison was asked on Sky News whether he was offered treasury by Turnbull early in 2015.
Scott Morrison:
I do recollect talking to Malcolm Turnbull, he’s a cabinet colleague of mine, it wasn’t that extraordinary that cabinet colleagues would talk to each other.
Q: About the leadership issues and the treasury position?
It was a difficult time and we had a backbench-initiated spill motion. That’s almost a year ago now. It’s all well in the past. Nothing came of it.
There was no arrangement, no deal, no offers, none of this stuff. I think it was just excited commentary, and it sounds like people are trying to get a lot out the door in terms of Christmas purchases of books.
That’s what’s known in the trade as the non-denial denial.
Couple of thoughts on this.
- We did know this in February. The nascent Turnbull/Morrison axis was part of the speculation du jour around the spill motion. It’s hardly surprising that the various power centres within the government would be talking and wheeling and dealing in the lead up to a spill motion on the party leadership. The surprise would actually be no wheeling and dealing.
- But it is interesting that folks around the building don’t mind a spotlight being trained on the chap I like to call Captain Cronulla. Putting Morrison squarely in the fray in Turnbull’s rise does him no favours with his conservative base in the Liberal party. It also complicates Morrison’s bromance with media boosters like Ray Hadley. It muddies him up basically.
- Now who has an interest in muddying up Morrison? Possibly colleagues who might like to apply a bit of gravity to a political figure who thinks principles like gravity apply to other people, not to him. Possibly this is just idle leadership wash-up gossip – let’s face it, there’s always a lot of that around and it doesn’t amount to any directed strategy – but it looks to me like the application of an automatic stabiliser. Some smart person once observed that if you want a friend in politics, best get a dog.
Updated
Good morning
Hello good people and welcome to bedlam. We have entered the final parliamentary sitting week of 2015. The long range atmospheric forecast is scattered, with a strong chance of chaos.
Let’s start with scattered.
Malcolm Turnbull has arrived in Paris to make his short presentation at the UN climate talks. The opposition leader Bill Shorten is also in the French capital – presumably with an aspiration to be the prime minister’s externalised conscience when it comes to the current ambition of Australia’s emissions reduction targets.
Before hitting the climate shindig, Turnbull stopped first at the Bataclan concert venue with the New Zealand prime minister John Key.
The two leaders paid their respects at the venue that bore the brunt of the horrific terror attacks in the city just a couple of weeks ago. I see from the TV feed that the PM tried a little French during his visit at the theatre.
Turnbull made some brief remarks (in English) before laying a wreath.
We are here – the New Zealand prime minister and the Australian prime minister and our wives – and we are here offering the people of France, the people of Paris, our most heartfelt condolences and our unflinching solidarity in the face of this terrorism. We are all together. We are with France. We are with the people of Paris. We are with all people committed to freedom in this battle against terrorism, against violence, against violent extremism.
My live coverage of national politics this week will loop in the events in the other hemisphere as much as possible. Marvellously my colleague Lenore Taylor is now wheels down in Paris and will be covering the summit developments.
Now, to chaos.
The last week of parliament is always ears pinned back, hair flying and this week is unlikely to be an exception. Parliament needs to get through a bunch of business this week, including the controversial citizenship legislation which is part of the counter terror package(s).
Outside chamber nuts and bolts there’s also some embers burning again courtesy of Fairfax Media’s Peter Hartcher tossing over the Abbott/Turnbull leadership fire. Hartcher revives the story this morning that Scott Morrison was offered the treasury portfolio by Malcolm Turnbull in the run up to the failed spill motion in February. Morrison has already been out on that and I’ll talk you through that in the next post.
In the meantime, the comments thread is wide open for your business and we are up and at ‘em on the Twits @murpharoo and @mpbowers
Buckle up. Here comes Monday.
Updated
