Postal survey survives high court challenge
Alright, good people. It’s been quite a day and quite a week. We’re going to leave it there for the night, but just to recap:
- The high court dismissed the challenge to the validity of the government’s postal survey on same-sex marriage. The poll will go ahead. Forms will be sent out from September 12 and a result is expected to be announced on November 15.
- The Liberals, Labor and the Greens all agree legislation is needed to provide proper safeguards on advertising and election material in the coming campaign. They are yet to agree on how far the restrictions should go.
- Former prime minister Tony Abbott has pledged he will “facilitate” the passage of same-sex marriage laws if the survey returns a Yes vote. Exactly how a backbencher facilitates the passage of legislation remains unclear.
-
Tiernan Brady, executive director of the Equality Campaign, called for a campaign of a “million conversations” to secure a Yes vote.
- The Australian Christian Lobby’s Lyle Shelton, already facing criticism for avoiding arguments directly on marriage, warned of the consequences for freedom and “radical” education in schools.
- The attorney general, George Brandis, promptly dismissed Shelton’s arguments, saying the vote is only about one question: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”
Updated
Liberal MP and marriage equality supporter Tim Wilson has just spoken about proposed safeguards on advertising and campaign material on the postal survey. As we mentioned earlier, the survey is not covered by the requirements of Australia’s electoral laws. The major parties are negotiating on legislation to address that failing, and a bill is expected to be introduced next week. There’s a bit of conjecture on just how far the restrictions will go. Will they, for example, prevent the use of untruths in the campaign? Wilson told the ABC he does not want to see limits on misinformation.
This is a political debate, people are entitled to put things that are misinformation or lies
He said that’s exactly what the No campaign is doing, using “misinformation to seed doubt where it is not justified”.
The responsibility of every Australian is to look at the information that is put out there, say by the No campaign that this is about polygamy or safe schools, to know that that is false
Dear @ABSStats, can u please send my survey ASAP? I will respond 'YES' for an equal & fair Aus, then return it so the nation can move on ...
— Tim Wilson MP (@timwilsoncomau) September 7, 2017
Updated
The inimitable David Marr has written on the high court’s decision. His verdict? It only delays the inevitable.
Equal marriage is just the latest occasion for displaying the clout of the reactionaries. Though they know, in the end, they probably won’t be able to bring change to a halt, they want us to know the ground rules here: change in this country only comes with a great deal of pain.
That’s the plan and the high court has now given it a tick. Let the weeks ahead be decent and good humoured. Let’s listen to one another. Let’s try to stick to the point. And let the vote show who we are, a country not afraid of the future. The only difficulty we ever face is getting there.
The full piece is here:
We shared a snippet of marriage equality supporter and Liberal backbencher, Warren Entsch, on Sky News earlier. He’s subsequently told the ABC just what he thinks of colleagues who may be inclined to ignore a Yes vote.
Those that are going to continue to argue that ‘oh no, we will look at what our electorate says’ or ‘irrespective we will vote another way’ – a couple have said that ‘if it is Yes, we will still vote No – that’s disappointing given they are the ones that argued hardest in many cases for the expenditure of $122 million to have this opinion poll, now they are not going to respect this.
Once this comes out, I think they should be obliged to respect it. At the end of the day, they will be judged on their actions by their respective electorates.
Updated
University of New South Wales constitutional expert, George Williams, made the bold prediction the postal survey would be “struck down” by the high court. Just goes to show even the most esteemed legal minds can get things slightly wrong sometimes.
The High Court has spoken. I thought the result might go the other way, but it shows what difference two days of argument can make.
— George Williams (@ProfGWilliams) September 7, 2017
Events moved rather rapidly post-2pm, so we didn’t get the chance to share this intriguing series of shots from Mike Bowers from question time today.
Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne, behind the speaker’s chair, having a good old chuckle and looking distinctly chummy. Who said bipartisanship is dead?
Updated
Now, as I need to go off and write some commentary about the day, I’m going to hand the live coverage over to Chris Knaus, who is going to take us through the remainder of the evening.
It’s been delightful to emerge from live blog retirement and be back with you in rolling form this week. Thank you for your company.
I know you will make Amy Remeikis very welcome when she takes over this project from next week. In the interim, here’s Chris.
Updated
Another Liberal backbencher, Trent Zimmerman, a key supporter of marriage equality, has just told Sky News if the postal survey produces a No vote, it will be the end of the issue in this term of the parliament. He says a No vote will kill marriage equality “for years”.
Asked what happens with the Liberal party’s election policy if the survey returns a No vote, Zimmerman says he’s not thinking that far ahead. He says he’s focussed on winning this campaign.
Updated
Fair to say this is the face of a prime minister who thinks the history of today will read Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, 1, enemies of Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, nil.
Updated
Some nice changeovers around the place this afternoon. The Greens leader Richard Di Natale offered the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, his rainbow scarf when they crossed paths earlier on.
Updated
The Liberal Warren Entsch, who is a long time marriage equality campaigner inside the Coalition, is telling Sky News he was already making arrangements to delay a trip he’s about to make to New York in order to be available in case the high court made a different decision than the one it made today. He’ll go to the US now, given we are not about to move to a parliamentary vote next week.
Warren Entsch:
I’m determined to be the one who introduces the bill. I would hope we are invited by government to introduce a bill. We have that bill ready to go.
We are closer to a parliamentary VOTE
A statement now from Liberal Senator Dean Smith, who is the architect of a private members bill to legalise same sex marriage.
I’m leaving the capitals in place, because Smith is entitled to have a shout in a press release if he cares to.
Dean Smith:
There is now a clear pathway and timeframe for achieving a parliamentary free vote on the issue of same-sex marriage in Australia and I encourage all Australians to grasp this historic opportunity to vote “YES” in the postal survey.
I strongly urge Australians to reach out to their families, friends and co-workers to discuss why voting in this postal survey matters and why a “YES” vote is so important for the future of our great country.
A “YES” vote is a vote for the cherished principle of equality before the law and the dignity of Australians in loving, committed relationships.
For Liberals across Australia, they can be confident that voting “YES” will deliver a strong dividend for the whole country.
Voting “YES” is a vote for conservative values; it’s a vote for Australian families; and it’s a vote for stronger communities.
A successful “YES” vote will strengthen, not diminish, the Australian values of fairness and a fair go.
Now is not the time for complacency – every vote will count.
The issue of same-sex marriage is a human one, not a political one – it’s about people’s lives, the love they have for one another and their families’ love for them.
In recent weeks, I have been personally encouraged by the dozens of prominent Liberals and Nationals who have put their names to a “YES” vote, including former Howard government ministers Helen Coonan, Ian Campbell and Amanda Vanstone.
I am delighted that fellow Liberal parliamentarians have also championed a “YES” vote such as Simon Birmingham, Kelly O’Dwyer and Melissa Price.
I am particularly proud of our new federal president, the Hon Nick Greiner AC, who has decided to use his voice to argue for a modern, contemporary Liberal party that reflects the values of everyday Australians.
As always, I encourage every Australian to share their views in a manner that is respectful and that demonstrates our goodwill to one another irrespective of whether our views may differ on issues.
The time is now to vote “YES”.
Updated
I'm a facilitator
Just in case you were wondering.
I will respect the people's vote on SSM and, if "yes", facilitate the passage of a bill. 1/3
— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) September 7, 2017
Shorten has just said that he'll legislate SSM regardless of the people's vote. 2/3
— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) September 7, 2017
This is the kind of elitist bullying that people so dislike and are rightly concerned to reject. 3/3
— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) September 7, 2017
If we can all peep through the partisan shirtfronting, I can just note in passing that Abbott isn’t in the facilitation business (note the peculiar locution in tweet number one).
Prime ministers are in the facilitation business. But old habits die hard.
Sing a rainbow
Updated
But Dreyfus says Labor wants protections stronger than those currently contained in electoral act.
— Christopher Knaus (@knausc) September 7, 2017
The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, is with colleagues in the courtyard.
I think there should be protections that, as far as possible, send a message to the Australian community that this parliament as a whole will not tolerate vilification of any group in the Australian community and that’s what we are expecting the legislation to contain.
Q: Will it extend to banning offensive material, ban false claims, would it be evaluating whether ads are true?
Mark Dreyfus:
The government has said it will base it on safeguards in the Electoral Act. We don’t think the protections go far enough. We don’t think they are particularly appropriate for an absolutely unprecedented, unusual, unnecessary postal survey but we’ll see what the government is prepared to go with.
Again, I say Labor wants these safeguards to be as strong as they can possibly be.
Updated
Shorten speaking now. Re: Turnbull "When you have a position of leadership in this country, you should lead, not hide" #auspol @murpharoo
— Christopher Knaus (@knausc) September 7, 2017
Bill Shorten is speaking to reporters in the courtyard with Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong.
Tanya Plibersek:
I’m voting yes for someone I have never met, for some 17-year-old somewhere in a country town who hasn’t told anyone that they are same-sex attracted. I’m voting yes for that person because no one should feel alone. No one should feel that they are being judged by the broad mass of the Australian community for who they are. Same-sex couples don’t deserve to have their relationships put to a vote of people who have never met them.
So I will be voting yes because it’s the only fair thing to do. I will be voting yes for love.
Penny Wong:
I know there are many Australians who will be very disappointed by the high court’s decision today. I just want to say this: We didn’t want to be here but now we are here, let’s win it. Let’s get it done.
As Bill said, let’s turn our disappointment into determination to get this done. When I came into the parliament this morning, we could see a rainbow over the parliament and I thought: “I wonder what that means for the high court case.”
What I think it means is this: It is a sign of hope.
Hope that the fairness and decency in the Australian community can be translated into a Yes vote and into marriage equality becoming a reality.
To all supporters of marriage equality in this country: campaign, talk to people, get out the vote. Let’s get this done.
Updated
The Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie, who was one of the plaintiffs in the high court challenge, says he has no regrets.
I’m obviously very disappointed. I thought we had a strong case to make.
He says just because the case was lost in the high court does not mean the postal vote survey is a good idea. He says this is a flawed process, but the best response to a flawed process is a high turnout.
The Greens leader Richard Di Natale has just spoken to reporters, wearing a rainbow scarf. He’s urging LGBTI Australians not to boycott the process. Di Natale says people need to turn out.
Q: What do you say to people who might be watching and thinking about boycotting the process?
Richard Di Natale:
Don’t do it. What I say to people who are considering not participating in this vote is, like you, we don’t think basic rights should be subjected to an opinion poll – but it’s here, get involved, join the movement, and let’s make sure we choose love and, if the prime minister wants to hear from people, make sure he hears from them loud and clear.
Updated
The marriage equality campaign has wasted no time after the high court loss. Here’s their new advertisement: let’s get it done.
Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong is echoing that message on Sky News.
Now we are here, we have to win it. Let’s get this done.
Get out and talk to people and get this done.
Wong is asked whether Labor will support the safeguards the government is proposing for the postal survey. She says let’s wait and see what is proposed. She says this is about people’s lives and people’s families.
She is asked about the impact on her own family. She says hurtful things are said and they hurt. But she says she also gets a lot of support in the community, noting that people outside politics are more gracious than people inside the parliament. She says that acceptance is “beautiful”.
Wong is asked whether it’s problematic that Australians don’t know what legislation they are voting for in this process. She says this is a furphy. She says there is only one issue on the ballot in this survey: can people of the same sex get married.
Penny Wong:
I think Australians are too smart to get distracted by some of the nasty arguments the No case is peddling.
Updated
'If this survey must be, then we must win it'
Back in the parliament Bill Shorten is making a personal explanation, and grabs the microphone to give his reaction to the high court ruling. He urges supporters of marriage equality to “turn our disappointment into determination”.
Bill Shorten:
If the survey must be then we must win it.
I will not be on the sidelines saying I’m too busy. I will be on the front lines all the way.
He wins a rebuke from the House Speaker, Tony Smith for his pains. It’s an abuse of parliamentary process. Smith says he’ll be told to sit down if he tries that one on again.
Updated
Back court side
I’ve just had a chat to Jonathon Hunyor, chief executive of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which ran the case for Andrew Wilkie and Co, outside court.
He said he was disappointed in the result, but:
Asking the courts to do something new, it was in uncharted waters legally.
Because of the difference in the way the two cases were structured, we don’t know whether the Wilkie case was struck out on standing, which would mean the plaintiffs did not have a right to appeal to the high court on this issue, or whether it was allowed on standing but thrown out on substantive issues.
In the Australian Marriage Equality case the court dealt with the issue of standing by saying that none of the other grounds got up, so it was “inappropriate” to answer that question.
Hunyor said he doesn’t think they could have tweaked the case to make it successful:
I think we ran the best case that we could and that’s the nature of public interest lawyering, you’re always trying to test the limits. When executive power is being exercised and the rights of minorities are in issue there’s always a good case for wanting to hold the government to account and wanting to ask the question.
So a disappointing result, but that’s the nature of the kind of work we do and we have to be prepared to take up that fight. We’re grateful to have clients who are brave enough to do it.
Neither Hunyor nor the Human Rights Law Centre, which ran the AME case, is prepared to comment on how much they might have to pay in costs.
Government lawyers are rarely cheap.
Updated
Some other voices now.
Human Rights Watch Australia director Elaine Pearson said whatever the outcome of the survey, parliament should uphold rights and allow same-sex marriage, given the survey outcome won’t be legally binding.
Elaine Pearson:
Fundamental rights should never be put to a popular vote. The nonbinding costly postal vote on same-sex marriage is already proving to be incredibly divisive. It’s painful for LGBT people to endure a protracted public campaign where every day they are exposed to campaign materials peddling lies to discourage people from voting for marriage equality.
The Law Council of Australia has also today strongly advocated a “yes” vote.
Law Council president Fiona McLeod.
The Law Council has long held that our marriage laws should not discriminate on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation. Freedom from discrimination is a fundamental human right. Discrimination on arbitrary grounds, including sexual orientation, is contrary to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The UN human rights committee has found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited. While the decisions to date do not oblige Australia to legislate for marriage equality, there are no legal impediments for Australia to do so.
Updated
George Brandis whacks Lyle Shelton, and Eric Abetz
Back in Canberra, the leader of the opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, has picked up on a recent tweet from Lyle Shelton, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, asserting the survey is all about freedom and sex education in schools.
Wong asks attorney general, George Brandis:
Q: Is this postal survey, and I quote, a referendum on freedoms and radical LGBTIQ sex education in schools as Mr Lyle Shelton of the ACL has asserted?
Brandis is unequivocal in his response.
George Brandis:
No. It is a survey to determine the opinion of the Australian people on the question that is asked, and that question is should be the law changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.
That is the only question to which the Australian people are being asked their advice.
Wong, on a supplementary, asks whether Brandis agrees with his colleague, Eric Abetz, that the survey is about “political correctness”.
Brandis replies:
No, Senator, and I refer to my earlier answer.
Updated
Jacqui Tomlins representing Rainbow Families has a wife, Sarah, and three kids age 10,12 and 14. They have been together 25 years and got married in Canada 14 years ago. Tomlins was in tears outside of the court just now.
I think I’m still reeling from the shock a little – I never in my heart thought we’d have to go through this.
Of course we will survive it and get through it and after falling in a heap tonight I’ll get up tomorrow and fight. We need to look after our community, each other, our LGBTI young people and our trans and gender diverse people.
The strongest impact will be in LGBTI kids and kids of LGBTI people who will now have to endure eight weeks of campaigning against this.
We need Australians to support us and play a significant part in supporting us by being our allies and returning a yes vote.
Updated
Some reaction now from the yes and the no camps.
Tiernan Brady, executive director of Tthe Equality Campaign:
We are in it to win it. We are committed to doing all in our power to ensure that the long-held wish of the Australian people for marriage equality for all Australians is reflected in the results of the survey.
This must be a campaign of millions of respectful conversations that unites the country. We haven’t a moment to lose and we are hitting the ground running with hundreds of thousands of supporters talking about why marriage equality matters.
This is a vote about the worth, dignity and status of members of our family, friends, workmates and neighbours, and across the country people are standing up for them.
We know that the Australian people support marriage equality but no one can be complacent – it is all about getting as many surveys returned as possible. We call on everyone to participate and to talk to their family and friends to make sure they do too. Together, lets get this done.
From the Coalition for Marriage.
Glenn Davies, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney:
We reiterate our support for a people’s vote as the most appropriate way to allow Australians to have their say on proposed changes to the definition of marriage. Australians deserve to have a say on a change to the foundational unit of our society.
Anthony Fisher OP, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney.
A change in the marriage law has consequences for all Australians, and so it is only fair that all Australians are allowed to make their voice heard. A change in law has implications for individuals and institutions; everyone will be affected.
Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby.
With the people’s vote now confirmed, the Coalition for Marriage will continue to provide the Australian people with information regarding the consequences of changing the Marriage Act for them and their family – the impact on free speech, freedom of religion and the rights of parents to have a say on whether their children are taught radical LGBTIQ sex and gender programs at school.
Updated
A quick word on those safeguards for the survey. They are limited.
The Australian Electoral Commission chief legal officer, Paul Pirani, told a Senate committee on Thursday the ban on “misleading information” only applies to misrepresentations about the process of voting and the source of material – not its content.
Cormann says the safeguards for the survey will be introduced to parliament quickly
Over in the Senate, the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has just called for sensible and respectful debate throughout the postal survey.
We encourage all of those involved in campaigning for either the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ cases to do so with courtesy and respect.
Cormann said the government would “move swiftly” to introduce additional safeguards to ensure the “fair and proper conduct of marriage survey”.
The new safeguards will provide stronger advertising restrictions. They are needed because the postal survey is not covered by the strict requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which prevents the distribution of deceptive or misleading content.
For regular readers, I’m writing off question time for the moment and will stick with the high court result. I’ll mop up question time in a bit. Bear with me.
Pictures tell the story. Watching for incoming.
Then the animation afterwards.
Not sure whether the prime minister is the best of this sequence, or the peanut gallery sitting behind him. Have a look at Christopher Pyne, and Julie Bishop.
Updated
There is no legal impediment to the postal survey proceeding
In the Senate, the attorney general, George Brandis, has just informed the chamber of the high court’s decision, delivering this brief statement:
George Brandis:
The effect of the decision of the court is that there is now no legal impediment to that postal survey proceeding and all Australians having their say on this important social question.
The outcome of the decision is what the government expected, and is consistent with the advice provided to the government by the commonwealth solicitor general, Dr Stephen Donaghue, QC.
Updated
Back courtside, the decision, with more particulars
The high court has dismissed a challenge to the voluntary postal survey on marriage equality and found unanimously in favour of the government.
The full written reasons will be published later.
On the case conducted by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre for Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie, LGBT+ rights campaigner Felicity Marlowe, and P-Flag Brisbane, chief justice Susan Keifel said:
The court is unanimously of the view that the application should be dismissed with costs.
That is, Wilkie and Co should pay the costs of all three defendants.
The court also found for the government and awarded costs to the government in the case conducted by the Human Rights Law Centre on behalf of Australian Marriage Equality and Greens senator Janet Rice.
It did so by answering the following questions of the special case:
Do the plaintiffs have standing?
It is inappropriate to answer.
Was finance minister Mathias Cormann’s direction to provide $122m to fund the survey under s10 of the Appropriations Act 2017-2018 lawful?
No, it is not invalid.
Was the expenditure within the definition of “ordinary annual services of government”, and is that question questions justiciable?
It is justiciable, and it is an ordinary annual service
Was the task of conducting the survey within the “ordinary annual services” of the Australian Bureau of Statistics?
The question does not arise.
What relief should be allowed on behalf of the plaintiffs?
None
Who should pay costs?
The plaintiffs.
Updated
Full Malcolm
The Labor leader Bill Shorten wants to know whether the prime minister will accept his invitation to write a joint letter to all Australians, recommending voting a yes to marriage equality?
Malcolm Turnbull gives a very high handed response.
I’m... interested in the assumption that the leader of the opposition makes that joining his signature to mine would actually increase the case for the yes vote.
Mr Speaker, the leader of the opposition can make his case and I’ll make mine.
Yes, this is politics. Yes, this is a power struggle between two men who want to be prime minister. But I think the prime minister could use a very deep breath right now. I think his tone is way off. Way, off, frankly.
This is a real process, involving real people, with real feelings. They sometimes forget that, in their gruesome little dog fights.
Maybe calm down.
Malcolm Turnbull has a whack at Bill Shorten on the way through, saying he thoroughly rejected “the way in which [Shorten] has sought to vilify and demonise people who have a different view to him”.
The prime minister, on the postal survey:
This is a great example where every Australian can have a say and we can – we can, as a commonwealth, as a commonwealth of Australia, embrace this important social change, consider it and make a decision.
Updated
Malcolm Turnbull welcomes the high court ruling
In the parliament, Malcolm Turnbull has just welcomed the high court’s ruling that the postal ballot will proceed.
The prime minister is clearly buoyed by the events.
Malclom Turnbull:
We encourage every Australian to vote in this survey, to have their say, and as I have said in this House and in many other places, Lucy and I will be voting yes and I will be encouraging others to vote yes, but, Mr Speaker, above all, I encourage every Australian to have their say – because unlike the leader of the opposition I respect every Australian’s view on this matter.
Postal survey goes ahead
The second legal challenge, by Australian Marriage Equality, has also been lost. Plaintiffs to pay costs.
Breaking: High court bins the challenge to the postal survey
The high court has handed down a unanimous view that the legal challenge mounted by Andrew Wilkie should be dismissed, with plaintiffs to pay costs.
That’s one of the two challenges. Stay tuned.
A Dorothy Dixer on Labor’s ideological and idiotic approach to energy.
Labor then returns to ministerial action, and the gas export controls.
Q: Are doubts about his deputy standing in the way of lower power prices for Australians?
Malcolm Turnbull pretends this is a silly question, and persists with idiocy, and Labor’s shameful approach to gas, and its devotion to renewables minus storage.
The failures we saw under Labor resulted in a 100% increase in energy prices under the Labor government.
Question time
Labor is opening on energy prices, gas and the ministerial decision making authority of Barnaby Joyce.
A good question from Bill Shorten. He wants to know whether or not the government has made a ministerial determination to impose gas export controls, because Joyce is the minister who would make the relevant determination.
Remember a bit of necessary background: the gas industry is no fan of the export controls, and yet they are a central plank of the government’s efforts to lower power prices. It is possible (not certain, possible) the gas industry could challenge a policy it didn’t agree with enacted by a minister who wasn’t a parliamentarian at the time he made it (if that’s how the Joyce case washes up in the high court).
Malcolm Turnbull isn’t addressing the substance of the question. There’s a long preamble on Labor being total idiots about gas. The prime minister says the government has foreshadowed its action on gas controls. He says additional gas has come onto the market.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Our policy is working. And when all of the – all of the material is together – the minister will make the appropriate declaration fully informed when he does.
Updated
In matters outside marriage equality, Rebekha Sharkie of Nick Xenophon Team, was in the lower house a little earlier talking about plans to drug test welfare recipients. She described the measure as “a scattergun approach that is without evidence and, I believe, devoid of logic”.
Rebekha Sharkie:
We are talking about spending millions of dollars, possibly millions of dollars, on drug testing … to capture somewhere between 2.4% and 6% of the trial group. The connotation of this schedule is that we would be demonising communities that we already know are communities with pockets of disadvantage for the purpose of catching a couple of hundred people at most.
She wants a working group on addiction and says more needs to be done to help drug rehabilitation and support services meet the huge demand for help.
So it’s fair to say she’s not a fan of the measure. That’s interesting, because Nick Xenophon Team is understood to still be negotiating with the government on the legislation. Its votes could be crucial for ensuring the bill’s passage through the senate.
So, watch this space.
Updated
Question time is coming up of course. All the fun of the fair in there today. Mr Bowers has moved off in the direction of the chamber with a very large lens.
I think we can take from the chief statistician’s evidence this morning that he doesn’t intend to fork out for the postal survey from the ABS budget. Does anyone think the ABS wants to be down $122m? Their total budget is just over $300m.
I’d say Kickstarter, but someone might think I’m serious, so I won’t.
More on hollow logs: if the funding is found to be unlawful, does that stop the survey?
Chiming in here from the courtside.
Solicitor general Stephen Donaghue’s repeated argument yesterday was that the Australian Bureau of Statistics would have a duty to conduct the survey in accordance with the direction made by the treasurer under the Census and Statistics Act, regardless of whether the advance to the finance minister was found to be unlawful.
He indicated it could be covered out of the ABS’s annual budget, which was $348m for 2017-2018. However there could also be a plan C in the form of a special appropriation, which would need to be approved by parliament.
A special appropriation would be the administrative law solution to what is basically an administrative law problem.
But Kate Richardson (lawyer for Australian Marriage Equality) said the relief they would be seeking is an injunction to stop the survey itself because clearly it’s the survey, not the funding, that’s the real issue.
Updated
Three shades of chaos
With 45 minutes or so to go before the high court ruling, let’s leave the furry friends and get our heads into gear for what’s coming.
Now I have no intention of guessing what the court will do today.
I know there are some people in the parliament who are taking the tough time the legal representatives of the marriage equality advocates got before the court over the past two days as somehow indicative of the court’s resting disposition – but I wouldn’t read anything into that.
Every high court hearing I’ve ever attended has involved the good justices carving up whomever is standing before them. That’s only indicative that court proceedings are adversarial. It doesn’t really give us any concrete information beyond that.
So the bottom line is I don’t know what’s going to happen. But it’s productive to step through the options.
The court could throw out the whole process, some of the process, or none of the process.
Depending on where events line up along that scale, there will be different reactions from the political class in Canberra. Let’s divide these into three categories.
Full chaos
If the court throws out the lot, then that’s obviously very challenging for the government, practically and politically. I suspect (but do not know) that the government’s first response to the high court rejecting the whole postal process would be to bring the plebiscite back to the parliament for consideration.
That might buy five minutes of peace love and harmony, but there are second round effects. Do MPs favouring marriage equality, including cabinet players, then insist a free vote needs to happen, and quickly? Are they prepared to break ranks to make that happen? Or will the government try to contain an immediate response by holding yet another difficult internal discussion about what the policy would be for the next federal election? Can that containment line hold?
Partial chaos
If the court upholds the postal survey, but bins the mechanism to fund it, then the ABS made clear this morning to a Senate inquiry that the government is already war gaming that scenario, doing some contingency planning – working out how to get alternative funding to run it if the court doesn’t like the finance minister’s advance. That one will take some fast foot work. I don’t think the government has a surplus of hollow logs sitting round unattended.
No chaos
Obviously best case scenario for the government, at least today, is the high court upholds the lot, and the postal ballot proceeds. That will be a huge relief today if that’s where the court lands, and I suspect there will be some celebrating round the traps. But of course there are bunch of problems down the track associated with a controversial process with results entirely outside the government’s control. There’s a reason why governments don’t generally contract out decision making to the public. They get saddled with the results, and those results aren’t necessarily easy to manage.
Updated
Breaking: Tasmanian conservative in devil clutching shock.
I note this is fraternisation with not one, but two, devils.
Just while I’m reminded of Eric Abetz, he was interviewed this morning about what happens in the event the high court dumps the postal survey.
No coyness here.
Eric Abetz:
A plebiscite, or nothing.
Updated
Actually, this wins.
Updated
Mind the python.
I have so much love for this picture.
Updated
How much can a koala bear?
Updated
Do not ask for whom the bell tolls – politics this lunchtime
A fetching group of threatened species visited the parliament today, including George the wombat. It’s a bit hard to know at this point which figure in this photograph is more threatened: George, or the chap currently before the high court.
In any case, let’s stick with known knowns.
Politics, this Wednesday lunch time:
-
Malcolm Turnbull hit breakfast TV and radio early with updates on everything from Game of Thrones to North Korea. He gave a hint that the plebiscite proposal may come back to the parliament in the event the high court did anything rash, like blow the postal vote out of the water.
- The energy debate continued to bubble about the place. The government said watch this space on what it might do to keep the Liddell power station open, and no to taking GST off power bills.
- The defence minister Marise Payne, delivered a speech in South Korea on the North Korean crisis.
- The Australian Bureau of Statistics told a Senate inquiry it had made contingency plans in the event the postal survey was struck down by the high court, but wasn’t interested in sharing them; and confirmed it had already spent $14.1m on a process that may be found to be unconstitutional.
- The deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, wouldn’t say how he will vote at his party’s weekend conference on a motion to ban burqas. We would all just have to wait and watch.
Onwards, upwards, to 2.15pm.
Updated
Where do you look for the high court decision? Here.
Now speaking of contingency plans, in the event you are making one involving your lunch break – a small bit of housekeeping just so the folks sweating on the high court judgment know where to look at the relevant time, and when it’s OK to pop out for a sandwich.
Regular readers will know that this week we have run separate live coverage, both of daily politics here on Politics Live, and the high court deliberations on the postal survey.
Today, we will be a one stop shop. I will cover the court decision here, on Politics Live, with updates from our wonderful Melbourne team. So you need to watch here, is the bottom line.
Additionally, of course, we will have a full news report of the ruling and other bells and whistles.
I’ll post a lunch time survey shortly, and then I’ll start to set us up for this court judgment, and the consequences following it.
Updated
We’d tell you what our contingency plan is ..
... but then we’d have to kill you.
Updated
ABS involved in contingency planning if the high court bins the postal survey
Some more information now about the Senate inquiry into the postal survey. One of the central issues this morning has been this: can the postal survey go ahead if the high court finds the $122m appropriation is invalid?
On Wednesday the solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, submitted the ABS could go ahead with the survey anyway.
The head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, David Kalisch, has revealed this morning that the ABS started contingency planning with the department of finance last week in the event the high court strikes down the $122m appropriation but upholds the legality of the survey.
David Kalisch:
There are a number of aspects taken to high court, and it depends what the outcome is across those factors. If the direction from the treasurer is legally binding and appropriate, the ABS has been [validly] directed to undertake the survey.
Kalisch said “the ABS would require funding to do this survey”, then he conceded that would be additional funding not out of its ordinary budget.
Asked about what the Plan B is, Kalisch was less forthcoming.
He said “we have given thought to what some other funding options and opportunities might be”.
The Department of Finance deputy secretary, Stein Helgeby, has told the inquiry the department is advising the minister, but he won’t say what their advice is, and – depending how the high court rules – it will be up to the government to make an “appropriate judgment” about what to do in future.
Updated
We reported yesterday on Politics Live comments from the deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce about taking on environmental groups with tax deductible status head on (or words to that effect) when they do things such as run anti-Adani campaigns.
Just a bit of quick background. There is currently a Treasury-run process looking at the charitable status of various advocacy groups, and Joyce’s comments yesterday, while a bit more florid than some, are consistent with negative commentary from government colleagues about the inappropriateness of groups engaging in political campaigning when they have tax deductibility status.
Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh has defended public advocacy by charities in a contribution in parliament this morning.
We have in the Turnbull government attempts to water down the ability of charities to advocate for better policies and attempts to limit the ability of charities to carry out research.
When we have our charities engaged in the public policy process, we end up with better policies. They’re at the coalface. They’re seeing the work that’s needed to be done to build a stronger community, a more just community, a more environmentally sustainable community. And yet the Turnbull government wants to shut our charities out of the advocacy space.
Labor will stand shoulder to shoulder with charities.
Just linking this issue back to donations and disclosure, which I posted about a little while ago – the Turnbull government’s tough line on activism is one of the factors which has complicated major party agreement on donations reform.
That’s one of the themes to watch in the renewed donations inquiry. The two dynamics are linked.
Updated
Back over in the Senate inquiry into the postal survey, the ABS chief is getting a lot of questions about what he’ll do in the event the high court bins the postal survey this afternoon.
David Kalisch says these questions are hypothetical. He acknowledges it is possible the high court might find it is unconstitutional for the finance minister to fund the process using his advance, but the direction to his agency to conduct the survey still stands.
This would be a difficult position to find yourself in as an agency, self evidently. It’s not entirely clear from his answers what would happen next. He’s indicated they’ve looked at alternative funding mechanisms.
Breaking - ABS says it's looked at alternative funding for same sex marriage postal survey @AAPNewswire
— Paul Osborne AAP (@osbornep) September 7, 2017
Updated
Donations and disclosure update
Just while I have a moment, I want to draw your attention to a new discussion paper which has been released by the joint standing committee on electoral matters about political donations. I reported recently the multi-partisan committee is going to have another go at trying to reach agreement on overhauling the current system of donations and disclosure – a system that many readers will already know is manifestly inadequate.
It is good to see the committee acknowledging voter disillusionment up front in the discussion paper.
It reads:
Many Australians do not have sufficient faith in the integrity of Australia’s electoral processes, particularly in relation to donations and disclosure.
Of concern to the committee is the more general disregard many Australians, have for democracy itself, as reflected in successive Lowy Institute surveys on the state of democracy. The most recent Lowy Poll found that 48% of Australians are dissatisfied with our current democratic system.
The committee then poses a bunch of framing questions which gives you a sense of where their collective heads are at.
-
What is the motivation of political donors? To influence election outcomes? To influence government and party policies? What is political influence and what buys influence?
-
What is different today compared to previous elections and does it matter? What difference does it make to be a donor rather than simply an advocate or lobbyist? What difference does the size of the donation make?
-
What is the best way to determine whom to regulate? Do we continue to categorise and regulate organisations, do we regulate their activities instead, or do we do both?
-
How are donations used and to what effect? What is more important – the donations spent, the donations raised, where donations are sourced from?
- Should there be limits on the amount of campaign expenditure, no limits as long as it is transparent, or is campaign expenditure of no interest from a regulatory perspective? Is the size of individual donations or the total amount spent that is important? If expenditure is limited, how could this be controlled and regulated?
- What are the expectations of voters and how can they be met?
All good questions, particularly the last one.
I’ll be interested in the answers the committee ultimately comes up. I’ll follow this issue very closely over the next little bit.
Updated
Meanwhile, in the Senate inquiry into the postal vote.
Updated
Just in the context of David Leyonhjelm stamping his foot about the Senate voting down his bill, here’s what the treasurer, Scott Morrison, said about this issue earlier today.
Q: Should the GST be taken off power bills?
Scott Morrison:
The problem with that is it’s basically a tax merry-go-round so the GST base has already contracted from over 60% when it was first introduced and it’s getting close to 50% now of consumption as we’ve seen and particularly in the services areas in education and places like the bigger part of consumption.
So the GST base is contracting and the figures that are quoted of around $2bn a year are pretty accurate – I’d say they’re highly accurate. And so what states would then do to make up for that $2bn loss to their budgets is that they’d put up other taxes, which would also hurt households, and if they didn’t do that they’d probably follow their usual practice and blame the federal government and scream at them and demand another $2bn from us.
And if anyone thinks that once you open the issue on the GST base that it would stay still on electricity prices, well, I doubt that any of you would give us a leave pass on that issue. That’s not a criticism, that’s just a statement of fact. And you just see the GST base further eroded, other taxes rise and the balance in our tax system of consumption and income and other taxes would become worse, not better.
(Just some passing whimsy. We really are political light years away from that seminal moment when Malcolm Turnbull said chirpily early in his tenure, let’s reform the federation, and perhaps we can let the states have a share of income tax, and other stuff, and excitement™. From memory, he was standing in a park in Penrith at the time. The premiers took five whole seconds before going nuts.)
Updated
David Leyonhjelm is on the warpath about the major parties voting down his bill to take the GST off power bills. (Crossbenchers voted in favour.)
David Leyonhjelm:
Making electricity GST free would have immediately saved a typical household around $200 each year. Electricity is an essential service, like water, and should be treated the same for tax purposes.
I challenge all politicians who have voted against making electricity GST free to declare that electricity is not an essential service.
They can then explain to their constituents how they can live without electricity.
Updated
The Senate has just voted down David Leyonhjelm’s private member’s bill to take the GST off power bills.
Updated
Aust Defence Min Marise Payne gives keynote speech in Seoul, as S.Korean PM confirms they expect another ICBM missile test this Saturday pic.twitter.com/H2yB6jx8LS
— Chris Reason (@ChrisReason7) September 7, 2017
Glancing well north of Canberra, Australia’s defence minister, Marise Payne, is delivering a speech in Seoul about the threat from North Korea and about regional security issues. She notes the current uncertainties are considerable. The world needs to hold on to the rules-based order more tightly during the current challenges, Payne says. She says the regional security architecture also needs to keep pace with shifting power balances in the region.
Updated
I imagine the ABS will be hoping the finance minister’s advance is good for this process. If the high court knocks the funding mechanism down for the postal survey this afternoon – is the stats bureau $14.1m down?
Gulp.
ABS has already spent $14.1m on the postal survey
Back in the Senate inquiry into the postal survey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics chief, David Kalisch, has given an update on the preparations, including that $14.1m has already been spent getting ready.
Kalisch says the methodology behind the survey hasn’t changed – it is “effectively a voluntary census of eligible Australians, requirement to report by or on 15 November”.
Kalisch said that sampling some subset of the Australian population would not meet the requirement of the government’s direction that it ask “all eligible” electors if they want to express a view on same-sex marriage. The requirement to report by electorate also rules out using a smaller sample.
Adjusting the results to account for lower response rates from some groups is not “feasible or appropriate”, he said.
Australian Electoral Commission chief legal officer, Paul Pirani, has clarified an important point on applying electoral law protections to the survey. The Electoral Act bans material that is “misleading and deceptive” about the electoral process – but only insofar as it misleads people about the method of voting, it does not regulate the material’s content.
Updated
Will I support banning the burqa? Turn up and find out ...
The Nationals federal conference is happening in Canberra this weekend. There is a motion before that conference to ban the burqa.
Joyce is asked on Sky whether he supports a ban on the religious garment. The deputy prime minister is being coy.
Barnaby Joyce:
Let’s see.
Pressed on why he’s being coy, he says it would be unfair of him to state his position publicly instead of just holding fire and allowing colleagues to have the debate.
Barnaby Joyce:
I want the debate to happen.
Updated
On Sky News now, the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, says he has binders full of buyers for the Liddell power plant.
I know more buyers. Yes.
There are people out there who will buy Liddell.
Updated
All eyes will be on the verdict by the high court on the postal ballot just after 2pm but, in the interim, a Senate committee is holding a hearing today into the process.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is fronting that committee now.
Updated
If you are wondering why there’s been questions this morning to various political figures about taking the GST off electricity bills – it’s because the Liberal Democratic party senator David Leyonhjelm has introduced a private member’s bill to that effect.
Debate in the Senate on that bill is underway now.
If you’ve been with me since we launched this morning, you’ll know the prime minister and the treasurer have already ruled that out.
Updated
Back to cladding for a moment, Nick Xenophon will seek to ban imports of the types of flammable cladding linked to the Grenfell tragedy and the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne.
It comes on the back of an inquiry report last night, which recommended an urgent ban on the use, sale, or import of polyethylene composite panels in Australia. Xenophon, speaking in the Senate last night, warned the cladding was putting Australians across the country at risk. His proposal would see customs laws amended to prevent importation.
But that’s only part of the solution. Xenophon wants a ban on the use of the cladding on building sites, and an accelerated audit to understand their prevalence on existing structures. The government will also need to find a way to deal with widespread fraud in the industry, which allows dangerous products to be passed off as safe.
You can read more about the Senate inquiry’s recommendations here. Xenophon plans to introduce the amendment to the Senate next week.
A rainbow can be seen from your Parliament House this morning. Whatever happens today, we can get it done. #marriageequality pic.twitter.com/ptfUOVXRU2
— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) September 6, 2017
By the by all – thanks for the assistance on the ice dragon.
Neil Mitchell wants to know whether the government will allow a free vote on same-sex marriage in the event the high court kills the postal survey. Turnbull won’t get into that.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I’m not going to speculate on it. The decision will be given at 2.15pm so we haven’t got long to wait.
We look forward to the postal survey going ahead.
Mitchell wonders whether the Winter Olympics team should go to South Korea for the next games. The prime minister says all of those decisions will be made closer to the event.
The 3AW host wants to know if the government will ban cladding of the type which contributed to the Grenfell disaster in London. He says that is predominantly a state matter.
He’s asked whether the burqa will be banned. The prime minister says people should show their face for identification purposes when they need to “but Australia doesn’t have a practice of telling people what to wear”.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I don’t see that changing.
Finally Turnbull is asked whether or not he called Tony Abbott a word beginning in “c” and ending in “t” during a plane ride many moons ago.
Turnbull won’t say. Mitchell presses him on whether that is vernacular he would plausibly use. Turnbull says he tries to keep his language nice but he is imperfect, and fails from time to time. He notes he doesn’t have a reputation for using bad language.
Updated
Neil Mitchell is fed up with the blame game on energy. Can’t someone take charge and make sure we don’t have blackouts in the summer, he wonders? Malcolm Turnbull says the Australian Energy Market Operator has a plan for this summer. Mitchell says there are no guarantees, though, that we’ll have a blackout free, summer.
Malcolm Turnbull:
No electricity provider can guarantee 100%. Theres always a risk of failure.
But he says the market regulator is on to it.
Mitchell wants to know whether the government is prepared to invest in the Loy Yang B power station in Victoria. Turnbull says no-one has proposed that. Mitchell says hang on, you are prepared to invest in the Liddell power station in NSW. Turnbull says this debate is running too far ahead of itself. The government is in a planning phase, not a decision making phase.
We don’t need to consider that [government investment] at this stage.
He thinks someone will buy the Loy Yang power station.
Neil Mitchell moves on to taking the GST off power bills. The prime minister says if GST comes off power bills, then the states will increase the tax take elsewhere. Mitchell isn’t convinced. He points out the states have large surpluses. Can’t they absorb it? The prime minister chuckles ruefully about having long experience with state premiers.
Saved by the battery
The prime minister is speaking to Neil Mitchell on 3AW in Melbourne, who wants to know how large his power bill is at his home in Point Piper in Sydney.
Malcolm Turnbull says he doesn’t want to go into the amount, but it’s lower than it could be because he has solar panels and a battery.
Quite the corridor crush this morning.
The prime minister is also coming up on 3AW shortly.
Updated
My accomplice Mr Bowers is on the prowl in the corridors. Here’s the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, on his way to the ABC studios.
Updated
Just quietly, I’m still after particulars of the ice dragon, if anyone has a handy summary.
Morrison says Andy Vesey has said he'd sell Liddell – in front of witnesses
Murph mentioned Scott Morrison had given an interview to the ABC. He was asked what AGL chief Andy Vesey has said about whether he would sell the Liddell power plant.
On Lateline last night, the energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, said that AGL was prepared to sell Liddell, and Morrison backed that account.
Scott Morrison:
[He said they were prepared to sell] to a responsible buyer, that’s what they said. [Vesey] didn’t say it in secret ink, he said it out loud at the meeting ...
It was in a room with four note-takers and all the retail energy bosses. It wasn’t said behind the outhouse.
Asked if the government could take a stake in Liddell, Morrison said it was “not an option that’s currently before us”.
“There are quite a number of permutations of this ... the thing we have to understand at the first order of this is that [Liddell] has got to stay open.”
Morrison said the government’s preferred outcome was for AGL to sell Liddell to somebody who is prepared to keep the coal power plant open.
Morrison said Liddell and other coal power stations due to close in 10 to 15 years needed to stay open because they provide “base load stability to our grid” – and keeping them open would give more time for renewables, which “can’t match coal in the short to medium term on reliability and dispatchability”.
Updated
Meanwhile, the delightful Amy Remeikis, who will take ownership of Politics Live next week, is looking for omens outside.
Nice rainbow over parliament as the High Court prepares to hand down its decision on the same sex marriage survey 🌈🌈🌈 #auspol pic.twitter.com/vp0ouW8snM
— Amy Remeikis (@AmyRemeikis) September 6, 2017
The treasurer, Scott Morrison, has been interviewed on the ABC and is now talking to reporters. The treasurer says the government is not looking to buy the Liddell power station but he wants to “sweat the assets for longer”.
Morrison says AGL will do what’s in the company’s interests and the government will look after the national interest – and the national interest dictates that Liddell remain open for longer.
He has a crack about Labor MPs, like Joel Fitzgibbon (who represents the Hunter region), not sticking up for coal workers and their interests.
The treasurer is asked, like the prime minister was earlier, whether the GST should come off power bills. He says doing that would be a tax “merry-go-round”.
Updated
Continuing his breakfast TV/FM Radio blitz, Malcolm Turnbull has gone into more detail about his phone call with Donald Trump on Wednesday in an interview on Sunrise.
Malcolm Turnbull:
We talked about the strategy for bringing North Korea back to its senses, to its senses, and to stop the reckless conduct. Our alliance is absolutely rock solid. We confirmed and affirmed our alliance. We have America’s back America has our back.
We are joined at the hip. If there is an attack on America, we will come to their aid. If there is an attack on Australia, America will come to our aid.
Asked how close Australia is to war, the prime minister replied:
Well, you are asking me how close North Korea is to launching an attack on the United States. I can’t speculate on that. An attack on the United States or its allies by North Korea would be met with overwhelming force, as president Donald Trump and the defence secretary [Jim Mattis have said] it would be a suicide note from North Korea.
Thousands would die. It would be unmitigated catastrophe.
Turnbull said Australia and its allies and partners are doing everything they can to avoid this outcome, using economic pressure on North Korea.
Updated
The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, is doing the ABC’s AM program. The interview starts with energy.
Bill Shorten:
For the last 10 years, on both sides of politics, it’s been more about politics than policy. We have an energy price crisis and we have a problem that we’re just not going enough to reduce our pollution and our emissions.
There are four things I think should be done straight away. One, we’ve got to end the ideological war against renewables. Two, we need to immediately agree on a design of a clean energy target. Three, we need to pull the trigger on export controls so that the gas produced in Australia is adequate to supply the needs of Australian industry. And, four, as a result of the important report by the market regulator yesterday, I think we need to seriously work in a bipartisan fashion to get us through the shortages predicted this summer.
The interview moves on to gas shortages. Shorten says when Labor allowed a surge in gas exports in government, it was given undertakings by the industry that there would be sufficient supply domestically. “I don’t think those undertakings have been kept.”
He’s asked whether Labor would support taxpayer dollars going into an extension of the operating life of the Liddell power station. Shorten says that’s an issue for down the track. He says it’s a legitimate debate to have but there isn’t a great rush. A more important and pressing concern is working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure we avoid blackouts this coming summer.
Bill Shorten:
I’m happy to work with the government right now on that issue and the fact of matter is we’re not going to get new investment in energy generation until the rules are clear, and the only way we can get clear rules is by having an agreed clean energy target and working out a design.
Updated
Who is this ice dragon?
Never mind.
The people must have their say
The prime minister is doing a round of breakfast television and FM radio, and the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, is coming up on the ABC.
On the Nine Network, Turnbull was asked about North Korea and noted the risk of war is “greater than it’s been since the end of the Korean war”.
He was asked whether he would take the GST off power bills. The short answer was no.
There was also a hint about what the government will do in the event the high court throws out the postal plebiscite this afternoon (although, to be clear, the prime minister wasn’t predicting or conceding anything of that kind). The hint would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the plebiscite will come back, again, to the parliament, in the event the current proposal is killed by the court. I think that’s a safe bet.
Malcolm Turnbull:
We believe every Australian should have their say on this issue.
On FM radio in South Australia, the main topic of conversation was Game of Thrones.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I’m not sure what’s going to happen to that ice dragon.
Updated
Good morning, welcome to high court day
Hello everyone and welcome to #auspol Thursday, which is already thundering through every open microphone. All eyes will be on the high court today, because the justices will deliver their verdict on the legality of the same-sex marriage postal survey. We expect that at 2.15pm.
In Canberra, the energy debate is sprinkled through the early morning political news cycle. Various news outlets are focused on the future of the Liddell power station and the government’s energy policy.
If you were with us yesterday, you’ll remember that the Minerals Council of Australia kicked off their annual knees-up in the parliament. The prime minister always addresses the MCA annual dinner and, last night, Malcolm Turnbull was the special guest.
As well as the traditional praise for the industry (the exception to this being the period the Labor government was in a war with the industry over the mining tax), Turnbull was also focussed on energy.
The prime minister’s story on energy policy is this: policy in recent times has reduced stability in our energy system, and this has been a massive “failure”. Turnbull’s story is recent policy settings has encouraged more renewables into the grid at the expense of traditional base load – coal and gas.
He’s correct. That is absolutely true. What he doesn’t mention is the Coalition’s culpability in this failure. He neglects to mention the Coalition repealed Labor’s carbon price, which was designed to drive transformation in the energy market, and replaced it with ... drum roll please ... nothing.
Anyone you talk to in the energy sector will tell you that vacuum has been a significant problem leading to a lack of investment in base load. The renewable energy target has sent the market a signal that investing in renewables is a safe bet (apart from the period when Tony Abbott tried to wind it back and investment crashed), but everyone else has sat on their hands because of the absence of a clear energy policy.
Anyway, Turnbull told the miners he now wants to secure the grid, keep the Liddell plant open for longer, and, furthermore:
I would welcome a new HELE coal plant in Australia – we are after all the world’s largest exporter of sea-borne coal.
Surely we have a vested interest in demonstrating high-efficiency, low-emissions coal technology in Australia.
Now, I have a vested interest in keeping us moving, because the prime minister has done two interviews while I’ve been preparing the opening post. Move, we must, but first the housekeeping.
The comments thread is now open for your business. You can talk throughout the day to Mr Bowers and to me on the twits @murpharoo and @mpbowers We even talk back. You can also have a chat on my Facebook forum if you prefer the off-platform experience. If you want to follow Magic Mike on Instagram, you can do that here.
Hooray for HELE, here comes Thursday.
Updated
