Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Amy Remeikis

Peter Dutton expects US to take another 250 refugees from Australia – as it happened

Peter Dutton, the home affairs minister
Peter Dutton said about 250 more refugees would go to the US – and took another swipe at Labor over medevac. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

We are going to bring the blog to a close, but will be back tomorrow morning bright eyed and bushy tailed.

There will be another day of estimates, plus whatever the house decides it is doing. And of course the sideshow that, as we saw again today, often ends up dominating the day’s events.

Thank you so much for joining us today. A big thank you to Sarah Martin, Paul Karp and Katharine Murphy for all their work in keeping me standing, and the Guardian’s brains trust for cleaning up my many, many mistakes.

I’ll hopefully catch you back here tomorrow. In the meantime – take care of you.

Updated

As today’s estimates hearings come to a close, it is worth noting that Labor busy bees have taken a look at the prime minister and cabinet estimates for the phrase “take it on notice” and found that during yesterday’s hearing, the department took 125 questions on notice – meaning they had no answer for them.

That would make sense – Mathias Cormann was working overtime yesterday.

Updated

You can take what Peter Dutton said there in Paul’s post as another direct appeal to Jacqui Lambie.

Medevac can’t be voted on until November, when the Senate sits again.

But you’ll also notice that when pressed by David Speers, Dutton also had to backtrack.

Updated

Peter Dutton expects US to take another 250 refugees

The home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, has spoken to Sky News and delivered his usual bashing up of Labor for supporting the medevac provisions, which he described as “a con”.

One new fact to come out of it: Dutton expects the US to take about 250 more refugees from Australia as part of the refugee swap deal. The US has so far taken just 632 refugees out of the “up to 1,250” it first promised.

“I think we will get somewhere in the order of 250 more will go to the US,” Dutton said.

On medevac, he said that just 13 of the people who had come to Australia have required hospitalisation – about one in 10. But when host David Speers pushed him for how many of the 982 people medically evacuated to Australia under pre-existing provisions had been hospitalised, Dutton couldn’t say.

Dutton said that six of the people who had come under medevac he judges to be of bad character, including one alleged to have fought for the Iranian army, and others allegedly “involved” (how – he didn’t say) in prostitution and criminal syndicates.

At first, Dutton said they were not in detention, but when asked why not, he said they “may well be in detention”. He then said it is immigration minister David Coleman’s job to decide. Finally, he offered this: “I don’t know, is the true answer to it – there’s thousands of cases and I just don’t have that in front of me.”

So, when it was rhetorically convenient to claim that these people are running amok because of Labor’s negligence, he made that claim, and at the slightest scrutiny he admitted he had no idea. Good to know we are pursuing evidence-based policy.

Dutton criticised Kristina Keneally for complaining about the rates of people flying to Australia and then claiming asylum, describing it as a “very small number of cases” in comparison to the millions of people who visit Australia.

He said the problem was not refugees on a plane but rather “her desire to be heard” as part of a “vanity project” to drag Labor’s refugee policy to the left and seize the leadership.

Updated

Scott Morrison to institutions: 'do the decent thing' for abuse survivors

Scott Morrison:

Mr Speaker, one year on, I can report that the National Redress Scheme has been operating for just over a year and is giving survivors access to counselling and psychological services, monetary payments, and for those who want one, a direct personal response from an institution where the abuse occurred.

So far, more than 600 payments have been made, totalling more than $50m, with an average redress payment of $80,000.

More than 60 non-government institutions or groups of institutions are now participating in the scheme. That represents tens of thousands of locations across Australia where this happened.

And there are other institutions who have chosen not to join. Perhaps captured by lawyers, legal advice, perhaps deaf to the cause of justice.

All they’re doing in not joining this is doubling-down on the crimes and doubling-down on the hurt. And so to them I say – who have not joined – “Join. Do the decent thing. Do the right thing. Do the honourable thing.”

It’s not just what survivors expect – and their families, and the families of those who did not survive. It’s what every decent, honest Australian demands. And we, in this place – all as one – demand as well.

I also acknowledge that the redress scheme needs to do better in supporting survivors. The rate of response is not good enough. And it must improve.

Applications haven’t been processed as fast as I want them to be. That is why, earlier today, minister Ruston announced a further investment of $11.7m in the National Redress Scheme to improve its operation and to better support survivors.

I want better outcomes. The funding will support case management of applications to reduce the number of different people a survivor may be required to deal with while their application’s being processed.

It will also allow the government to hire more independent decision-makers to finalise applications as quickly as possible.

Updated

Scott Morrison is addressing the chamber, one year on from the apology to victims and survivors of institutional childhood abuse, and acknowledges frustrations with the redress scheme:

I think it’s important for us to go back to where we were a year ago and just simply allow the horror of those events to impact us with a heavy blow.

Mr Speaker, the government will continue to report annually on this progress, as we should.

Of the royal commission’s 409 recommendations, the 84 regarding redress have been addressed through the implementation of the National Redress Scheme. The Commonwealth has a further 122 recommendations that we’re working on either wholly or partially with our state and territory colleagues.

I’m pleased that work on these recommendations is well-advanced – around a third have already been implemented and a remainder are well underway.

The commonwealth has also taken on a national leadership role for more than 30 additional recommendations that were primarily addressed to the states and territories, and we’re working closely with those states and territories on those matters: we tabled the first annual progress report last December and will continue doing that each year for five consecutive years but, frankly, as long as it takes.

All states and territories also published 2018 annual progress reports and will also provide annual reporting.

This year, we have also encouraged a further 42 non-government institutions whose conduct was called into question at the royal commission to report on their actions and to change their practices.

The public accountability across governments and non-government institutions is crucial and vital.

Updated

Patricia Karvelas: Do you think Michael McCormack and Bridget McKenzie are making it clear enough? That’s my question.

Barnaby Joyce: They make it clear enough because there is no One Nation, there’s no – Pauline Hanson isn’t in cabinet. She’s not a minister. Neither’s Jacqui Lambie. They’re not in cabinet. They’re not ministers.

PK: Clearly, Bridget McKenzie responded to her calls, just not yours.

BJ: We were driving forward with that, and the ultimate outcome was that a National party’s minister has brought this about. Not an Independent senator. A National party minister broad the dairy code about, like the sugar code, like looking after the people around Rockhampton with Defence acquisitions, like Inland Rail, like the dams...

PK: OK. Do you feel like One Nation is kind of squeezing you out? Is that’s what’s going on here? You’re a bit worried about the way this is playing out in regional Australia?

BJ: They’re not squeezing me out.

PK: Well, your party?

BJ: I think I have an obligation to tell the Australian people the truth about politics. I wrote about it in my book, Weatherboard and Iron. It goes through a committee, which the Nationals are in, and through ministers, which are Nationals ministers. It’s not brought forward by random people in the coffee shop.

PK: Is there still frustrations around these issues – tensions with One Nation and visibility on leadership on issues? It’s us clearly telling the Australian people where the truth lies. It is done in cabinet. It is done in ERC. It is done by having – by creating the government.

PK: Are they sorted now?

BJ: I don’t think we had any tensions to start off with.

Updated

Patricia Karvelas: So why are these MPs so grumpy?

Barnaby Joyce: Patricia, we’re in a position of a drought. There is so much pressure coming onto us from our constituency. We just want to make absolutely certain that people clearly know the reason you have a dairy code is because the Nationals pushed for it. The reason you have a national investment corporation is the Nationals pushed it. A sugar code – the Nationals pushed it. Nationals’ policy is an APVMA.

PK: So your issue was that that wasn’t being articulated clearly enough from the leadership, right?

BJ: The reason you had the road from Waverton to Boulias was part of my agreement with Malcolm Turnbull at the start to build it, just like the $10bn Inland Rail. These are Nationals policies. We can get these things because, without the Nationals, there would be no coalition government.

PK: As leader of the Nationals, isn’t Michael McCormack ultimately responsible for driving your party’s response to issues like drought?

BJ: And Michael does the very best job that he can. He is also dealing with the incredible pressure that would be coming on him to make sure that we just keep focus on the people on the drought all the time. We do that as well as deal with the myriad of other issues that go before us. But there is no senator by themselves in a place which really doesn’t deliver the policy that is brought about a – has brought about a dairy code, a sugar code. Nationals did that. Regional Investment Corporation – Nationals did that.

PK: Let’s not get too repetitive. People hate hate repetition.

BJ: No, they don’t.

Updated

Barnaby Joyce says there is frustration that the Nationals aren’t getting credit for the work its MPs are doing, but won’t say why that is.

Patricia Karvelas: Prime minister Scott Morrison has taken the lead on drought policy, which would normally be the domain of the Nationals – your party. Do Nationals MPs feel sidelined?

Barnaby Joyce: Well, the prime minister made it that ... there was issue No 1. We’re happy about that. That means we can drive the agenda. And we are doing that. And I suppose what the Nationals get upset with is we drive an agenda, we do so much work in a space, then obviously if Pauline Hanson comes out and announces it, it’s not that she developed the policy, it’s not that she drove the agenda – we did. We did.

PK: So who are you frustrated at?

BJ: Well, the process that people clearly understand is the Nationals are hard at work continuously. We are dealing with our constituents continuously.

PK: So is it your view your leadership is misrepresenting the work that you’re doing on this and giving credit to One Nation? That’s what you’re saying.

BJ:No, it’s not. I do believe that sometimes they get the jump on some of these things and they don’t deserve to. Remember, even where they live – we live in regional areas. We don’t have to go to a drought area. We just have to open our back door. It’s right there. We talk to the people who are dealing with drought every day. And we hear the angst. When I’m sit in question time and should be dutifully listening to everybody, I’m actually reading so many emails from people in drought areas. I understand their frustration. I hear it. I was up there on the weekend talking to people, on the ground, so they speak – not too hard when I actually own the ground and I’m selling cattle myself. These are the issues that we fight for, and we drive home agendas such as changes to the FHA, drive home agendas such as concessional loans. We created the policy to set up the national federation. That was Nationals policy.

PK: So your view is you’re not getting the credit. So who’s responsible for that?

BJ: There’s the Regional Investment Corporation – we drove that...

PK: You keep telling me you’re not getting the credit. Why aren’t you getting the credit?

BJ: I’m just saying – looking after the people at the Defence Forces in Rockhampton...

Updated

Barnaby Joyce is speaking to Patricia Karvelas:

Q: Now, the coordinator general for drought, Major General Stephen Day, delivered his final report in April to the prime minister. Why won’t the prime minister release that report? Should he just release that report to settle this?

BJ: No, that’s a question for the prime minister. PK, I’ve been through the iterations of this. People saying there’s no report, then you show them there’s umpteen reports, and then they just go down a rabbit warren basically trying to say, “Well, you’ve done so much work, why don’t you put it in the public record?” Well, because it’s a report directly to the prime minister.

It’s up to the prime minister whether they want to print it or not. If they don’t, I can understand that. I can be quite frank that a lot of my discussions with the prime minister are direct, to the point, and he would have taken what I said into account – I know that because of some of the policy outcomes. But I wasn’t talking to Australia, I was talking directly to him.

Q: Should you have done a bit more work than just sending some text messages and having some conversations?

BJ: Patricia, that’s also wrong. What you said there is wrong. And actually, you would have seen – you probably didn’t, but there was a Facebook post where I actually showed I think it was eight or nine paper reports, as well as text messages, as well as other electronic means of directly speaking to the prime minister at the spot on that day. Now, Patricia, this is the reality – the reality is, the assertion that we didn’t send written reports is wrong. They’ve got it wrong.

Q: Hang on a minute. You didn’t do your own report, though. That’s clear. You sent maybe other reports, and some messages.

BJ: I may have sent reports to the prime minister over and over again, Patricia. That is the actual truth.

Q: Your own report, with evidence and recommendations?

BJ: Patricia, to Scott Morrison, from Barnaby Joyce, with details of the drought – is that a report or is that a report?

Just a reminder that the original “there is no report” came from David Littleproud to the parliament, when it asked for Joyce’s report to be tabled.

Updated

And Peter Dutton will be on Sky News, talking medevac.

Updated

A couple of absences: George Christensen and Mike Kelly.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MEMBER
Mr Porter (leader of the house) moved: that leave of absence until 22 November 2019 be given to Mr Christensen, for personal reasons.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MEMBER
Mr Burke (manager of opposition business) moved: that leave of absence until 5 December 2019 be given to Dr MJ Kelly, for personal illness and consequential surgery.
(Yes, both of these are legitimate.)

Updated

Richard Marles is making a personal explanation to the house about one of Dutton’s answers (part of which I highlighted below) pointing out that Labor supported the passage of the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 in the House and Senate and Dutton was wrong.

Updated

Peter Dutton is back (it’s a double Dutton dixer day) but all I can see is Scott Morrison has stacked the folders, meaning we are done.

Shayne Neumann to Scott Morrison:

Since 2016-17, the government has promised to spend $145m on improving Australia’s cattle supply change, but has only spent $40m – an underspend of more than $100m. Why?

Morrison:

Mr Speaker, not going to take lectures from a Labor party who shut down the live cattle trade, Mr Speaker, in the panicked decision of one television program. Mr Speaker, under our government, what we’re working towards is $100bn agricultural industry by 2030. And this afternoon, I’m looking forward to sitting down with the National Farmers’ Federation, not only to talk about those projects, Mr Speaker, but to achieve and realise what can be gained in our agricultural sector. And the agricultural sector at the moment, of course, is going through a difficult period because of the drought, and we have see more than 10% fall in farm GDP because of that, Mr Speaker, but what we do have are the plans to continue to build it. What I am so impressed by in our agricultural sector is the resilience of the Australian agricultural sector – that despite the setbacks, they continue to invest, Mr Speaker, and realise their future.

Tony Burke:

The manager of opposition business on a point of order. Yeah, Mr Speaker, the question asks about specific expenditure on cattle supply chains, and the underspend related to that. That’s what it asks about.

Tony Smith:

I’ll call the prime minister again. I mean, he’s – I take the point. The member for Hunter is not helping. Neither is the minister for education. The question did ask about some budgeted figures. It also asked about the cattle supply chain. The prime minister is certainly being relevant to the policy topic and also just very conscious he’s not quite a minute in and I – I’m listening to the prime minister.

Morrison:

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And it gives me the opportunity to again say that the work we’re doing to support our agricultural sector, and I will invite the minister representing the minister for agriculture here in the house to add to that. I know the deputy prime minister would like to add to it also, Mr Speaker. Let’s not forget that the Labor party, when they had the opportunity to support our cattle industry, chopped them off, Mr Speaker. They sold them out and they did so as a result of their addiction to policies of panic and crisis. Our government does not act in a sense of panic or crisis, Mr Speaker. We act in the stable and certain way which gives people confidence in the future and enables them to invest and plan for their future. That’s what we’re doing in the agricultural sector, and I invite the minister to add to the answer.

David Littleproud:

Mr Speaker, can I just say: this is about respect.

Tony Burke:

The $145m program which is listed in the budget as for cattle supply chains is an infrastructure project. The minister who’s just been called, it’s not in his portfolio. It’s in the portfolio of the deputy prime minister, who was just complaining we were taking a point of order over who it went to, but...

Littleproud gets the call again, but Smith does speak for the nation when he tells Michael McCormack to stop talking.

Littleproud:

This is about respect and about restoring a relationship that was destroyed; destroyed by the panic in 2011 in overnight destroying the live cattle trade. What we are doing is slowly putting an environment around the agricultural industry, particularly the live export industry – $1.8 billion a year it is worth to this country. It’s important that we continue to make that investment, make that money available for industry, to continue to work through the supply chain and – particularly more important now – since the ratification of the Indonesian Free Trade Agreement, a proud moment for our nation to be able to trade with our nearest neighbour. 267 million people on our doorstep that we now have the opportunity to trade, to give opportunity to our farmers, that will be able to recover quicker from this drought because of the Free Trade Agreements that we have put in place.

This is about a suite of measures that complements everything in the agriculture sector, whether it’s in infrastructure, whether it’s in the agriculture department, whether it’s in water, because we understand regional Australia, we understand agriculture and we will deliver for them.

Updated

I don’t know which god I have offended, or why my ancestors have forsaken me, but Michael McCormack is back at the despatch box and surely nothing I have done is worth this punishment

It’s time for “how safe are you” with Peter Dutton.

BREAKING: as safe as you can be. BUT JUST IMAGINE IF LABOR WAS IN POWER.

Mr Speaker, in 2014, we strengthened the Migration Act. It was opposed by the Labor party to their shame and we have sought to make sure that we strengthen our laws so we can cancel the visas now of 420 non-citizens for child exploitation and child sex offences, Mr Speaker.

And we’re proposing to strengthen the law further, which is opposed again by Labor. That’s the reality, Mr Speaker. Now, I point out this because there is a big difference between the Labor party and the Coalition when it comes to these very important issues, Mr Speaker. The member for Macarthur will leave under 94(a), combatting child exploitation bill of 2019. It goes to providing more strength and support to policing agencies to make sure we can keep Australian children safe, Mr Speaker.

Anthony Albanese takes offence to Dutton’s politicisation of child sex laws:

“The issue of child sexual exploitation should not be politicised. It should be an issue we should all agree on and the minister surely could give an answer to a dixer [without politicising the issue].

Dutton: You wonder why you’re under pressure?

The chamber explodes again.

Albanese says today is the anniversary of the apology to survivors and victims of institutional child sex abuse and the government should be above these political attacks.

There are agruments going on across the chamber, but the Speaker moves proceedings on.

Updated

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has defended not making a formal finding against broadcasters that aired the Christchurch terrorist’s footage this year.

The Acma chair, Nerida O’Loughlin, told a Senate estimates hearing that the TV networks that aired footage or showed still images of the footage “behaved incredibly responsibly” overall.

“In this circumstance, we thought the most benefit was to engage with the broadcasters to talk about where there might be issues that need improving, rather than focusing on what might be very small breaches of practice,” she said.

No broadcaster showed any person getting shot, but there was vision of the gun and some blurred images of the victims.

O’Loughlin said it had been better to engage with the broadcasters about how they could refine their codes of practice to ensure new issues raised could be considered. She said the key issues brought up were the repetition of footage on 24-hour news channels, lack of adequate content warnings, and the need for broadcasters to consider the motive of the person filming the footage before putting it to air.

Updated

Luke Gosling to Scott Morrison:

Can the prime minister confirm that only $50m of the $5bn Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund has been spent since it was announced in 2015?

Morrison:

I’ll be pleased to provide the member with a full update of the works of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund and I’ll arrange that to be provided to him directly.

Updated

The House is so rowdy, Tony Smith issues a general warning:

The level of interjections is becoming ridiculously high. There are conversations going on everywhere. I mean, I’m not going to get upset about it, I’m just going to act on it. For those interjecting, I’m going to remind you of two things: one is for me to make use of the standing order 94(a). You will see in the practice and the standing orders that can happen at any time without a warning. Without a warning. The only other option I have if I feel that’s not getting members’ attention, frankly, is to name someone.

Updated

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

Can the prime minister confirm that the Cairns Southern Access Road will not receive a cent of the promised $180m during this term of parliament?

Michael McCormack is back. Beyonce help us.

The member for Leichhardt knows full well how important these projects are; knows how important projects are in making sure we get the freight lines, supply chains right, making sure we enhance that productivity, making sure that we increase road safety options. And if Mark Bailey, the Queensland minister, can get his people organised, we will certainly look at any road project, indeed any infrastructure project, in Queensland, any other state too, wants to come to the table and work cooperatively with the commonwealth, we got $100 billion of infrastructure that we’re rolling out across this nation. Now, I know, I have actually been to Cairns, I have actually...

Thank you for the cheer. And the member for Leichhardt was returned because he talked about our $100bn infrastructure plan. Cheer that too! Cheer that too because it’s well worth cheering about. I know the people of Cairns, the people of North Queensland, the people of that fine state of Queensland, indeed every state, every territory in and across Australia, were cheering us on May 18 because they knew we were building the infrastructure that Australians need, want, expect and most of all deserve.

And whether it’s roads of strategic importance, whether it’s the beef roads, whether it’s the northern roads, they are all making sure that we get the infrastructure that Australians want, and whether it’s getting the Cairns access road, whether it’s getting the Toowoomba second range crossing, whether it’s getting the Rockhampton ring road, all those projects are critical importance.

The Outback Way, Mr Speaker, which starts in Queensland in Winton, goes through to Laverton in Western Australia, they’re all important projects. We’re getting on and building them and what those opposite who go into the despatch box and ask those questions should do is, after question time, go to the Labor state ministers and ring them up and say, “Look, if there are projects that are in my electorate, indeed in other electorates, get on board with the Commonwealth and help build them.”

Now, Mark Bailey has worked in good faith with us, but there are a lot of projects, particularly when it comes to Queensland, we’d like to build dams. We’d like to build dams, but unfortunately - unfortunately - look, weir water is being held up by the Queensland state government. That’s why there was a huge protest in the seat of Capricornia. This is of critical importance to the seat of Flynn. We want to make sure we build dams, the member for Watson says ...

He runs out of time. I run out of the will to continue.

Fair.

Updated

Dan Tehan is taking a dixer, but he has so far spent most of it addressing the backbench, meaning no one can hear him, including the Speaker.

Tanya Plibersek gets booted for an interjection.

Labor is now yelling “through the chair” to Tehan. I have no idea what he is speaking about, because no one can hear him.

“Do you want an extension, mate,” Anthony Albanese yells.

It’s all going really, really well.

Oh, it turns out that the member for Curtin’s eldest son is doing his final exams. This is what the dixer is apparently about.

Tehan is now talking about “rambling and having no idea” and it seems like a pretty big self-own for a dixer.

Updated

$190,000 spent to 'develop empathy' for inland rail

Catherine King to Scott Morrison:

Can the prime minister confirm evidence at Senate estimates last night that his government spent $190,000 on a plan to develop empathy for the inland rail project? Why is the prime minister spending taxpayer money on funded empathy while drought-stricken farm families are being thrown off the farm household allowance?

Morrison gives Michael McCormack the call (excuse me while I call the UN):

Mr Speaker, it is important to have empathy for rural communities and I understand we’re investing $9.3 billion in the inland rail. It’s a 1,700km corridor of commerce between Melbourne and Brisbane. The CSIRO, the report they did last year – I know it was predicated on the building of this on a $10 saving on a tonne, but $76 average now. But it is going to impact upon farmers’ properties.

We understand that, Mr Speaker. Indeed even in my electorate ... there are farmers for who the inland rail is going to intersect their properties and insect their lives. Of course, we do need to obviously get out there and inform those people about their options.

We do need to inform those people about what their options are as we construct this inland rail project, which is creating already thousands of jobs, which is creating and going to create thousands of opportunities for those farmers to get their product to port, to make sure that we take advantage of the Free Trade Agreements that this government has been able to broker with South Korea, Japan, China, of course working on one with Indonesia, working on one with India. We want to get more farmers’ product to plate. We want to get more farmers’ product to port within 24 hours and that’s what the inland rail will do. But we’re asked about advertising that is being spent on campaigns.

McCormack has grabbed a big photocopy of “big Labor waste”. He then refers to it, but looks like he has opened it to the wrong page.

Sure. Red for you over there. That’s red for you red raggers over there. Absolutely red for you red raggers over there. You bunch of socialists. But there’s $69.5m wasted on the carbon tax. How did that work for you? How did the carbon tax work for you? Then there was Julia Gillard, the prime minister ... on running a blog that no-one even commented on...”

The House explodes.

There are a million points of orders, but none of them are relevant and we are all begging to move on.

This is the equivalent of being allowed into the fancy dining room and then learning they serve Deb-powdered mash potato.

Updated

Joel Fitzgibbon to Scott Morrison:

Can the prime minister confirm that his government has kicked 600 farming families off the farm household allowance as the drought worsens? And will kick another 500 families off the payment by Christmas?

Morrison:

Mr Speaker, I refer the member to the statement we made last week and I’ll invite the minister to add to my remarks if he would like to. And that was to add an additional supplement for those who are coming off after their four years to receive a payment of $13,000 for family, Mr Speaker. And as we have always done in our response to the drought, Mr Speaker, they are receiving $13,000, Mr Speaker, once the four years has been concluded. And what our government will continue to do, as we have done all the way through this drought and as the minister rightly calls it, as the drought steps up another level, then we step up another level.

We will continue to monitor this issue very closely, Mr Speaker, and as on each occasion we have responded to the advice, we have received on the farm household allowance, remembering it started at three years forever.

That was the policy setting that we inherited. Farm household allowance was three years and that’s all you got forever. We increased that to four years and then we increased it to four years in every 10, and now, Mr Speaker, at the end of those four years we said we’ll also add in a further supplementary payment of $13,000, like we said we did last year when we added an additional $12,000 to the payment they were already receiving as part of the step-up of our drought response.

So on each and every occasion, as the drought has continued, we have continued to step up our response as the step-up has required. And, Mr Speaker, that is why I have said and those opposite have lampooned, the idea that - it is the first call and it is the biggest call on the pressures of our budget, as we consider the issues whether we go into the MYEFO period of next year’s budget. The first call – the first thing I’m going to be sure is addressed is meeting the needs of our drought support programs, Mr Speaker. That’s why they’re getting an extra $13,000. That’s why we’re prepared to provide that support to ensure that they continue to receive the financial assistance that they’re seeking.

Updated

Josh Frydenberg is the latest to tell us how wonderful the economy and the budget is.

Which is very similar to how my mother used to tell us her and dad were doing really well. Right before they announced their divorce.

Meanwhile, in Finance estimates, Labor is having a crack at the government over its $7bn drought policy, saying the coalition has been misrepresenting the figure as money going to drought-affected communities, when most of it is yet to be spent.

In the estimates hearing, Labor senator Jenny McAllister grilled the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, over the claimed $7bn drought package, most of which is attributable to a $5bn future drought fund.

The future drought fund begins making disbursements from next year and is designed for “future proofing” drought-prone areas.

“I don’t think it is honest to describe it as a $7bn drought policy,” McAllister said. “I am not sure if the prime minister is being honest about that.”

Labor senator Tim Ayres said Morrison had taken the “ad man” approach in selling the drought package.

Cormann defended the promotion of the drought package, saying the government was explaining the government’s approach appropriately.

Updated

Rebekha Sharkie to Scott Morrison:

As of July this year, Australia had just 27 days’ supply of automotive fuel physically in the country. This leaves us incredibly vulnerable. When will Australia increase our stocks to the recommended 90-day supply of automotive fuel physically held in the country?

Angus Taylor takes it:

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, although Australia hasn’t had a major fuel disruption for other 40 years, we are absolutely committed to continually enhancing the strength of our fuel security. With that in mind, we’re working very closely with the International Energy Agency to modernise the oil stockholding methodology, which will take into account Australia’s unique geographic circumstances.

Mr Speaker, our unique supply chain, and based on that, during 2019, we have held an average of 85 days of stocks across the various fuel stocks, Mr Speaker. But we have also importantly commenced negotiations with the United States for a strategic petroleum reserve and that will not only boost our oil stock holdings, Mr Speaker, but it will also importantly put us in a position where we can work with other like-minded countries to deal with any disruption that might occur in the future, Mr Speaker.

Now, we have been very deliberate with this very important topic and I’m glad that the member raised it. With the final liquid-fuel security report due later this year, the review will help inform future decisions on this important topic. It will include any decisions around holding additional stocks off-shore, Mr Speaker.

He then moves on to what Labor’s policy was during the election, because the party not in government is apparently relevant here.

Updated

PM grilled on keeping drought report 'secret'

Meryl Swanson employs her radio presenter voice to deliver her question to Scott Morrison:

The coordinator general for drought, Major General Steven Day, delivered his final report in April to the prime minister. Why does the prime minister insist on keeping this important report a secret, despite the ongoing drought crisis in Australia?

Morrison:

The coordinator general, in undertaking what he did for us on drought, has been informing all of the responses the government has been making to that drought, Mr Speaker ... [The goverment is] finalising it full response to that report and when we provide that response we’ll be releasing that report and that is not in the too distant future, Mr Speaker.

What you will see when you see that report [is] the extensive implementation of the issues that have been raised by the coordinator general in informing the government’s drought response. Now, that included, Mr Speaker, the coordinator general bringing together early on in the piece the National Drought Summit – that summit, which brought people together from all across the country, state and territory premiers and chief ministers, those from the agricultural sector, scientists and others involved, Mr Speaker, in government agencies, all of which are informing the government’s response; those involved in the trucking industry and the freight industry. And, Mr Speaker, following that drought summit, one of the most important things we did very early on was upgrade and update the National Drought Agreement between the commonwealth and the states and the territories.

And what that set out, Mr Speaker, was ensuring that the management of animal welfare is addressed by the states and territories and of course the management of the welfare of farmers and rural communities is managed by the commonwealth. That’s why we have moved to ensure that the farm household allowance now is the most generous it has been in its entire history, Mr Speaker. That includes ensuring that just over four years, a farming family would receive just - will receive $125,000; $125,000 for each family over the course of being on the farm household allowance. And in addition to that, Mr Speaker, we have relaxed the eligibility requirements so they would get that four out of every 10 years.

We have invested in district communities all around the country affected by drought with a million dollars going into each of those shire councils to ensure that their economies are being supported and we’re keeping people in work, we can support those communities and their economy and wellbeing. Longer term, we have been investing in the resilience of Australia to future droughts with our investments in water infrastructure projects – $1.5 billion in 21 projects right now in grand funding, Mr Speaker, and on top of that $3.5 billion over and above that investing in water, infrastructure to provide further resilience around the country.

That’s also supported with research and science amongst the many things that are supported by the draw-down of the future drought fund. We have a response to drought and that comprehensive response, which is not set and forget, we will continue to add to, continues to be informed by the excellent work of the coordinator general. And I look forward to releasing that report along with the government’s full response.

Updated

Michael McCormack is delivering a dixer with the demeanor of someone who finds salt on boiled potatoes to be an extravagance.

We get a dixer about how great the economy is, before moving on to Joel Fitzgibbon asking Scott Morrison:

I refer him to the statement by the member for New England yesterday. He said, “If they want to work in a work bipartisan way, I’m not going to knock that.” Prime Minister, why won’t you listen to the member for New England and more importantly to farmers and rural communities and convene a cross-party drought cabinet to adequately respond to the growing drought crisis?

Morrison:

Mr Speaker, the members of the Labor Party who sit on this frontbench here can’t even operate functionally in a shadow cabinet, Mr Speaker.

Tony Pasin begins pounding on his desk like this is the best thing he has ever heard in his life.

Morrison:

Let alone actually participate in an actual cabinet at the end of the day, Mr Speaker. We learned today - we learned today with Labor historian Troy Bramston, in an article in The Australian - a Labor frontbencher, a member of the shadow cabinet of which the Leader of the Opposition leads, Mr Speaker - I don’t know who it was but happy to take suggestions. I’m sure they’ll be made to journalists later, Mr Speaker.

Albanese tries a point of order on relevance, but we move on

Morrison:

And the quote read from a Labor frontbencher referring to the Leader of the Opposition, “For a guy who wanted to be leader so bad and couldn’t wait to announce he was running for it less than 24 hours after the election, he does not know what to do with the job”, Mr Speaker.

That is what the shadow frontbencher, whoever they are, says about this Leader of the Opposition and this Leader of the Opposition thinks he should be sitting in a cabinet making decisions on this side of the place.

Now, Mr Speaker, to address the issue of drought, now this is a very serious issue - one in which the Government convened a National Drought Summit and sought to work on a bipartisan fashion at that time with the opposition and I recall the observations being made outside that drought summit by the very member who asked this question - even before he got inside the room, he was already attacking the future drought fund, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, if we’re going to work by - on a bipartisan basis on this issue, we have not seen the policies that the opposition might be suggesting, but equally I would say this - the response that we’re providing is comprehensive. It is dealing firstly with the assistance directly to farm households whether they be farmers or graziers or others, it is investing in the district communities that need the support to work through the drought and provide the resilience for the future. Now, Mr Speaker, it is a serious issue and they have referred to the suggestion of a war cabinet.

I remind them of the history - even when this nation was actually in war, Mr Speaker, there was not a war cabinet of the nature suggested by, Mr Speaker, the member who asked this question. I think it’s important that we will continue to consult widely as we do, listening, most importantly, to farmers and the rural districts who we will continue to work with, Mr Speaker.

The only politics being played on drought are by those who sit opposite.


Updated

Anthony Albanese asks Scott Morrison about his comment yesterday that politicians shouldn’t decide who is prosecuted in terms of media freedoms which is in contradiction to what Christian Porter has said, given the AG will have the final say on whether charges, if any, go ahead, once he has seen a brief from the commonwealth director of public prosecutions.

Morrison says Albanese should have paid attention to his whole answer,

There is a process, Mr Speaker, for the investigative authorities to look at these matters, to hand that over to prosecution authorities and then there is a process for the Attorney-General. But what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is throw that all away and he wants to make the decision if he were Prime Minister about who gets prosecuted or who doesn’t even before those agencies, Mr Speaker, have even considered the matter.

What I said yesterday is exactly what I mean and that is no-one should go and be prosecuted, Mr Speaker, on the basis of what occupation they hold. The only basis upon which they should be prosecuted is if they have broken the law and I’ll ask the Attorney-General to add to the answer.

Christian Porter:

Yes, so with respect to the question as to what would be the difference between a prosecution on the whim of a politician and the prosecution under consideration in the Smethurst matter, section 79 of the crimes act part of the Crimes Act actually embeds the requirement to come to the Attorney-General for consent.

What might a prosecution at the whim of a politician might look like. This would be the worst-case scenarioment an opposition leader who said yesterday that the government should shut a prosecution down, breaching the fundamental convention that you do not as a government tell the AFP to drop an investigation. And if that’s not remarkable enough, if that’s not remarkable enough, what is remarkable is who was the politician who actually called for the investigation in the first place? The Shadow Attorney?General was the politician!

A letter to the Prime Minister 29 April 2018. “I write with extreme concern. I’m sure I do not need to emphasise with you the gravity of such a security breach. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to establish an investigation. I am deeply concerned that this national security leak is potentially the result of political tensions.” He sees the political advantage and pressures the AFP to start an investigation. He sees a political advantage in having it shut down. They call for the same investigation that they’re asking to be shut down in breach of the fundamental convention that the AFP remains independent. So they want to know what a prosecution at the whim of a politician might look like - it would look like what would happen if you ever got into government.

Question time begins

Everyone is late today.

But question time gets underway.



And David Littleproud gets the walking in privileges with Scott Morrison again today.

In the chamber and it is now time for who’s that MP?

It’s the new Jane Prentice - Julian Simmonds.

The Coalition party room meeting has met - and it’s interesting that with all the drought funding related tensions between the Liberal and National parties that both Scott Morrison and Michael McCormack mentioned the successful partnership in the context of the Liberals’ 75th birthday celebration context.

Morrison beat up on Labor, accusing them of “talking down the economy” and somehow claiming that Australia is “broke and need fixing”. He urged MPs and senators not to get complacent in the final few months of the year, because although Labor have some problems it can’t and won’t last.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said that after meetings with the IMF he is persuaded of the need to “stay the course” - which is interesting - because the IMF called for further stimulus. He said Australia’s interest bill is $19bn - implying we should push on with surplus and paying down debt.

Retiring senator Arthur Sinodinos reprised some of the themes of his valedictory - including the observation that there is an alignment of views between the current leadership team and the party room today that is distinctive and was not always the case under Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull, and that Morrison’s is seen as a “first term not a third term” government, which is a useful opportunity.

Liberal MP Craig Kelly raised the issue of textbooks, complaining that their treatment of climate change suggests Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd did a good job and Tony Abbott and John Howard a poor job, which he labelled “disgraceful” because it was tantamount to teaching children to vote for Labor or the Greens.

Education minister Dan Tehan noted that NSW is conducting a curriculum review, by way of reply.

It is almost question time - I’ll be heading into the chamber.

What’s going to be today’s theme?

THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING ME.

Updated

‘Big stick’ looks set to clear the parliament

The big stick legislation has finally lobbed in the House of Representatives. The shadow treasurer, Jim Chalmers, is telling the house Labor will insist on three amendments – no partial privatisations, a review of the legislation before it sunsets in 2025, and a third, which has emerged over this past weekend.

The third is ensuring that the transfer of business provisions in the Fair Work Act apply in the event that businesses are broken up (which impacts workers redundancy entitlements).

Chalmers has also told the house the government has agreed to these three amendments unless something has changed since this morning. Which means we are now on our way to legislating a divestiture power for the energy sector. It really is amazing that we are going to get there with this legislation, given business hates it.

Labor used to hate it but now will pass it, and more than a handful of Liberals hate it but will grit their teeth and pass it. Quite the journey.

Updated

Further to Paul’s post about Labor and the big stick, Jim Chalmers and Mark Butler have put out this statement:

The Government has dealt with some of our reservations by introducing a different bill in this parliament, which makes improvements, particularly in relation to privatisation.

Labor still has concerns about potential impacts of the bill, which is why we will fight to secure amendments that:

    • Rule-out partial privatisation of publicly-owned energy assets in the event of any divestment order; and
    • Ensure workers affected by divestment have access to protections under the Fair Work Act.

Labor’s support for the bill in the house is conditional on these proposed improvements passing.

We also remain sceptical that this bill will lower power prices, as the government claims. That’s why Labor will propose an amendment to review the bill before it sunsets. We will also examine any other outstanding issues as part of the Senate inquiry.

Updated

Someone has gone even further (today is that sort of day) and done a ctrl+F search of the PM’s transcripts and found curry turns up 25 times – including to the ADF troops in December 2018:

It’s a great pleasure and it’s an honour and it’s a privilege to be here with you, the serving men and women of Australia’s Defence Forces. Last night, a few of you had a meal with me. We had a curry. I love curries. One of the reason I love curries –there is a point to this story, I promise – is how you put it all together. You start with your oil, so last night it was a Sri Lankan chicken curry, how good is that by the way. Start with the oils, you put your curry leaves in there, get your spices in there, your whole base. It infuses the oil, you put your onions in, it’s layer on layer. You may have marinated the chicken with coconut cream. It comes out like magic. How you blend it together, all of these different ingredients, to produce something which is pretty magnificent, is how I have experienced seeing what you do here. Whether it is here, or over in Taji, it’s the time I’ve had to spend. I can’t tell you how impressed I am about how all the different specialist units, components, skills and backgrounds, are blended together to make an amazing team. I think that’s the real impressive thing about our Defence Forces and our partners and those we work with see.”

And then a colleague reminded me of this story.

I wish this day would curry up and end.

Updated

Big stick is in the house.

The curry metaphor, an eagle-eyed reader has just informed me, was also trotted out at an Indian business summit, reported here by the AFR.

Updated

I just switched over to the house, and Bob Katter is talking about communism.

So situation normal there.

Switching back.

Updated

And yes, I have to keep all of the press transcripts, and yes, I worked that out by searching for garam masala in my inbox.

For the record, “curry” comes up nine times in PMO transcripts.

What a time to be alive.

Updated

When Scott Morrison finds an analogy he likes, he really sticks to it.

Morrison in November 2018 (at the unveiling of a Mahatma Gandhi statue in Parramatta):

When I was at Diwali out here a couple of weeks ago, I told the story that Australia’s multiculturalism, Australia’s great success story as the best and most successful immigration country on earth, was like a good garam masala. It brings together all the great spices. The cloves, the black cardomom, the green cardamom, coriander seeds, all of this comes together – the cumin, don’t forget that. It all comes together. Have any of it on its own, it doesn’t taste as good. You blend it together, and that’s what Australia’s like.

Morrison last night at the parliament Diwali celebration:

We are the most successful multicultural country on earth in Australia.

And as I often talk about in functions like this, there are many metaphors which are given to explain multiculturalism in Australia.

But the one I like best is garam masala. Garam masala, that better? Getting there? Getting the cloves, the cardamom, you put it all together. You have one of them on their own – rubbish. It doesn’t leave a good taste in the mouth.

But when you blend them all together, you taste them, you grind them up – wow. And that is the fragrance that comes from Australia’s multicultural society, of which those of Hindu faith and the Indian national people have come here representing so magnificently.”

Why should life be like a box of chocolates when it can be a bunch of different spices crushed together?

Updated

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sarah McNaughton, has explained why she issued a set of advice to the ACT that its cannabis possession decriminalisation would provide a defence to commonwealth offences and then revoked the advice.

McNaughton said the attorney general’s department had drawn her attention to the case of Denlay v Commissioner of Taxation, which does not deal with drug possession but provides some authority for the argument that a “justification or excuse” of the type required may have to be a positive clause, not “merely the removal of criminality”.

This was “enough to give us pause” and it was “readily apparent” that the issue was more complex than she had first suggested.

McNaughton denied having any contact with attorney general Christian Porter’s office about the issue.

Asked about Porter’s view that the ACT legislation had failed to provide a defence under commonwealth law, she replied that while she has “no absolutely concluded view”, it was “clearly open” to come to the conclusion that Porter has indicated to the ACT.

So: the ACT decriminalisation law may have been ineffective, and Canberrans are still under the same risk from commonwealth prosecution.

Updated

Someone tried to bring a 12in deer penis into Australia, in their luggage.

And some people still think there nothing is learnt in estimates.

Coalition senators have asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sarah McNaughton, about the need for the attorney general’s consent for certain types of prosecution.

McNaughton said that in some cases the requirement came from statute and in others from ministerial directions. George Brandis issued one such direction for four offences in 2014 and the attorney general, Christian Porter, has added four more to provide protection for journalists.

McNaughton said the CDPP would have to be convinced there was a prima facie case, a reasonable prospect of conviction and for it to be in the public interest – and only then would they ask for ministerial consent.

Claire Chandler asked about exempting journalists and McNaughton replied it would depend how the carve-out was legislated and the question was a “very difficult hypothetical”.

Chandler asked several times about how to define a journalist, which prompted McNaughton to say it “could be regarded as a difficult matter to define” – twice, but Chandler kept flogging the dead horse. That granted enough time for Rex Patrick to scoot in and remind all that one piece of existing legislation about whistleblowers and ASIC’s free searches for journalists both provided a definition.

Asked by Amanda Stoker if such an exemption would offend the concept of equality before the law, McNaughton replied that “we’re getting into deep philosophical issues” and re-explained that her job was to interpret criminal legislation, as it’s legislated.

So: ultimately, exemptions for journalists is up to parliament. Back to square one, then.

Updated

“They see me as a threat. I am a threat, as long as you don’t do your job,” Pauline Hanson tells the National party, through Sky.

She said she called the prime minister in front of farmers and handed over the phone and they “were shocked”.

“They have never spoken to the prime minister before.”

Updated

Australia Post boss Christine Holgate is fronting estimates. Holgate earned $2.565 million in 2018-19, up from just over $1.6 million the year before, thanks to $300,000 in extra bonuses and $224,500 or so in other benefits.

Australia Post’s letters business made a $40m profit, but Holgate told estimates it was still a drag on the overall revenue, with the cost of deliveries to China one of the reasons given.

From AAP:

If we exclude letters from our business in this first quarter, our underlying revenues are up 14 per cent,” Holgate said.

When it came to shipping rates set by the Universal Postal Union, Holgate said 70 per cent of its losses under this international agreement were on its China leg.

Holgate said a cap on this price would be lifted in the next three years, allowing Australia Post to reassess the charge.

Holgate said while China pays Australia $1 to send a letter here, Australia has to pay $1.75.

She pointed to US President Donald Trump, who criticised how much his nation was paying to send letters and small packages to China.

“I guess the objections that Mr Trump had was that he sees China very much as the developed nation and didn’t accept the argument that countries like Australia, the USA and Canada should be subsidising their costs,” Holgate said.

Updated

Greens senator Nick McKim has been quizzing the Australian Law Reform Commission about its family law inquiry, and then turned his guns on the government to ask why it supported a joint parliamentary inquiry with Pauline Hanson in the deputy chair given the work already done.

Foreign affairs minister Marise Payne (the duty minister) said the commission’s review was “primarily focused on procedural and substantive law” but the parliamentary inquiry includes issues that “haven’t necessarily been fully explored previously”.

McKim suggested it was a replication of the commission’s work – citing Sarah Derrington’s evidence that its inquiry was open to public submissions via an online portal. Payne responded that parliament had an opportunity – and an entitlement – to consider broader issues such as child support, domestic violence, the cost of cases and regulation of professionals.

There had been “some opportunity” to discuss family law issues in the commission’s inquiry but the parliamentary inquiry was a “further opportunity”.

Payne rejected the assertion it was a trade-off for support from Hanson and One Nation.

“Around the country, in the offices of MPs and senators, those issues continue to be advanced,” she said. “For the parliamentary to take the opportunity to examine these matters ... is the role of the parliament.”

Updated

Madeleine King was on RN breakfast this morning defending Labor’s support for the free trade deals, despite criticism from the unions (and, as we have seen from Doug Cameron, some Labor members themselves):

Well, it’s important to recognise the overall economic benefit, but more so than the economic benefit is the matter of a strategic benefit of a closer relationship with the Republic of Indonesia. I listened to Michele’s interviews before and she’s quite right to point out that there hasn’t been contemporary economic modelling of this agreement.

But there has been economic modelling in the past, under a Labor government actually, that started negotiations for this agreement. And that demonstrated that there would be significant economic benefit for the country.

Updated

On the anniversary of the apology to survivors and victims of institutional sexual abuse, Linda Burney has put out this statement:

The scheme is projected to provide redress to an estimated 60,000 survivors. Yet, over a year since the scheme commenced, only 1 per cent of this figure has received redress, survivors are still waiting too long and some institutions have still not signed up.

The scheme has received over 5,040 applications for redress; 618 applications have been placed on hold because the relevant institution has not yet joined the scheme.

This means that over 3,600 applications – or three quarters – are waiting as a result of administrative delay.

Applicants are waiting an average of eight months for their applications to be processed.

In August, Labor successfully re-established a parliamentary inquiry to oversee the administration of the National Redress Scheme. The government cynically used its numbers to take control of the committee. Two months later, and survivors are waiting and wondering what is happening with the Inquiry.

Institutions that have not joined the scheme must do so immediately – the time for excuses has come to an end.

While additional investment is a step in the right direction, survivors are still waiting too long. Some are elderly. Some are unwell. Some are passing away before seeing justice.

The government needs to get Redress right.

Updated

Gone, but not forgotten

The house will sit at 12 today.

You’ll find the program here

Labor wants 'big stick' jobs clause

In caucus Labor added an extra condition on its support for the Coalition’s big stick (energy divestiture) bill.

Labor has already said it will support the bill only if a clause is added banning partial privatisation of power companies. Now it wants a proviso that workers’ entitlements be protected if divestiture occurs, so that workers in split entities will still have the same redundancy and other benefits.

Anthony Albanese addressed the brou-ha-ha over the Indonesian free-trade deal in his leader’s speech, saying the government had agreed to Labor’s key demands and the concessions allow Labor “continue to pursue our agenda on trade”.

“There are a lot of 55/45 calls in this job – but this was not one of those, it was a good outcome,” he said.

Albanese said the week would be dominated by the drought, the right to know and the economy.

On drought, he said Australians wanted the politics taken out, which is why he offered a joint war cabinet.

On the economy, he noted the IMF has called for fiscal stimulus and accused the government of underspending on infrastructure because it has spent more on ads ($17m) than its urban congestion fund. At Senate estimates yesterday, we heard that none of those projects has yet commenced.

On the Right to Know campaign, Albanese said Labor members should link the media campaign to “the prime minister, who won’t give a straight answer to a simple question” – presumably in reference to his refusal to say if he lobbied for Brian Houston to be invited to the White House.

Labor Senate leader Penny Wong noted that public servants are taking more questions on notice than in previous years, warning that unless there is a political cost to the government, accountability will be weakened.

She said stonewalling in Estimates is “worse than it has ever been” and it should be a key part of the Right to Know campaign.

Updated

The Future Fund is factoring the risk of climate change into its investment decisions, according to evidence provided by the agency to the Greens.

Raphael Arndt, the agency’s chief investment manager, said the vast bulk of the future fund investment was taken by external fund managers, who were advised about the agency’s approach to climate change risk management.

He said the fund saw the future path of carbon pricing and the market response to that as a long-run risk. “In terms of carbon disclosure ... we support companies that the public is able to invest in being open about the risk exposure to those types of risk,” Arndt said.

Agency head David Neal said the fund managed “dozens of risks” at any one time, and managers were asked to provide information about these, including carbon exposure.

Neal said the agency continued to invest in fossil fuels.

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said it was “entirely appropriate” for the fund to make such investments.

“I believe that fossil fuels continue to be very, very important,” Cormann said. “There is a significant social benefit in fossil fuels.”

Updated

I am not sure the “climate change conspiracy is finally over” petition (now at 23 signatures) will receive the same reaction.

Updated

Bridget McKenzie is having a great day, and clearly loving every minute of this.

Updated

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has downplayed a report in the Australian today about an increase in the unfunded superannuation liability to $233.1bn, an increase of $50bn.

Cormann said the figure, revealed in the department’s annual report, was subject to annual variations, but did not place the commonwealth under any immediate financial risk.

He said changes in the discount rate could appear to have an impact on the value of the unfunded liability, but it was expected the valuation would “move around” depending on what assumptions are used over the next decade.

“In the end it is not something the government will have to pay today it is something that will continue to be dealt with in a phased approach,” Cormann said under questioning from the Labor senator Katy Gallagher.

“From our point of view it is business as usual, but we rely on the future fund to continue to do of course its job to the best of its ability so it can ultimately bridge that gap.”

Cormann said the government had made a policy decision not to draw down on the future fund, but to allow it to continue to accumulate.

“The decision that we have made ... is to let the future fund to continue to invest to achieve very high returns, against of course the very low interest rates that is paid on public debt interest,” he said.

David Neal, the head of the future fund, said the agency had secured returns of 10.4% a year over the past decade.

“We have made good progress in the pursuit of our objectives to strengthen the commonwealth’s long-term financial position,” Neal said.

Updated

Joel Fitzgibbon was certainly happy to stop by doors this morning:

The National party could redeem itself today by standing up to Scott Morrison. You know, National party leaders of the past – back, back with John McEwan, Ian Sinclair, Doug Anthony – would never have allowed themselves to be bullied like the current National party MPs are being bullied by Scott Morrison.

They should forget about fighting amongst themselves and start collectively muscling up to Scott Morrison, who seems to think the drought response is a game, who has denied or given up the opportunity to work with us on a bipartisan basis. Why is that? Well, it appears Scott Morrison isn’t serious about addressing this drought.

So, instead of standing around like swinging something – I am not sure I can use the word – they need to collectively muscle up, start standing up to Scott Morrison, and start insisting that he produce a meaningful response to this drought.

And of course on dairy – we’ve now been waiting since I think it’s April of 2018 – the ACCC completed its 18-month long inquiry into the dairy sector. It recommended a dairy code of conduct and, of course, here we are in October of 2019, we still don’t have a code of conduct for the dairy industry, we’re still told we won’t have one till July of next year.

Now that stands in stark contrast to the time when Scott Morrison overnight – overnight – produced a code of conduct for the sugar industry to buy Pauline Hanson’s vote on the corporate tax cuts in the Senate.

So who is running Scott Morrison? Is it the National party? Or is it Pauline Hanson? I think we clearly know the answer to that question at the moment.

Updated

Back in agriculture estimates, Bridget McKenzie says she had not read David Littleproud’s ministerial charter letter, which is noteworthy because the pair have overlapping portfolio issues – she is agriculture, and he is drought.

I am confident that there is a very clear line of responsibility between minister Littleproud and I, as there is between minister Littleproud and minister McCormack,” she says.

The department has seen the two ministerial charter letters, Daryl Quinlivan, from the department of ag says.

Updated

The “big stick” energy legislation will be introduced in the house today.

Labor is now supporting it, so it is a done deal.

Updated

It’s been a year since the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse was delivered in the parliament.

Anne Ruston will commemorate the anniversary at an event in parliament today.

Updated

The joint party room meeting is happening at the moment, where we will be told that everyone is very focused on the drought, and no one mentioned the Nationals’ latest existential crisis at all.

Updated

Australia’s agriculture ministers will meet to discuss animal welfare, after the ABC’s 7.30 report on retired racehorses.

Updated

From AAP:

Federal cabinet minister Linda Reynolds has dismissed press freedom concerns saying the national campaign on Monday’s newspaper front pages proved the media was free to express its views.

Senator Reynolds, appearing at Senates estimates for Communications Minister Paul Fletcher, said the government had the balance of national security and press freedom right.

“No freedom is ever truly free,” Senator Reynolds said.

“It is subject to the limitations that we in the parliament at a point of time make.”

Australian media outlets have united with a “Right to Know” campaign to warn against growing censorship and attacks on press freedom.

The front pages of Monday’s major newspapers replicated heavily redacted government documents alongside an advertising campaign challenging laws that effectively criminalise journalism and whistleblowing.

Senator Reynolds called it a “beautiful display” of press freedoms.

“Two parliamentary inquiries, and front pages of the paper, I think demonstrates that we do have freedom of speech,” Senator Reynolds said.

Senator Reynolds said the Bali bombings and September 11 attacks had “increased the requirement for national security legislation”.

But she said it was also about balancing defamation and freedom of information laws.

Updated

So, to be clear, Bridget McKenzie is not about to be dumped as deputy leader. The numbers aren’t there. This whole blow-up though, just shows that all of the issues which have plagued the Nationals since Barnaby Joyce blew up his political career, are still there. They stuck with Michael McCormack after the election because the Nationals won all their seats, not because the party room magically became united.

But, and it’s an important but – there is no one else the party is uniting around. So all the same tensions which were there before the election are still there. And with no end in sight to the drought, no real answers MPs can give, beyond the government has a “reactive strategy” and One Nation now taking credit for their work, well, it makes sense that colleagues are once again publicly “bumping into each other”.

Updated

Darren Chester was doorstopped by journalists outside the Sky studios and said almost exactly the same thing about Bridget McKenzie’s leadership as he said on air:

In terms of Bridget’s role within the party, she’s completely secure. She’s working hard to deliver for any Australian farmers. Any minute, second or hour we spend here talking about ourselves, the Australian people will knock us down …

There are a lot of people who come to this place with big ideas and big personalities and from time to time they might bump into each other during discussions about policy areas. I say to my colleagues: continue to work with the minister, continue to work with the leadership team on policies that make a difference for regional Australians.

That’s the problem with talking points. They always sound just a little too rehearsed.

Updated

Bridget McKenzie is in agriculture estimates right now.

Senator Murray Watt has opened questioning by asking her how long she expects to remain in the portfolio.

“Is the National party crystal clear on who is doing what in this space?” Watt asked.

“Yes,” McKenzie replied.

“If that is the case, why are we seeing reports that many National party members want to replace you as deputy leader.”

The question was ruled out of order.

“So minister, how long do you expect to remain as the minister for agriculture.”

That question is also ruled out of order.

“Are we going to have another day of government ministers not answering questions that are inconvenient ... are you aware that there is a bit of interest in the public right to know?” Watt follows up. He asks again.

“How long do you expect to remain as the minister for agriculture?” he tries again.

“Right, Senator Watt. Please stop,” says the committee chair, Susan McDonald.

Just another day in paradise.

Updated

It is nice to see that One Nation is causing as many issues for the National party as it does for the Liberals.

Updated

Darren Chester, who is often the voice of reason in the Nationals party room, spoke to Laura Jayes on Sky News and didn’t deny that the party room meeting yesterday was a little feisty.

But it also didn’t stop him from trotting out the “difficult issues we are working through” lines:

“There is no shortage of members of parliament with passion and big ideas and sometimes those ideas, those passions, bump into each other and they play out publicly. It’s much ado about nothing.

Chester said the tensions were just colleagues “bumping into each other”:

People come to debate big ideas about the future of our nation and the agricultural portfolio, the one that Bridget McKenzie, our deputy leader holds, is a pretty complex policy area. There are a lot of issues right now, we are going through one of the worst droughts probably in our nation’s history and there are a lot of issues there to resolve. I have to say that overwhelmingly, the conversation which occurs in our party room meeting, the conversation that occurs in our joint party room meeting, is how do we make things better for our regional people, how do we make things better for our farmers, our small business people.

Occasionally there will be clashes of personalities, but it’s no big deal.

Updated

Linda Burney was on RN late yesterday talking about Ken Wyatt’s proposal for a legislative body, not an enshrined voice in the constitution, when it comes to reconciliation.

Patricia Karvelas: It’s clear Indigenous leaders are angry with what they see as a unilateral proposal from Ken Wyatt and the Morrison government for this legislated body. Are they right to be upset?

Linda Burney:

I think they are right to be upset. Certainly, the prime minister, I think, overruled Ken very early in the piece, when it came to legislating a voice to the parliament. But Labor’s position remains as it has been for some time, the same at this point.

And that is, we embrace the full content of the Uluru statement, Patricia. And as you know, that’s the national process of truth-telling, the Makarrata Commission, as well as an enshrined voice to the parliament. And that will be informed by the co-design process which I understand the minister is going to be beginning quite soon.

PK: Do you think Ken Wyatt is being disrespectful as he’s being accused of?

LB:

I don’t think Ken is being disrespectful. I think has a very difficult challenge in front of him. He is a member of the government. And the prime minister has made it very clear that he will undertake a referendum this term, but on recognition only, not enshrining a voice to the parliament. And the prime minister is very clearly talking about a legislated voice. Now the really serious question in front of First Nations people and the parliament is whether or not that voice is permanent and secure. That’s, Patricia, why the constitution has become such an important part of this discussion, is that people remember what happened to Atsic, that it was dismissed by the government of the day, and they don’t want to see another advisory body dismissed. They want it to be secure. And people from Uluru, which was two years ago now, see that as being a way to securing that voice, is enshrining it in the constitution.

The parliament’s Indigenous MPs are meeting this week to discuss the issue.

Updated

Damian Drum, a fellow Victorian Nationals MP, stopped by doors this morning to defend Bridget McKenzie:

I think it’s really poor form to leak anything out of the party room. There’s no excuse. There’s never a good time to leak out of the party room. It doesn’t matter how passionate you are about any issue.

Because next week there will be another issue that someone else is just as passionate about. So you always have to take whatever happens in the party room as sacrosanct and you keep it to yourself.

Question: Do you think people are rumbling for her position?

They’d be crazy if they were. This is nothing to do with Bridget McKenzie. This is all about One Nation getting credit for something they haven’t done. The Nationals have done all the work behind the scenes. The Nationals deserve credit for that.

Updated

So the National MPs who have responded to messages this morning have all said there won’t be a challenge to Bridget McKenzie – yet.

The main reason is how early it is in the election cycle. A few people mention have also raised how it would look dumping a woman from the role. And then there is the problem of how the Nationals numbers work out.

There are not a lot of Nationals – I think the room works out to about 21. That means you need 11 to make a move, and there aren’t any other contenders to capture those votes. So they are split across the room. It’s the same with Michael McCormack. He doesn’t have overwhelming support as leader but then neither does anyone else.

Updated

Estimates continues with communications, attorney generals, finance and agriculture scheduled for today.

Yesterday we also learned how much the government spent on advertising in the election year.

From Paul Karp:

Australians were inundated with $174.1m in taxpayer-funded government advertising in the last financial year, according to new finance department figures.

The total – revealed in the department’s annual report – included $156m for major advertising campaigns, many of which advertised policies central to the Coalition’s re-election pitch, and $18.1m for non-campaign ads, such as those spruiking job vacancies, tenders and public notices.

The $174.1m price tag is a massive increase on the $100.1m spent in 2016-17 and $157m in 2017-18 but is still not a record – that dubious honour goes to the $174.7m in the 2015-16 financial year, another election year.

Updated

Speaking of press freedom, that will continue as an issue today.

After the cross-media campaign yesterday, Mark Dreyfus said Labor had shifted on its position, and now believed legislative changes needed to be brought in to give exemptions to public interest journalism.

He told David Speers:

And we say that that’s an appropriate legislative change, and the government ought to be bringing in legislation into the parliament to do that, because clearly this government hasn’t understood the discretions that are there.

It hasn’t understood conventions that have been in place in Australian law and Australian politics for decades because otherwise we wouldn’t have this threat hanging over the three journalists. We wouldn’t have had the referral take place in the way that it has.

Let’s think: we’ve had a law in place since 1914, David, that has potentially allowed for journalists to be charged. We’ve had thousands of leaks since that time, but journalists have not been charged. We haven’t had raids on journalists’ homes.

But Christian Porter, speaking to Sky News late last night, said there would be no blanket exemptions.

I think where this issue starts to become more difficult is at the edge where media organisations have said they want two things. One is exemptions – I’ll use their words – ‘for journalists from all laws that would put them in jail for doing their job’.

And the second exemption they want is from all warrants which would allow a law enforcement agency with a warrant that has been given by a judge to access data possessed about a journalist.

Now, simply giving blanket exemptions to all behaviour which a journalist considers is doing their job, for all criminal laws in Australia at a commonwealth level, I think falls outside the edge of reasonableness.

Updated

Zali Steggall will officially present the climate emergency e-petition to the parliament today – at 404,538 signatures, it is a new record for online parliamentary petitions.

From Steggall’s office:

The petition stated that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, and so we must act now to minimise both human and environmental destruction. The petition will be presented by Zali Steggall MP to the House of Representatives at 1.30pm Tuesday 22 October.

Updated

Isn’t it amazing how a story Mike Pezzullo has spent several estimates hearings now dismissing as false, led to the journalist’s house being raided, kicking off the whole press freedom debate in Australia?

Don’t mention the war

Mike Pezzullo is still very angry about Annika Smethurst’s story.

Talking about efforts to prevent future cybersecurity threats, Pezzullo said he was “deeply reluctant to mention the war here”, but was forced to bring up Smethurst’s article which he labelled an “erroneous, false, non-whistleblowing article in News Corp”.

He mentioned several times he was reluctant to talk about it.

Speaking about the discussions between various government security and intelligence agencies and the private sector, Pezzullo said he hoped, before the equivalent of “a cyber-Pearl Harbor”, that they could close the gap between what the public sector can do and what the private sector – which looks after many critical infrastructure like utility holdings and data storage – can do.

“It’s in that context and solely in that context, notwithstanding a completely erroneous and fabricated account of a leaked document that stated on its face that this wasn’t the case.”

He said it was a potential gap in legal and technical infrastructure which needed to close.

“It’s our hope in the department to bring forward considered, detailed proposals to address that high end of the risk spectrum … which no amount of diligent and purposeful and targeted investment by the private sector can deal with, simply because the tools you need to deal with this attacks are tools that properly should be vested in the state.”

He said he had previously discussed the risk to national security by the leaking of the document, and referred the committee to the home affairs submission to other inquiries.

He then described the article as “poorly written” and missing facts amid an “obsession to engage in a falsehood of Australians being spied on”.

Imagine what he’d have to say if he wasn’t feeling so reluctant to talk about it.

Updated

Staff-guest ratios on Christmas Island

We also learned part of the cost of reopening Christmas Island detention centre.
There’s been admin expenditure of $26.8m between 16 February 2019 (when it reopened) and 21 August 2019.

Four people are now detained on Christmas Island – that’s the Biloela family – and no one else has been sent there. As at 31 August there were 96 Serco personnel, nine IHMS personnel, plus two ABF officers.

Aussies left on their own in the badlands

Kristina Keneally questioned the department about this article, asking if Australia is looking at repatriating its citizens from Syria’s al-Hawl camp during the ceasefire, or if it has been in contact with the UK.

“We’ve had direction for the government that no official … be put in harm’s way in relation to the women and children in al-Hawl,” a home affairs official says.

Pezzullo said: “It’s badlands there, and you’d want to be very confident that you had a comprehensive view of all of the risks being manifest by each individual actor and their interactions.

“All of the outcomes are unattractive, high-risk and regrettable, and it would have been better for certain adults not to take certain decisions to go to battle.” He said that wasn’t on the children.

“The assessment we’ve come to has been reflected in the public utterances of our ministers in recent days.”

Updated

Speaking of coffee, the home affairs estimates hearings went until 11pm last night, so I imagine there are quite a few people involved who may outstrip even my caffeine intake today.

Helen Davidson was watching for you. Here are some of the highlights from her:

We learned the Paladin contract’s six-month extension cost $109,239,312 – about $18.2m a month. After several extensions and some huffing and puffing by the Papua New Guinean government, that contract is now ending on 30 November. Quite a bit of cash considering there are only four men left on Manus Island, one of whom has elected to stay with the family he now has. He and 46 others are on a “resettlement pathway” to stay in PNG, estimates heard.

A further 47 men are still in Bomana immigration detention centre in Port Moresby after six were released pending their voluntary return home. More here.

Michael Pezzullo hasn’t made any further inquiries on allegations of corruption and bribery connected to Paladin since April when last asked (and he didn’t know about it then).

It’s off the back of this report in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday.

After a bit of back and forth, Pezzullo is asked by Senator Louise Pratt if he had any knowledge of the concerns, outside of official reports.

Pezzullo: “How would I know about it if it hasn’t been reported?”

Pratt: “You might have made your own inquiries, given the importance of these issues. Or perhaps you choose not to look because you don’t want to jeopardise arrangements with the PNG government?”

Pezzullo: “I’m not sure I follow.”

Pratt: “Well, why wouldn’t you look given the gravity of the allegations in the press?”

Pezzullo said the department gave advice to the service provider companies which was essentially to obey Australian law and don’t pay bribes.

He repeatedly suggested he didn’t follow the question.

Keneally read out sections of the Sydney Morning Herald article and asked a few questions about how much the then first assistant secretary of property and major contracts, David Nockels, knew.

Pezzullo took it on notice. He said the article didn’t make it clear if any new information had come to light since April.

Updated

Good morning

Welcome back!

Day two of estimates begins, along with the House sitting, but at the moment, all eyes are on the Nationals party room, where tensions are bubbling away over how the leadership has handled the party’s drought response.

This isn’t new. When Scott Morrison took over the leadership and made the drought a number one priority, setting up a drought forum and elevating it as a national issue, a lot of Nats were looking sideways at their leadership for allowing the Liberals to lead on what should be Nationals domain.

That spurred Michael McCormack to try to be more proactive. Then last week we saw a few more bursts of angst when the Nationals gathered to announce changes to the farm household allowance, only to be usurped by the prime minister, who was making the announcement at the same time, on radio.

And now Pauline Hanson is “striking” over how dairy farmers are being treated (she has been very public about withholding her vote on all but “critical” votes until milk prices are regulated, which doesn’t actually have much legislative impact, but has certainly got her a lot of publicity in a lot of quarters) and that has quite a few Nationals MPs very nervous about what’s being said in their electorates.

Hanson’s stance saw a dairy industry code of conduct, developed under the previous agriculture minister David Littleproud, who was dumped from the role for Bridget McKenzie to be fast-tracked. McKenzie announced last week that the code would be in place in January, well ahead of its slated start date of July 2020, which was established to ensure consultation across the industry.

That’s angered quite a few National MPs, who see the move as capitulation to One Nation, which only gives Hanson more grist for her mill.

The ABC’s Lucy Barbour reported on the Nationals party room meeting late yesterday, where deputy leader McKenzie’s handling of the agriculture portfolio came under scrutiny.

From Barbour’s report:

Backbenchers, who did not want to speak publicly, have told the ABC they were frustrated with her leadership style and have not ruled out a challenge to her position.

One MP said it was a “waste of time” contacting senator McKenzie because she “never gets back to you”, while another said she “couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery” …

Another Nationals MP said the question of her leadership might have been brought to a head had she been at the meeting.

“We are facing one of our biggest tests of government in this drought,” he said.

“It has the potential to be a national disaster and needs our top minds in those positions of drought, water and agriculture. And right now, agriculture is the hot seat and we need her to do a better job.”

The election was less than six months ago and here we are.

We’ll have that, as well as everything else which happens across the building. Estimates continues, as does the press freedom fight, and of course, the House of Representatives is still sitting as well.

Mike Bowers is on assignment, but you have Paul Karp, Sarah Martin and Katharine Murphy, plus everyone else in the Guardian brains trust.

I’m on coffee three. Which is great for a Tuesday.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Savannah Chrisley Thought Whoopi Goldberg And Joy Behar Would Be ‘A Pain In (Her) A--’ While Guest Hosting The View
Reality star opens up about her experience with the co-hosts.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
What happened with Androgenic? Unexpected on-camera moment goes viral within hours
A viral video showing Androgenic’s hat being pulled off sparked major debate online. Viewers questioned his image after seeing what appeared to be a receding hairline. The term “fraudmaxxer” trended on X, and some online rankings reportedly dropped him. While the video’s authenticity remains unverified, the incident has fueled discussion…
The Times of India
The Times of India
Nicki Minaj shares photo of ‘meaningful’ bible signed by Trump
The ‘God Bless The U.S.A.’ Bible is sold for $1,000 online
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Nutritionists Warn: The 3 Toddler Snacks Parents Waste $400+ on Yearly
Image source: Pexels.com
Kids Ain't Cheap
Kids Ain't Cheap
Thailand moves to cut sugar in popular drinks amid health drive
Major chains agree to halve default sweetness, but street vendors and cafes remain outside sugar tax rules
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Curious Kids: What is the smallest thing in the universe?
Curious Kids is a series for children in which we ask experts to answer questions from kids.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play