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

Repealing medevac would be 'a wicked thing', Centre Alliance says – as it happened

Rebekha Sharkie in the House of Representatives.
Rebekha Sharkie in the House of Representatives. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

As the first speeches roll on, we’ll call it a night.

But we’ll be back tomorrow morning, because we like being paid. And also, spending time with all of you. (But also being paid)

Expect more of the same for tomorrow. Ensuring integrity will get a run, because it missed out on one today. There will be more national security stuff as we turn to the Senate. And a splash of medevac repeal, because that is just where we are at.

Thank you to everyone who followed along today. You make all the difference. We’ll be back bright and early. In the mean time - take care of you.

A little of how Mike Bowers saw the day:

He’s a Rhodes Scholar don’t cha know
He’s a Rhodes Scholar don’t cha know. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Peta Murphy completes her first speech
Peta Murphy completes her first speech. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Zali Stegall blows a kiss to her friends and family
Zali Stegall blows a kiss to her friends and family. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Peta Murphy told the House she had been (re)diagnosed with breast cancer two weeks after winning her seat.
Peta Murphy told the House she had been (re)diagnosed with breast cancer two weeks after winning her seat. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

Updated

Katharine Murphy has written about Andrew Bragg’s speech here - along with the context of what it means for the debate, within the Liberal party room.

Andrew Bragg finishes with a message for some of his colleagues:

A First Nations voice would not be a third chamber. It will not have the standing, scope or power of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Further, the campaign that “race has no place” in the constitution may sound good but it is a campaign that should have been run in the 1890s, as we crossed that Rubicon in 1901.

Yes, our present constitution already contains race in several places. It has a history which has been both good and bad.

Today, the races power provides the constitutional authority for the Native Title Act.

Although some would extend Native Title rights and others would wind them back, everyone agrees this parliament should retain this authority and power.

The issue of proper recognition in the constitution will not go away. It shouldn’t.

If recognition fails, more radical concepts could be proposed such as reserved seats as already exist in New Zealand and the US state of Maine for first peoples.

Or we could face a bill of rights, which would be a terrible transfer of power from elected persons to unelected judges.

We want all Australians to be proud of our great nation. All Australians will always be equal but we cannot have Indigenous people feel estranged in the land of their ancestors.

Almost every comparable nation has landed some form of legal recognition of first peoples. We should not wait any longer.

The Liberal party is used to opening the batting on difficult issues.

That’s why we made the first moves to abolish White Australia, opened trade with Japan in 1957 and delivered the Indigenous referendum of 1967. We are the party of Senator Neville Bonner.

We Liberals are good at big changes because we take the Forgotten People or Quiet Australians on the journey.

As one of my political heroes John Howard said:

Australian liberalism has always been evolving and developing. It always will be.

We are constantly relating liberalism’s enduring values to the circumstances of our own time. Enduring values such as the commitment to enhance freedom, choice and competition, to encourage personal achievement, and to promote fairness and genuine sense of community in Australian society.

I look forward to writing the next chapter in the rich history of Australian liberalism.

Updated

Andrew Bragg continues:

But I would not support constitutional recognition at any price.

I offer five principles if we are to succeed. Any proposal must:

1. Capture broad support of the Indigenous community

2. Focus on community level improvements

3. Maintain the supremacy of parliament

4. Maintain the value of equality

5. Strengthen national unity

I know my colleagues share strong feelings about this.

Mr President, constitutional recognition is both desirable and achievable if the design work reflects these principles.

A workable framework was outlined by John Howard’s chief justice Murray Gleeson in a recent address for Uphold & Recognise – the brainchild of the brilliant Damien Freeman and my colleague Julian Leeser MP.

In Gleeson’s words: ‘What is proposed is a voice to parliament, not a voice in parliament ... It has the merit that it is substantive, and not merely ornamental.’

Mr President, recognition should also be a bottom-up process.

As the governor general said in the opening of this parliament, we should ‘develop ground-up governance models for enhanced, inclusive and local decision-making on issues impacting the lives of Indigenous Australians.’

This must be a unifying project because the Australian constitution belongs to all Australians.

It must also be a bipartisan project and I acknowledge the critical role Indigenous senators will play in the years ahead.

The first Indigenous person to serve as minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, said a few weeks ago:

‘Indigenous Australians [want] to be recognised on the birth certificate of our nation because we weren’t there when it was written but we were ensconced in it in two sections, 51-26 and 127.’

Mr President, I will walk with Indigenous Australians on this journey.

Updated

The former deputy director of the federal Liberal party, Andrew Bragg, is delivering his first speech in the Senate.

He comes out very strongly in support of constitutional Indigenous recognition and a voice to parliament:

Mr President, I am worried our country has not been able to reconcile with Indigenous Australians.

As Noel Pearson has reminded me, “Andrew, this is my country too”.

It is time for us all to complete this task.

Pearson offers a way of thinking about Australia that I love.

His Declaration of Recognition presents Australia as a unified nation drawing on three great heritages: the Indigenous as first peoples, the British as creators of institutions which underpin the nation, and the multicultural gift that has enriched us all.

The constitution does a great job of securing these institutions. That’s why I am constitutional conservative. I regard the constitution as an incredibly successful document.

But I am also a supporter of constitutional recognition. The latest chapter in this long journey is the Uluru Statement. It offers a challenge to our country.

The Uluru Statement says: “we seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country.”

It imagines a constitution where Indigenous Australians are guaranteed a say on laws made under the races and territories powers which affect them.

Uluru asks legislators to consult Indigenous people on the laws which are relevant to them.

This is a good idea. This is a fair idea.

Updated

Plus, also, there are the actual numbers of unemployed people versus the number of job ads.

Plus, the definition of employed in this country, according to the ABS, is anyone who performed one hour of work or more for pay or profit (or in kind remuneration).

Worked an hour and got paid? You’re employed!

Updated

Asked about wage theft, in the wake of the George Calombaris ruling, James McGrath says the government has a “full legislative agenda” but it is something he would like to look into at some point.

Ed Husic still has some words saved up though:

Do you know what the agenda is? It was we need to vote on tax cuts today for tax cuts in the future. We need to vote on drought relief today that won’t be delivered for a year. We need to vote on national security laws.

But wage theft does not get a mention because there is another political priority, trying to basically beat up unions instead of looking at the employers who are ripping off workers, ordinary workers who deserve to have their wages paid properly, and that is not being, based on the senator’s response, you can see the government has a full agenda because they don’t think this is something that should be high on the agenda but all the politicking is.

Updated

Once again, it is not as easy as just packing up and moving towns to find a job. Moving costs money. The reason everyone from church leaders to the business council are talking about raising Newstart, is because those who are on the payment do not have money. In so many cases they don’t have enough money to properly job hunt. Because guess what? That too costs money!

Every politician sitting in this place gets more travel allowance each day they are in Canberra than someone on Newstart gets in a week. That’s just the travel allowance. That is not their salary.

On Newstart, James McGrath had this to say to Patricia Karvelas:

I’m one of those people who think that the best thing the government should do in relation to Newstart is to create jobs, and the government is creating an environment for businesses to employ people.

I do not think Newstart is something that can be increased at the moment.

We all acknowledge that it is not easy being on Newstart but it is not a long-term solution to long-term unemployment but the best thing you can do for people who are unemployed is to create an environment to get a job.

Should it ever be on the agenda?

No, I think that the best thing generally is that the government can create an environment to create jobs to employ people.

So should people just move, like Michael McCormack says?

Look around Australia, there are jobs available in regional Australia. The reason why we have the Pacific Islander program, which I support one million per cent, is because we cannot get people to pick fruit up in Queensland.

Sometimes you may have to move to find a job, but the best thing a government can do is create an environment, whether in the city or country, for businesses to grow and also that means employ people.

Updated

Remember how I said Ed Husic had more words saved up?

He just let some of them loose on ABC TV:

I think the government very much has stuffed the process up [on] national security and as I’ve said elsewhere, Peter Dutton cannot be trusted on the process. He has taken four years to put this together and there are problems with how it has been put forward, very sloppy in terms of this.

There are other pieces of legislation that will be debated in the House of Reps shortly, where the security agencies, detention and in regards to warrants and how they are held, they have said we need to reform and the government has done nothing.

Peter Dutton has been more interested in doing the numbers for himself last year and during that period of time failed to get these type of things done right, and more and more the focus will come on the sloppiness and incompetence of Peter Dutton, as it should be.

The government themselves play politics with national security. This should not happen at all and they are breaking the trust as to whether or not they can be trusted on the safety of Australians because they keep playing politics with national security.

James McGrath, who is on the same panel, comes to his defence:

I need to go back to what Ed Husic just said in terms of Peter Dutton. Peter has probably been the best minister we have had in this area in terms of border security so I strongly disagree with his analysis, if you want to call it that, in terms of Peter Dutton’s tenure as home affairs minister and before that immigration minister.

I’m very comfortable with the minister, someone who was elected to parliament to make these decisions. I’m particularly happy and comfortable it is Peter Dutton, an ex-Queensland copper.

Updated

On medevac, Rex Patrick said Centre Alliance and Jacqui Lambie (they have a loose alliance) met with Peter Dutton today to discuss the temporary exclusion orders, but they have not discussed the medevac repeal as yet. Lambie is the swing vote.

Rex Patrick:

I sat down with Jacqui and Peter Dutton today to discuss the foreign fighters bill and that is because we have some common ground. In other situations where there is no common ground Jacqui will go off and negotiate and discuss with the minister on her own as we do.

... It [the medevac repeal] has not arrived. It is not on the radar.

... We understand the bill very well. If there were some difficulties that the government had, in terms of people who have been repatriated for that medical attention, we would be happy to discuss that with Peter Dutton and happy to do that with Jacqui. If there are problems with the bill we would happily tweak it. But our understanding is that I think it is something like 21 or 22 people have been back to Australia for medical attention and then sent back to Papua New Guinea.

Updated

On the ensuring integrity bill, Rex Patrick says there are political elements to the bill it can’t support:

The aim was to deal with misconduct and there is no question that has been in the union movement.

I have seen the fairly significant sheet of judicial rulings against some of the unions and in some instances we have some very conservative, considered judicial officers stating things like this union is simply using the fines, treating the fines, as the cost of business.

We cannot have that situation, so we must have a bill that deals with that sort of egregious behaviour and it must also be fair and you cannot have misconduct in the corporate sector and we saw a lot of that was revealed in the royal commission, and do without it the same time.

We are asking the government to make sure that whatever is in the bill is consistent with the corporate world. An example: under the current union bill, ensuring integrity bill, the minister can make a referral to make a deregistration. That does not happen in the corporate world.

There is a political element today that we are uncomfortable with – and [we] would like to see it removed.

But if the legislation applies to all, then Centre Alliance will support it. If the government doesn’t amend it, it will weigh up its options then.

Updated

Rex Patrick is speaking to Patricia Karvelas on Afternoon Briefing and says while Centre Alliance supports the intent of the temporary exclusion order bill, it will abstain from voting for it, because it can’t support it in its current form.

Labor will be passing it, although it has raised its own concerns.

Rachel Siewert has had a win in the Senate. It’s just a motion, but it further indicates that half the parliament is now officially on board with raising the Newstart rate:

This is a historic moment.

I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed that Newstart is too low.

I’ve introduced countless motions to increase Newstart over the years that have been voted down, time and again.

Just like with marriage equality, just like with the banking royal commission, the Greens have continued to campaign, in partnership with the community, to achieve change. I will continue to introduce bills and motions to our parliament until we get an increase to Newstart.

The evidence is well and truly in, we know we need an urgent increase by at least $75 a week.

The government is out of step with community expectations and there is no excuse not to increase the rate of Newstart right now.

Updated

Question time finally ended.

There is a God.

Meanwhile, it has been pointed out to me that Peter Dutton, when talking to Sky earlier today, blamed people lying on their departure cards as one of the reasons the government doesn’t know where foreign fighters ended up:

Just noting that departure cards were abolished by the government, under Dutton, in 2017.

Updated

Breaking – the PAPERS ARE STACKED.

This is almost over, people.

Updated

Ted O’Brien invites Peter Dutton back up for another HOW SAFE ARE YOU segment.

This latest episode comes with a side of WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON.

Michael McCormack is now confusing the electorates of Rankin and Moreton.

The paper is still not being shuffled on the prime minister’s desk.

McCormack is talking about “record amounts of money” and “busting congestion”.

I will pay all the money I have in the world to stop this now.

Updated

For the third time this week, someone didn’t jump for their question.

It looks like it was supposed to be the independent’s question again (that is what happened yesterday).

But the next MP on the government dixer roster should have jumped up. And they didn’t. For the third time this week.

So Graham Perrett gets in another question for Labor:

It’s on infrastructure again, which means it is Michael McCormack again, but he still can’t tell you when that infrastructure will start. But he can tell you what Labor promised to do.

Cool.

Updated

Michael McCormack is back up, and is now talking like a chipmunk, if it had fallen out of a tree and could speak English.

As was just pointed out by a press gallery colleague – we haven’t seen the prime minister welcome Boris Johnson as prime minister.

There have been some member statements, but nothing from Scott Morrison in the House. (There was a tweet, I think.)

Updated

Meryl Swanson to Michael McCormack.

Why is only 3% of the funding to extend the M1 to Raymond Terrace available in the next four years? 3%.

WB:

It is better than some of the funding that Labor gave to some of the electorates when it was in. As I said in my previous answer ... That is a responsible way to rollout infrastructure. Not like, and the Member for Patterson, I appreciate, is in a regional electorate, and when Labor were last in government, regional spend was $404m. That was for the electorate of Patterson and other regional electorates. We have doubled and tripled, spending our past two terms and we will now spend six times that amount over the next three years ...

It keeps going, but I cannot.

Updated

Nick Champion is out until 3.12pm tomorrow.

Lucky.

In news that does not bode well for any of us, Scott Morrison is making no moves to shuffle his papers.

That’s what he does when he is getting ready to call time on QT.

But the papers remain unshuffled. Which means there are more dixers to sit through.

Tony Smith:

The question is the Member for Wakefield to be suspended from the service of the House? All those who say aye? The ayes have it – division required. Ring the bells for four minutes.

BUT – we pause – because Nick Champion is no longer the Member for Wakefield. He’s now the Member for Spence.

So we stop the bells.

Christian Porter moves the motion for the Member for Spence and the House divides.

The independents side with the government, because Champion disrepected the Speaker.

So Ed Husic will sit alone for a full 24 hours. Now he knows how the cheese feels.

Updated

It’s been a while since this has happened – but it’s also the first time Christian Porter has had to do this and well, third time’s the charm.

I move the member be suspended for the remainder of the proceedings. (No)

I recommend ... that he be removed from the service of the House. (No)

I move the member be suspended from the service of the House. (There we go)

Updated

Nick Champion, the member for Spence goes TOO FAR. He backchatted Tony Smith, and Smith is in NO MOOD – so he is named.

That means he is out for 24 hours. Can’t vote on bills, can’t speak, until the suspension is lifted.

Smith:

I won’t debate issues on 94 with any member. Especially the Member for Wakefield, if he interjects, he will resume his seat. I have made this very clear. This is about the dignity of the House. The Member for Wakefield, knows by now if he interjects and I ask to cease, if he interjects immediately I will ask to remove himself from the House. I won’t have him backchat the chair when I represent the House. I am now naming the Member for Wakefield. Naming the Member for Wakefield.

Updated

Libby Coker (new member for Corangamite) to Michael McCormack.

It is official. I died and this is my hell.

Why won’t work on the south Geelong rail upgrade be commenced before July 2024?

McCormack:

Mr Speaker, all infrastructure has to be over a phased period. You cannot build it all at once. When you are spending a record $100bn on infrastructure, you can’t spend it all in the one year.

He continues.

Blah, blah,blah, congestion, road, rail, money, building, billions, whiteness, time, beige, beige, beige.

Updated

There’s been a lot of talk about the revolving door between politics and business.

Christopher Pyne’s new job with EY, helping it grow its defence business, and Julie Bishop’s new job with the foreign aid contractor Palladium have caused a fresh round of controversy about post-ministerial employment and lax enforcement of ministerial standards.

But Australia’s revolving door goes well beyond Pyne, Bishop, and ex-cabinet ministers. New and ongoing ANU research has found 56% of registered lobbyists previously held roles within government.

That could include public servants, political staffers, and backbenchers, as well as ministers. Speaking about his as-yet unpublished research, Prof Darren Halpin said it was “crucial” that cooling-off periods for politicians were properly enforced.

“Rightly, there are measures to enforce cooling-off periods that limit such movements,” Halpin said.

“If these are set, it is crucial that they are noted, monitored and enforced. The trickle of media ‘scandals’ in this regard is arguably one dynamic undermining trust in the motives of public officials in their career choices.”

Updated

Brian Mitchell to Michael McCormack:

My question is to the deputy prime minister. When will work began on the new Bridgewater bridge?

McCormack:

The Bridgewater bridge is something that we have said we would fund and we will, Mr Speaker. It is quite as simple as that. We are getting on with the job. We are working with the Tasmanian government, the Hodgman government. When I go to Tasmania, the difference between what we saw before the Hodgman government taking over the reins in Tasmania and what we see now is writ large, Mr Speaker. The factors that is infrastructure such the Bridgewater bridge which we look forward to building with the Tasmanian government. There are projects such as a Scottsdale irrigation scheme, and during the election campaign, it was delightful to go to.

He says it in his usual cadence of having. to. stop. after. every. word. with. an. un. necessary. pause. because. he. needs. to. think. about. his. next. word.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. It’s like someone taught a loaf of white bread to talk.

Labor asks WHEN.

It is interesting, Mr Speaker, to get questions from those opposite because when they were in power between 2007 and 13, the only thing they built were their egos. We are going to get on and build the Bridgewater bridge. The fact is there are issues that the infrastructure Australia has identified with that particular project, there are some unresolved engineering issues, there are some cost factors.

When we get those issues resolved, and we will, because we are a government that does things, we are a government which builds things, we will get on with that project, just like we will get on with other projects right throughout Tasmania. We are building ...

WHEN WHEN WHEN yells Labor.

Tony Smith says if Labor was listening they would have heard he is answering the question.

McCormack: “They’re just rude, Mr Speaker.”

Smith: “No, don’t ... Don’t try and help, please don’t try and help.”

Timeless. Statement.

Updated

It’s time for JUST HOW SAFE ARE YOU with Peter Dutton.

Today it’s the UNION’S ARE BAD edition.

It’s almost like the government has a bill targeting unions it is trying to get support for.

Sharon Claydon to Josh Frydenberg:

[In the Senate the government] ruled out changing the timetable for legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee to 12%. Will you, the treasurer, now do the same?

Frydenberg:

Yes.

That’s the whole answer.

It’s also the first time the government has ruled it out that definitively.

So those backbenchers who have been calling for it just got their answer.

Updated

Anyone who has ever wished to slow down time should just sit through a question time for the 46th parliament.

Tony Burke to Angus Taylor:

My question as to the minister for energy, and as last answer he said his interest in Jam Land had been declared in accordance with the rules. Given the last published register makes no reference to the company, does the minister stand by the claim he just made to the parliament was that claim misleading?”

Taylor:

As I said in my last answer, my indirect interest in Jam Land through my family company has been reported in the media and was declared in accordance with the rules, declared in accordance with the rules through my family company. As I have also said in the previous question, I have no association with the compliance action, that has been the subject of these questions. I have never made a representation, in relation to it. I tell you what I have made representations about, the farmers in my electorate. Because I care about them and I stand up for them.

Tony Burke gets up for a point of order, but Taylor has finished.

Updated

Christian Porter is taking a dixer on the ensuring integrity bill, and honestly, we should all think of ourselves as well as Christian Porter thinks of Christian Porter.

Labor’s leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, began question time with fresh questions about the energy and emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor.

She asks Simon Birmingham about some responses he gave to questions on notice on Tuesday.

Those questions related to meetings Taylor had with environment officials and Josh Frydenberg’s office about endangered grasslands that were at the centre of an investigation into a company – Jam Land Pty Ltd – that he part-owns. Taylor holds shares in Jam Land via his family investment company Gufee.

Wong reads from a letter from Birmingham and asks if he stands by this statement: “Minister Taylor has always declared his interest as required under the House register of interests and the ministerial code of conduct.”

Birmingham says to the best of his knowledge Taylor “has always declared his interest”.

Wong is now asking why Taylor’s register of interests fail to declare his interest in Jam Land.

Birmingham says he will take that on notice and that he won’t take Wong’s word for it.
Wong tables Asic documents that show Taylor is a director of Gufee Pty Ltd, which is a shareholder in Jam Land.

“Given these extracts clearly show Minister Taylor’s interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd, will Senator Birmingham correct the record and apologise for misleading the Senate,” she asks.

Birmingham is sticking to his earlier position and takes the question on notice.

Taylor’s latest declaration of interests does not mention shares in Jam Land Pty Ltd, but it does list his shares in Gufee.

Guardian Australia has checked the Asic records and Gufee is named as a shareholder in Jam Land.

Updated

Tony Smith, speaking for all of us, when he tells Greg Hunt to be quiet and stop interjecting (for the second time).

“If it helps him, I don’t actually hear what he says, I just hear noise.”

Timeless statement.

Updated

Angus Taylor:

My indirect interest in Jam Land has been widely reported in the media and was declared in accordance with the rules. I have no association with the compliance action, I have never made a representation in relation to it. This is confirmed at Senate estimates by the secretary of my department in April this year.

Mr Speaker, I make no apology for seeking and receiving a briefing on policies that seriously impact the farmers in my electorate, it is what the people of Hume expect of me as their local member.

In fact, Mr Speaker, the people of Eden-Monaro should be asking why their representative didn’t do the same. Half of the affected grasslands are in his electorate. I stand up for the farmers in my electorate.

He goes on about the drought fund.

Updated

Mike Kelly to Angus Taylor:

Why did the minister say in question time yesterday that he has, and I quote, “no association with Jam Land Propriety Limited” when it shows he does have an interest in the company?

Christian Porter is straight up onto his feet.

According to standing order 100B. That question has been asked and fully answered.

Labor goes nuts and Tony Smith tells them to be quiet so he can hear the point of order.

Porter:

Yesterday the member for Griffith asked a question, it was a compound question, it had two parts. The first part was that the, the first part sought confirmation that the minister had an interest in a company. The second part sought confirmation that there was … some departmental investigation. The minister answered the second part first. He said he had no association, clearly meaning with the departmental investigation. And then he noted that he remained at arm’s length from the company that was the subject of the question. There has never been any dispute that the minister has a relationship with the company, and that is on the members’ listed interests.

Tony Burke is back up:

Mr Speaker, first of all, the question being asked is asking him to reconcile statements yesterday with Asic documents, that question has been asked for the first time. In terms of what his answer was yesterday, the sentence that appears in Hansard is, I quote, ‘I have no association and have remained at arm’s length from the company.’ Given that was the statement, I’m sorry, the words in the investigation had been added in the point of order taken by the leader of the House. That was not part of the quote the question asks.

Tony Smith rules:

There are two issues here, whether a question is being fully answered. It’s not really for the chair to judge that, except unless it’s an identical question. I take the point that the leader of the House is making, which is it is a very similar question. Certainly the rules on the practice, the question has to be, identical, absolutely identical, the question yesterday, for that to be the case, for if that were the case, yesterday’s answer would have been deemed fully answered because the question has been answered. It’s not, so that question is in order. It is able to be asked because it’s different, but it’s referring to the answer yesterday.

Updated

Because my Mercury is in retrograde, apparently forever, Michael McCormack is back.

Updated

In maybe her first actual mis-step since coming to parliament, Zali Steggall inflicts Michael McCormack on the chamber.

Warringah has some of the most congested roads in Australia and it’s a huge detriment to people’s daily lives. A proposed solution, the Beaches Link Tunnel, would reduce congestion by bypassing the Spit Bridge. The proposed Beaches Link Tunnel has been talked about for over two decades, including by the former member of Warringah, and is now in the New South Wales planning and assessment process. During the campaign the federal government committed $50 million from the Urban Congestion Fund to provide access to the tunnel. Could the minister please tell the House what has happened to that $50 million commitment?

McCormack says some things, which involve the usual white bread homilies, but life is really too short to pay too much attention. It’s to be expected – white noise has that effect.

Alan Tudge steps up. He threatens to go all afternoon, but the gist is

... We stand by all our commitments that we make and that’s the difference between this side and that side is when we promise something we actually deliver. When it comes to delivering we’re delivering $100 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years.

I mean, most of that is in the back end of the decade, but sure.

Updated

Ed Husic looks like he is biting the inside of his mouth with everything he has to avoid heckling Josh Frydenberg.

He settles on some very cartoonish nods.

It’s a mood.

Brendan O’Connor to Christian Porter:

What bills are before the House that implement the recommendations of the banking royal commission?

Porter:

It’s unusual for the leader of the House to take a point of order on a question to him as leader of the House. That needs to be directed to a minister, the minister responsible for those bills.

Tony Burke is up.

This is where he proves he knows more about House procedure than Porter, who currently has practically every single piece of the government’s agenda on his plate, as well as this new job as leader of the House.

Not a fun place to be, but hey, that’s why he gets the big bucks.

Burke:

The role of leader of the House is meant to be a real job. And as part of that job, members of parliament ... It has always been in order to ask the leader of the House about the business of the House, regardless of what portfolio that business falls in to otherwise.


Tony Smith gives Porter an out:

I’ll make two points because, whilst it’s unorthodox, certainly the manager of opposition business well knows I’ve seen many examples where that has occurred. But I mean the practice also makes very clear, if I can point out to ministers, that they are entitled to, if it relates to another portfolio, they’re entitled to refer that to a relevant minister if they wish to. That’s a right they have. I’ll leave it in the hands of the leader of the House whether he wishes to answer it.

Porter gives it to Josh Frydenberg:

I can confirm to the House that this parliament has passed legislation implementing the royal commission’s recommendations, including recommendation 3.6, to prohibit super funds from inducing employees, and introducing civil penalties for trustees and directors of super funds. We have also passed regulations which extend the remit in terms of dealing with financial complaints, back to January 1, 2008. We’ve also legislated product intervention powers.

#theministerdoesnotanswerthequestion

Updated

Ed Husic has just been told by Tony Smith that his word allocation is over for the day.

Husic’s face says he STILL HAS WORDS to say.

The new member for Lindsay was VERY eager to ask her dixer, jumping to her feet in an attempt to head off Peter Khalil’s question.

That is probably also because there was a bit of a rev up through the government benches about paying attention as well.

Anyways, now Josh Frydenberg is yelling about something. Tax, probably.

Updated

Peter Khalil to Christian Porter:

On how many occasions this year has a worker contacted the Fair Work Ombudsman to report an incident of wage theft, only for the ombudsman to make no contact with their employer?

Porter:

I mean, it would be unusual if I would have that level of detail to hand.

I can certainly get that for the member. I am aware of several occasions where the ombudsman has taken complaints about underpayment which originally went to a union without action and went to the ombudsman for action.

I am aware that in the last budget that this government provided $10.8 million to the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate precisely the types of things that we’re now talking about. I am aware our government has a zero tolerance for this sort of behaviour, whether that is underpayment or wage theft.

The difficulty is, Mr Speaker, the difficulty is that they seem over there to have a very low tolerance for underpayment but they’ve got a monstrously high tolerance when it’s workers’ money being diverted from workers to unions.

That’s when their tolerance levels seem to get out of whack. We have $10.8 million given by this government to the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate these matters. They are now investigated more heavily than they’ve ever been investigated previously.

That builds on $30 million in unpaid wages, representing more than 13,000 workers with completed audits of 4,500 Australian workplaces. That is more than when Labor were last in office.

When Labor were last in office, Mr Speaker – and this might interest the member for Wills – but when Labor were last in office, not without standing there with indignation today, they cut the funding of the Fair Work Ombudsman by 17%. So the body that investigates underpayment, when they were in government, they cut its funding by 17%. You know what, Mr Speaker, you know what they also cut, you know what they also cut – the Fair Work Ombudsman’s staff, who are paid money to investigate underpayment of wages, they were cut by members opposite by 20%. So the indignation exists now but when the rubber was on the road and they were required to investigate these matters, they underfunded and cut the staff of the organisation who are meant to investigate these matters. So we’d be very happy for another question like that, member for Wills.

Updated

Gladys Liu gets the first dixer and it includes the phrase “whose side are you on”, which just means we get a lecture on WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON and Scott Morrison Shouty McShoutiness.

Just on that (Guardian style guide aside) ‘leader of the opposition with a capital O’ isn’t quite the sledge the prime minister thinks it is, given that Leader of the Opposition is a proper noun. So it is literally spelt with a capital O.

Updated

Question time begins

First question

Susan Templeman to Scott Morrison:

Which minister is dealing with the urgent issue of wage theft at restaurants?

Morrison:

I can tell her right now, right now the attorney general is drafting laws to deal with criminalising worker exploitation. And on top of that, Mr Speaker, there are bills in the parliament right now that deal with the wage theft that’s occurring in the union movement through workers’ entitlement funds.

And I’ll tell you what this scam deal of the union does. What it does – you don’t like this answer, do you?

Anthony Albanese:

It was a very specific question. It went to an issue which is of great concern in the community – the rip-off of people who are working in restaurants. The PM should address that question. He might refer to Mr Calombaris’s restaurants. There’s a few issues, MasterChef, people know about it. How about you answer the question.

Morrison:

The leader of the opposition with a capital O might like to understand this, that the bill that’s in the parliament at the moment deals with workers’ entitlements, funds paid into workers’ entitlements funds held by unions, which ensures that when they are in a position to have their entitlements paid out – their wages – which doesn’t matter whether you’re working in a restaurant or anywhere else, that the dividends from those funds isn’t paid off to other unions ,which is the practice of those unions.

Now the Labor party might not want to recognise what they are doing in supporting that practice is thieving workers’ wages, Mr Speaker.

That’s what the Labor party is doing by supporting practices of unions which is thieving workers’ entitlements from those funds.

Now on the matter that the leader of the opposition also raised in relation to the Calombaris matter, Mr Speaker – on that matter, that matter was exposed by the Fair Work Ombudsman as a result of the $10 million of extra funds we put into that organisation, to ensure that matter could be exposed, and that an enforceable undertaking was secured through the action to protect those workers. Now on this side of the House, we know whose side we’re on.

It’s on Australian workers’ side. The Labor party, Mr Speaker, who knows whose side they’re on. They weren’t on the side of tax cuts for Australians. They weren’t on the side of farmers dealing with drought. And today we understand they’re only on the side of militant unions.

Updated

It is time for ‘who’s that MP’.

When I walked in, it was Ted O’Brien.

And as I type this, it was Josh Burns.

It’s the downhill slide to question time - hit me up with your predictions.

Repealing medevac 'a wicked thing' says Centre Alliance

Rebekha Sharkie has a message for supporters of repealing the legislation, “who call themselves Christian, as indeed I do”. Read Matthew 25

... Matthew 25 makes it very clear – Christians should see everyone as Christ in the flesh. And in the New Testament, stranger and neighbour are in fact synonymous. The golden rule of love your neighbour as yourself refers not just to the people you know, your neighbours, but also to those you do not know.

And I am sure I do not need to remind every person who follows Christ that Christ too was a refugee.

If the government is successful in repealing this legislation it will cause much harm. Needless harm. Unnecessary harm. It is quite simply a wicked thing that we are doing in this place. It is unnecessary.

And I therefore, in the strongest possible terms, oppose this bill, as will my Centre Alliance colleagues in the other place.

Updated

Peter Dutton’s official statement on Reece Kershaw’s recommendation as the new AFP commissioner:

The Government will recommend to the Governor-General that Mr Reece Kershaw APM be appointed as the 8th Australian Federal Police Commissioner.

Commissioner Kershaw commenced with the Northern Territory Police Force (NTPF) in February 2011 and in April 2015 was appointed Commissioner of Police and Chief Executive Officer of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services.

Prior to commencing with the NTPF Commissioner Kershaw was with the Australian Federal Police, including secondments to the National Crime Authority, the Australian Crime Commission and overseas postings to The Hague, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.

He is a Graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Executive Development Program and was awarded the Australian Police Medal in the 2016 Australian Day Honours.

We congratulate Commissioner Kershaw on his appointment at a time when the AFP needs to be future ready to meet the challenges posed by those that would seek to do us harm, here and abroad.

The Government again sincerely thanks Commissioner Colvin for the service that he has provided to the Australian community for the last 30 years as a member of the AFP.

Commissioner Colvin enjoyed an extensive AFP career that covered roles in serious and organised crime, counter terrorism, chief of staff and high tech crime. In 2002 Andrew was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his investigative work into the 2002 Bali bombings. We wish Andrew every success in his future endeavours.

The medevac repeal legislation is back in the House.

Technically, it is the ongoing debate on Andrew Giles’s amendment, which you will find a few posts down.

Rebekha Sharkie is talking in support of the amendment – she has been one of the fiercest advocates for medevac, the reason Centre Alliance will be fighting to keep medevac in the Senate.

Updated

Richard Di Natale continuing what has become a favoured theme of late:

Stephen Jones on superannuation, which is one of Labor’s favourite topics today, thanks mostly to Craig Kelly:

This morning we read that influential backbencher Craig Kelly is putting out some policy ideas that the government should allow superannuation fund members to be able to dip into their superannuation fund to buy their own home. This is an idea that’s been kicked around many times and has been shown to be not in the interests of fund members. What’s more, and what’s of greater concern, is that Mr Kelly is proposing that the family home should be included in the assets test for pensioners.

The prime minister needs to rule this out immediately. This would amount to a gigantic pensioner retiree tax. The prime minister needs to rule this out. He must rule this out. What is quite clear, is that a government without a policy agenda is finding that its backbenchers are busily trying to fill in the gaps. Whether it’s a new proposition for a retiree tax through the personal family home being a part of the pensioner assets test, or whether it’s the minister for energy freelancing on nuclear power. It’s time for Scott Morrison to step up to ensure that he stops playing the parlour political games and focuses on the real issues that members of the public care about.

Scott Morrison has got to step up. He’s got to stop playing games around here. We need clear leadership from the government on all of these issues. What he needs to do today, and what he needs to do immediately, is to rule out this proposition for the family home to be included as a part of the pensioner assets test.

Updated

Peter Dutton concludes with this:

I just remind you that we have now had three vessels in only a short period of weeks. There were boats on the water anticipating a Labor government being elected in May. We have a very significant concern about some of the messages in Sri Lanka at the moment and we are working in a way that won’t restart boats but to get people off Manus and Nauru as quickly as possible.

I have never ruled out the New Zealand option but I have made the point, and I make it again today, now is not the right time for us to be sending people to New Zealand because New Zealand is being marketed in Sri Lanka, as it is elsewhere, as essentially the same destination as Australia.

Same welfare system, education, government support, all of that is marketed in a similar way.

There may be a time when we can exercise the New Zealand option, we are grateful for it, but we will exercise that option when and if it is in our national interest and it will not restart boats, because under both the Labor party and the Coalition at the moment, if there is a boat that successfully gets through tonight with 30 kids on board, they are all going to Nauru.

President Obama and President Trump have been clear they are not able to access the US arrangement and if they come from Iran, cannot send them back to Iran.

Let’s be realistic. If the problem starts again, what happens, what will happen is this.

Nauru will overflow and then you have the problem of where people go after that.

We have worked to get 585 people off Manus and Nauru. When they need medical attention, we provide medical attention.

That has always been the case. But I will not make decisions that will encourage people smugglers in Sri Lanka who are encouraging innocent people to pay money to get onto those boats.

We are not going back to Labor’s days, having people in detention, and I will not allow our country to be held ransom by people who are evil criminal syndicates taking money [from innocent people].

Updated

Peter Dutton:

The other point you made … is the fact that the people on Manus have been treated very poorly by many people, including some in the press here in Australia. They are islanders, peace loving people, very accommodating, and they have been portrayed as somebody different than that.

PNG is quite aggrieved by that, as I am, and I have made this point in a number of occasions. And I am going to work with the PNG government to reframe that because there are people that have been presented in a way that they shouldn’t have.

I am happy to come to that point. If I can get it down to zero tonight, I would. If I could bring those people to Australia, I would have done it by now.

I am not putting a deadline on it because to go to the point before about people travelling, there are Iranians on PNG, Tehran will not issue travel documents for those people.

They will not go to the United States, they will not accept a position to go to the US. No other country in the world will take them and they are holding out to come to Australia.

In that circumstance, I am not taking those people and I have been clear about it. We have provided resettlement assistance for people to go back to the country of origin, there are 107 people on Manus who have been found not to be refugees and we will continue to work with authorities up there to get the number down to zero.

Updated

Peter Dutton on why he won’t be accepting every recommendation from the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence and security - which is led by the Liberal MP Andrew Hastie and has a majority of government MPs:

I believe that for a long time, Labor has effectively managed Mark Dreyfus through the process. I think they have done the job that the Labor caucus should do. The Labor caucus, I suspect, people because they are compelled to sit there, find it excruciating to listen to long lectures from Mr Dreyfus because as you know, he is the smartest person in any room, at least by his own account.

So I think we need to recognise that, like any committee to the government, they provide recommendations … we have accepted 17 … we have been advised that the bill would be in a better form if we didn’t accept those but noted them and that is the advice we have taken.

In the end, the government will look at the recommendations of the bill or any other, we’re not going to get ourselves into [the] position that we were in at the last parliament where Mark Dreyfus waters down [legislation], we’re not going to allow [that] to happen because what ends up happening is that we end up with a bill that is ineffective and these matters are too important for that.

So Anthony Albanese can manage Mark Dreyfus in a different process but we are not going to allow a national security agency to be stifled by Mark Dreyfus and his ability to water down legislation.

Updated

Incoming AFP commissioner Reece Kershaw on the potential prosecution of journalists:

Look, it is about process. And I’ve said this before, where you can ask for a second opinion or a third opinion about the process and get those opinions and then make that decision but it’s got to be informed, with all the facts, or the legalities addressed and so on and that’s my style, I will get as much information as I can to see where it’s it.

On whether children of foreign fighters who may have been forced to fight will be repatriated, Peter Dutton had this to say:

I need to take into account those considerations, I also need to consider the rights of the 5-year-old Australian child at a school here in Australia because we can’t just take somebody having been over in the Middle East and put them into Year 5 or Year 6.

“... We don’t want media attention in some immediate cases, I don’t want cameras parked out the front, and scrutiny of people going to mosques, we want to work with the, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, the family services authorities in those states … put a bespoke arrangement – and for some individuals and we don’t know whether or not some of these children are Australian citizens or not.

We don’t know because we don’t have DNA testing and we don’t know. I am not going to provide a running commentary on this family or that, individual circumstances, given the way in which we are approaching this, which I think is reasonable. I think the threat level is different with some of the women and what they are posing, I want to be clear about this, the advice to me about some of these women is they are as bad as any of the men and what we have seen.

So let’s be realistic about that. Others, as I have said before, have been in violent relationships or have been sold or traded into some other relationship and horrific circumstances. That’s is what we are dealing with.

Updated

Reece Kershaw has been named the new AFP commissioner.

He is the current Northern Territory police commissioner. He’ll start in October, when Andrew Colvin officially stands down.

Updated

Peta Murphy:

As I now know, cancer is not just indiscriminate, it’s sneaky.

Two weeks ago, a week after being sworn in as the member for Dunkley, I received the unexpected news that my cancer had returned.

You might say Murphy’s Law strikes again. But my mother, Jan, who is a Murphy by marriage, not birth, and therefore able to adopt a less pessimistic personal motto, would say ‘everything happens for a reason’.

I am neither unique nor alone in the fight I am about to take on. Cancer Australia estimates that in 2019, just over 19,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 145,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer.

I am neither unique nor alone, but I am someone who has a platform that I can use to benefit others.

And as long as the people of Dunkley continue to vote for me to represent them in this place, I intend to use it.

I am going to start by saying this today. Ladies, check your breasts.

Men, don’t ignore what your body is telling you.

Fellow members of parliament, listen to experts who warn that the promise of universal healthcare is under threat.

Commit to the reform and funding that our heath system needs, and do whatever is required to ensure that Australia trains, retrains and invests in the healthcare professionals and researchers who make our system great.

Updated

The contest to replace Mitch Fifield as a Victorian senator is shaping up as a two-horse race between Sarah Henderson and Greg Mirabella.

Fifield is jetting off to be Australia’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Henderson was defeated at the May election in the marginal lower house seat of Corangamite, after six years in federal parliament. She had risen to the ranks of assistant minister for social services and disabilities.

Mirabella, a former army officer, is married to former federal minister Sophie Mirabella, who lost the blue ribbon Liberal seat of Indi in north-eastern Victoria in 2013 to Cathy McGowan. Some insiders say he’s got a solid standing and identity within the party, separate to that of his polarising wife.

“He’s his own man,” a source told the Guardian.

Party insiders expect a tight race and the push is on for a regional-based senator because the other Liberal senators live in Melbourne.

Mirabella is from Wangaratta, while Henderson lives in Geelong.

Nominations for preselection close on Friday and 600-odd party members will vote on 8 September.

Prime minister Scott Morrison has endorsed Henderson for the Senate spot but party insiders don’t believe that will make much difference in the minds of rank and file members.

“I just think back to when [Victoria premier] Denis Napthine wrote a letter supporting [cabinet minister] Mary Wooldridge in [the state seat of Kew 2014]. [Then 30-year-old former mayor] Tim Smith won resoundingly,” the insider told the Guardian.

“I’m not sure branch members like to be told what to do.”

Asked about whether gender and the party’s push for more female talent will be a factor in the contest, the insider said: “No.”

“I just don’t think it will swing votes one way or the other.”

Other names in the mix are former Liberal senate candidates Kyle Hoppitt and Karina Okotel, former federal MP for Dunkley Chris Crewther and former state upper house MP Inga Peulich.

Another party insider says the two favourites may not necessarily win the room on the day.

The last time there was a Victorian Senate casual vacancy, former veterans affairs minister Michael Ronaldson retired from politics and James Paterson, a then 28-year-old from the Institute of Public Affairs, won the spot.

“I can’t recall James Paterson being the favourite in 2016. He performed really strongly and impressed delegates,” the party insider said.

“Delegates to a Senate preselection are often more focused on ideology.”

Updated

Peta Murphy, the new Labor MP for Dunkley, is delivering her first speech in the chamber now.

Updated

The home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, was asked on Sky about the commonwealth ombudsman’s report, which revealed a litany of breaches of metadata laws, including that the Western Australian police obtained invalid warrants targeting journalists and ACT police accessed data 116 times without proper authorisation.

Asked if this showed the law’s safeguards don’t work, Dutton replied:

No it’s not, there are many cases now where Asio and the AFP have relied on those laws particularly in relation to serious matters including counter terrorism matters to keep Australians safe. There are mechanisms in place, safe checks and they should be adhered to, and if not there are consequences for that. So, take the protections very seriously but in the end the vast majority of cases – 99% of the use of these laws – will be appropriate, and they’ll be used in a way that will result in protecting Australians, that’s the reality.


The ombudsman’s report didn’t detail any consequences that accrued from the breaches by WA Police or ACT Policing – aside from a polite request to quarantine the data which in ACT Policing’s case was not immediately adhered to.

From our report:

The ombudsman recommended the AFP quarantine all telecommunications data obtained under the 116 authorisations, which the AFP accepted. ‘However it did not act to quarantine the affected data at that time, which resulted in additional use and communication of the data,’ the report said.

Despite the quarantine process beginning in February 2018, the data had still not been fully quarantined by April 2018.

So we’ll have to hear from Dutton what the unspecified “consequences” might be!

Updated

Kristina Keneally and Alan Jones have joined forces.

Yes, you read that correctly.

They have come together to try and reverse the decision which has seen a Sri Lankan family who made a home in Biloela, but who are now in detention after they were judged not to be refugees.

So far, the government has not budged on the case, despite multiple appeals from the Queensland community to bring them home.

And now, it has seen Jones and Keneally team up.

That’s how serious it is.

Updated

Government 'can't be trusted on national security' says Ed Husic

Why is it an issue, for Labor, that the government hasn’t taken on board all of the recommendations of the joint parliamentary security and intelligence committee on the temporary exclusion orders bill?

Ed Husic told Sky News:

Because the committee basically drops the politics, drops the politicking, thinks deeply about the advice that is given, not just from the security agencies, but from others who have a considered opinion in the community, the Law Council and others, and then frames its recommendations with a lot of consideration attached to them.

And if they say, as a result of their considerations, it would be better to strengthen the law in this way, I think the government should be made to work double time to explain why those recommendations aren’t good enough to follow.

I just think Peter Dutton has a lot to answer for, as to why so many people left, why he hasn’t brought the regime in the way that he should, why has he taken so long.

I think the other thing is the government just can’t be trusted on national security. They prioritise politics over the safety of the country, and in Peter Dutton’s case, you have to ask, if his colleagues couldn’t bring themselves to put him in a leadership position, couldn’t trust him in a leadership position, why is he being trusted with national security when so many things are going off the rails under his watch.

Updated

Rex Patrick also has concerns about the temporary exclusion order bill:

Peter Dutton was on ABC radio this morning talking about why the government rejected some of the recommendations of the security and intelligence committee:

There were 19 recommendations. We accept 17. And we’ll implement their recommendations, but the government, at the end of the day, relies not only on the advice from the committee, made up of Labor and Liberal members, but also, of course – and predominantly – the agencies, including Asio, Asis, my own intelligence units within Home Affairs, and we make decisions that we believe are in the best interests of the country.

And excluding people on a temporary basis from coming back to our country to cause harm is an absolute priority of the government.

So, we look at all of that information, and we make decisions that we believe are in the best interest. There is an ability for the minister to make a decision under legislation.

Each decision, every decision, is reviewed by a retired judge or a member of the AAT. That process is in place. There is also an ability for matters to be heard right up to the high court, but the federal court to start with.

So, there are checks and balances in place now. But you don’t have faith in a retired judge to make these decisions? Our judgement is, particularly in cases where you need to make an urgent decision, that that case is best considered by the minister, and then reviewed. We’re happy for the review to take place.

It’s an important check and balance. But as is the case with passport cancellations, for example, where the foreign minister might make a decision, that decision is made by the minister, and that’s consistent with legislation and practice under both Liberal and Labor over a long period of time.

Updated

Peter Dutton will hold a press conference at 11.45pm in the blue room - the second most fancy press conference location.

There is a lot of aqua in the public gallery as Zali Steggall delivers her first speech and a pretty big cheer from that same quarter when she mentions defeating Tony Abbott

Liberal backbench senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells continues to make her push for a broader “religious freedom act” than the defensive religious discrimination act currently being developed by attorney general Christian Porter.

In the adjournment debate in the Senate on Tuesday night, she detailed nine cases of apparent religious discrimination, as she saw it.

The cases included those already publicly aired, including a wedding photographer sued for refusing to provide services to a same-sex wedding (the case was dropped), a student being investigated for comments about not agreeing with the “lifestyle” of a gay friend (the case was dropped), a teacher who was investigated during the postal survey for posting on social media articles about “homosexual marriage” (the case was dropped).

There was also a case about a Christian family being rejected for fostering children because of their beliefs.

“This is no dream; it is a reality. For those involved it has become a nightmare,” Fierravanti-Wells said. “This is supposed to be modern-day Australia, supposedly democratic and free. But this was not the case and isn’t the case for these people. You or I could be the next victims.”

It should be noted many of these situations are something gay people also face from religious organisations. For example, the Perth case where a teacher lost employment after revealing on social media he was in a same-sex relationship

Updated

Craig Kelly has a friend in the Australian Taxpayers’ Association:

Allowing wealthy individuals who live in multi-million dollar palatial mansions to claim handouts funded by hardworking middle and working class taxpayers is an unconscionable rort that must end now if our pension system is to be sustainable in the decades to come [ ATA director of policy Satya Marar said in a statement].

The pension isn’t some entitlement you get simply because you pay into the system over your working life. It’s meant to provide a safety net for those who genuinely need it. There’s nothing cruel or unfair about requiring wealthy Australians to support themselves with their own wealth by downsizing before depending on the government.

Means-tested welfare is a shrewd, fair principle and pension eligibility is no exception.

Both major parties have baulked at this commonsense change out of fear of political consequences. But the consequences of doing nothing and ratcheting up billions more in tax bills or unsustainable public debt to fund those who don’t need it are far worse. We commend Craig Kelly MP for recognising the need for this timely and taxpayer-friendly reform.

Updated

Minister 'intervention' in committee report sets 'very, very dangerous' precedent, says Labor

Jim Chalmers on Rob Harris’s story that Paul Fletcher, the then social-services minister, intervened to remove a recommendation Newstart be raised from a bipartisan parliamentary committee report before the election.

I don’t involve myself in the goings on of that committee, but I think what is clear from the reports that have come out today, is that the report was going to recommend working towards an increase to Newstart, the government intervened at the last minute.

“They seem to be the only ones who don’t recognise the need for consideration for a need for change here.”

Linda Burney:

“Not only the minister, but the then minister for social services, intervened and that is a very, very, very dangerous precedent”.

Updated

Zali Steggall is delivering her first speech in the chamber.

Just to make it clear: a quorum for the House is 31 government MPs (moved up from 30 after an additional electorate was added at the last election). Usually, no one cares. people have meetings, the parliament runs, yadda, yadda, yadda. But given that the opposition was messed around on Monday, when the government rushed through legislation it didn’t actually have to rush through, Labor is making life a bit difficult for the government.

I imagine those quorum bells are going to ring quite a few times in the near future.

Updated

If anyone is wondering why Labor is playing hard ball in the lower house, the manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, foreshadowed on Monday that it would not play nice.

The government pushed through the drought fund bill by suspending standing orders and moving straight to third reading on Monday, without giving Labor 24 hours for the bill to go to caucus – and with the consequence that MPs didn’t have time to read the bill.

On Monday Burke warned that rushing the legislation through was a “really dumb idea” and made vague threats that “if the government decides proper process in this House no longer matters” it can’t come to the opposition seeking cooperation on other procedural matters.

So this morning’s shenanigans seem like straight-up payback.

Updated

The Australian Council of Social Services has responded to this report from Rob Harris at the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age:

A bipartisan call to increase the Newstart allowance was removed from a parliamentary report at the direction of the Morrison government on the eve of the federal election.

As Prime Minister Scott Morrison stares down growing demands by Coalition MPs to lift the unemployment benefit for the first time since 1994, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age can reveal former social services minister Paul Fletcher intervened in an inquiry to erase a major recommendation that would have turbo-charged the sensitive issue.

Here’s the acting Acoss CEO, Jacqueline Phillips:

It’s outrageous that a Government Minister would step in and change a Parliamentary Inquiry’s recommendations, which should be based purely on evidence presented to the Inquiry.

Rather than trying to avoid the issue, the Government should listen to the clear calls from the community, business sector and economists, for an increase to Newstart, which would reduce poverty, stimulate the economy and create jobs.

It’s telling that a Parliamentary Inquiry, made up of members from the Coalition, Labor and the crossbench, appears to have come to the conclusion, before the election, that Newstart needs to be increased.

This shows that we can achieve bipartisan support on increasing Newstart, as does the growing consensus across Parliament, including agreement from majority of Nationals MPs.

We call on the Government to urgently reconsider its position. The time to act on Newstart is now.

Updated

This has happened three times now – there have not been enough government members in the chamber for a quorum.

I take back everything I said about missing the bells.

Updated

Jim Chalmers and Linda Burney will hold a door stop on Craig Kelly’s latest intervention in just a few minutes.

Keneally says government has 'sought to blow up the compact' of bipartisanship security committee

Kristina Keneally was just on Sky News, talking about what she sees as the consequences of the government rejecting recommendations from the joint committee on security and intelligence:

I would say the government has sought to blow up the compact of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security.

If you will, this is the beginning, unfortunately, of the compact of a committee which has worked very well and unlike any other committee, has produced bipartisan recommendations that have improved every piece of national security legislation.

Now if the government is intent on on disregarding the recommendations and not working with the committee, it may be that some of the government’s recommended changes are sensical. It may be that in some cases they have misunderstood the committee’s recommendations, and we need to have a conversation with them. All of that has been thrown out the window, and that does, I believe, pose a risk, to the good functioning of that committee into the future.

And it is unfortunate, because I think it has been of great benefit to security agencies and to Australians generally.

Labor did not take on all of the committee’s recommendations on the telecommunications data retention bill, which the government is using as precedent for not taking all of the recommendations on this one.

Labor is supporting the bill, despite its concerns. One of those being that the minister is the power which will get to decide who the temporary exclusion order applies to, not, as it is in the UK, on which the Australian laws are based on, a retired judge, or independent judiciary member. Peter Dutton says that would undermine the intent of the bill. Keneally says the UK, which has had these laws since 2015, has not found that.

But again – it doesn’t matter, because the laws have bipartisan support to go through the parliament.

Updated

Oh lookie here.

Malcolm Roberts has the Senate matter of importance debate today and he has chosen the topic:

That the flawed and dangerous medevac legislation undermines Australia’s border security and must be urgently repealed.

Well slather me in vinegar and call me pickled – that just happens to be the very thing the government wants to talk about!

Updated

Jim Chalmer’s adjournment speech was on this very topic last night:

We’re told at least a dozen Liberals want to strip Australians of the super increases they need, deserve, and were promised.

I gave the Prime Minister multiple opportunities in this House to rule out any changes to increasing the Super Guarantee to 12 per cent and he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, do it.

The Treasurer too; he was given five opportunities on Insiders.

The Trade Minister would only say they wouldn’t change it at this point in time.

The Finance Minister said they’d leave it alone – but now we hear there was a barney about it in their party room today.

The weasel words and sly language gives the game away.

Here we go again.

They’ve got form and not just on super.

It always begins with backbench extremists putting pressure on the Treasurer, and it ends with him folding.

It happened on energy and it will happen again on super.”

Anthony Albanese’s ban on the word ‘liar’ just means shadow frontbenchers and their staff have to break out the thesaurus a little more. Hence - weasel words.

The government has a majority in the House, so the motion goes nowhere.

BUT Craig Kelly’s latest thought bubble is in defiance of Scott Morrison’s order to the party room on Tuesday, to shut up.

You can’t keep Kelly down though. There is not a debate in this country that man doesn’t have an opinion on.

Updated

Jim Chalmer’s attempt to suspend standing orders is over this story in the New Daily, where Craig Kelly had a chat to Samantha Maiden over what he thinks first-home owners should be able to do with their super:

Liberal MP Craig Kelly has called for first-home buyers to be able to access super for a housing deposit, and also include the family home as part of the pension asset test.

Defying the prime minister Scott Morrison’s call that Liberal MPs toe the party line on the superannuation debate, Kelly told the New Daily there should be a debate about including the family home in the asset test for the pension.

“Your family house at the moment is 100% exempt from the asset test,” Kelly said.

“If you decide you could use super to pay for your house you could say, ‘I want a larger family home now when the kids are young, knowing when my kids move out I will downsize’, there would be some discount of the family home that would be counted in the asset test.”

Updated

Over in the House of Representatives, Jim Chalmers is attempting to suspend standing orders for this motion:

That the House:

1) notes that:

a) the member for Hughes has called for the family home to be included in the pension assets test, meaning more retirees will be pushed off the pension, out of their homes or both;

b) 12 members of the government have now called for changes to the legislated increase to the superannuation guarantee;

c) the government has already shortchanged pensioners by refusing to properly adjust deeming rates for years despite five interest rate cuts;

d) the government made a deal with the Greens to change the pension asset test, which meant that the pension was cut for 370,000 pensioners, with 88,000 losing their pension altogether;

e) the government tried to scrap the energy supplement for years, meaning 1.5 million pensioners would have had their payments cut;

f) the government has repeatedly sought to raise the pension age to 70;

g) the government tried to cut pension indexation in the 2014 budget, which would have forced pensioners to live on $80 a week less within 10 years; and

h) the government cut $1bn from pensioner concessions in the 2014 budget.

2) therefore, condemns the government for undermining the retirement incomes of millions of Australians.

Updated

As I slowly make my way through last night’s Hansard (what can I say, I live a wild life) I see that Nick McKim used his parliamentary privilege overnight to accuse Peter Dutton, or his office, of leaking confidential security advice to the media.

That’s in relation to this story. The AFP declined to investigate the leak, with the referral not even getting past the first hurdle. Outgoing chief Andrew Colvin said it was deemed to have a low chance of a success.

McKim:

We so desperately need a charter of rights in this country so we can protect and enshrine those fundamental rights and freedoms that actually are amongst those things that make Australia such a great country.

Those rights and freedoms that so many of us take for granted are now being taken away, hand over fist, by a combination of the major political parties in this place, the LNP and the ALP.

They do that because they stitch up cosy deals behind the closed doors of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, a committee that operates often in total secret, without public scrutiny and which denies any crossbench representation and input into its decision-making process.

What we get because of that collusion is the ongoing giving away of fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia.

The crossbench should be on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security; there’s no doubt about that.

I want to give a couple of examples of issues that have arisen in the last year or so in Australia.

Firstly, the leaking, which I have no doubt came either from minister Dutton or from his office to Simon Benson, to a journalist at the Australian, of classified Asio information, a leak which was condemned by Mr Lewis, the head of Asio, when it happened but which inexplicably the Australian federal police have declined to investigate.

When you superimpose that on to the recent raids by the Australian federal police of prominent media outlets in this country, including News Corp and the ABC, you can understand why there is nervousness starting to emerge amongst our media, amongst journalists about the intimidatory nature of those raids.

I say to our media that in fact the issue here is far broader than just press and media freedom; it’s about the freedoms of ordinary Australians to go about their day-to-day business without unnecessary spying and intrusion into their personal privacy by intelligence agencies in this country.

It’s time we had a charter of rights to protect a broad range of rights, including our rights to privacy.

It’s time that we had an informed conversation in this country about the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in the name of national security and an informed debate about whether or not giving away those rights and freedoms is necessary or, indeed, whether giving them away makes us any safer at all from the threats that no doubt exist today.

Updated

Andrew Giles:

Justice Murphy, presiding over the case, stated, ‘There is a strongly arguable case that in evacuating the applicant to PIH rather than to a hospital in Australia, the respondents provided inadequate medical care to the applicant.

The evacuation resulted in the applicant being sent to a hospital which, at least arguably, did not have the capacity to properly respond to her medical needs. The case of this little girl demonstrates that decisions about medical care should be taken by medical professionals. The advice of doctors should be listened to and acted upon. The Australian people are good, decent and generous.

They don’t want to see vulnerable, sick people in our care suffering when medical care is available to treat them. They appreciate that these circumstances are distinct from the complex policy debates in this area.

This is why the parliament must not allow the medevac legislation to be repealed.

This is why we are proposing our second reading amendment to the bill, which is before the House.

I move:

That all words after “that” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the:

(1) minister for home affairs has: (a) failed to accurately describe the processes providing for the medical transfer of people from Papua New Guinea and Nauru; and (b) consistently mischaracterised the effects of these processes;

and (2) minister for home affairs and the minister for immigration and citizenship have failed to put forward any amendments which would address any genuine concerns they may have with the operation of the processes.”

Debate was interrupted by the adjournment. But you know where that amendment will go.

Updated

Andrew Giles spoke in the House late last night on the medevac repeal bill:

I want to briefly share with the House the human story I think best illustrates what a difference this regime has made and how dangerous it would be to go back.

The story concerns a two-year-old girl known as DIZ18. Her parents fled Iran to Australia, arriving in 2013 without a visa.

They were taken by the Australian government to Nauru and recognised as refugees under the refugee convention in 2014.

DIZ18 was born in Nauru on 5 June 2016. This little girl became ill in June 2018 and her illness rapidly got worse over the next few days.

On 12 June the treating doctors, with the International Health and Medical Services – the medical service contracted to provide healthcare to refugees on Nauru – diagnosed her with severe sepsis.

In short, IHMS recommended that the little girl be urgently medically evacuated, to a tertiary-level hospital, to Australia or a third country.

A senior officer of the Australian Border Force involved in the decision inquired whether it was possible for the applicant to, instead, be evacuated to a hospital in Papua New Guinea or Taiwan.

Each doctor and specialist who recommended her medical evacuation recommended that she be taken to a tertiary hospital in Australia or another first-world country; however, the sick little girl was treated at the hospital in Papua New Guinea. It rapidly became clear that the standard of care required, including MRI brain scans and other scans, were not available at this hospital.

Updated

The medevac repeal bill is low-key simmering away in the background. It won’t reach the Senate for a debate until it has been through a committee, which is not due to report back until October – and then the Senate will consider it in November.

Jacqui Lambie is the key vote there. And she is not saying what she plans on doing.

Updated

After the Angus Taylor hour yesterday, nuclear power is once again floating around.

There is a growing number of Coalition backbenchers pushing for an inquiry into nuclear power, being led by the Queensland contingent. Keith Pitt is a particularly passionate advocate.

Taylor, as part of Labor’s focus on him in question time yesterday, was asked about the policy, as well as where he believed any potential nuclear power sites should go.

The government is not into nuclear power. During the election campaign, Scott Morrison’s comments to a Tasmanian radio station that nuclear power was “not ‘not’ on the agenda, wherever it can come from is fine, but it has to be self-sustaining”, caused a brief kerfuffle that the PMO was very quick to try and extinguish.

And yet, here we still are. Taylor hasn’t done the best job of ruling it out, even if, as his colleagues tell me, he has been told to.

So out comes Peter Dutton this morning on Sunrise:

The only thing we have said, let us be clear about it, we want lower electricity prices. We want reliability. We want people to turn lights on and his crazy renewable targets doubling power prices that Labor is proposing ...

Given that it is three years until the next election, Dutton was interrupted and asked if nuclear was the answer.

I don’t believe it is and the government has had a moratorium. Bob Hawke was the last letter to advocate, and he did strongly, for nuclear. The government’s position has been made clear, we are not closed to to debates. People can express their views but the government’s perspective is to get prices down and make sure people can turn lights on.

(Fun fact: Tveeder, the transcription service, changes nuclear to “new killer”, and I think that’s just beautiful.)

Updated

In news that seems to be like all James McGrath’s Milo and milks came at once, Boris Johnson is officially the UK prime minister.

Good to see a battler finally come out on top (yes, that is sarcasm).

Former foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop welcomed the news, telling Network Seven:

“Boris Johnson has an unusually close relationship with Australia for a British prime minister,” she said.

“He spent his gap year here, attending Geelong Grammar. He’s visited Australia many times.”

Speaking of that gap year, Johnson mentioned it in a 2015 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, where he told this story about getting lost in Canberra and somehow managing to camp on a roundabout.

I was driving there and I was about 18 and I got totally lost and I dossed down for the night in a roundabout. Well, I woke up and discovered it was a roundabout,” he explains. He pitched his tent on the roundabout in the middle of the night – an experience that went about as well as you’d expect for a young British kid sleeping in the middle of a Canberra street in the 1980s. “It was terrible. I thought it would be OK, then I got woken up by the traffic and then I looked at my hands, my hands had swollen up like blown-up washing-up gloves because I had been so badly bitten.”

I call bull shit, but then again, maybe it sounds different in Latin.

Updated

Good morning

It’s day three which means the sitting is one day closer to ending.

Silver linings people.

After the latest national security fight, the government is now gearing up for the latest union fight. Christian Porter and the government are having another go at the ensuring integrity bill.

Labor have already said it won’t support this bill. That’s not unexpected – it goes against everything that the Labor party stands for. So it is the crossbench the government needs to convince and so far, Centre Alliance and One Nation are not impressed.

That will be debated in the House later today – and Porter has been out and about early to try and garner support.

Meanwhile, late last night, Peter Dutton rejected a Senate request to hand over documents related to the extension of the Paladin contract. From AAP’s report:

Senators instructed the home affairs minister to hand over information about the contract to ensure taxpayers were getting value for money, given it was awarded to the small company in a closed tender process.

In a letter to the Senate president tabled late on Tuesday night, Dutton said tens of thousands of documents were potentially within scope of the order.

“Due to the significant volume of documents, I assess compliance with the order would result in an unreasonable diversion of significant resources,” he said.

“I will therefore not be tabling any documents on 23 July 2019 as stipulated in the original order.”

Dutton is now locked in talks with Labor’s home affairs spokeswoman Kristina Keneally to reduce the scope of required documents, pushing the deadline out by another month.

“Negotiations regarding the scope of the documents to be provided by this date are ongoing,” he said.

We’ll bring you that, and everything else which happens within these so-called corridors of power (and beyond) as it unfolds, so I do hope you’ll come along with us. Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy and Paul Karp are all at your service, so while I browbeat one of them into getting me a coffee, we should jump into it.

Ready?

Let’s go.

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
SNL Was Forced To Change A Sketch At The Last Minute And Complained About It On The Air
Fear. Rage. Chaos.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Woman sees her favorite singer started following her on Instagram and jumps with excitement. Then she opened their account: ‘This is humiliating’
TikTok creator Paloma (@whor3chata_) is sparking a massive wave of sympathy (and second-hand embarrassment) on TikTok with her recent grwm story. The creator shared the “before and after” of being followed by one of her favorite singers on Instagram. Sadly, the “after” is humiliating.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Harry Styles, fake stage invaders and a censored Peter Mandelson joke: the biggest moments at the Brit awards
The ITV censors had their work cut out in a protest-filled, relatively edgy ceremony that hosted ultra-expressive performances from Rosalía, Wolf Alice and more
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Meet the Gen Z college students who turned Excel into a competitive esport—they’re competing in spreadsheet challenges and it’s helping them land jobs
Microsoft-backed spreadsheet competitions are turning Gen Z college students into job-market standouts.
Fortune
Fortune
As Jennifer Lopez’s Kids Turn 18, An Insider Drops Claims About Their ‘Atypical’ Childhood
The kids are alright.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
I Somehow Forgot That One Devastating Harry Potter Book Scene Wasn't Shown In The Movies
I remember the scene from the book so clearly ... too clearly.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play