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

Australian officials to speak with Indonesians over Israel embassy concerns – as it happened

And we will leave the blog here tonight.

What a week huh? (Insert Liz Lemon joke here)

There are more fun and games to be had tomorrow. Maybe even some *gasp* policy discussion. Don’t hold your breath though.

Labor and the crossbench pushing the government into temporarily bringing the children of asylum seekers, and their families, to Australia for medical treatment, as decreed by the AMA in a fairly unprecedented intervention by the good doctors, should be something we talk about tomorrow.

Should be.

At the moment, it is all coming down to the New Zealand offer to accept 150 refugees, an offer that has been on the table since 2013 mind you, and how the government navigates that.

The government says it will look at the offer, if its legislation creating a “lifetime ban” for any of the Nauru or Manus Island detained asylum seekers is passed by the parliament.

Labor says that will never happen, and that the US deal was not contingent on it.

The government wants it for New Zealand because of the freedom of movement between the two countries under the Trans-Tasman agreement. It says the New Zealand offer provides a “backdoor” to living in Australia without the ban, and Peter Dutton has told parliament New Zealand is being touted as a way to get into Australia by people smugglers.

But the parliament seems to have finally caught up to the public – which has been softening its views on Nauru and Manus Island over the past couple of years, as people begin to wonder just how long we plan on keeping asylum seekers there.

And more and more people are against indefinitely being the answer to that question.

I’ll be back with the Guardian’s brains trust tomorrow to bring you all the days events. I imagine the government senators are counting down the hours to Thursday night, given the Senate just has the one week sitting this time round.

A big thank you to everyone who followed today’s twists and turns. I hope you can take a moment to shut off, because tomorrow as they say, is another day.

And in the meantime – take care of you.

Updated

Back to the Senate, the government “denied formality” to this motion put forward by Pauline Hanson.

That the Senate is of the opinion that anti-Semitism should be defined, as it is by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, as a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as:

(a) hatred toward Jews; and

(b) rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward:

(i) Jewish or non-Jewish individuals or their property, and

(ii) Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

Motions get denied formality all the time – it is basically a way of saying, no, the Senate will not be debating that.

But it was the decision of the Labour party in the UK to move away from the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which caused so many of its recent problems

One Nation was being a little sneaky here, by forcing the government to confirm its position on the definition of Semitism, as defined by the IHRA. You can find that working definition here

And it follows the decision last year, by the IHRA to upgrade Australia’s status “in the organisation from observer to liaison” following “three years of engagement by Australian diplomats and experts under the leadership of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and encouragement from Australia’s foreign minister Julie Bishop and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull to deepen that engagement.”

But it looks like the government has been burned and is not willing to see complex and nuanced policy positions debated as Senate motions put forward by Pauline Hanson. At least not today.

Updated

Further to Rebehka Sharkie’s question in QT about the crossbenchers’ bill to temporarily remove children on Nauru for medical treatment, Bill Shorten has written to Scott Morrison announcing Labor’s legislation:

Labor has officially responded to the idea put forward (again) by the government – that it wants a lifetime ban on asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island from ever entering Australia, before it would consider New Zealand’s resettlement offer.

The problem there is that New Zealand has freedom of movement with us (and vice versa) so, by creating a lifetime ban, it is essentially creating a second tier of New Zealand citizenship.

Shayne Neumann confirms Labor is still against the proposal:

The “lifetime ban” legislation permanently excludes any person who travelled to Australia by means other than the normal channels for immigration, including by boat, from ever entering Australia.

This would include someone who has subsequently settled in the United States and, decades later, needs to come to Australia for a short business trip, or to visit a dying relative.

Other examples of people who would be banned from ever coming to Australia include:

  • politicians undertaking a political exchange;
  • elite athletes hoping to compete in Australian sport events;
  • tourist visits by former refugees who are now citizens of another country; and
  • business owners or employees visiting in Australia to discuss the expansion of companies and businesses into the Australia market.

The legislation is a ridiculous overreach and is irrelevant to securing third country resettlement arrangements and Labor does not agree to the legislation in its current form.

Updated

The discrimination issue is not going away any time soon, no matter how many times Scott Morrison says the government is taking its time to respond to the Ruddock review to ensure it gets it right.

Janet Rice says voting for the Greens’ discrimination-free schools bill will put the issue to bed. The senator introduced it this afternoon. She said in a statement:

Prime minister Scott Morrison is right: we need to ‘act right now’ to end this unfair discrimination while both parties are feeling the pressure in Wentworth.

Under intense community pressure, both the Labor and Liberal parties have changed their position and are now talking big about removing discrimination against LGBT+ students and teachers from our laws.

It’s time they turn their words into action and vote for the Greens’ bill to protect students, teachers and staff members from being expelled or fired by religious schools because of who they are.

If we delay, we risk Scott Morrison caving into the conservatives and Bill Shorten selling out LGBT+ Australians once again after the Wentworth byelection and missing our opportunity to end this legal discrimination ‘once and for all’.

Updated

The Palestinian foreign minister is more blunt:

From the Indonesian foreign minister’s statement, as reported by the ABC’s David Lipson.

You can take from this Indonesia is critical of the proposal Australia is looking at, but it is not clear whether the trade deal will be pulled because of it.

Katharine Murphy with an update on the ‘backdoor’ closure Scott Morrison wants before looking at accepting New Zealand’s offer:

And the ABC is to be the subject of another inquiry:

Updated

And now this:

The motion Penny Wong flagged yesterday:

That the Senate –

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia is a tolerant and accepting nation and discrimination against LGBTI Australians has no place in our national laws;

(ii) the government has had the review into religious freedoms since May 2018, and has so far refused to release it so Australia can have a proper debate about these important issues;

(iii) repeated leaks over the last week have suggested that the review will recommend changes to exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation in relation to LGBTI students and staff;

(iv) many religious education institutions have made clear that they do not use, nor do they want, these exemptions; and

(v) these exemptions are out of step with the views and beliefs of most Australians; and

(b) calls on the federal government to:

(i) immediately introduce legislation which would abolish the current exemptions that permit discrimination against LGBTI students and staff in religious schools; and

(ii) immediately release the review into religious freedoms so the Australian people can have a mature debate about how we can best balance protection of religious freedom with the rights of people to live free from discrimination, in compliance with the orders of the Senate of 19 September and 20 September 2018.

Was just passed, despite the government voting against it, 32 to 29.

Updated

A Senate committee will soon decide if federal police can use documents seized in a raid on the home affairs department for its investigation into leaks concerning the visa cases of two foreign au pairs.

The Senate on Tuesday afternoon voted to refer the issue to its privileges committee, which is due to meet on Thursday.

Last week, investigators were ordered to hand over any documentation to the Senate clerk for safekeeping until Labor senator Louise Pratt’s claim for parliamentary privilege could be settled.

The privileges committee is expected to offer affected parties the opportunity to make submissions and has left the door open to examining the seized material if necessary, according to a Senate motion.

Eight senators are on the committee – government backbenchers Dean Smith, Eric Abetz, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and David Bushby, Labor’s Jacinta Collins, Deborah O’Neill and Lisa Singh as well as Greens senator Nick McKim.

During a Senate inquiry hearing into the au pair saga last month, Pratt warned department boss Mike Pezzullo that any federal police investigation would have to take into account parliamentary privilege.

Updated

Looks like there are some Eurovision fans in the department of human services:

From Primrose Riordan at the Australian:

Updated

Michelle Grattan was reduced to using all caps in a tweet earlier today.

And now Andrew Bolt is coming through with the logic:

I’m not saying today is broken, but I am not, not saying that.

And question time ends.

I assume Scott Morrison has some phone calls to make.

What a treat Joel Fitzgibbon has just given us – more Michael McCormack!

Fitzgibbon:

Is the minister aware of a [news] report that a very well-known national stakeholder has been ringing around for about three weeks in the face of ineffective representation on the agricultural sector? What is the minister’s response to that stakeholder, and will they say who we all know who he is?

McCormack:

I have to say that back when we first got into government, Mr Speaker, I always put my name, always have, put my name to a story, I don’t listen to anything where people are not prepared to put their name to it, Mr Speaker.

And you should listen well...while they are picking on me, they are leaving you alone so rest assured Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, I have always been prepared to put my name to anything I have ever spoken to a journalist about.

You can ask any journalist in the gallery, if I have something to say I put my name to it.

We have the member for Warringah sitting up there, and he can full well account for the fact that, Mr Speaker, when I have said things, I put my name to it, because he phoned me a couple of times to ask me why I had made certain statements about things that the government were putting forward, and I said, well, prime minister, he was the prime minister at the time, I said at least I put my name to it. (The camera goes to Tony Abbott. He does not look impressed.)

You don’t have to worry about somebody who puts their name to something, you have to worry about people who background journalists. You have to worry about people who background journalists.

There is a cancer in Canberra at the moment, it is people who background journalists, it is no good for politics and no good for parliament. Mr Speaker, there are people opposite who background journalists. You are already finding out.

The Australian people expect better from politicians, I see the member for Sydney nodding, because she agrees. Whether it is the National party or whether it is the Liberal party or whether it is the Labor party, Mr Speaker, the Australian public just wants to, wants us to focus on what is important to them. And you know what is important to us, Mr Speaker, it is cost of living, it is power prices, it is the price of petrol, it is national security, it is border security.

They are the things that the people out there watching this telecast, listening to the broadcast, they are the things that people want us to be focused on. I am focused on those things.

The prime minister is focused on those things. And those opposite, instead of asking these sorts of questions, should be asking questions about the economy, should be asking questions about the economy, because that is what is important. These inside Canberra games you are playing, they will come back to bite you, don’t worry about that.

People who background journalists have to look in the mirror and ask if that is really serving the people of Australia, is that what I should be doing today.

No, I am focused on making sure that the people of Australia get well served and I put my name to everything I say to journalists.”

Updated

Speaking to Hot Tomato a little earlier, Stuart Robert explained how the $38,000 internet bill happened (which he has agreed to pay back):

“These things are awkward on our – there’s a management report that comes out every month, in these things, and goes through every single expense, but I probably just wasn’t paying enough attention.”

There you have it. The assistant treasurer was not paying enough attention to what was being spent.

Case closed.

Updated

The ABC is reporting the Australian ambassador in Jakarta is seeking urgent talks with the Indonesian foreign minister.

Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:

Is the prime minister aware of the reports that Indonesia is reconsidering its trade deal with Australia as a result of the prime minister’s rushed announcement today? How many jobs could be at risk as a result of the day’s foreign policy on the run announcement about moving the embassy?

Morrison:

It may not be known to leader of the opposition I have been in direct contact with President Joko Widodo over the course of last night and this morning, as has the minister for foreign affairs being in direct contact with the minister for foreign affairs of Indonesia.

This is a regular part of our management of these foreign affairs relationships and I am pleased to be able to explain very clearly the nature of the announcements I have made today and I have been very pleased with the response that I have received from President Joko Widodo and we’ll continue to work closely and cooperatively with our allies and with our partners all around the world on these issues.

What I am looking forward to over the next few months, as we go through the summit season, is canvassing these ideas with other leaders and canvas their ideas before the government forms a particular view on this issue.

That is actually how you make decisions. You consult with your friends, your neighbours, your allies, you commence a process, you do not unilaterally make this decision.

We commence this process, we are doing it in good faith, we are open to the possibilities of what can be achieved. But what this shows is the reckless way that the leader of the Labor party has sought to undermine the announcements that have been made to date. And to scare mum on this issue, Mr Speaker, is the recklessness with which he would adopt a policy in government.

In 2018, if I had gone knocking on someone’s door and said if you elect the Labor party, 1,200 people will die at sea or 50,000 people will turn up on a hundred boats...they will ensure that the budget goes into deep deficit and the debt will go off the charts, people would have locked me up, Mr Speaker.

They would have locked me up. And I had the leader of the opposition saying “the chicken will not lay eggs” and the rest of it. When the people of Australia last elected a Labor government they made a complete hash of it and the Australian people will not forget that.

Updated

And because there is not enough going on, Daisy Turnbull Brown is also letting loose with opinions on the Liberal party (on teachers, which makes sense, given she is one)

Indonesia 'considers' tearing up trade deal over Israel

As Scott Morrison defends the government’s position on Israel, this comes through

Updated

Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:

The secretary of DFAT has said that the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem had not been helpful and had made what was already a very, very difficult process even harder.

Why is the prime minister ignoring the view of Australia’s top diplomat and making up foreign policy on the run? Does the prime minister seriously expect anyone to believe that this stunt was about anything other than when workers lack is he really so desperate that he will say and do anything to save Wentworth including overturning 70 years of bipartisanship and foreign policy?

Scott Morrison:

Bob Carr, Bob Carr, Bob Carr.

Updated

Peter Dutton gets another chance to tell you how safe you are.

Very. Because Labor is not in government [insert spooky music]

Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:

In June, when asked whether Australia would follow President Trump and move its embassy to Tel Aviv, the now prime minister said, and I quote, no, no, it is not the government’s policy, it has never been under review and we are not doing it.

Does the prime minister stand by this statement or is the prime minister really so desperate to save Wentworth that he will say and do anything, even if it means overturning 70 years of bipartisan foreign policy?

Morrison:

My statement in June reflected the policy of the government at the time. As prime minister I had made announcements today which flagged that our government is considering, in the context of a two-state solution, which we do not resile from, in fact it is because of our commitment to a two-state solution that we believe that we need to be open to more innovative ways to progress that agenda, and that should involve consideration not only of the recognition of the capital of Israel being in Jerusalem, but also of a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, and for an embassy to potentially be located in West Jerusalem, Mr Speaker.

Tomorrow morning, the United Nations will vote on the G77 decision that would allow Palestine to take up the chair of the G77.

Our government will not be sitting on the fence, will be voting no on that decision, Speaker. And in addition to that, as has been explained by the minister for defence, we are viewing without prejudice our position on the joint comprehensive plan of action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, Mr Speaker.

This is an issue of real concern within the Jewish community, Mr Speaker, as I am sure members opposite know and are being silenced by members like the member for Sydney, or the member for Watson, Mr Speaker, or the faction within New South Wales controlled by Bob Carr, who is making the Labor party walk away from their support of Israel, which was once understood and was once appreciated, and now, and now the Labor party cannot form a view on this, Mr Speaker.

Well, our government can form a view, we can form a view, we are for a two-state solution and we are for our support for the nation state of Israel, and we are for working together to go and achieve that solution in a way that considers, it considers, Mr Speaker, the proposal that we could potentially have recognition of the capital in Jerusalem and potentially have an embassy is located in Jerusalem.

Now, the Labor party will not even allow that thought to pass their minds. All I have simply said today is we have not made progress, we are not making progress to a two-state solution in the Middle East.

If you keep doing the same thing, Mr Speaker, as the Labor party wants to do, you will not get a different outcome. We believe in a two-state solution and we are prepared to listen to innovative ideas like the former ambassador to Israel, Dave Sharma, who would know more about this issue than any single person sitting on those benches, Mr Speaker.

And I would welcome his contribution in this chamber as someone who understands the sensitivities and the complexities of achieving a two-state solution, so we know what Dave Sharma stands for...[he runs out of time]

Updated

Christopher Pyne just took a dixer on Israel and turned it into Labor’s problem:

“They keep claiming bipartisanship on national security. What is their position on the decision that we have taken, the announcement that we have made today. [To vote no in the UN vote on Palestine taking up the leadership of the G77]

What is Labor’s position on the announcement that we have made today to strengthen our relationship withIsrael, Mr Speaker? The truth is Labor is riven by division overIsrael, Mr Speaker. Bob Carr and New South Wales Labor Party have taken control of the agenda on Israel insider Labor Party and it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and support the government’s announcement that he made today.”

Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:

“The prime minister is refusing to act on removing discrimination against LGBTI teachers until after the government has released the Ruddock report. Why is the prime minister keeping the Ruddock report a secret until after the Wentworth byelection?

“After five months, why do Australians, including voters in Wentworth, have to wait until after the byelection to know what the government will do? If the prime minister is not planning anything harmful, what does he have to hide?”

Morrison:

All the recommendations of the report had been reported in the press already. They are out there. So they are well known, they are out there. What I am doing, Mr Speaker, I am ensuring that the government’s response will be prepared, and will be provided in an orderly way, and that will provide the opportunity for this parliament to properly consider what are very sensitive and complex issues, conflict issues that the member for Isaacs has properly recognised as being quite difficult to work through.

There are many different views in this chamber, and outside of this chamber, and I think we should work together to resolve those and deal with these matters in an orderly way. It was only a week ago, it was only a week ago that the member for Sydney said – when asked should these laws be abolished and should we have this discrepancy – she said “Is not Labor’s plan to reduce any existing exemptions”. That was her policy from a week ago.

And now she is coming in here and lecturing us on laws that the Labor party introduced and took through their cabinet, which provided the very discrimination that she is now saying should be reversed, only a week ago she said they should not be reversed.

Forgive me, Mr Speaker, if the government is going to take a more responsible and orderly process to provide our response. Mr Speaker, seven weeks ago, just over, I took on the role of prime minister. I had not seen that...report.

It had not been into cabinet to be considered prior to that time and in the last seven weeks I have been focusing on the drought, I have been focusing on small and family business tax cuts, I have been focusing on royal commission into residential aged care, I have been focusing on electricity prices and bringing them down. These are the issues that I have been focusing on as prime minister with our team, Mr Speaker.

And we will deal with these very important issues around religious freedoms in an orderly way and in a way that is respectful to all the participants. What I would ask, and what I have written to the leader of the opposition to do, is that in the area of most acute anxiety...in the Ruddock review, that created unnecessary anxiety with students because of their sexuality or their gender identity, we would like to see that issue resolved, with these matters coming before this parliament.

I think we should operate in the area of obvious consensus and get it done and not allow other issues to distract us from that task.

Updated

Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:

Yesterday when asked about laws which allowed discrimination against LGBTI teachers, the treasurer said and I quote “I don’t think these laws are right”. Today Liberal senator Dean Smith has said he supports “amendments to remove discrimination against LGBTI teachers”. Will the prime minister join with Labor to ensure that teachers cannot he sacked just because of who they are and who they love?

Morrison:

What I have said yesterday and will say again today is that the issues relating to the broader religious freedom report will be dealt with once we have had the opportunity as a government to provide our response and release the full report, and there will be time enough to deal with those important issues down the track, and we look forward to doing that.

What I have written to the leader of the opposition about is ensuring that we act right now, right now, in an area of absolute consensus when it comes to the issue of ensuring that there is, that children who are in schools, who may have fears or anxieties related to the way that this issue was misrepresented over the last couple of weeks, that we can deal with that once and for all and practically deal with this issue, and we should not play politics with it.

We should be able to get on and do it because, Mr Speaker, even the member who asked me a question today has admitted in his interview with Fran Kelly today that the question of exemption for staff, teachers and other staff working in religious schools, is a complex one.

We will deal with these views and deal with it in an orderly way and do it in an adult way, with proposals before us that can be consulted on and discussed. What I think we should be doing now is legislating and taking the opportunity of this sitting fortnight to legislate to ensure that children are protected from the laws that were introduced, I remind those opposite, by the Labor party, they introduced them, the member for Sydney only said in January that there were no plans to change anti-discrimination exemptions and she said on the talk of October that it was not Labor’s plan to reduce any of those existing exemptions.

I am happy to concede that there are many positions on this and this is a complex issue, as the member for Isaacs said. We will deal with this when there is a proposal on the table from the government to the review, but for now the attorney is working with the shadow attorney to make sure we have a legislative amendment to honour what I wrote to the leader of the opposition about, flagged on the weekend, and I rang him on Monday.

Updated

An emergency meeting of representatives from Middle Eastern and North African countries is currently under way at the office of the Palestinian delegation to Australia in Canberra to discuss Scott Morrison’s comments regarding moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

The Palestinian representative to Australia, Izzat Salah Abudulhadi, was joined by representatives from the embassies of a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Kuwait, Jordan, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Sudan, Qatar, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Iraq.

Abdulhadi has called Morrison’s plan to consider moving the embassy “deeply disturbing”, saying it could embolden the Trump administration in their plans to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a way that leaves the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees “off the table”.

“The short-term political gain that could be secured by moving the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would surely be outweighed by the detriment both to Australia’s international standing and in its relations with Arab and Muslim-majority countries and the international community more broadly,” Abdulhadi said.

The delegation urged the government to “exercise caution and prudence towards this sensitive final-status issue and to seriously consider the consequences of any such move”.

Updated

Michael McCormack gave everyone a chance to have a water break again, and we move on to Chris Bowen with a question to Scott Morrison, which is taken by Josh Frydenberg:

Can the prime minister confirm that when we said the GST floor needed to be legislated, the government ignored it and then agreed to it? And then we called for that legislation to ensure that no state or territory is left worse off, the government rejected it but today it accepted it?

Frydenberg:

You had lots of different positions and misspoke in a Sky interview.

We move on.

Updated

Rebekha Sharkie has today’s crossbench question and it’s on the crossbench bill to support the AMA call to have the children of asylum seekers, and their families, temporarily relocated to Australia for medical treatment:

Will you support the call of the crossbench and some of your backbench and temporarily relocate children from Nauru so that they can receive the medical care that every child deserves?

Scott Morrison:

(After saying any member can ask for an update on what is happening from the immigration minister and then moving onto an attack of Labor’s record following an interjection from Tony Burke)

(The transcript will get a bit bitsy, because he gets too shouty for the transcription service to keep up):

I note the interjection from the member who was previously only the second most [failed] immigration minister in Australian history. He does hold the record to see more boats turn up in one month than any other immigration minister. [While I sat as] the shadow immigration minister, while they just that there and failed and the bodies piled up, Mr Speaker, is an absolute disgrace.

He can sit there in all of his outrage and all of his squawking, Mr Speaker, but he has delivered the fact that he failed on his watch.

There was also a bit where he pointed and said “failure, failure, failure” so I guess the ‘keep a lid on the shoutiness’ attempt is all but over.

Updated

Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:

The government claims its decision to endorse white supremacist slogans in the Senate was an administrative error. Was it an administrative error when the government voted to cut $14bn from public schools? Was it eight administrative errors when it voted to cut penalty rates, was it six administrative errors when the prime minister voted against a banking royal commission? Is the government’s message in Wentworth really, vote for a government that has absolutely no idea what it is doing?

Christopher Pyne says the question is “offensive” because the government re-put the motion and voted against it today. (I WISH it was that easy to rewrite history. Do-overs for all!)

Tony Smith rules the question in order.

Scott Morrison:

The electors of Wentworth have an important choice to make on Saturday. They can support a government that can support economic growth, that has been the envy of the developed world, they can support a government that has demonstrated working with business and those all around the country, more than one million jobs over the last five years, they can support a government that has ensured that they are able to keep Australians safe, and you know the Labor party likes to talk about bipartisanship on these sorts of issues.

What I know about the Labor party is that they subcontract the hard decisions on national security, and the economy, to the government.

They are happy to support us on occasion, Mr Speaker. They are happy to support us on occasion, but what would actually happen if the Labor party was sitting on these benches when it comes to Australia’s national security? When it comes to our border security?

When it comes to our economic security? When the Liberals and Nationals are not there to make the decisions about taking down taxes for individuals and small business?

What would happen if the Labor party was one step closer and this leader of the Labor party that thinks that his version of leadership and his vision to Australia is to divide Australians on one side and the other into winners and losers? Those who employ and those who turn up in worker wages. Between parents who want to send their kids to an independent school and parents who want to send their kids to state school, Mr Speaker.

The leader of the opposition only has a plan to divide this country for his own political interests and purposes, Mr Speaker. Our government has a plan to keep our economy strong, to ensure that we can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, that we take the difficult decisions to keep Australians safe, whether it is in the playground or whether it is overseas or whether it is on our borders, and we have the record for achieving that, Mr Speaker, and it is our plan and our record of government that we are keeping Australians together.

That is a plan that Australians can vote for in Wentworth on Saturday. And a vote for anyone other than the Liberal candidate puts the wrecker, the leader of the Labour party, one step closer to taxing you more, slowing our economy, being less safe and driving Australians apart.

Updated

We move back to dixers and looking at the despatch box, Nicole Flint has been moved to directly behind it.

She’s a splash of pink jacket in a sea of [mostly] blue suits, but she is most definitely smack bang behind the despatch box.

Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:

Does the prime minister honestly expect Australia to believe that an administrative error led to the government supporting a white supremacy slogan, when a review of the motion in September... Today the government refused to allow this house to debate and rejected. Is this what the prime minister meant when he called his own government the Muppet show?”

Morrison:

“I always expect the Labor party to play politics with serious issues. That is what I expect.

“These are serious issues, Mr Speaker. The leader of the government has said it and made a statement to the Senate, and I am pleased to table that for the information of members, and Mr Speaker, I would refer the matter to the attorney general.”

Christian Porter:

(after repeating much of his statement today)

I simply want to say that the criticism of me and my office is a completely fair cop, and I accept and apologise for the processing [mistake of] my office. And I use the language “fair cop” Mr Speaker, because that is the language the leader of the opposition wisely used when he was criticised about a year ago for producing a full political television ad meant for the Queensland market with an all-white cast, under the banner “Australians first”.

“...The leader of the opposition will recall his explanation that although the final ad was cleared through his office, he had not seen the final product and he said that that was a bad oversight that won’t happen again.

“So it is very interesting that the Labor leader is unwilling to accept an admission of a bad oversight on the part of my office with respect to an email, when it was an entire TV commercial that went out of his office, starring him, which he says that he never saw and we are meant to accept that.”

Updated

Ross Vasta gets the first dixer. My, my, my Queensland MPs are getting some love in QT lately.

Anyone would think that the LNP was in trouble in Queensland and could decide the election.

Not that I am convinced that standing up in QT and reading a question which has been written for you helps get voters across the line, but what would I know?

Question time begins

Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison on...Malcolm Turnbull:

“The Liberal candidate for Wentworth said yesterday that he was appalled at the treatment that was meted out to Malcolm Turnbull. Does the prime minister agree that the way he and his government treated Malcolm Turnbull was appalling, and when will the prime minister tell the voters in Wentworth, why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull still the prime minister of Australia?”

Morrison:

We have dealt with this before and Dave Sharma is an awesome candidate and also, strong economy.

Updated

And we are almost at question time!

Get those bingo predictions ready

I’m not sure this helps the government’s argument today:

The Greens also stand against the accelerated tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of between $10m and $50m.

Richard Di Natale made that position clear last week – here is Adam Bandt on why:

Second 'It's OK to be white' motion defeated on the voices

Back to the Senate for the wash up.

Mathias Cormann puts the motion again.

Pauline Hanson was in her press conference talking about all those demonised white men, and no one else in the room was there to support the motion, so there was no need for a division and it was officially defeated on the voices.

Cormann looks like he wants to crawl under the table and rock in the foetal position.

And there is still question time to come!

Updated

Believe it or not, there is still some policy and legislative work being done in this place.

Josh Frydenberg has confirmed the government will legislate to ensure no state or territory is worse off under the GST changes, after originally dismissing it.

Labor and the Coag treasurers had supported it.

Frydenberg:

So, a compromise, a sensible compromise, has been reached. Which will see the commonwealth legislate that no state or territory will be worse off under the new system to the period 26-27 ... and in 26-27, the Productivity Commission will undertake a review to assess whether the new system of the GST distribution is working efficiently and effectively.

Updated

Richard Di Natale says the Greens won’t be supporting the motion to allow the government to revote on the motion, as he sees it as allowing the government to say it made a mistake, when he does not believe they did.

He said the Greens would support a new motion, but not this one.

Pauline Hanson said she put the motion forward because she wants to get of racism:

“There is a rise of anti-white racism in this country. The most demonised person in this country is the white male. It has to stop, right from the very beginning. Even 22 years ago, I called for equality for all Australians. I am seeing a division which is happening in our nation because of the colour of your skin or your cultural background.

“That has to stop. And if the senators in this parliament cannot agree to that, that it is OK to be white, to be proud of the cultural background and your heritage. And as I said in my speech to them, which I will actually reply to now, word for word, so I’m not confused.

“People have a right to be proud of their cultural background whether they are black, white or brindle,” and I stand by that. One Nation’s immigration policies are non-discriminatory. Everyone has a right to play here, to come to Australia. I have said many a time – you do not have to be white to be Australian. And I stand by that.

“This is nothing about racism, but they have turned it into it. And for the Greens, Richard Di Natale, to stand up to say if you say these words you’re associated with the neo-Nazis or the KKK, that is absolutely ridiculous. They are the ones who are making this into a political platform with their agenda and it’s all about getting rid of One Nation and what we stand for. Why I call this party One Nation is because I wanted that. I want to get rid of the racism that is there.”

Updated

Mathias Cormann said it may seem implausible but it is true, that the government voting for the motion yesterday was an administrative error.

He is attempting to bring the motion back, so the government can formally reject it.

“For me personally, this is severely embarrassing,” he said.

“...I thank Senator Wong for giving us the opportunity to [redo] this vote to reflect, truly reflect, the views [of the government].

Anthony Chisholm said the opposition would support the government in its attempt to redo the vote, but the government needs to work out “how it deals with One Nation”.

Chisholm said the government didn’t know whether to “cuddle One Nation, or fight them” and that’s what lies at the heart of the government’s dysfunction.

Updated

And Tony Burke continued:

The attorney general’s excuses on this have been completely pathetic. We’re talking about a motion that was put on the Senate notice paper in September, in September. That the attorney general had had since September and issued instructions to support. The debate occurred and the Liberal and National party senators sat there hearing the debate and knowing what they were about to vote on.

And none of them questioned it. None of them thought that maybe we should be opposed to this white supremacist stuff that’s coming from Senator Hanson.

And then after the vote had occurred the attorney general tweeted in support of the government’s position.

The leader of the government in the Senate did the same.

And then once the community backlash said we will not accept this white supremacist rubbish from the Liberal party they started to backpedal and try to change their position. Be in no doubt, I suppose they also think it’s a coincidence that the attorney general on the weekend in his own seat, One Nation announced their candidate. A candidate he’ll be trying to get preferences from.

And a hint to those opposite, when a motion is moved by Pauline Hanson about race it’s probably not going to be an anti-racism motion. Probably not the case. Note to self to think about that one.”

Updated

And from Tony Burke:

This resolution does not condemn the government and what they just did [vote against suspending standing orders] does. Because they were given an opportunity, just then, to vote on a motion that says nothing more than that we reject what Pauline Hanson put to the Senate yesterday.

Nothing more than that.

That we reject a white supremacist slogan that has also been adopted by the Ku Klux Klan. And we gave them the opportunity to simply vote for a resolution that says that. Because bear in mind we were sorely tempted to put in a resolution that carried a whole lot of argument in it. But instead we have provided a resolution for every member of the Coalition that if you oppose what Pauline Hanson put to the Senate yesterday that will be the only question before you.

Nothing else.

There will be no other question before the House and if that’s something the government wants to vote against then what has the Liberal party become?

What have you become?

What has that party become?”

Updated

Fraser Anning doesn’t get why those words are racist.

Appears to be a running theme for him.

Cool, cool, cool

The House, for those managing to keep up, has delayed the vote on whether to suspend standing orders to debate Tony Burke’s motion, until after the matter of public importance.

Updated

Penny Wong then points out the history of the statement ‘it’s okay to be white’:

Then, when this is finally pointed out to them, do they apologise? Do they seek to recommit the vote? No. You doubled down. One after one you line up on Twitter to defend your actions. The Attorney tweets, ‘Government senators’ actions in the Senate confirmed that the government deplores any kind of racism.’ Senator Cormann is so outraged by this, he retweets that, and then adds his own comments in support for good measure.

But you know what actually made them change position? Not principle; not the fact that they were standing behind a white supremacist slogan; and not the fact that they were yet again lining up behind Senator Hanson in some hopeless and vain attempt to protect their right-wing base. No, it was only when the Liberal candidate for Wentworth came out against the motion that it started to dawn on the government that they might have made a mistake— not that it was wrong in principle to support a motion that really can be characterised as akin to something a neo-Nazi would support; not that it was wrong to be led by the noes by Senator Hanson. What they really responded to was that it might cost them votes in Wentworth.”

She ends with:

In closing, my challenge to the government is this: if you’re serious about fixing this up, why don’t you recommit the motion? Why don’t you recommit the motion and not allow this stain in a multicultural nation to remain on the record of this Senate?”

Mathias Cormann jumped at the chance:

I thank Senator Wong for her contribution and, on behalf of the government, I seek leave to recommit the vote on motion No. 1,092, which was voted on yesterday.”

Updated

Penny Wong:

I move that the Senate take note of the government’s stated position on racism in Australia, and I rise to respond to that somewhat pathetic attempt at a clean-up. And that’s what it was – a pathetic attempt at a clean-up where this minister has to come in and try and take on the chin the fact that they all voted for a motion that included a phrase that everybody knows is used by white supremacists. All of you did so. And now you want to come in and say, ‘Oops, we made a mistake.’ We don’t believe you. No one believes you, and everybody knows this is a just craven and pathetic attempt to try and clean up your mess.

The reality is yesterday’s decision by government senators to vote in favour of a phrase created and disseminated by white supremacist groups around the world is a shameful episode. It is a shameful episode in this chamber. It is a phrase created by white, right-wing extremist groups in the United States with the sole purpose of causing a backlash to help convert people to the cause of the neo-Nazis and extremist groups like the Klu Klux Klan. There is nothing innocent, nothing unknown, nothing hidden about this phrase. Frankly, the claim that somehow the government didn’t understand it or didn’t know about it is not believable.

Frankly, if Mr Christian Porter wasn’t aware of the true meaning behind this phrase, then how is he fit to be the attorney general? And as to government senators who walked in here like sheep yesterday to stand up behind One Nation and Ms Hanson – frankly, do you really deserve to be here? I mean, who is running the government? Are you so lacking in basic decency, so lacking in understanding, so lacking in common sense, you just walk in and vote for a motion like that without actually looking at it on the basis that somebody in some office somewhere supposedly made a mistake? Do you really have no understanding of what One Nation was trying to achieve here?”

Updated

Pauline Hanson will hold a press conference at 12.45, because the only people enjoying this mess are One Nation.

Just before both chambers erupted into debate, the Senate president, Scott Ryan, made this determination on a privileges issue Brian Burston raised a little earlier after his fallout with One Nation:

Senators, by letter dated 27 September 2018 Senator Burston has raised a matter of privilege, alleging that, by removing him from positions within Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and pressing him to resign from the Senate, Senator Hanson has sought to improperly interfere with the free performance of his duties as a senator and to penalise him for his conduct as a senator.

Senator Burston suggests that these actions were intended to influence him to change his vote on government legislation in the Senate.

...I have determined that the matter should have precedence as a matter of privilege. As I have said, the question of whether the matter warrants investigation as a possible contempt is a question for the Senate.

That being the case, I consider it appropriate to draw to the attention of the Senate the guidance provided by the Privileges Committee in a somewhat similar matter involving former senator Grant Tambling, whose preselection was withdrawn after he declined to follow his party organisations directions on a piece of legislation.

The committee’s guidance indicates a high degree of reluctance to intervene in internal party matters but does not entirely close the door on the possibility that the Senate’s contempt jurisdiction might be invoked in such circumstances. The matter was dealt with in the committee’s 103rd report, for the reference of senators.”

Burston then gave notice of this motion:

That the following matter be referred to the committee of privileges for inquiry and report:

Having regard to the matters raised by Senator Burston in correspondence tabled by the President on 16 October 2018,

(a) whether by removing him from positions within Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and pressing him to resign from the Senate, Senator Hanson or any other person has sought to improperly interfere with the free performance of his duties as a senator or to penalise him for his conduct as a senator, and

(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in that regard.

Updated

A dispatch from New Zealand has come through:

The New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, said she was waiting for official confirmation of the proposed move but Australia’s intentions would not help support peace in the region.

Earlier in the year Ardern described the US decision to move its embassy to Jeruslam as “a step backwards, not forwards”.

“We support a two-state solution and our view has been that any shift in representation, in the way we saw with the United States, does not move us closer to that peaceful resolution,” Ardern said.

Updated

OK, so yup.

It’s not the biggest issue facing the parliament, a motion calling for the parliament to condemn the phrase is a Labor stunt BUT the government will be moving to put the motion again in the Senate, so it can reject it.

This happened after Penny Wong finished her speech by saying if the government was serious, it would reject the motion.

Mathias Cormann agreed to do this. Immediately. But in the House, Christopher Pyne is fighting tooth and nail to move on.

Updated

Pyne says the government has apologised and eaten its humble pie, and it is time to move on.

Christopher Pyne says this is a “Canberra bubble” issue, it was only an “administrative failure” and is not the most important issue facing the parliament today – small business tax cuts are.

Updated

Derryn Hinch said senators who opposed the motion were yelling ‘what are you doing’ at government senators as they moved to vote on Pauline Hanson’s side.

In the House, Christopher Pyne said the government was not going to “fall for Labor stunts” and vote for Tony Burke’s motion, saying the vote was a mistake “which has been corrected”.

And it looks like the government will NOT be supporting that motion from Labor.

Here is the motion Tony Burke wants the House to vote on:

I seek leave to move the following motion —

That the House rejects the resolution put to the Senate yesterday which included a white supremacist slogan that is also used by hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

The feed is super scratchy, but I think Mathias Cormann is trying to have another vote on the motion, so the government can vote against it.

This would be the motion that was already defeated.

Richard Di Natale says the government “doesn’t have the guts” to stand by what it supported yesterday.

“...The racists and bigots on your team won,” he says.

Both Tony Burke and Penny Wong are pointing out the government’s hypocrisy in retweeting and tweeting support for the government’s position yesterday.

Burke is also mentioning how government senators also shook Fraser Anning’s hand after his final solution speech.

“It is really simple, this doesn’t happen in a vacuum,” Burke says.

Updated

The parliament feed is having a lot of trouble today, but I will bring you as much of the speeches as I can, as soon as I can.

In the Senate, Penny Wong is also making a statement against the motion.

Tony Burke has opened parliament with a motion calling on the House to reject Pauline Hanson’s motion that it is ‘okay to be white’.

And from the caucus meeting:

Parliament is about to start, which means it is midday, which means I have no idea where this day has gone.

I guess he had some experience after the jump his own must have received at seeing the backlash to the ‘it’s ok to be white’ support.

Scott Morrison and Marise Payne have released a joint statement, as the thought bubble from this morning looking at moving the Israel embassy continues to make pretty big waves:

The Australian Government has today made a number of important announcements in support of Australia’s interests in the Middle East and our continuing support for a durable and resilient two-state solution. As a package, these announcements reinforce our commitment to efforts towards resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, further strengthen our valuable relationship with Israel, and will review Australia’s policy in relation to Iran’s nuclear program.

In making these announcements, the Government underlines its enduring commitment to the Middle East Peace Process, and to a two-state solution that allows Israel and a future Palestinian state to exist side-by-side, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. We will continue to encourage both sides to continue dialogue and negotiations towards a peaceful settlement. The Government reaffirms its commitment to constructive engagement with Iran.

First, Australia will vote no in the upcoming UN General Assembly resolution on the Palestinian Authority chairing the G77. This draft resolution seeks to confer an official status on the Palestinian Authority it does not have, and therefore has the potential to undermine efforts to bring parties together to work towards a peaceful settlement.

Second, the Government will carefully examine the arguments put forward by Australia’s former Ambassador to Israel, Dave Sharma, that we should consider recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, without prejudice to its final boundaries, while acknowledging East Jerusalem as the expected capital of a future Palestinian state. Specifically, the Government will examine the merits of moving Australia’s embassy to West Jerusalem, in the context of our support for a two-state solution. Any decision will be subject to a rigorous assessment of the potential impact of such a move on our broader national interests.

Third, given Australia’s increased engagement with Israel on defence and security matters, the Government will appoint a resident Australian Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv and has invited Israel to appoint its own resident Defence Attaché in Canberra.

Fourth, the Government will review, without prejudice, Australia’s approach to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to determine whether our current policy settings remain fit for purpose. The review will reassess whether the Plan remains the best vehicle to address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Government aims to finalise and announce the findings of this review by December this year.”

Mark Dreyfus does not buy Christian Porter’s explanation. From his statement:

As Attorney-General, Christian Porter is in charge of the Racial Discrimination Act and interpreting other complex legislation. Does he seriously expect Australians to believe that he couldn’t interpret what Senator Hanson’s motion meant?

Mr Porter needs to front up and take responsibility for this himself.

Up until late last night, Christian Porter was still trying to justify the government’s decision on Twitter, with Leader of the Senate Mathias Cormann himself, following suit.

This is not something the government can just shrug off. This is government Senators being seen to endorse a battle cry of the white supremacy movement inside the Australian Parliament. It is appalling.

This is not just a deeply embarrassing moment for the Coalition, but also for the country.

The voters of Wentworth should ask themselves – can they endorse a government with these sorts of values, with Senators who don’t even know what they’re supposed to be voting for?

More from the joint party room meeting:

Updated

I don’t know – maybe that the phrase ‘it’s okay to be white’ is often used by white supremacists, including the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke, is pretty offensive? Just for starters.

Or, in the words of the former Queensland premier Campbell Newman, ‘Google it’.

Updated

The party room meetings are on and the agreements are starting to drift out – the Coalition has agreed to support the GST changes ensuring that no state will be worse off – during the transition period for the new formula.

Labor had pushed the government to legislate that no state would be worse off, while Scott Morrison’s original position was that the government didn’t need to legislate it, but would just commit to it as policy.

But with elections and yadda, yadda in the breeze, things can change quickly. And so now the government will move to legislate no state being worse off, as the new GST formula transition period takes effect.

Updated

Just back to that explanation from Christian Porter:

It appears that, of the very large number of motions on which my office’s views are routinely sought, this one was not escalated to me because it was interpreted in my office as a motion opposing racism. The associations of the language were not picked up. Had it been raised directly with me those issues would have been identified.”

So just to be clear, apparently a staffer misinterpreted a motion put forward by One Nation as opposing racism. From One Nation. Whose leader wore a burqa into the Senate.

Palestine delegation seeks emergency embassies meeting

This “discussion” Scott Morrison wants to start about the Australian embassy position in Israel is most definitely not being greeted ‘warmly’ by all sectors.

Katharine Murphy and Guardian staff report:

Bishop George Browning, president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, was horrified. “I find the announcement extraordinary because it must be the first time in Australian political life that a government has tried to shore up its chances in a byelection by using foreign policy.

“The previous prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and the previous foreign minister Julie Bishop resisted this for the very good reason that to move the embassy to Jerusalem is [the same] as agreeing with the Israeli prime minister that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel.

“They’re immediately throwing out the policy of a two-state solution, which Australia has held for a very long time, decades, in order to shore up their chances in a local byelection. It’s disgraceful.”

And now this:

Everything is going very, very well.

Updated

Queensland is attempting to remove abortion from its criminal code this week.

Ben Smee wrote about just how long it has taken to get to this point, here.

If you want to see where your state stands on abortion, the Conversation has written an explainer, here.

Updated

Of all the issues at the heart of failed past peace efforts, none have been as sensitive as the status of Jerusalem and so many states have sought not to show favour to one side or the other. Israel captured the eastern side of the city in 1967, and later annexed those neighbourhoods where thousands of Palestinians live.

If Scott Morrison goes ahead with the embassy move, it will put him at odds with close allies in Europe on the issue. While the prime minister said it was a “sensible” idea that Australia could move its embassy and also work towards a two-state solution, that thinking goes against international consensus.

Following Trump’s embassy announcement, Theresa May, the UK prime minister, said it was “unhelpful” towards Britain’s goal for a share capital for the Israeli and Palestinian states. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, was more blunt, saying the move was a “threat to peace”.

Updated

It was my office, but I didn't know – AG

Christian Porter has issued this statement – it all happened without his knowledge.

So apparently administrative error is now code for rogue staffer?

An early email advising an approach on the motion went out from my office on this matter without my knowledge.

It appears that, of the very large number of motions on which my office’s views are routinely sought, this one was not escalated to me because it was interpreted in my office as a motion opposing racism. The associations of the language were not picked up. Had it been raised directly with me those issues would have been identified.

As Minister Cormann said this morning this was the result of an administrative error, including on the part of my office.

Naturally I’m reviewing the processes in my office to prevent such an administrative error in the future. Having been part of an error that put Senator Ruston in a very difficult position a tweet from my office condemning all forms of racism was meant as nothing more than support for that same proposition which Senator Ruston, despite being placed in a difficult position, put in the Senate that the Government condemns all forms of racism.”

Updated

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is also very happy today. From its statement:

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the peak representative body of the Australian Jewish community, warmly welcomes the announcements by Prime Minister Morrison regarding the status of Jerusalem, the Iran Deal and the Palestinian bid to chair a United Nations group, the G77.

It has long been the position of the ECAJ that Australia should recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and consider relocating the Australian embassy, currently in Tel Aviv, to the government precinct in west Jerusalem.

Every State has the right to determine where within its sovereign territory its capital should be located. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish state 3,000 years ago and it remains so today.

Recognising this simple fact would in no way preclude a future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and we welcome the Prime Minister’s affirmation of support for a two-state solution to the conflict.

The ECAJ also supported the decision of the Trump Administration to withdraw from the JCPOA (“Iran Deal”), which did nothing to curb Iran’s aggression or regional designs.

We favour the imposition of sanctions on the Iranian regime until such time as a comprehensive deal can be agreed that prevents Iran from acting as the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, and fuelling devastating conflict in Syria, Yemen, and well beyond the Middle East.

We also support the decision of the government to oppose the Palestinian bid to chair the United Nations group, the G77.

For decades, the Palestinians have manipulated international bodies, not least the UN, to advance their agenda of seeking to isolate and delegitimise the State of Israel. The
result has been to permanently mire the UN in the conflict, at the expense of its credibility, while also limiting its ability to support genuinely oppressed peoples throughout the world.

We have seen outrageous resolutions from “Zionism is racism” to denials of the Jewishness of the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

The Palestinians must not be rewarded for this and must instead be shown that the path to peace lies only through honest negotiations with Israel.

We thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the community we represent for his moral clarity on these issues.

Updated

But Pauline Hanson is happy:

Anne Aly is also sure of why Scott Morrison has chosen now to raise the proposal of moving the embassy:

It’s very evident, today’s announcement, that the government is even considering a major foreign policy decision on the basis of the Wentworth byelection, in order to win a byelection – this is unprecedented, unheard of that a foreign policy decision that could affect a peace process in one of the most fragile regions in the world would be considered just so that this government can win the Wentworth byelection. Just goes to show how desperate they are and how out of touch they are.”

The prime minister has denied this and says he is only listening to Dave Sharma, his candidate in Wentworth, as the former ambassador to Israel, and because the UN was going to vote on Palestine leading the 2019 G77 developing nations group tomorrow (to which Australia will vote no) and it got him thinking about Australia’s positions on other things.

Sure.

Updated

Penny Wong says Labor is against moving Australia’s embassy in Israel, and here’s why:

I’d refer you to what Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and the secretary of DFAT have said prior to this time, which is this; it is unhelpful to the peace process.

The reality is Jerusalem is contested territory. Its status has to be resolved as part of any peace process discussion, as part of any discussion about a two-state solution. The fact that this has been a bipartisan position I think demonstrates the lack of wisdom in Mr Morrison floating this.

I think that is very important. He’s not actually saying he will do it, he just wants to float something ahead of a byelection.”

Updated

So what happened in the chamber?

Well, you can watch the vote here. You may notice government senators looking over their voting sheets. And checking it twice.

You may also notice Labor yelling “really? really?” as voters moved into position.

Our Senate watchers tell us that opposition senators advised government senators to double check the voting advice was correct.

But in the end, they did what the sheet said. Then tweeted why they did it. And now, at least in one case, deleted those tweets, just as the leader of government business in the Senate admitted it was “an administrative error”.

No need to stress anyone, the adults are absolutely in charge and they all got there on merit.

Lucy Gichuhi has just deleted her tweet. (More accurately, deleted it 16 minutes ago, according to this.)

For the record, it said this:

I say no to white supremacy I say no to black supremacy But I say yes to HUMAN supremacy Today, the Government condemned all forms of Racism #auspol”

Updated

There are so many first drafts of history these days.

A despatch from Israel, on Australia considering the relocation of its embassy:

News of the potential embassy move came in late on Monday evening in Jerusalem and is sure to make waves here this week.

Ever since Trump’s declaration in December last year, Israel has been pushing hard to persuade other countries to follow, hoping Washington would have smashed a decades-long taboo.

For close to a year, that seemed unlikely as only Guatemala – a dependable Israel ally – and Paraguay made the announcement. And Paraguay reversed its decision last month after a change of president, prompting Israel to shutter its own embassy there in disappointment.

Having the Australian prime minister even talking about the possibility of recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will be seen as a huge step towards that goal. It will be held up as a win in Israel and derided by the Palestinian leadership, who see these embassy moves as a pivotal step away from their aspirations for a state and an end to the occupation.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has sought to court the Christian right, and evangelicals in particular, as many see Jerusalem being Israel’s capital as consistent with biblical prophecy of the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture.

Updated

Just to recap, we don’t know who was responsible for the “administrative error” which saw the government vote yes, when it meant to vote no, we don’t know why it happened, and we don’t know why government senators tweeted their reasons for voting in support when apparently they did not support it.

Mathias Cormann:

“We made a decision to oppose that motion [in September] and to make a statement in our own words that as a government we deplore racism of any kind, but not to actually support the motion.

Yesterday, as a result of an administrative process failure, the government senators in the chamber ended up on advice voting in support of the motion.

As leader of the government in the Senate, I take responsibility for that error and I’m sorry that that happened. It is indeed regrettable. As I indicated when this motion first came up, we made a very clear decision to oppose that motion. It wasn’t voted on in September. It came back up yesterday and it slipped through. It shouldn’t have. And I take responsibility for that.”

Updated

Mathias Cormann doesn’t explain what the administrative process failure was.

He also doesn’t explain why a bunch of government senators tweeted about why they supported the motion, given it was apparently a complete and utter cock-up.

Updated

I guess this is the problem with scheduled tweets?

So apparently government senators don’t listen to the motions and just vote through direction. Even when they don’t support the motion. Even after they have decided not to support a motion. They’ll do what the direction says.

Look, I don’t support the form of words that’s in that motion and the government made a decision not to support that motion. We deplore racism of any kind. There is no question in my mind that the decision that we made in September to oppose this motion is the decision that should have been implemented yesterday. As a result of an administrative process failure that didn’t happen and I regret that.”

Updated

Mathias Cormann:

There is an administrative process involved in determining the government’s position in relation to each of the 50 or 60 motions that are dealt with in the Senate every week.

As I’ve indicated, when this issue was first raised, when this motion was first raised in September, the government made a clear decision to oppose this motion and to make a statement that as a government we deplore racism in any kind, that is a decision that should have been maintained yesterday and as a result of an administrative process failure it wasn’t. That is regrettable and I take responsibility.”

Government 'should have opposed' motion

Mathias Cormann said it was an “administrative failure” which led to government senators voting for the Pauline Hanson motion that it is “okay to be white” and has taken responsibility for it.

He says the government had determined to vote no when the motion first came up in September, but somehow ended up voting yes through some sort of “administrative” error.

So the government said no, but the computer said yes. Or something.

Updated

Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong are often paired for Senate motion votes – as leaders of their respective parties in the Senate, they are often too busy to vote on every single motion, so there is often a standing pair.

I didn’t see Cormann in the chamber for the motion, but it has been pointed out to me that he could have been there. We will soon find out.

It looks like the assistant treasurer, Stuart Robert, he of the $38,000 internet bill, is looking for a new electorate officer.

You’ll need these skills to apply:

Primary duties:

• Management of constituent issues; including written correspondence and telephone enquiries and mail outs
• Liaise with government departments and ministerial offices on behalf of constituents
• Data entry and management
• Work with colleagues to maximise opportunities for electorate engagement
• General administrative duties
• Other duties as specified by the office manager

Applicants should possess the following skills:

• Excellent oral and written communication skills
• Excellent understanding and interest in Australia’s system of government, parliamentary process and political process
• Well-developed Microsoft IT skills
• Attention to detail
• Good organisational ability
• Previous electorate office experience highly regarded but not essential

Updated

The only thing a government senator said in relation to the motion yesterday was this short statement from Anne Ruston:

The government condemns all forms of racism.”

The Herald Sun is reporting a group of government MPs are advocating for children of asylum seekers and their families to be removed from Nauru.

Rob Harris reports Russell Broadbent, Craig Laundy and Julia Banks are calling on the government to bring them to Australia for immediate medical treatment, following the AMA’s intervention.

Updated

Labor is not in support of moving Australia’s Israel embassy to disputed territory. Penny Wong has issued this statement:

Foreign policy, and Australia’s national interest are far too important to be played with in this fashion.

Instead of playing dangerous and deceitful word games with Australian foreign policy in a desperate attempt to win votes Scott Morrison should try governing in a way that reflects the values of the people of Wentworth by committing to serious action on climate change, and legislating to protect teachers and students from discrimination.

The people of Wentworth, and all Australians, deserve a leader who puts the national interest ahead of his self-interest, and governs in the best long term interest of the nation, not one prepared to play games with long standing foreign policy positions five days out from a by-election.

Mathias Cormann isn’t even waiting for the Senate to meet to make his statement – he has just issued an alert for a doorstop at 9.10 in the Mural Hall.

Scott Morrison on the support for that motion:

What about the directive from the attorney general Christian Porter’s office that the government should support this “It’s OK to be white” motion.

Well, I’m sure all Australians stand against racism in whatever form it takes, but the leader of the government in the Senate will be making a statement about that later today.

“The leader of the government in the Senate will be making comments on that later today.


Was it wrong?

Well, I found it regrettable but the leader of the government in the Senate will be making a statement on that shortly.”

So the government either ended up voting for a motion it did not support, or it is ‘regrettable’ that the backlash occurred.

Mathias Cormann was one of the pairs yesterday, so he wasn’t in the chamber.

In fact, here are all the pairs from that vote, as recorded by Hansard:

PAIRS

  • Cormann, M
  • Wong, P
  • Macdonald, ID
  • Dodson, P
  • Martin, S.L
  • McAllister, J
  • Paterson, J
  • Steele-John, J
  • Payne, MA
  • Marshall, GM
  • Pratt, LC
  • Fawcett, DJ
  • Sinodinos, A
  • Polley, H

Government senators were in damage control after the vote last night.

Voting to say that “it’s OK to be white” is taking a stand against racism, apparently.

And then, this:

Updated

'It's OK to be white' motion support "regrettable" says PM

Scott Morrison could not get out of that press conference fast enough when questions about the government’s support for Pauline Hanson’s “it’s OK to be white” motion came up, only saying Senate leader, Mathias Cormann, would be making a statement on it.

As he is leaving, Morrison says he found it “regrettable” the government voted in support for a motion which used a phase popularised by racists, the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi’s.

But Cormann will be the one giving the statement.

Updated

So, it has nothing to do with Wentworth, nothing to do with the position of the United States and nothing to do with Scott Morrison’s faith.

It apparently has come up, at this particular point in time, four days out from the Wentworth vote, where the Jewish population sits at 12.5%, because of the timing of a UN vote:

There is a vote tomorrow morning, on Wednesday, Australia will be voting no. Now, that is a significant decision and in my view as a new prime minister of only seven weeks, that would raise questions about where do I stand on a range of other issues? I thought it was important that that context ... I’m being upfront with leaders and others around the world.

This is our thinking on this issue. We think after three years after the Iran nuclear deal, it is timely to have a good look and see whether it is meeting our objectives. Is it adding to greater stability or is it not? I think they are fair questions and I think if we’re going to say internally that we’re going to look at this question again that we should say publicly that we’re doing that.

Equally on the question of the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, I do find those arguments persuasive that Dave has put forward, but are they achievable, can they be taken through?

Is there a consultation process that we now need to follow particularly with regional leaders, of course, there is. But I think it is a conversation worth having.

A discussion is not a decision, but I think I’m being upfront with people. I’m being very clear about what my dispositions are and how I’m forming these decision and that’s how I want to deal with the Australian people and others.

I think people know where I stand and I think that can be a great comfort when people know where their prime minister stands on these sorts of questions.”

Updated

And, it also has nothing to do with the United States, says Scott Morrison. And that includes the question of whether or not we remain a part of the Iran nuclear deal which Barrack Obama oversaw while president, and Donald Trump pulled the States out of.

The Australian government has not made a decision to actually recognise Jerusalem as the capital or to shift our embassy.

We have not made a decision to change our policy when it comes to it the Iran nuclear deal. All we have said that is that consistent with our commitment to a two state solution, we are reviewing, without prejudice, the Iran nuclear deal and we are open to the arguments that have been made by our former ambassador to Israel about how we could progress that issue in the context of the two state solution.

The nuances and the calibration of this is what we are doing. I want to make this point, Australia, our government, I have made this decision without any reference to the United States. It has not come up in any discussion I have had with the president or officials. Marise has just been in the US. There has been no request and there has been no discussion with the United States. Australia makes its decisions about its foreign policy independently. We do so in our own national interests, consistent with our own beliefs and our own values.”

Wentworth has nothing to do with it, says Scott Morrison, and he is just listening to Dave Sharma as a former ambassador to Israel. He also denies it has anything to do with keeping the conservative section of his party room happy:

It is not motivated by either. In June I articulated the government’s policy. I was the treasurer. The treasurer is not responsible for matters of foreign affairs. It is my job to articulate and speak to government policy as it existed at the time.”

He also says it has nothing to do with his faith (Donald Trump’s decision was thought to be partly motivated by the mass support of evangelical Christians for the move)

My faith and religion has nothing to do with this decision.

Updated

But Scott Morrison also says no decision has been made:

What I’ll do in the months ahead is confer with cabinet colleagues. I will obviously take the opportunity up during the coming summit season to confer with other leaders around the world and gauge their perception about this and to make the case that Dave himself has made about whether this can actually provide an alternative way forward and aid the cause that I believe all of us are interested in pursuing.

So, no decision has been made in regarding the recognition of a capital or the movement of an embassy and I should be clear they are the two issues. You can recognise a capital, the issue the real estate and your embassy is a separate one and as Dave argues in his article, these things can be dealt with sequentially, but at the same time, what we are simply doing is being open to that suggestion as a potential way forward and I’m not going to close my mind off to things that can actually be done better and differently to aid the great cause of Australian foreign policy and that’s all we have said today.

We’re open to that discussion and I look forward to pursuing that with people and colleagues and leaders around the world. So I’m happy to take questions as is Marise [Payne], we have been in the process of last 24 hours of informing and briefing allies and partners and that process will continue.

Updated

The prime minister says he is “open minded” to the “sensible” proposal to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to [west] Jerusalem:

Now, in relation to our diplomatic presence in Israel. What I have simply said is this – we’re committed to a two-state solution.

Australia’s position on this issue has to date assumed that it is not possible to consider the question of the recognition of Israel’s capital in Jerusalem and that be consistent with pursuing a two state solution.

Now, Dave Sharma, who was the ambassador to Israel, has proposed some months ago a way forward that challenges that thinking and it says that you can achieve both and indeed, by pursuing both, you are actually aiding the cause for a two-state solution. Now, when people say sensible things, I think it is important to listen to them.

And particularly, when they have the experience of someone like Dave Sharma. We’re committed to a two-state solution, but frankly, it hasn’t been going that well. Not a lot of progress has been made. And you don’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

And so when sensible suggestions are put forward that are consistent with your policy positioning and in this case pursuing a two-state solution, Australia should be open-minded to this and I am open-minded to this and our government is open-minded to this.

The proposal that Dave spoke about in his article back in May provided the opportunity for a capital for a Palestinian Authority in East Jerusalem and one for Israel in west Jerusalem.

The whole point of a two-state solution is two nations recognised living side by side. And so, opening up that discussion does provide us with the opportunity, I think, to do what Australians have always done and that is to apply a practical and common-sense and innovative role in trying to work with partners around the world to aid our broader objectives in this case a two state solution.

So Australia and I as prime minister, am open to that suggestion.

Updated

Scott Morrison is in the Blue Room for a two flag press conference, speaking on why we are now considering moving the embassy:

I wanted to make a number of statements with the foreign minister in relation to our government’s position on Israel and issues in the Middle East. Now, the first thing I want to stress very strongly is the government’s commitment to a two-state solution in the Middle East, remains, has always been and I believe always will be Australia’s policy in relation to the resolution of Israel and Palestine.

We are committed to a two-state solution and nothing has changed when it comes to the government’s position on this matter. In dealing with the matters though that are coming up this week in the United Nations general assembly though and particular in relation to the vote that will be held on Wednesday morning, regarding concessions and conference of official status on the Palestinian Authority, to chair the G77, this is a significant vote.

Our government will be voting against that resolution. We won’t be abstaining. We will be voting against that resolution because we don’t believe that conferring that status, especially at this time, would add to the cause of moving parties towards the two-state solution. This is our objective. This is what we’re seeking to achieve.”

Updated

Good morning

Can you tell we are in the final days of a crucial byelection?

Scott Morrison is discussing overturning decades of Australian foreign policy and moving our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, following in the footsteps of the USA.

The prime minister rejected that stance as recently as mid-year, when he told Tasmanian radio LAFM that “was [America’s] policy, not ours” and Australia would not follow suit:

“Because it’s not the government’s policy. It’s never been under review and we’re not doing it,” he said in June.

DFAT secretary, Frances Adamson, told the Conversation that same month that was the right path to take, from a diplomatic standpoint:

None of these things should be seen in isolation and we need to see what effort the Americans will put into a Middle East peace process, but I think from all sides it made what was already a very, very difficult process even harder.”

So, why does Australia, which still supports a two-state solution, suddenly want to look at relocating our embassy?

Well, Dave Sharma, the Liberals Wentworth candidate is a former ambassador to Israel and he believes it is something we should look at.

And the last Census figures show 12.5% of Wentworth’s population practices Judaism.

So, now we are looking at it.

Scott Morrison is about to hold a press conference on that very issue, so I will bring you that. Mike Bowers is on assignment, so it is just me and the brains trust today, but as always, you can find me occasionally in the comments, and, if it’s urgent @amyremeikis.

I have coffee at hand and typing fingers poised.

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
Who is Adonis? American travel streamer detained after assault clash with Romanian local during viral Bucharest livestream
American streamer Adonis was detained in Bucharest after a livestream fight with a Romanian local who allegedly spat on him. The viral video shows a heated argument before punches were thrown. Police arrived at the scene, and the local was treated by medics. Adonis later posted a cryptic message on…
The Times of India
The Times of India
Turns Out Liza Minnelli And Lady Gaga's Viral Oscars Moment Allegedly Has An Upsetting Backstory
I'm ready to hear more on this.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Paris Hilton says she has ‘rejection sensitivity dysphoria’ – here’s what it is and how it’s linked to ADHD
American media personality Paris Hilton recently shared on a podcast that she suffers from rejection sensitivity dysphoria, or RSD. Hilton, who has been diagnosed with ADHD, says the condition is common in people with the disorder. She also spoke of the impact RSD has had on her mental health over…
The Conversation
The Conversation
Shenoah Allen: Bloodlust Summertime review – guns and slaughter as ‘the devil’s son’ strives to know himself
Allen, one half of the influential Pajama Men comedy duo, mines his personal trauma for a slightly undercooked show about his dramatic upbringing in New Mexico
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Snow on Market Street
The man on the Mabank bench first taught me that history isn’t past.
Texas Observer
Texas Observer
Aliens
Plus: being trolled, Waymo traffic jam in San Francisco, and the details of Trump's crackdown on investor-owned housing
Reason
Reason
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play