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

Coalition wants voter ID laws for federal elections – as it happened

Prime minister Scott Morrison during question time in the House of Representatives in Canberra, Wednesday, 5 December, 2018.
Prime minister Scott Morrison during question time in the House of Representatives in Canberra, Wednesday, 5 December, 2018. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Blog coverage of parliament ends for today

And with that, we are going to finish up the blog for today.

We have one more day of this sitting year and we’ll be back bright and early to bring it to you.

Energy. Encryption. Every other batshit crazy event. You know you’ll find it here.

Thank you so much to Mike Bowers and the Guardian brains trust, as well as to all those behind the scenes who clean up the mess I make every single day. And also thank you to all those other peeps in this building who keep me informed of what is coming up and where things are heading. I really appreciate it.

And of course, you know the biggest thank you goes to you. Thank you to everyone who has already sent in their standout moment of the year. I’ll do my best to get in as many as I can tomorrow, as we farewell this parliamentary year together. So get some rest – you know it is going to be a big one.

And remember – take care of you.

What happens when the House divides nine times in less than an hour.

Updated

The debate has begun and will go on through tonight, but it *probably* won’t be voted on until tomorrow.

Which is also when the government looks like dealing with the encryption legislation. Which is already taking off on social media.

And then there is just general last-week shenanigans.

Updated

There is an urgency motion in the Senate on Adani’s Queensland coalmine.

It’s going as you would expect.

Updated

Labor loses the motion to adjourn the debate.

Chris Bowen starts talking about the legislation as the debate begins. He says the legislation is 30-something pages (33?) but the explanatory notes run for 109 pages and if the government has brought on the debate, it means every government MP has read it.

He is being very facetious.

Updated

Josh Frydenberg is now sitting with Rebehka Sharkie and Andrew Wilkie for this final division.

The crossbench wrangler

Cathy McGowan, Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie from the cross bench vote with the government as it moves to bring on debate
Cathy McGowan, Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie from the crossbench vote with the government as it moves to bring on debate. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Bob Katter
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Bob Katter. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Rebekha Sharkie votes with the government
Rebekha Sharkie votes with the government. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Julia Banks, Dr Kerryn Phelps and Adam Bandt from the cross bench vote with the opposition during a motion
Julia Banks, Dr Kerryn Phelps and Adam Bandt from the crossbench vote with the opposition during a motion. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

From question time:

Andrew Wilkie talks to David Gillespie during question time in the house of representatives
Andrew Wilkie talks to David Gillespie during question time in the House of Representatives. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

Tony Burke is allowing the motion to be moved (to adjourn the debate) but just the once and once only.

The House divides. AGAIN.

Updated

There are now two clerks assisting the Speaker on this issue. It is a two-clerk situation.

Tony Burke then tries to move that the debate be adjourned.

Tony Smith says there has been a contingent motion passed to allow the debate to occur.

And that we are now on the second motion.

Burke has the procedure book out in front of him.

He’s arguing over the “later hour” part of Christopher Pyne’s motion and that the clerk has now called the bill on as the next order of business.

Burke says that now that the contingency motions over the “later hour” are finished, and the debate has officially been called on, then he can call for the debate to be adjourned.

Does anyone actually understand what is going on, or is it just me?

Updated

Labor loses the motions and the government gets to bring on the second reading debate.

AYES: 75

NOES: 70

Ayes: 74

Noes: 71

Then Pat Conroy has a go at shutting it down, but he gets about three words out before Christopher Pyne is back on his feet shutting him down.

To another division we go.

But looking at the floor, the government has the numbers to get this second reading debate brought on.

Looking at the chamber, Josh Frydenberg has been sitting next to Bob Katter throughout these divisions. The other crossbencher voting consistently with the government is Andrew Wilkie.

That’s suggestive that they have the numbers to get the package through the lower house, but nothing is certain. In any event, the objective appears to be bringing on the debate.

You may remember that Katter received about $200m from the federal government for water projects in north Queensland right around the time it went into minority.

Updated

Anthony Albanese then had a go at seconding Mark Butler, and Christopher Pyne moves that he no longer be heard as well and the count starts again.

Updated

AYES: 74

NOES: 71

For those who are confused over what is going on, which includes me, the government appears to want to bring on the second reading debate for its divestiture legislation (formally known as the big stick).

Labor does not want this debate to come on.

But it would appear the government has the numbers from the crossbench, given that it is winning the motions – at least so far.

Whether or not it wants to bring this to a vote or not today is a whole other question. We don’t know as yet and, to be honest, I am not sure if the government knows yet either.

Updated

Mark Butler starts his “the government are bringing this on too quickly and there are a lot of pages of notes to consider and what’s the rush” speech and Christopher Pyne moves that he is no longer heard.

The House divides for the millionth time on this.

Updated

Mark Butler is now trying to suspend standing orders to stop the bringing on of the energy bill, because there hasn’t been enough time to scrutinise the bill.

Christopher Pyne says the new suspension of standing orders is too similar to the one the House just voted on.

The government is trying to bring on the divestiture laws. Labor does not want them brought on. The whole House is a dog’s breakfast at the moment and I am not sure anyone knows what is going on, other than the government wants something, and the opposition doesn’t.

Updated

AYES - 74

NOES - 71

Christopher Pyne moved a motion that the second reading debate (on the energy motion) be set for a “later hour” and Chris Bowen amended that motion to say the “later hour” be the first parliamentary sitting in 2019.

The House is dividing again and it looks like Cathy McGowan is changing her vote.

AYES: 75

NOES: 70

While we wait to see the outcome of the House division, it is worth mentioning this:

Tasmanian Greens Senators Nick McKim and Peter Whish-Wilson have tabled the Senate’s largest-ever petition, calling for the takayna/Tarkine to be protected as a world heritage area.

“takayna/Tarkine is a precious part of Tasmania that should be looked after on behalf of the entire world,” Senator McKim said.

“Some 270,000 people have signed this petition, which just shows the depth of feeling about takayna across Tasmania, Australia and the world.”

“We invite prime minister Morrison and opposition leader Bill Shorten to visit takayna/Tarkine and see for themselves why this area is worthy of world heritage protection.”

Senator Whish-Wilson said:“takayna is a place of incredible natural and Aboriginal heritage value.” “It is one of the last strongholds for the Tasmanian devil and contains one of Australia’s largest temperate rainforests.”

“It’s time for the Labor and Liberal parties to step up.”

“We thank the Bob Brown Foundation and Patagonia for their ongoing campaign to protect takayna.”

Updated

Tony Abbott is talking to Ben Fordham on 2GB.

Asked about the new Liberal party leadership rules, he says: “if we had been better they wouldn’t be needed” and “even members of parliament can have character deficits and conviction deficits” and when he became PM in 2013 he thought “we would have learned that lesson” about changing leaders and have now “learnt that lesson the very hard way.

He also says things like this:

Updated

Government moves to bring on 'big stick' legislation

The government is attempting to bring its energy bill in the House.

Stay tuned.

Updated

Coalition wants voter ID laws for federal elections

Queensland is waging its own little war in the Senate.

James McGrath moved this motion:

That the Senate–

    1. recognises the hardships faced by rural and remote towns in Queensland, which range from the physical threats of harsh droughts and bushfires, to the mental health threats associated with isolation such as depression and loneliness;
    2. notes:
      1. the important social and economic benefits that pubs and hotels confer on rural and remote towns in Queensland, and
      2. that pubs and hotels in rural and remote Queensland towns operate in environments vastly different to hotels in larger commercial centres; and
  1. supports any proposals that reduce the burden of licensing fees on these social and economic hubs.

And Larissa Waters responded with this:

The Greens are supportive of parts A and B of this motion – many regional towns in Queensland are doing it tough. Social support networks and hubs have an important role to play in these areas. However, this motion calling for the burden of licensing fees of pubs and hotels to be reduced has been moved by a Senator who’s accepted more than 190 bottles of wine and 21 cases of beer from the Queensland and Australian Hotels Associations over the past six months, and whose party accepted more than $1.1 million from the gaming, alcohol and hotels industries over the past five years. You cannot expect to gain support from the Greens for a motion that advances the interests of that industry.

Updated

In the Senate, Nick McKim has just won a suspension of standing orders and successfully moved his and Tim Storer’s motion to bring on a non-contentious government migration bill for debate and a vote by 1.50pm on Thursday.

Why would he be doing that? It’s part of a crossbench plan to pass the Kerryn Phelps bill for emergency medical transfers from offshore detention in the Senate by adding it to a government bill.

I wrote about this on Tuesday – it didn’t succeed then because Labor and Phelps were still in negotiations about the conditions on which it could support her bill. Perhaps Labor voting with McKim and Storer indicates a deal has now been done, I will find this out for you ASAP.

Updated

As we start to wind down for the year and prepare for our final politics live for 2018, I would love to know what stood out for you this year. Positive or negative – and I don’t just mean the usual political take aways. It’s been a huge year. A huge one. So what will you remember from 2018 in the Australian parliament?

Keep it short and sweet and I’ll do my best to include the most thoughtful ones in the final blog tomorrow – tweet at @amyremeikis or send me a short couple of paragraphs to amy.remeikis@theguardian.com

Updated

Josh Frydenberg has issued his official statement on the National Accounts:

Today’s National Accounts for the September quarter 2018 show the strength of the Australian economy and the strong economic management of the Liberal National government.

We have completed our 27th consecutive year of economic growth, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5% and nearly 1.2 million jobs have been created under the Coalition government. The strength of the Australian economy has recently been recognised by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and through our AAA credit rating being reaffirmed.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, real GDP grew by 0.3% in the September quarter and by 2.8% through the year and this sees Australia growing faster than the OECD average and all of the G7 nations except the United States.

Growth continues to be broad-based with household consumption, dwelling investment, net exports and new public final demand contributing to growth. These were partially offset by a significant fall in mining investment as the last of the major LNG projects near completion.

New public investment grew by 5.1% in the quarter to be 4% higher through the year. Public investment will continue to be underpinned by the government’s record $75 billion infrastructure rollout.

Compensation of employees, which records total wages and salaries across the economy, rose by 1% in the quarter to be 4.3% higher through the year. Growth was driven by strength in employment.

Because of the Coalition’s strong economic management we will deliver next April the first budget surplus in more than a decade.

The strength of the Australian economy is no accident. The government’s plan of lower taxes and stronger economic growth is working and today’s numbers show the strength of the Australian economy is helping to provide the essential services all Australians rely on.

Updated

Including this here because it is very human and also adorable.

Tomorrow’s question time, today from Katharine Murphy:

[Malcolm Turnbull] urged his Liberal colleagues to revive the Neg – abandoned as a casualty of the August leadership fight – arguing it was a ‘vital piece of economic policy and has strong support, none stronger I might say, than that of the current prime minister and the current treasurer’.

Labor is proposing to keep the Neg with a 45% emissions reduction target. The text of the speech the former prime minister ultimately delivered on Tuesday morning, now uploaded on his website, did not address the impact of Labor’s higher target.

But an earlier draft of the speech, did.

‘Labor has announced it will adopt the Neg but with a higher emissions target,’ the early draft, seen by Guardian Australia, said. ‘Ours, as you know, was 26% which was only just above business as usual so it obviously had no adverse impact on prices.

‘There is some modelling already from Frontier Economics which suggests that Labor’s 45% target will not result in higher prices,’ the early draft said. ‘That assertion deserves sceptical assessment, but it is also important regularly to review these models in the light of the latest technology and market information.

‘A great deal depends too on whether a 45% reduction means simply that emissions in 2030 – in that year – should be 45% less than in 2005. If that were the case, implying a hockey stick, the additional cost may not be as high as it would appear.’

You can read that whole story, including Turnbull’s response, here.

Updated

You may have noticed that was the second question time that Stuart Robert was targeted.

I doubt it will be the last.

Kristina Keneally spoke to the ABC this morning about the stillbirth report:

...There are things that we know help prevent stillbirth, and we are simply not telling parents about them when they are contemplating pregnancy, or when they have fallen pregnant. The first thing is education for parents, and education for clinicians, and, you know, that is supported right across the board.

One mother said to us, you know, ’It’s like when you get on an airplane, and they tell you the worst thing that could happen. Nobody runs screaming from the plane. They take the advice on how to minimise the risk.’ She said stillbirth is the same: it happens more frequently, and yet we never talk about it, so we need to get that as part of education and health information when people are pregnant.

And there are some simple things like falling asleep on your side if you’re pregnant. You know, managing weight, managing smoking, not drinking and smoking. There are things about foetal movement monitoring where people are still getting the wrong advice. Babies don’t slow down before birth, you know. That’s a myth. If there’s a significant change in a baby’s movements, that’s cause to go see your doctor or midwife.

So there is some information. The other thing I would highlight in the time that we have is to point out that Australia does really poorly at investigating why stillbirths happen. About half of them we don’t know why they occurred, in only about 22% of cases do we even do autopsies. We don’t collect data, we don’t give information back to parents on how to avoid it in subsequent pregnancies.

You know, some of the most terrible evidence came from a couple of mothers who’d had more than one stillbirth, and we don’t, as a nation, understand where it’s happening, why it’s happening, and to who it is happening, so that we can help prevent it. And there, as I said, are some simple things that other nations have done – nations just like us – to drive the rate down. We can do these things too.

Updated

Christian Porter is sticking to the government line that it is Labor’s fault (pin tweet) that the anti-discrimination legislation won’t be going through the House before the end of the year:

Anyone concerned that exemptions to discrimination against gay students will remain in the Sex Discrimination Act over the parliamentary break should be in no doubt about who is now responsible – Bill Shorten.

It was Bill Shorten’s Labor party that put these specific exemptions into the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) in 2013.

Now Labor says they agree with the government that Labor’s 2013 exemptions, which allowed for discrimination against gay students, should go.

Labor also says it agrees with the government that faith-based schools should be able to educate students consistent with their beliefs and the tenets of their religion.

But Labor is not prepared to accept the common sense principle that religious schools should be able to impose reasonable school rules evenly on all of their students, such as a requirement that all students – regardless of gender – attend chapel. These rules are no different to those imposed in many workplaces.

And worst of all, Bill Shorten will not agree to the common sense process of allowing a conscience vote of all members to allow these common sense changes to happen right now.

In stark contrast, our government has repeatedly offered ways to ensure children don’t face discrimination, and protect religious freedoms.

The government’s proposals simply mean that any action against a school, in a court or the Human Rights Commission, would be decided after consideration of the reasonableness of the rule in the context of the institution’s religion and whether there was regard for the best interests of the student.

Religious leaders and schools have warned Bill Shorten there is a risk that Labor’s current approach would limit faith-based teaching beyond the classroom and extend into churches, synagogues, mosques and temples.

Bill Shorten should be ashamed, and anyone concerned about these exemptions need look no further than to the fact that the Labor party, which put them there in the first place, will not allow a conscience vote to have them removed.

Updated

Question time ends.

WE ARE ALMOST THERE PEOPLE! ONE MORE TO GO

Chris Bowen tells Scott Morrison about Stuart Robert appearing at a LNP fundraiser with Kate Carnell, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise ombudsman, in November and asks “is that appropriate and in keeping with the statement on ministerial standards?”

Morrison takes it on notice.

That’s about this event:

LNP Small Business LEADER Roundtable breakfast - will be held on Thursday 8th November at the Storybridge Hotel, Brisbane. Speakers -Stuart Robert, assistant treasurer for Australia, and Kate Carnell, Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise ombudsman. 6.30AM arrival for a 7AM start: Cost $35.00 breakfast and coffee/tea.

This is a workshop – so bring along your best questions, and points of view.

And these are the ministerial standards Bowen mentioned:

APS Values

The APS Values articulate the parliament’s expectations of public servants in terms of performance and standards of behaviour. The principles of good public administration are embodied in the APS Values. The APS Values require that we are:

Impartial

The APS is apolitical and provides the government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence.

Committed to service

The APS is professional, objective, innovative and efficient, and works collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the Government.

Accountable

The APS is open and accountable to the Australian community under the law and within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.

Respectful

The APS respects all people, including their rights and their heritage.

Ethical

The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity, in all that it does.

Updated

This is still going on:

There is no lie here

The prime minister said we’d hear the result of the Israel embassy move conversation before the end of the year. The foreign minister has helpfully narrowed that down to the last month of the year.

You can’t write satire anymore. It is just a series of observations.

Chris Bowen to Stuart Robert (or Stuey, as the prime minister calls him):

Today’s media reports that the assistant treasurer is supporting labelling changes for pharmaceuticals. Given that he has interests in pharmaceuticals, how can he say there is no conflict between his ministerial responsibilities and his private interests? Has the minister learnt nothing from last time he was a minister?

Robert:

I thank the member for his question. The first thing I’ll say, policy responsibility for all things pharmaceutical resides with the minister for it, not with me.

... I’ll reiterate, the industry minister has policy responsibility for the Australian-made campaign and all details [of it]. When it comes to my interests, they are all updated, they have been blind-trusted, so I have no responsibility with assets [in] that regard.

Updated

Claire O’Neill to Stuart Robert.

“The assistant treasurer is responsible for financial services, including the big banks. Since becoming assistant treasurer, how many victims of financial misconduct has he met with? Or does the assistant treasurer only share his ministerial assessments with LNP donors? Will he now cancel his attendance at the event advertised for 19 September?”

Tony Smith tells Labor to redraft the question, ruling most of it out of order.

The manager of opposition business won’t be surprised to know that the last part of the question is completely out of order. Asking ministers things that are not their responsibility, whether they are attending a fundraiser or going through the diary, it is out of order. I made that point yesterday and I won’t allow questioners to keep restating it so I have to make the same point of order. That is completely out of order …

The only part of the question that may be in order is his responsibilities as assistant treasurer with respect to financial services. But even in that case, I would make the point that as the assistant treasurer he is not the primary minister. That, in fact, it is the treasurer. He has overall responsibilities. If somebody wants to tell me I am wrong on any of that, I am happy to hear. There is one I’m certain of, for all the time that has been in this place, and that is that the assistants are subordinate to treasurers. I’m sorry, assistant treasurer, but they are.

Updated

Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:

I refer to his previous answer. Does his answer mean that his government is seeking the power to privatise electricity assets in Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia and Snowy Hydro? And if it doesn’t, what exactly does divestiture mean for publicly owned electricity assets?

Morrison:

Well, I refer the leader of the Labor party to the statement issued by the treasurer and the minister for energy, where it is very plainly, on the second page, [stated that] the legislation will apply to government-owned enterprises. In such cases, any divestiture must be made to another energy company where the two entities generally compete with one another.

So ... it has nothing to do with privatisation, but given you asked in relation to my previous answer, and I made reference to the Queensland government retail electricity companies, you may be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that Queensland-government owned electricity retailers made $1.9 billion in profits in 2017, up 45% on 2016.

Talk about putting their hands in the pockets of hard-working Australians, with government-driven higher electricity prices. Mr Speaker, the hide of Labor, when their cousins in Queensland in the state government, Mr Speaker, are smacking Queensland retail customers in the electricity market around the head on a daily basis. They should be joining us, the Labor party, and standing up to anyone who would want to doubt Australians, do the wrong thing by Australians, Mr Speaker.

I remember it was the same thing from the Labor party when it came to dealing with section 46, Mr Speaker, of the Consumer and Competition Act, when our government stood up for small business, to make sure they got a fair go. Do you know who voted against them? The Labor party … We are happy to stand up to anybody who wants to play the Australian people for [mugs], and that includes the leader of the Labor party.”

I’m a little confused – should we be running government corporations at a loss? I mean, a socialist would say yes, absolutely, but a Liberal?

Also, this line of attack is interesting, given that in Queensland particularly, voters are really, really, REALLY against privatisation. Just ask Campbell Newman and Tim Nicholls. Strong Choices, the campaign to privatise the electricity network in Queensland in 2015, to take advantage of the federal government $5bn infrastructure recycling fund (which encouraged the states to sell off their electricity networks, something you would have to say it now regrets) contributed to the LNP being turfed out of government after just one term.

Updated

Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:

The Courier Mail says the Morrison government is threatening Queenslanders with the forced privatisation of their state-owned power assets with the energy minister saying they’re on notice. Why does the prime minister support this [given privatisation drives up prices]?

Morrison:

As is his habit, the leader of the Labor party is not telling the truth. One truth he can point to though is the Queensland electricity industry is owned by the Queensland government.

As the Queensland government has been dividend-stripping out of the Queensland electricity industry to prop up their financial mismanagement, you know who’s been paying for it? Queenslanders, Mr Speaker. Why are power prices higher in Queensland for Queenslanders? Because the Queensland government is gouging them,

Mr Speaker, it is because they – [the] Queensland Labor government that doesn’t know how to manage money – they are irresponsible. They’ve been jacking up power prices to strip that money away from mums and dads and pensioners and small businesses and family businesses.

If the leader of the Labor party wants to come into this House and talk about the ownership of electricity assets in Queensland, he must take responsibility as the leader of the Labor party for having a partnership with a Queensland Labor government happy to rip off electricity customers and put the money in their own failed budgets.

Very quick fact check – because Queensland is one topic I am very familiar with in this parliament (you’re welcome) – this is not entirely correct, but it’s not incorrect either.

The Palaszczuk government, in a bid to shift debt off the government books, transferred a huge chunk of it to the gencos – the generation companies it owns. And to try and manage that debt, prices were put up. The government then denied the gencos the right to do that, at least for a bit, so it is at a bit of an impasse, at the moment.

Updated

Testy Christopher Pyne is still testy.

Which is a shame. He always seemed to have so much fun with the daily unions-are-terrible dixer.

Michelle Rowland to Scott Morrison:

Is the prime minister aware that according to today’s media reports, energy companies, business groups and even government members are warning that the prime minister’s discredited forced divestments policy sets a dangerous precedent that would threaten investment across the economy? Does the prime minister agree?

Morrison:

I don’t, Mr Speaker. I don’t support that. Mr Speaker, what the ACCC retail electricity pricing inquiry report found, and I initiated that report, Mr Speaker, as treasurer, we’ve been taking action on electricity prices.

We have been doing things to force them [down], unlike the Labor party. They found retailers taking advantage of confused and disengaged customers and competition restricted through dominant players choosing not to offer financial contracts, and conduct undermining the operation.

Mr Speaker, that is the misconduct, that’s the practices which they found, Mr Speaker, and the member opposite says what did they say about divestments? It’s a very good point.

The ACCC didn’t recommend divestments, what they recommended was if you could do everything you possibly could, it wouldn’t be necessary, but those options are available, Mr Speaker, and our government has taken the decision, and it was also taken under the previous prime minister, that we would introduce divestments powers to ensure big electricity companies did not take advantage of Australian consumers.

It’s pretty simple – you’re either with the top end of town over there, and big electricity companies, or you’re standing with the government, who wants to put in place – and even up with the national laws – to ensure those big electricity companies cannot play the mark-it-up [game] and cannot play mums and dads who are paying too much for their electricity prices.

I know why Labor probably don’t want to support this measure – because they’re for higher electricity prices

How do I know? They have a 45% emissions reduction target, which will drive up prices. When they were in government they doubled those prices despite the fact they gave $1 billion to brown coal generation, Mr Speaker ... they just had to send them their bank account details! I’m not going to take lectures from the Labor party, who only has one agenda – to punish mums and dads, pensioners and small businesses with higher prices as they cuddle up to the big energy companies.

Updated

Kelly O’Dwyer finishes her dixer with “which is why we say, don’t vote Labor”.

“Well, we wouldn’t expect you to say vote Labor, to be fair,” Bill Shorten replies.

Mark Butler to Scott Morrison:

Does the prime minister agree with the now independent member for Chisholm that the forced divestments policy of the government is totally counter to values of free enterprise and small government and will be a deterrent for future investment, and won’t lower energy prices but will in fact have the reverse effect?

Morrison:

The Liberal party members in this chamber want to see electricity prices come down, and we are going to side with the customers who have been paying too much and have been taken advantage of by big electricity companies, and that is what our bill is designed to achieve.

That is why we are taking action, because we want to stand by the families and small businesses and family businesses of Australia who are paying too much. Why would the Labor party not want there to be a power to take action against price gouging and the sorts of conduct that would be anti-competitive and could lead to an increase in prices?Why would he be opposed to a power that would help even out the score for mums and dads and businesses? We ... know who we stand for – mums and dads and small businesses ...

(what if you are not a mum or dad or small business owner?)

Butler asks about relevance, but Morrison has decided he has had enough.

He is not Robinson Crusoe there.

Updated

Christian Porter ran out of time to talk encryption, so lucky he has had a million media opportunities and press releases and speeches to do just that.

Chris Bowen to Josh Frydenberg:

Can the treasurer confirm reports this morning that the member for Curtin told the government that its discredited energy investment policy could be regarded as sovereign risk and was inconsistent with Liberal values?

The member for Curtain is Julie Bishop, who is very busy doing paperwork at her desk.

Frydenberg:

We introduced legislation to lower power prices and it’s awesome.

Updated

Josh Frydenberg takes the next dixer, which is basically surplus, surplus, Labor bad, poor pensioners, good economy, us good.

Adam Bandt questions the minister for big sticks turned bubble-wrapped wooden spoons, lowering electricity prices and whatever else gets added to this before the election. Angus Taylor responds:

Of course, we are seeing, over the next 2.5 years, an investment of $15 billion, $15 billion committed to new generation in the electricity sector. That will see a 250% increase in the solar and wind in our sector from 9% of generation up to 23% of generation in the next 2.5 years ... By the early 2020s we will get to that percentage, but we need to have enough despatchable 24/7 power to keep the lights on and keep prices down.

We are underwriting new generation and new supply, to make sure those prices come down. Mr Speaker, we are also taking on the big energy companies. We are taking on the big energy companies and we are doing that because we have seen dodgy practices, we have seen manipulation, we have seen price gouging from those in the energy sector who are more interested in the bottom line than the interests of customers. Those opposite have a big decision to make. Whose side do they sit on? Do they sit on the side of the hard-working small businesses and families of Australia, or do they sit on the side ...

Bandt interrupts with something that is, basically, answer the question.

Taylor jumps up to answer, but he hasn’t been called by the Speaker yet, because this whole place has just decided rules don’t apply anymore. Honestly, it’s like the last day of school for a group of sugared-up prep students.

Updated

Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:

Does the prime minister agree with the Business Council of Australia which today said about the government’s discredited energy policy and I quote: “It’s surprising to see this legislation proposed by the Liberal government. This is the kind of intrusive heavy-handed intervention you would expect from the Greens. Bad policy created this mess and ill-conceived and rushed policy won’t achieve what’s desperately needed – lower electricity bills for families and businesses”.

“Ouch, ouch, ouch,” says someone near Plibersek, close enough to be picked up by her microphone.

Morrison:

The Labor party spends most of their time saying ‘we’re the champions of big business’ Mr Speaker. I’ll tell you who is sitting in bed with big businesses that want to rip off Australian customers and their electricity prices – the Labor party, that’s who it is, that’s who it is!”

Again – can you be on the side of unions or “union bred, led and fed” if you are also on the side of big business?

The member for Barker reminded us this week that when Robert Menzies said we stand up for the forgotten people, that didn’t mean forgotten energy company executives, Mr Speaker, it meant mums and dads and people paying electricity prices, Mr Speaker.

That’s who we are fighting for. In the Liberal and National party, we’re fighting for small businesses who are out there working hard, fighting for family businesses, fighting for people that go out and earn a wage and pay tax, fighting for people who haven’t got the time to go out there [and fight].

[Labor, the Greens and the left] want to fill the airwaves with economy-wrecking policies, unlike what we’re doing on this side, standing up for Australians who work hard and are sick of paying too much for their electricity. We’re prepared to take on the big energy companies, the Labor party has folded.

Updated

We go from dixer to dixer and Keith Pitt delivers us the latest round of 180 seconds with Michael McCormack.

Updated

Bill Shorten tries to table a document showing “corporate profits are up six times wages in this country,” but is denied.

Scott Morrison is now taking his first dixer on the “strong economy”.

Two. More. Days.

Question time begins

Bill Shorten to Josh Frydenberg:

Today’s national accounts confirm over the last quarter, Australia’s economic growth rate has gone down and living standards have fallen. Growth in household consumption is the weakest in five years, and over the last five years, corporate growth has grown five times faster than wages. Everything is going up except people’s wages.

Frydenberg:

One thing’s for certain, we on this side of the House won’t talk down the Australian economy, Mr Speaker. We won’t talk down the Australian economy. That’s because today’s national accounts reveal ... the economy is still growing strongly. At 2.8%, it is faster than the OECD average, and faster than any G7 country except the United States, Mr Speaker. That’s our economic record.

He goes on, but the answer is basically “it’s still OK, but” and “it’s better than what you did”, which is the political equivalent of “your face is”.

Updated

Stephen Jones gets told to sit down after comparing the annual US president turkey pardon to Scott Morrison’s intervention to save Craig Kelly.

That gives time for Keith Pitt to ask the government to apply its “big stick” to the Queensland power assets (owned by Queensland). He runs out of time to get all his point across.

It’s time for Who’s that MP as we enter the chamber (virtually today) in time for the end of the members’ 90 second statements:

It’s ....

Justine Keay.

Updated

We are in the downhill slide to question time – the second last one for the year.

If only they had something to talk about *sarcastic thinking face emoji*

Speaking of the Nationals, John “Wacka” Williams will be giving his valedictory speech...in February.*

He was instrumental in convincing the Coalition party room to accept a banking royal commission had to happen.

*We were told it was happening today, but have just been informed by his lovely staff that it will be in February (the last sitting weeks before the budget is handed down in April, and basically the last sittings before the election)

Updated

It is the annual Nationals seafood lunch at Parliament House, where seafood providers (largely) donate their goods to their Nationals MPs to promote their region.

Which is mostly Queensland. In particular, mostly the Hinkler electorate, where Urangan fisheries and Ocean King have donated. That’s an area which has done it a bit tough for the last few years, and is bracing for a fairly big summer, in terms of potential natural disasters. The fires have already been a big shock.

Ron Boswell started the tradition “about a million years ago” and it’s always held in the last sitting week.

St Vincents de Paul is also holding its charity BBQ, which is also an annual event. This one is hosted by Labor MPs and raises money for the charity. Both are just tiny moments of humanity in the mess of the past week.

Updated

The proposed suspension of standing orders as moved by Adam Bandt has gone to a division and the result is:

Ayes: 73

Noes: 72

The government loses another vote, but it is not the absolutely majority (76) needed to suspend standing orders.

This seems helpful. And also – very dated? Can you not have a job and protest? Can you not be unemployed and care about things bigger than yourself? And also, there were school students there?

SIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

Updated

Phew.

That was quite the hour.

Tanya Plibersek (just before she had to go) on why Labor won’t seek to amend the bill Scott Morrison has put forward:

Why are we contorting ourselves with all of these – should we do this or should we do that? When the solution is simple. The solution is to remove the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act that allow discrimination against children. It is simple. And just as with marriage equality, every effort to complicate it is designed to delay and prevent this simple reform from occurring.

Updated

The division has been called in the House.

Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek are being called back to the chamber.

They said they will come back out.

GetUp has responded to Tony Smith’s statement from a little earlier today:

Parliament has today roundly rebuked the Hard Right’s attack on GetUp members.

Last week GetUp National Director Paul Oosting called out Tangney MP Ben Morton for using the cover of Parliament to air baseless and misleading accusations about GetUp.

‘The Speaker has rightly seen Mr Morton’s attempts to smear GetUp as a vindictive conspiracy theory,’ Mr Oosting said.

‘Mr Morton is one of a swathe of Hard Right politicians using Parliament to peddle false and misleading accusations – they can’t be trusted.

‘Scott Morrison and his Hard Right MPs have given up on governing in favour of trying to score cheap political points.

‘Parliament has told them today to pull their heads in and they should fall in line. It’s actually in their interests because every time these Hard Right politicians attack everyday people for taking part in our democracy, we dig in.’

Updated

In the House, Tony Burke is arguing in support of suspending the standing orders, mentioning that the parliament came together to pass the strawberry legislation in record time because it believed that was important – so surely, the health and wellbeing of those in our offshore detention centres is also important.

Updated

Bill Shorten on the Scott Morrison bill:

I am not prepared to give up on removing discrimination against kids and respecting religion in our society. But what we don’t have today is a solution. So the question is – when you don’t have a solution, do you just engage in a trainwreck? Or do you draw breath? I mean, the problem is that if you don’t have an answer today, you can either have a big fight and divide this country and start antagonising and making everyone nervous about, who cares about what? Or does the parliament do what we’re paid to do – which is we sit down and we keep working through the issue.

Updated

Mike Bowers was at the student protest in the parliament foyer earlier this morning

Senator Jordan Steele-John joins the student protest in the marble foyer of Parliament House in Canberra this morning.
Senator Jordan Steele-John joins the student protest in the marble foyer of Parliament House in Canberra this morning. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Police remove protesters
Police remove protesters Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
The protest is broken up
The protest is broken up Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Earlier
Earlier Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

Tanya Plibersek explains why Labor is against Scott Morrison’s proposal a little more:

I’m worried that this will go down the same route at the marriage equality debate. Someone will be suggesting a plebiscite next.

Now, just today, the prime minister further complicates issues by suggesting a conscience vote. Labor doesn’t need a conscience vote because every member of the Labor party agrees it’s wrong to discriminate against children. I don’t understand how anyone without a conscience thinks it’s OK to discriminate against children.

The vast majority of [religious] ... schools don’t want this in their schools. They’ve made it clear to us that they don’t want to discriminate against children in their schools. That they are happy for this change to proceed. They don’t want to use the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act.

In turn, Labor has made it clear to schools, through the explanatory memorandum of our bill, through a second reading amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Jacinta Collins, that nothing in our bill prevents religious schools from teaching the tenants of their faith, from teaching religious instruction in our schools. There is nothing in our bill that prevents that.

There is a very nasty scare campaign being run by the right wing of the Liberal party saying that this somehow undermines religious freedoms, when it doesn’t.

This is simple – do we support discrimination against children? Or do we not? If we don’t support discrimination against children in our schools, then we move the simple bill, support the simple bill that removes the right to discriminate. We should not allow this to be a complicated by political agendas, other than the simple desire to let our children live their true selves, not to be discriminated against in their schooling.

Updated

For those who like the detail, here is the whole motion Adam Bandt is seeking to move in the House:

I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent -

1. private Members’ business order of the day no. 17 relating to the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Indi being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business, except for Question Time, for final determination by the House;

2. immediately on conclusion of consideration of the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018, private Members’ business order of the day no. 23 relating to the Coal-fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Melbourne, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business, with the exception of Question Time, for final determination by the House;

3. immediately on conclusion of consideration of the Coal-fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018, private Members’ business order of the day no. 25 relating to the Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Wentworth, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business, with the exception of Question Time, for final determination by the House;

4. Notwithstanding the above, if the leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business agree that Order of the day no. 1 relating to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 should be given priority, then that order of the day shall be given priority over all other business, provided that the orders referred to in 1. To 3. Above must be finally determined pursuant to 5. Below; and

5. if consideration of the orders of the day has not been completed by 7.30pm on Wednesday, 5 December, any questions necessary to complete the House’s consideration of the orders of the day being put to the House immediately and without delay or intervening debate.

Updated

One to keep an eye on over the course of the day.

Folks following the events of the week will know Kerryn Phelps is pursuing a private member’s bill to get kids and families off Nauru. What’s now come to my attention is there is some activity in the Senate to try and force this issue onto the agenda before parliament rises for the summer.

Tim Storer is currently attempting to build numbers for a motion that would allow a government proposal, an amendment to the Migration Act, to come back on for debate in the chamber tonight. In the event that succeeds (and Labor would need to support it for it to succeed) there will be an attempt to insert extra amendments that would allow people to be taken off Nauru in certain conditions – so mirroring the Phelps bill with some extra conditions Labor is insisting on: that people being removed on medical advice need to have passed a character test and not be the subject of a pre-existing adverse assessment by Asio.

The object of this exercise is to try and insert these new provisions in the Migration Act and get a motion of concurrence to the House of Representatives, where a simple majority is required to bring on debate in the lower house.

We’ll keep you posted, but for now, it’s watch this space.

Updated

Morrison has 'sought to weaponise this dispute' on religious discriminations – Shorten

Bill Shorten continues:

But what really disappointed me and has led to myself accompanying Tanya out to talk about this issue is that 10 minutes later our prime minister enthusiastically bounded out to a press conference and said that he wanted to deal in a controversial fashion [with] the very measures which the government in the Senate had decided to defer.

So we say to the prime minister that this partisanship is not where the debate goes. I get there’s legitimate anxieties from religious schools and we respect that. And I get that there is an overwhelming desire to remove discrimination against children. How could it be otherwise? The parliament hasn’t come across a mechanism which seems to get that balance right, but unfortunately, the prime minister has sought to weaponise this dispute and I do think that rather than looking for the angle, the prime minister should look for the outcome.

There is no set of circumstances where this parliament should be voting to replace one set of laws permitting discrimination against children with another set of laws permitting discrimination against children.

Updated

Bill Shorten is confirming that Labor will not be supporting Scott Morrison on his call for a conscience vote:

The lower house has chosen to put forward a proposal which will replace one form of discrimination with another. I get that all sides of politics, genuinely I think in most cases, want to remove discrimination from the law books. I also understand religious faith being taught in schools. I don’t see the two goals as irreconcilable.

However, while they’re trying to remove discrimination against children, I don’t think that the parliament has come across a mechanism that sufficiently reassures the ability to teach faith without actually re-introducing the same discrimination sought to be removed in a new form.

Our legal advice about the government’s proposed amendment is that it has the potential to permit discrimination against students in schools both direct and indirect. The advice goes on to say that the provisions which we seek to put in would not prevent the provision of instruction in an educational institution.

So we believe our simple proposal, which removes the exemption against discrimination against children, [is one] that works.

Now, the government is not convinced of that.

This morning in the Senate, Senator Cormann, the leader of the government in the Senate, and Senator Penny Wong and the minority party, the crossbench parties, all agreed that whilst we want to remove discrimination against kids, the mechanisms to do so weren’t agreed and therefore the matter should be deferred until there was more considered discussion and I can understand that that was a sensible course of action.

Updated

Adam Bandt is moving a motion to suspend standing orders to bring on the debate on this bill, which Katharine Murphy wrote about last night, as well as the Nauru medical evacuation and the national integrity commission bill.

So all of the crossbench bills at once.

This will cause a division, which will cut short Bill Shorten’s press conference, I imagine.

Updated

The kids are alright

The Prime Minister’s Literary awards have been announced:

· Australian History: John Curtin’s War: The coming of war in the Pacific, and reinventing Australia, volume 1, John Edwards, Penguin Random House

· Fiction: Border Districts, Gerald Murnane, Giramondo Publishing

· Young Adult Literature: This is My Song, Richard Yaxley, Scholastic Australia

· Children’s Literature: Pea Pod Lullaby, Glenda Millard and illustrated by Stephen Michael King, Allen & Unwin

· Poetry: Blindness and Rage: A Phantasmagoria, Brian Castro, Giramondo Publishing

· Non-Fiction: Asia’s Reckoning: The struggle for global dominance, Richard McGregor, Penguin Random House UK

Updated

Josh Frydenberg on the national accounts:

Updated

Timing

File this under quelle surprise:

The protesters have been removed from the parliament foyer.

The House is dividing on the live export motion.

Updated

While all the religious discrimination bill to and fro was going on, Speaker Tony Smith made this statement to the House:

On 29 November, the member for Tangney raised, as a matter of privilege, whether during the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2016 election, the committee had been provided with false and misleading information by GetUp such as to substantially obstruct the committee in the performance of its functions in relation to the inquiry. The member for Tangney presented as supporting information a letter from him to the chair of the committee.

The member for Tangney indicated that the committee had considered the matter and had concluded:

– that GetUp had provided false and misleading information to the committee;

– the provision of the false and misleading information substantially obstructed the committee in the performance of its functions; and

- authorised the member of Tangney to raise the issue as a matter of privilege in the House.

I have had the opportunity to review the matter raised by the member and the detailed supporting information.

I accept that the events outlined in the member for Tangney’s letter show that GetUp appeared to be less than fully forthcoming with information in response to the committee’s queries and that the information provided did not seem to be consistent. I note in relation to the principal matter on which the committee was seeking information, namely the results of GetUp’s 2016 election survey, that ultimately GetUp provided the full results of the survey in response to a possible summons.

I also do not dispute the view expressed by the committee that it considers it has been provided with false and misleading information and, as result, its work has been impeded.

The task for me under the standing orders is to determine two issues.

The first is whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate this matter has been afoot for some time, but I understand that the member for Tangney has only just received the committee’s view about the matter. And so I accept that it has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

The second is whether there is a prima facie case of contempt. There is a significant hurdle in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 as to whether a matter constitutes a contempt. To constitute a contempt conduct needs to amount, or be intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by a committee of its authority or functions.

In considering these matters it is important to recognise that the penal jurisdiction of the House is significant and it should be exercised with restraint.

Although I can see that the conduct of GetUp in response to queries from the committee was unhelpful and at times misleading, it is not clear to me that the conduct was done intentionally to interfere with the committee in a way that was improper. Also, although the committee’s work was impeded, I do not see that it has prevented the committee from being able to freely perform its functions and exercise its authority and properly report to the House on its inquiry.

For these reasons, I do not propose to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests.

Updated

And the Greens are rounding out the press conferences with one scheduled for 1pm.

Updated

Bill Shorten has called a press conference of his own for 12.30pm.

Updated

Andrew Wilkie wants the major parties to have a conscience vote.

It looks like police and security are making moves to shift* the protesters out of Parliament House.

*I originally left the f out of shift, which was a mistake. But both work.

Updated

Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) was 0.3% in the September quarter, which was much lower than expected.

The majority of market economists surveyed before this released were predicting quarterly growth would be 0.6%.

It means the rate of growth of Australia’s economy has slowed to 2.8%, in seasonally adjusted terms, down from 3.4% three months ago.

Let’s see what the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, has to say about this one.

Updated

The Greens are not on board:

Updated

The national accounts are out and the economy grew by 0.3% in the September quarter, taking the 12-month growth to 2.8%.

Updated

The other issue bubbling away with the bill Scott Morrison has stepped up with and waved around the prime minister’s podium?

This question: We’ve now gone from who can be in schools to the teaching of religions – are we on a collision course between the secular world and the religious world and this is part of that slope?

And this answer from the PM:

Well, what better way to resolve such a tension than let every single member of this House of Representatives vote their conscience and sort it out?

But secular (which Australia is) and religious tensions aren’t so easily resolved.

Updated

Josh Frydenberg will present the national accounts at 11.50am in the Blue Room (the second most fancy press conference space).

Updated

Next minute:

Updated

Murph (Katharine Murphy) asked this in the press conference:

“You said before that there are members of the Labor party that you believe would support this proposition in a conscience vote. Is the corollary of that there are members of the government who may not support the government’s position?”

To which Scott Morrison answered:

If there’s a conscience vote, it’s a conscience vote and I’m happy, I’m happy for that to be the case. But I’m offering it as a bipartisan deal on a conscience vote. I think members should vote their conscience on this. I don’t think that they should ... on something as fundamental as what someone believes as a matter of religious faith – that that should be whipped against them, against their will.

Which, on a very basic whoosh-whoosh take, would suggest that there are people within the Coalition who have expressed reservations about the bill. Either it goes too far, or not far enough.

Or maybe not.

Updated

But what about those religious schools which teach that it is not OK to be gay? Scott Morrison tries for a different example:

Let me give you a less controversial example, OK? In some churches, according to some religious faiths, they believe in tithing. They actually believe that you would tithe a percentage of your incomes to support the church you go to. In other Christian churches, they don’t teach that.

It should be OK to teach those sorts of things in your school if that’s the religious practice of your school and you shouldn’t be able ... people might say, well, you know, you’re discriminating against people who don’t want to do that.

No. I don’t think so.

It’s a common religious teaching that can find its root in a religious text and it’s reasonable for it to be taught.

So look, I’ve got to go and do the Prime Minister’s literary awards, but let me finish where I started today. I want to get this started. I believe we can.

This is a very simple bill that will achieve it.

I would be happy to introduce it with the support of the Labor party today, to suspend standing orders and get on with it. If they’re not prepared to support this bill, fair enough, that’s been their position till now.

Let’s just have a conscience vote for everybody and let’s just get it decided so we can all go back home at the end of the sitting period having this matter determined once and for all.

Updated

Asked about the specifics, Christian Porter says:

The three changes are very simple. They work together in concert. The third of them that you focused on is a clarification that nothing in the act would prevent a religious school teaching in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

That is an amendment that Labor has already agreed to. They have already agreed to that amendment. It is, in actual fact, a status quo amendment.

Religions across Australia teach in their congregations, in their churches, in their synagogues, obviously in accordance with those beliefs.

Those beliefs vary markedly from religion to religion, from church to church and from place to place. At the moment, the state of the law is that if someone believes they’ve been unfairly treated or there’s some speech that should be unlawful or there’s some discrimination complaints being able to be made, all this does is clarify that status quo, given there is a significant rebalancing in the act that’s going on by the removal entirely of section 38.3, which is the first part of this bill, which would be complete removal of any ability to discriminate against any student based on their gender, their sexual orientation, their relationship status or pregnancy.

So the third of these changes is a status quo change which the Labor party have already agreed to by adoption of the amendment at the second-reading stage.

Updated

And on the teachers who could be fired for coming out as gay:

These matters would be dealt with by courts, in specific circumstances – I’m not getting into that now – as they are now. These issues are settled in courts and Christian [Porter] may want to elaborate and comment.

Leviticus is brought up:

There are two testaments, not just one. And ... religious [teaching] takes into account all of those, but the overwhelming message of the religion that I follow is one of love – and I believe love and peace is the underlying principle of all religions and that’s why they’ve had such a positive role in the development of civil society over centuries.

Updated

Asked if some religious teachings come in conflict with who some LGBT kids are, Morrison says:

I don’t see how they do. I don’t see how they do. Take, for example, a reasonable rule in a school, which says you go to chapel on Tuesday morning. That applies to the child whether they are gay or not gay. It has no bearing on their identity or their sexuality whatsoever. It’s a general rule, which is applied equally to everybody. It doesn’t discriminate. They would have to establish how they link it to their religious teaching.

... I mean, the religion I follow teaches love.

Updated

Scott Morrison:

All religions have their teachings, based on their religious texts, and they should be able to teach those texts in accordance with established religion. That’s all it means.

What practices?

Come along to church with me on Sunday and you’ll be able to hear. We’ll go ... go to the mosque on a Friday night or go to the synagogue on a Saturday. Go to the Buddhist temple, go wherever you like, and people, you know, they’re allowed to teach their religious texts. They’re allowed to teach their religious faith. And why would we want to curtail that in a free country like Australia? Why would you want to do that?

Updated

The Ruddock review response will be coming by the end of the year, apparently.

What about the teachers, Scott Morrison is asked:

Sure and this is a bill, if it’s a conscience bill, this can go into the House and people can vote their conscience. It’s very simple. I said I would deal with the issue of children in schools. That’s what I said I would deal with; that was the commitment I made and that’s what I’m following through on.

Updated

Scott Morrison:

Their leader should let them decide it in the same way that I, as the leader of the Liberal party, am prepared to let my party decide it – individually, as conscience-voting members.

Now, the attorney is here to take any questions that you have on the process that he’s been engaged in or on the specific details of this bill. But I just say I meant it when I said it. I want to resolve this.

But it’s got to be done reasonably and fairly and it’s got to take into account all the serious issues that are there and I think that’s a pretty fair statement of them and I think we should just get on with it.

Updated

Scott Morrison: I will make anti-discrimination a conscience issue

Morrison:

“It’s disappointing that we have been unable to reach agreement between the parties, but I’m prepared to give it one more go. Yesterday, I wrote again to the leader of the opposition. And I put forward a proposal that did three things – [first] the complete removal of the ability to discriminate against students based on gender or sexual orientation or relationship status or pregnancy.

Secondly, a clarification that in deciding whether a school rule – a reasonable school rule – the Human Rights Commission and courts should take into account the religious nature of the school and whether the school considered the best interests of the child; and [third], a clarification that nothing in the act prevents a religious school teaching in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

And that is an amendment, that third one, that was actually supported as a second-reading amendment by the Labor party in the Senate. These should be uncontentious principles.

The removal of discrimination and the upholding of religious freedom.

I’m prepared to move that bill in the House today, that bill, which does those three things.

It would require a 76-vote majority. I’ll suspend standing orders to bring that vote on and if the Labor party and Bill Shorten are prepared to back this bill, we will vote for it today and we will get this done.

They’re the three things it does. Now, so far, the Labor party have not been prepared to agree to those three principles together, and if they can’t agree to do that, I’ll make him another offer. I’m prepared to have this dealt with as a conscience issue in my party and if he’s prepared to do the same thing, then where the parties have been unable to agree, let’s take the parties out of it, Bill.

Let’s let the elected members of the House of Representatives just decide. I’ll move this bill as the member for Cook, not as the prime minister, and I’ll participate in the debate, just like anyone else, and I’ll vote my conscience in that debate. But I actually think there’s a better way first.

This is a good bill. It actually does what I think Australians would expect us to do – look after kids for who they are but also ensure that, in this country, religious freedom still means something. And so I hope that they will accept that offer and at the very least that if they’re not prepared to accept this bill as a party, that they should let their members decide, because I know, you all know, that there are members of the Labor party who would happily support these principles.

Updated

Scott Morrison:

[I said I wanted to do something about the] issue of discrimination against children in schools [before the end of the year] . And I do. And I’ve been seeking to do just that ever since I said that.

In dealing with that issue when I wrote to the leader of the opposition, just over a month ago, I said I wanted to do it in a bipartisan way.

I said I didn’t want this to become a political football, which meant we needed to work through some very sensitive issues. There are very sensitive issues that surround this discussion.

There is the very real issue of discrimination against anyone, but particularly children. There are also the very real and principled conscience issues that relate to issues of religious freedom – that religions can be religious, that they can teach their own faith, that religious schools can be religious schools – and so we have been seeking to address that.

I put forward amendments through the attorney, who met with his counterpart. They were rejected, so we put another set of amendments, when the parliament was last sitting, and we heard nothing back from the Labor party until last week when the shadow attorney general appeared in the media.

That was disappointing, as you’ve heard me say, because I was hopeful we would be able to reach a resolution and deal with it in a bipartisan way, which, as I said, I think would send the appropriate message that we all agree that there should be no discrimination against children.

Updated

We are also standing by for the prime minister’s press conference.

This is the motion which puts the anti-discrimination bill off until next year.

This is happening in the foyer of parliament house as we speak:

Students who went on strike over a lack of action on climate change and First Nations leaders have joined together for a peaceful protest in the parliamentary foyer (just inside the main entrance)

From the Australian Youth Climate Coalition release:

“As young people, we are fighting for our lives. Politicians are failing to do their job, and we’re at parliament today forcing them to face up to the impacts of climate change we’re experiencing right now and demand they stop Adani’s dangerous coalmine,” high school student Nosrat Fareha 15, said.

“This morning, the prime minister’s office hung up on our group of students 10 times, so now we’re taking our message where Scott Morrison can’t avoid it.

“Those at the forefront of today’s action, involving 100 people, are telling stories of the diverse impacts that burning coal and climate change are having for people here and now: from extreme heat and bushfires, to sea level rise, and loss of connection to culture and history. Our demands include:

●No more coal and gas: that means stopping the Adani mine
● Switch Australia to 100% clean energy by 2030

Updated

Labor’s Penny Wong is on her feet in the Senate proposing a motion to vary the routine of business. Labor has agreed with the government to delay its private senator’s bill to repeal religious exemptions to discrimination law to protect LGBT students.
Wong explains:

This is the situation we face: Centre Alliance have made public they will support a government amendment to exempt teaching activity from the Sex Discrimination Act.

The legal advice is clear: this amendment would destroy the intent of the bill, to remove discrimination against LGBT students. Worse still, the advice is it would worsen discrimination against LGBT students, allowing positive discrimination by staff. Even allowing teachers to refuse to teach LGBT students.”

Wong said she is “disappointed” Centre Alliance is no longer negotiating on this point.

The Greens are also in support of the delay.

Updated

Anti-discrimination bill delayed until next year

Surprising no one, given that amendment Paul Karp mentioned below, the government has moved to delay the anti-discrimination bill designed to protect LGBT students at religious schools and Labor is “reluctantly” supporting it.

That’s because Labor was in the position of having to vote against its own bill, after an amendment the government put forward effectively negated the bill and potentially increased the risk of discrimination.

So we will have no movement on this until next year.

Scott Morrison has called a press conference for 10.45am in the prime minister’s courtyard.

That’s the fancy place, ladies and gentlemen.

Updated

David Leyonhjelm has indicated he will most likely be heading to the NSW upper house next year.

Updated

Just before the Senate rose last night, David Leyonjhelm gave a speech which was intended to create exactly the reaction it has. Here it is in its entirety, as reported by Hansard (I am only just getting through the adjournment speeches now):

I have previously given a speech saying thank you to smokers. Today I want to thank another group of Australians who may be ignored or worse, but who make a great contribution to Australia.

Let me say thank you to Australia’s young brown men. The young brown men I come across in my day-to-day life are often in low-paid jobs. They drive me in their Ubers and taxis. They deliver my online purchases, my groceries and my pizza. They serve me at my local 7- Eleven, at my local service station and at my local restaurants.

Many of these young brown men have only been in Australia for a decade or so, and they are giving it a go, just like previous generations of young migrants. The countries of origin have changed, with previous generations coming from Vietnam and, before that, Europe, while our latest wave of young migrants are more often from the subcontinent and the Middle East, but the willingness to give it a go is the same. Australia’s young brown men are typically the ones who turn up their sleeves in the face of jobs that many other Aussies would turn up their noses at or would not turn up at all for.

They do all this without whinging about a brown pay gap, even though, if there were any data, it would show a gap that is absolutely huge. Immigrants from greater Asia and the Middle East, both male and female, are disproportionately overrepresented in low-paying jobs in this country. Some are doing English courses, although some have better English than many graduates from the school system.

Some are studying in new fields or are trying to get their existing qualifications recognised. Up to 40% of recent immigrants are overqualified for the work they are doing.

Overeducation is greatest for immigrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds. According to the latest census, just 24% of young educated migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds were able to find professional-level jobs within five years of arriving here, compared to 50% of those from mainly-English-speaking countries. Australia may be squandering the talent pool of its young brown men and women. A contributing factor is likely to be racial discrimination in employment.

A Curtin University study last year found that skilled migrants experience an unwillingness by Australian employers to hire them, and many often end up working in lower-skilled jobs than the jobs they had before migrating to Australia.

Some of the examples in the report were: an engineer working as a technician; a vocational school teacher working as a cleaner and packer; a geologist working in aged care; and a mechanical engineer employed as a security officer.

Anyone who is a regular user of Uber and has a habit of chatting to their driver will hear similar tales. Of the 508 skilled migrants interviewed in the study, more than 53% were working in a job that was of lower skill than the job they had prior to migrating, but they are working nonetheless.

Racial discrimination in employment is against the law but, in practice, such discrimination will only recede in time.

In the mean time, our young brown men and women are patiently plugging away to make a living, and I thank them for this.

Roughly half of our immigrant community is brown, so I have no qualms in repeating my thanks to the young brown men and women of Australia.

Thank you. Through your hard work, you are doing what Australians have always done and, in the process, changing the complexion of Australia for the better.

Updated

Checking in on the House of Reps and...

For anyone interested, Anthony Albanese had a chat to Katharine Murphy about tribalism in Australian politics

Christian Porter explained the notices encryption companies could be faced with, once the encryption legislation is passed when talking to Sky this morning:

So there’s two types of notices. One is called an assistance notice and that’s immediate. The other’s called a capability notice and that would be a longer term request for the tech company to help build a capability that could be executed, pursuant to a specific warrant for a specific person’s device where we have high degree of belief that they’re about to commit an offence or are committing an offence.

So it’s very very targeted and very specific. But there is a short-term ability and I would expect that our agencies; Asio, the AFP, the state police agencies which by the way, Labor wanted to keep out, but are coming back in – those agencies will use these powers as soon as they are proclaimed.

Because the fact is that we’re being told by the agencies that 95% of the targets at a federal level, up to 98% at a state level are now using encrypted applications and in the words of the Victorian police commissioner they’ve gone dark.

So whereas in the 1990s and early 2000s a warrant meant something because it meant we could actually intercept communications between people intending to offend against children or intending a terrorist attack, now the warrant becomes ineffective because we can’t penetrate the communications.”

Intelligence and security agencies will be able to apply for the notices almost as soon as the legislation passes.

Updated

While China and the US duke it out over trade, a disagreement which has the potential to have massive implications for Australia, Donald Trump helpfully tweeted this:

I assume that is to the tune of Rocket Man.

The Dow Jones fell 800 points after investors started getting jittery over just what the 90-day truce Trump and Xi Jinping nutted over dinner actually means.

And I guess it doesn’t matter that tariff’s are paid by the consumer. Who is in your country. Paying more for those products.

Updated

The Greens and the Human Rights Law Centre have called a press conference to to discuss the amendment Centre Alliance look like supporting “which will allow unacceptable and harmful discrimination against LGBT students to continue”.

Religious discrimination protection bill in doubt

Senator Rex Patrick has told Guardian Australia that Centre Alliance will vote for a government amendment to Labor’s bill to protect LGBT students.

The amendment in question states: “Nothing in this Act renders it unlawful to engage in teaching activity if that activity: is in good faith in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed; and is done by, or with the authority of, an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with those doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings.”

Labor sources are now warning it may have to vote against its own bill if this amendment succeeds, citing legal advice that it will widen the grounds for discrimination against students.

Advice from Mark Gibian QC to Labor states it “has the potential to permit discrimination against students in schools, both direct and indirect”. He gives examples such as excluding students from instruction or setting more rigorous requirements based on sexuality or gender.

Patrick said Centre Alliance has seen contrary advice from attorney general Christian Porter and religious school groups.

Patrick:
“We’re trying to find a balance between ensuring students are not discriminated against, and being respectful of religious schools teaching a doctrine. It’s very clear that – provided all students are taught the same thing – there is no discrimination.”

Patrick said parents would be “well aware” of what a school’s doctrine is before they send their children there, including if teaching homosexuality is wrong is part of their religious faith.

He also accused Labor of “a contradiction” because Labor supported the same amendment in a second reading speech (which expresses support does not place the words in the text of the bill), and said the amendment is the “softest method” of being respectful to religion.

Updated

There was a reason for Scott Morrison looking at the giant helicopter.

The Liberal and Nationals government will invest $26m to boost aerial firefighting capabilities across Australia, support a new national fire rating program and extend funding for a community alert system.

· $11m for the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, delivering more large specialist firefighting air tankers to communities across Australia, bringing our total contribution to $25.8m this financial year; and

· $2m to support the national Emergency Alert SMS system.

· $5.85m to implement a new national fire danger rating system to help fire authorities communicate bushfire risk to the community by drawing on data such as diverse vegetation types, national fuel load, weather conditions, and the latest developments in fire behaviour science;

· $5m to establish the Prepared Communities Fund to support high-priority state or territory initiatives that improve community preparedness and resilience, including bushfire shelters in high risk communities;

· $1.5m to expand a public safety mobile broadband trial across Australia during 2019 and establish a national project office to implement this technology; and

· $750,000 to review new and emerging telephone-based emergency warning technologies which will support the introduction of a new emergency alert warning system by developing and testing options for the future of this capability in Australia.

Updated

Remember how I said the religious discrimination battle wasn’t over?

Well, I’m sad to report that is proving true.

Labor put forward the motion, and won, after Centre Alliance, after supporting the government to kill it, then supported Labor to bring it back on.

But Centre Alliance have indicated that they will be supporting a government amendment to the motion, which says

(1) Nothing in this Act renders it unlawful to engage in teaching activity if that activity:

(a) is in good faith in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed; and

(b) is done by, or with the authority of, an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with those doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings.

(2) In this section:

teaching activity means any kind of instruction of a student by a person employed or otherwise engaged by an educational institution.

Labor sources say that amendment renders its own useless – because it is too wide and in the party’s view, will widen discriminations.

So if the amendment passes, Labor will be in the position of having to vote against its own bill.

Stay tuned.

Updated

The Senate accepted a report, the first of its kind, into stillbirth in Australia last night, and it made for some heartfelt and emotional scenes, where, for a moment, people mattered more than politics. As it should.

Lorena Allam reports:

A landmark report into stillbirth in Australia has found that, unlike comparable countries around the world, Australia’s stillbirth rate has not changed in more than 20 years, and the rate among Aboriginal mothers is twice as high.

There were emotional scenes in parliament on Tuesday night as Labor senator Malarndirri McCarthy tabled the report in a wooden coolamon, traditionally used in Indigenous families for carrying babies.

Other members of the Senate committee, the Liberal senator Jim Molan and Labor senator Kristina Keneally, both held back tears as they spoke of how stillbirth had affected their families, and Keneally carefully read aloud the names of every baby stillborn to parents who had given public evidence to the inquiry, concluding with her own daughter, Caroline.

“I grew angry doing this work,” Keneally said.

“My anger came from frustration, because there are simple steps to take to prevent stillbirth.

“I didn’t grow angry in a partisan way. The anger I felt was … just grief, that babies had died in this country when we could have saved them.

“It’s a particular sadness, a singular grief.””

Why are you so obsessed with me?

A report in the Australian this morning had the tidbit that Bill Shorten had been in contact with Malcolm Turnbull, which it says was about the national energy guarantee.

Shorten has confirmed he spoke to Turnbull, and in a statement, said he also spoke to Tony Abbott, after he lost the prime ministership, as he had a “great respect” for the office, if not always the politics of those who held it.

Christopher Pyne gave the Regina George get over it message.

“Bill Shorten has contacted Malcolm Turnbull to make sure he’s OK. That sounds like a good thing to do, as far as I’m concerned. And Malcolm Turnbull has taken his calls,” he told Sky News.

“He is not colluding with Bill Shorten. And the Australian should stop its obsession with Malcolm Turnbull ”

Alastair MacGibbon, the head of the Australian Cyber Security Centre, was on the ABC’s AM program earlier this morning to defend the government’s cyber security bill.

He said the bill will help law enforcement and security agencies protect Australians and fight crime, and he tried to allay fears about how onerous it is.

He said law enforcement agencies have always been able to intercept telecommunications with a warrant, but technology has evolved in recent years with encryption and it has put lots of telecommunications out of reach of authorities.

He said a lot of the commentary around this bill has forgotten the fact that security agencies will still require various warrants under the new legislation to access the telecommunications.

“What it’s doing is allowing those warrants to work in a modern society,” he said.

He said US-based big tech companies have for years considered themselves beyond the reach of other countries’ laws and “social expectations.”

“Nothing in this [legislation] is unreasonable, nothing in this is building systemic weaknesses, that’s one of the other arguments that’s been put, that this is about breaking encryption,” he said.

“The bill is rightfully called ‘access and assistance’, it’s not called the ‘encryption bill’, it’s not about breaking encryption. It’s about helping agencies get access to, and assistance from, these tech companies.”

He said the UK has much tougher laws than this law, and the major tech companies have managed to survive over there.

Updated

The government seems very happy with the line it has settled on when it comes to the energy battle with Labor: “Whose side are you on?”

That’s always gone well, especially when your own side has had as more positions on energy than Trump has had on trade.

But Scott Morrison has doubled down.

I’m not surprised that the energy sector would not be happy about the government increasing the powers of the customer in the market which will hold them to account.

I’m not the surprised that the big energy companies are squealing because as a government we have decided to stare them down.

That’s what I’m doing, that’s what our government is doing. And the Labor party is not standing up for customers. They want to line up with the big energy companies. Now, already as a result of staring the electricity companies now, around 500,000 Australians are getting a better deal.

They have started to drop their prices. See, I think the laws are stacked against the customer in the energy market.

That’s what has caused it and allowed those prices to go up amongst many other factors and I’m seeking to right that balance and to stand up for the customer and if the Labor party doesn’t want to support me, well, shame on them.

Absolutely shame on them.”

It’s going to be a shouty QT. I can feel it in my waters.

Updated

'As leader I made a call'

Scott Morrison, standing in front of a giant helicopter, has spoken on his decision to intervene in the NSW preselections, and save Craig Kelly.

“As the party leader, I made it pretty clear – I wanted them endorsed, and I wanted them on the ground, fighting the next election, and not getting distracted by anything else,” he said.

“That’s my main mission, that’s their mission, and as leader I made a call, I said I want them endorsed, and the party backed me and I appreciate the support.”

As for Jane Prentice, who lost preselection, he says he wasn’t the prime minister then, and “that matter was dealt with, many, many months ago”.

Updated

Testy Christopher Pyne is testy.

Good morning

We are two days out from parliament being done for the year, and it actually looks like there is movement at the station when it comes to legislation.

Encryption looks like being a done deal, with Labor and the government coming to an in-principle agreement on the legislation.

And Labor won the battle to have the religious discrimination legislation put back on the table, but it has to be said, it is still not guaranteed it will pass before the end of the year.

Then there is energy, because, well, this is Australia and there is always energy.

Christopher Pyne is on a tear because of this ABC story , Scott Morrison started the morning looking at a giant helicopter and Labor and the Greens have come together to block the government’s proposal to underwrite power, if it comes from coal.

All in all, it’s a normal day in the Australian parliament.

Prime minister Scott Morrison during a visit to the Rural Fire Service Wamboin brigade in NSW this morning.
Prime minister Scott Morrison during a visit to the Rural Fire Service Wamboin brigade in NSW this morning. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Mike Bowers has been out and about early this morning and you have Guardian Australia’s brainstrust on deck as well. Because they never sleep. I am already on coffee number two and looking for coffee number three. There has never been a better time to be caffeinated and watching Australian politics.

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
People Have Been Following Around Tom Holland Hoping To See If He's Wearing A Wedding Band Like Zendaya
Did Zendaya put a ring on it, too?
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
A New Live-Action Scooby-Doo Has Fans Asking One Important Question: Who Owns Scooby?
Shaggy, right? RIGHT?
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Ethan Hawke Reminds Us the Kind of King He Is: “But I Don’t Eat Food”
Finger sandwiches? Spinach dip? What does he mean?
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Sir Paul McCartney: Yoko Ono questioned if John Lennon was gay
Sir Paul McCartney has claimed Yoko Ono told him she thought John Lennon "might have been gay" in a phone call after the death of her husband.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Woman realizes she’s pregnant—but only after boyfriend displays strange symptoms: ‘The way I would be annoyed at him’
Given how common pregnancy is, it’s surprising that many are unaware of its many side effects and potential dangers.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Austin rideshare driver has a passenger named Bradley. Then he issues a warning to Bradley’s girlfriend after what he overhears
An Austin rideshare driver has gone viral after a passenger made some startling revelations in the back of his car. Revelations so startling, in fact, that the driver decided to issue a PSA to his girlfriend.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play