Make it stop. Oh, it has? See you next week, then ..
That’s it. Can’t do anymore. You’ve all been delightful – stayers one and all, editors, copy subs, morale boosters, critics – thanks for showing up.
Mike and I leave you with this present. Our four brick horsepersons of the apocalypse are riding happily into the sunset. Backwards of course. They’ve just worked out the sunset is actually behind them.
Riding in reverse, except for #BrickPeta, who is showing initiative by riding forwards and jumping over Trevor – who is the housepet of David Leyonhjelm.
Come, blogans, we ride. Let’s wrap for today and the week. Today, Thursday.
- The day dawned with double disillusion elections. (That’s not a typo. That’s a funny.) Tony Abbott’s colleagues and presumably the prime minister himself were not exactly laughing at the latest leak of internals. The prime minister’s office quickly clarified that the disillusion was an illusion. The government expected to serve its full term.
- So much for that. The House passed the government’s metadata package despite objections from Adam Bandt, Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan. And the media industry and the legal profession and the internet in general. That particular fight now goes to the senate for finger pointing before rubber stamping.
- Question time was all about security if you were the government and the budget if you were Labor, before it became all about the invective and the sulking nd the odd Nazi reference.
Such is life.
See you all again next week.
Best this one stands without editorialising.
Speaking of blogs, as we have been periodically throughout the day, the Bloguer Bolt is outraged about Goebbels. Not at the prime minister, but at Mark Dreyfus, the hypocrite, (who) has himself invoked Goebbels to attack Abbott. Bolt remins his readers Dreyfus described Tony Abbott’s populist campaign against Labor’s carbon price as Goebellian.
It should be noted that Turnbull is copping a shellacking on the Facebook.
In the chamber, on the beaches, on the Facebooks.
The metadata debate has got the online and social worlds well and truly stirred up today – which is fantastic to see. Here’s a little measure of something.
Green deputy leader Adam Bandt has posted the wash up of today’s chamber debate on his Facebook page. Here’s Bandt’s write-off pointing to to a video of his questions to Malcolm Turnbull (which we covered on this blog in the middle of the day.)
Bandt:
An hour after 30-pages of amendments were given to me by the government, parliament is expected to vote on the government and Labor’s internet & smartphone surveillance laws. Here I ask communications minister Malcolm Turnbull about what these amendments would actually do – listen into his lack of answers.
Now looky who has bombed in on Bandt’s page.
Malcolm Turnbull.
The amendments that we are dealing with today faithfully implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which reported in considerable detail on 27 February. Mr Bandt has had ample opportunity—and I know he has a keen interest in this area—to read that report, to discuss it with his colleagues in the Greens. It has been the subject of considerable publicity and debate. The amendments we are debating right now are a faithful implementation of a detailed report that has been widely debated and read for weeks.
This off Broadway exchange prompts me to point out what for readers of this blog might be a statement of the bleeding obvious – a lot of the political battle on this issue is going to play out behind the mainstream media filters, on social media.
Turnbull knows it. The Greens know it. I wonder if Labor knows it?
To the left to the left.
I mentioned we’ve had a pictures glitch. Hopefully it is resolved now. Just for the record, here was the vote on the metadata bill – I see Mike’s record of this vote has already been shared widely on Twitter for good reason.
Quite a moment, this one. Look at all those ayes on the right.
Readers and betters tell me there’s been some confusion on social media about Abbott’s Goebbels jibe in question time. Some folks thought the jibe was directed at Mark Dreyfus, not at Bill Shorten.
I thought Shorten, from the context, but the atmosphere was so mulish down there today it was hard to be certain. I checked with Dreyfus’ office to test their impression. The guidance to me was Dreyfus did NOT think the remark was directed at him. His objection to the remark was a principled one, not a personal one.
In the ensuing melee, Dreyfus was ejected from the chamber by Madam Speaker. Michael Danby, another Jewish Labor MP, also left the chamber in protest.
The shallowness. The fatuity.
Abbott:
I’ve said time and time again in this house and in the community, not all the restructuring that we proposed in last year’s budget has gone through this parliament and I regret that, Madam Speaker.
But, Madam Speaker, in good faith we have been prepared to sit down with the cross-benchers, we’d even sit down with the Labor party if they were prepared to sit down with us, and do with us what we were always prepared to do in opposition with them.
Madam Speaker, even so, thanks to the measures that this government has put in place and this parliament has passed, Labor’s debt and deficit going forward is halved. It is halved. Madam Speaker, a budgetary position that was heading to southern Mediterranean, southern European levels at a rate of knots has been halved under this government.
I hear shrieking from the other side of the parliament about this Government doubling the deficit. Madam Speaker, members opposite gave us the six biggest deficits in Australian history and they weren’t honest about it going into the last election.
I say to members opposite what would you do? What would you do? You’re the alternative government. I say to members opposite just one idea would do. Just one idea would do but, Madam Speaker, in this, the year of big ideas, the only idea they have come up with is spending $100m more on the ATO to raise a billion dollars.
That’s the shallowness and fatuity of members opposite. Madam Speaker, 18 months - look at what this government has done - 18 months, what have members opposite done?
Just one long complaint. It’s not good enough.
Government is quite hard: Abbott
The prime minister has adopted his bed time story voice for this suspension. Tony Abbott says he wants a debate based on facts, not scares. Which is a teensy bit funny given his pre-election populism.
Madam Speaker, this government did not introduce a carbon tax which was socialism masquerading as environmentalism. Madam Speaker, it’s worth repeating - not scares, Madam Speaker, but facts - not scares but facts.
This government has stopped the boats, Madam Speaker, and we’ve saved lives at sea. This government has scrapped the carbon tax and every house is $550 a year better off. This government is rolling out the national broadband network on time and on budget.
Madam Speaker, this government has successfully finalised three free trade agreements which members opposite struggled with for six years. They could not land a single one of the big deals with our major trading partners – within 18 months this government has put them in place.
Meanies. All of you.
One of the worst features of debate in this House is the complete absence, the complete absence of any sense of giving credit where it’s due.
The complete absence of any sense of attributing good faith to people who are doing their best, sometimes, Madam Speaker, under difficult circumstances.
Updated
Here’s a Bowers view on that confontation, via Twitter. I’m going to have to embed images that way for a bit. I’m sure you guys won’t mind.
PM to ? during#QT "the Dr Goebels of economic policy" @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive http://t.co/qJwEW1w9Z5 pic.twitter.com/akKMWvM31K
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) March 19, 2015
Screen shots are awful, so I apologise. But we have a little gremlin in our picture system right now. It’s worth showing you how the chamber looked in the Goebbels moment. It looked ugly. Because so much of politics is ugly, right now.
"I withdraw! I withdraw! I withdraw!" PM after his "Dr Goebbels" remark. Labor's Mark Dreyfus booted for protesting. pic.twitter.com/nSPvOG6AxC
— Adam Todd (@_AdamTodd) March 19, 2015
Updated
If you want to take these rotten ideas to an election, please do it
Bill Shorten.
So prime minister, the man who loves to get up and say one thing and then apologise, I’m really sorry, and then do it again and apologise again as if life is one huge “I make a mistake, I’m a fool and then I repent” – this is not good enough, your budgetary policies. Your $6,000 cuts for families are just a bad idea. Your $100,000 degrees are just a broken promise. Your cuts to pensions are an outrage and your cuts to hospitals and schools, $80 billion worth in the next 10 years, is absolute economic vandalism.
So if you want to take these rotten ideas to an election, please do it. Give the Australian people an opportunity to have a say on your policies rather than trying to intimidate the senate with your broken promises.
And I also advise the prime minister it doesn’t matter when you bring the election, the battle lines are most certainly drawn.
Updated
Bill Shorten moves to a suspension.
That the house condemns this prime minister for leading a chaotic and incompetent government which seeks to slug Australian students with $100,000 degrees, rip $80 a week from pensioners, take $6,000 from the budget of a typical Australian family, and putting Australia’s AAA credit rating at risk through his own incompetence and mismanagement and – having no economic plan for Australia.
Leave for the motion is not granted.
Shorten:
What a surprise from a chicken-hearted government.
This house condemns the prime minister for leading a chaotic and incompetent government.
The Dr Goebbels of economic policy!
Tony Abbott has invoked the holocaust again.
Good lord.
Labor goes beserk. Madam Speaker responds by suspending Mark Dreyfus under 94A.
Tony Burke suggests to the speaker given the nature of what the prime minister said, I ask you to reconsider ejecting the member for Isaacs on that particular comment.
Burke:
I think it’s in the interests of the house.
(Burke means Dreyfus is Jewish.)
Madam Speaker punts him anyway.
Updated
Bill Shorten.
Q: My question is to the prime minister. Yesterday the prime minister said, “A ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60% is a pretty good result.” But isn’t it the case that Tony Abbott’s pretty good result would see Australia lose its AAA credit rating?
Tony Abbott:
Such a question from such a leader of the opposition, it’s like the arsonist complaining about the fire, Madam Speaker.
I want to thank the cross bench in the senate, Madam Speaker, for at least being prepared to engage with this government.
This is the prime minister speaking. He must have forgotten he called the crossbench feral a few days ago.
There are loads of precedents where ministers don't answer questions
Bowen is back.
Q: My question is to the treasurer. Yesterday the prime minister said, “A ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60% is a pretty good result.” Does the treasurer agree with Captain Chaos?
Madam Speaker doesn’t think much of the question, but she calls Hockey. Then she uncalls Hockey.
Madam Speaker:
Now, if the honourable the treasurer wishes to answer the question, he may, but I find the question, quite frankly, was not in order – and I call the Honourable Member for Brisbane.
The manager of opposition business on a point of order?
Tony Burke:
Madam Speaker, it is a brand new precedent if answering questions is now optional for ministers.
Madam Speaker:
I think the manager of opposition business will resume his seat. The member will resume his seat and if he cares to go back through previous Hansard he’ll find plenty of precedents.
Climb every mountain, Joe
So far the government is all security and Labor is all budget.
Shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen.
Q: My question is to the prime minister. Prime minister, why was net debt of 13% of GDP a debt and deficit disaster but net debt of 50 to 60% of GDP a pretty good result?
(This of course goes to the government’s clumsy attempted reposition on the budget yesterday.)
Abbott waves the question to Joe Hockey.
So we’ve halved – in our first budget we halved the amount of net debt that is going to exist in 2055. By the middle of this century, we halved it. That was a significant achievement.
But there is much more to be done. There is much more to be done. And the people standing in the way of that action are the Australian Labor party because the Australian Labor party created the mess and we are determined to fix it.
We are determined to fix it, because we must, and as the prime minister has said repeatedly in our first budget, we were trying to fix 40 years of looming problems created by the Australian Labor party in just six months of government.
That was a challenge for us and, yes, it was a significant challenge, it was a great mountain to climb and we didn’t get there but we started the climb.
Foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop is now given the microphone on Tunisia.
Sadly, I can confirm that an Australian-Colombian dual national from NSW and his Colombian mother were among the victims.
She moves from Tunisia to Daesh’s poisonous web of senseless violence.
The prime minister has banked metadata and now would like Labor to help him pass legislation to provide for a mandatory five-year sentence for trafficking in illegal firearms. He’s used a Dorothy Dixer to make that pitch.
Labor has to declined to assist in that particular instance.
Thursday opens with Bill Shorten asking Tony Abbott to outline what he’ll take to the next election, whenever it is.
Tony Abbott:
Madam Speaker, what this government will be taking to the next election is a very strong record of achievement.
The prime minister turns the question back on Shorten.
What will Labor’s platform be? Bring back the carbon tax, bring back the mining tax and bring back the people smugglers, Madam Speaker.
That’s what Labor will take to the next election.
Bill Shorten on Tunisia.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to support the prime minister’s words. We’ve been saddened this morning by reports of at least 19 people having been killed at the National Museum in Tunisia and many more wounded. I’m sure that we all felt when we saw the footage that we saw evil abroad again, innocence murdered, tourists and citizens killed. The footage of scared people seeking security.
Our thoughts and sympathies are with the fledgling democracy of Tunisia and citizens of Tunisia and of course the families and friends of those who’ve lost their lives, many of them international tourists.
It is an act of murder, Madam Speaker, designed to shake the foundation of a new democracy. But I understand the Tunisian members of their parliament, locked down in their country’s parliament as reports of the attack broke, they refused to cower in fear, instead they sang their national anthem in defiance. Our parliament is reminded of their strength and we stand with them in democratic solidarity.
Madam Speaker:
I’d like to add my own remarks and identify with those of both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition in that I visited Tunisia last year as a guest of their government.
I was in that museum. I met with many of the new people forming that new democracy, the new constitution. The efforts and hopes and aspirations they have for all their people, men and women alike – and I just feel that the strength we can convey to them, to say that we feel with them, that they will persist in their ideals, and will not be dissuaded by terrorism, is something we all feel.
Question time
The shouty hour opens on a sombre note.
Tony Abbott:
Madam Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to inform the House that there has been a terrorist atrocity in Tunisia. There has been an attack on the National Museum in Tunis, in which many people have been killed or wounded, including, it seems, some 17 overseas tourists.
Plainly, this is a terrorist outrage. Plainly, it is an attack by Islamist extremists on a fledgling democracy, a democracy which had thus far proven quite effective in resisting the kind of extremism characterised by Al Qaeda and its variants and the ISIL or Daesh death cult in the Middle East.
Madam Speaker, obviously the Australian government condemns in the strongest possible terms this atrocity. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the dead and with the wounded.
I regret to say, Madam Speaker, that there was one Australian dual national reported to be amongst the dead. Madam Speaker, this person cannot currently be identified but obviously our deepest sympathies and condolences go to his family and friends and his family are being rendered every possible consular assistance.
Here she goes.
The no votes are Adam Bandt, Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan.
With that kind of maths, the ayes have it.
The package has cleared the House.
Sorry about the 90 second statements. A decision has obviously been taken to try and shove metadata through before question time. Turnbull is doing that right now. Adam Bandt’s very pertinent definitional questions about who might be covered by the regime are not going to be answered in this chamber. This legislation will more than likely very shortly clear the Reps.
A sprinkle of Bowers wonderful.
Turnbull asks, politely of course, whether Bandt intends to go on seeking the meaning of journalism for long or whether this could be wrapped up before question time. Acting speaker Bruce Scott steps in – wrap it up boys, we need to move on to 90 second statements.
Malcolm Turnbull on whether blogging is journalism.
The answer is many journalists blog, and if they do it in a professional capcity, then they are covered.
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt wants to know if there is a definition of journalist in this legislation. Turnbull says not, because this is a well understood term. He says the legislation refers to a journalist working in a professional capacity. The minister admits definitional issues may arise, but they would anyway, even if you try and define them elaborately.
Does it include bloggers, Bandt wonders? You’ve heard of the internet, right?
(Ms Murphy declares an interests and leans in.)
You have to draw the line somewhere.
The communications minister is responding to a question from Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie. Wilkie gives the following example. Say a whistleblower from the department of veterans affairs tells me about serious wrong doing in the department, and I then raise it in the parliament – why aren’t I afforded the same courtesy and capacity to protect my source as a journalist is? The disclosure is in the public interest, whether or not it happens via me, or via a journalist. Turnbull says the agencies, the police and Asio, want this package passed. Best get on with it now. But he tells Wilkie it is a very good question. (Which, of course, it is.)
Uh oh. Mind your metadata, Malcolm.
We have warrants but we can't talk about them
I’m still working through these amendments in between keeping on top of what everyone is saying about them. It will be an offence to disclose the existence of these new warrants. The offence is specified thus.
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses or uses information; and
(b) the information is about any of the following:
- whether a journalist information warrant (other than such a warrant that relates only to section178A) has been, or is being, requested or applied for;
- the making of such a warrant;
- the existence or non-existence of such a warrant;
- the revocation of such a warrant.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
Turnbull is telling parliament the prime minister will appoint the new public interest advocates. The shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus is telling parliament he’s unhappy the amendment uses the words “shall declare”. This, Dreyfus says, offends the drafting plain English manual, which says the correct usage is will to avoid ambiguity. Turnbull is quite amused by this level of precision. Or perhaps there’s a little in-joke between these two.
The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance chief executive Paul Murphy says this handshake between the Coalition and Labor is not nearly good enough.
Warrants may allow a judge to determine which journalists the government agencies can pursue for their metadata. But journalists don’t get to choose – their ethical obligation is to protect the identity of a source in all cases. And as has happened in the past, if they are hauled before a judge in a future trial of the alleged source, the journalists’ ethical obligation demands that they refuse to confirm the identity of a source, leaving the journalist facing the prospect of a jail term and a fine for contempt of court.
The introduction of “public interest advocates” – persons granted security clearances and therefore approved by the government – will still keep journalists and media organisations in the dark about when government agencies have sought to access, and been granted access, to the metadata of journalists.
Guardian Australia has reported that up to eight referrals to the AFP in 2014 related to news stories about asylum seeker issues by journalists at news.com.au, the West Australian and Guardian Australia.
Are we to expect a judge would block every one of those referrals because the stories are in the public interest? Will the public ever learn how a list of security-cleared government-approved advocates and the judge who heard their argument came to determine what is or is not in the public interest? When a whistleblower goes on trial will they lose the ability to argue that they acted in the public interest?
What an appalling way to conduct a debate.
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt is going the nut in this metadata amendments debate, not to put too fine a point on it. He says the legislation is full of holes. Where is the requirement in the legislation to destroy metadata after two years, for example?
Who needs metadata?
Surveillance, Bernardi style.
If you want to peruse the amendments yourself, you can find them here.
Metadata is back on in the House after a short adjournment once the bill had gone through to the second reading. The various amendments are being worked through now.
Is this a Bernardi I see before me?
Wonderful picture from Mike Bowers.
That incoming was so brisk that I neglected to tell you that David Leyonhjelm had a visitor at his press conference on marriage equality – the Liberal senator Cory Bernardi. If you’ve forgotten, Bernardi is not a fan of marriage freedom.
Forget the damn keys – read the damn bill
The Greens are not amused with the outcome of the metadata discussion.
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt.
The parliament has just adjourned with the minister saying that after days of negotiations an agreement has been reached with Labor to amend the (metadata) bill. All of 20 seconds ago, the copies of 30 pages worth of amendments were given to us and apparently we’re expected to digest them and vote on them within the space of half an hour or so.
Tony Abbott and Labor have done a back-room deal ... and are saying to the public and the parliament, “Just trust us. It will be alright.”
But if you can’t trust Tony Abbott to tell the truth on the budget or with his pre-election promises, why on earth would we trust him on this?
Green senator Scott Ludlam:
While Bill Shorten may think he’s claimed a win for journalists who’ll be subjected to threshold of a warrant process, obviously nobody’s had time to read the amendments yet but it leaves an additional 23m innocent Australians exposed to out-of-control warrantless surveillance.
We’re going to make sure, if this bill is shot-gunned through the House of Representatives and comes to the Senate next week, that it will be closely argued – and that we’re going to be asking backbench Labor and Liberal senators who have concerns to read the damn bill, read the amendments, and not simply take it on trust, as Bill Shorten appears to have done.
One Australian has died in Tunisia
The prime minister has also confirmed that, tragically, one Australian has died in the terrorist attack at the National Bardo Museum in Tunis, Tunisia.
Tony Abbott:
At least 19 people, including 17 foreign tourists, were killed and many more wounded. Our consular officials have now confirmed that a dual Australian-Colombian citizen, who was a resident of New South Wales, was among the deceased. Our thoughts and prayers are with the man’s family, to whom we will extend all consular assistance.
Give me the damn keys
With that much now established, I’ll catch up on the things that have been happening while I’ve been unpicking metadata.
There’s a fresh war in the PUP kennel.
National director of the Palmer United Party, Peter Burke, wants his bloody keys back. He’s looking at you, Mrs Lazarus.
Despite the fact that Mrs Lazarus never attended the office as required by her employment contract and never took directions from me as outlined in her employment contract, I never thought she would refuse to hand over the party’s property. I have written to Mrs Lazarus and her staff from our federal leader’s Parliamentary office and have requested she return the keys to our Canberra operation, which she has had personal control of.
Mrs Lazarus has so far refused to comply.
Like the prime minister I am a former journalist. We’ve both had a rake’s progress, starting out as journalists and ending up as parliamentarians. It can only get worse.
This was Turnbull just before, in the House. I haven’t looked for the amendment yet, but this is what the minister told the House by way of main points.
- Any request that would identify a journalist’s source is oversighted by the IGIS in the case of Asio, and the Ombudsman in the case of the AFP.
- Each application that could identify a journalist’s source will also be oversighted by the JPCIS.
- Agencies will need independent pre-approval in the form of a new “journalists information” warrant to access a professional journalist’s metadata, or their employer’s metadata, for the purpose of identifying a confidential source.
- The warrants will be issued by judges – members of the AAT in the case of police; and by the attorney-general in the case of Asio.
- The warrant will relate to a single journalist named on the face of the warrant.
- It would require the issuing authority to consider the public interest inherent in source protection.
- A public interest advocate will be established. The advocate can make submissions to the warrant issuing authority.
Turnbull didn’t say this in the House, but I understand there will be a presumption against issuing the warrant. Agencies will be required to prove that the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the journalist’s source having regard to, among other things:
- The importance of personal privacy; whether the agency has made reasonable attempts to obtain the information sought by other means; whether the matter being investigated is serious or merely trivial; and any submissions made by the Public Interest Advocate.
Just while I’m continuing to gather the known facts on the metadata amendment, here is the communications minister Malcolm Turnbull’s contribution in the House from just a few moments ago.
A couple of gems from Mr Bowers from about the place today to soothe us from the constancy of colliding worlds.
Barnaby Joyce has made off with onions that were bound for Tony Abbott.
And a lovely shot of the Liberal party’s federal director, Brian Loughnane, swimming through the ministerial wing acquarium.
The LDP man was quizzed about his strategic assessment of double dissolution elections. Leyonhjelm thought a double D would benefit senate cross benchers with party structures behind them – but not genuine independents.
Jacqui Lambie, for example.
A double D is not good for Jacqui, Leyonhjelm contends.
Q: You don’t think she would get across the line?
No, I don’t. She would be running as an independent not a PUP.
Updated
The chamber is dividing now. While that’s happening, and I try and chase Turnbull’s tabling statement, I’ll back track briefly to Leyonhjelm.
Updated
Media companies have just been advised that the hearing of the intelligence committee, scheduled for tomorrow, to enable them to stamp their feet about press freedom, has been cancelled.
With a deal done, you’d expect that avenue to be closed off.
Public interest advocate and warrants
Turnbull says the deal on the press amendment with the opposition will establish warrants for data access – and a public interest advocate who will assist in making submissions in respect of those warrants.
This is a very important protection. All of us understand the work journalists do in a democracy is just as important as our work as legislators.
But, he adds, journalists are subject to the law like everyone else.
This is slightly complicated right now – Leyonhjelm is in full flight and the communications minister Malcolm Turnbull is in the House summing up the metadata debate. Hang on to our collective hats – there may be a short period of channel surfing.
Options, not threats
Q: Senator, did Mr Pyne threaten you with a double dissolution? What do you think about the whole talk about it?
Leyonhjelm:
No, he didn’t threaten. It wasn’t a threat but we did discuss a double dissolution. He made it plain that he was contemplating bringing his higher education bill back again in three months time, unchanged, and that if it failed again it would provide a double dissolution trigger.
I commented, “Are you thinking about that because you might lose?” He said, “Yes, but we’ll turn it around in the polls and give us an option.”
He didn’t threaten, he’s just looking for an option.
Once it's moving on to debate, the major parties have to take a position
Leyonhjelm mentions Wyatt Roy and Dean Smith as Liberals who may support the debate moving forward. But his not very precise assessment is the numbers are probably not there in this parliament for a change.
My feeling is probably not this parliament but realistically I’m probably not the best judge of that. There are people on both sides who want this to succeed and they’re more attuned to the numbers than I am.
Q: Senator, just procedurally, given you said it’s not likely to come to a vote and most of these private bills don’t come to a vote in the senate, does that mean there is no pressure whatsoever on the Coalition to even discuss a conscience vote at its next party room meeting on Tuesday?
No, we’ve investigated that. It will be listed for debate on Thursday afternoon next week. Once a matter – a bill – is listed for debate, they have to have a position on it and there is a possibility that they might decide not to change their position but the betting is that that won’t be the case, that they will decide, “Well, now is the time for us to address this conscience vote issue.”
That’s the purpose of putting it on the paper.
Tony, pop out of the way, please
I’ll bring you particulars concerning press peace in our time as soon as I have them (recognising of course that I might be more interested in this particular resolution that PL readers.)
In the interim, as flagged, here is David Leyonhjelm on the marriage equality vote I flagged before.
The debate in the bill can begin in the senate towards the bid for marriage equality. I don’t expect it will come to a vote. It is just the beginning of the debate and today I ask the prime minister through low his colleagues to join in that debate.
The first hurdle for marriage equality in Australia is for the Coalition to allow a conscience vote. I think actually the right term is a free vote rather than a conscience vote. I think there is a difference.
My hope is by commencing this debate that free vote will be allowed. This will necessitate Mr Abbott not standing in its way.
Peace on the press?
Word is bipartisation agreement on the press amendment has just happened. A public interest advocate is apparently in the mix. We should have details shortly.
Infrastructure Jamie Briggs is holding a press conference to explain some administrative reforms the government is pursuing on Norfolk Island. We have moved to general questions.
Q: The education minister threatened David Leyonhjelm with a double dissolution. Do you endorse that negotiating tactic?
Jamie Briggs:
I wasn’t there. But I think the point that the government has made is that we need to have a relationship with the crossbench in the senate which is respectful and ensures that we can fulfil the mandate that we went to the election with. The crossbench has a variety of different perspectives on policy and in that respect, it is difficult to line all the ducks up in a row at once, but we have done it on numerous occasions last year, and I think we will continue to be able to do that.
This week we weren’t successful, but we will try, try again.
Q: Have you been involved in any meetings discussing the prospect of a double dissolution?
No.
Q: You haven’t been discussing it with your colleagues?
No.
Q: Do you think there is a potential to do it after the budget?
The prime minister’s office released a statement that we expect to serve the full term.
Updated
Back and forth, in and out of Mr Abbott’s office.
This is Labor’s Michael Danby, delivering a hymn of praise to his leader Bill Shorten, who has been so so so marvellous in this metadata process. Magnificent, he’s been, Danby believes.
[PL fact check: Still no amendment.]
Danby notes that we don’t want to troll through teenager’s email to see if they’ve been watching pornography.
[PL fact check: ‘We’ won’t be doing that. Police and agencies will be doing the looking, not parliamentarians. Parliamentarians are meant to oversight the security apparatus, not conduct metadata searches. ‘Troll’ is perhaps not the correct term in this instance.]
Jones wraps his contribution in the metadata debate by pointing out that Coalition MPs spoke out for press freedom during the period of the Finkelstein inquiry under the previous Labor government. But they have been curiously absent in this debate. The Labor MP says access to journalist’s metadata must be by warrant.
They mishandled it from beginning to end.
This is Labor’s Stephen Jones, in the House, speaking now in the metadata debate.
The LDP senator David Leyonhjelm is holding an event this morning foreshadowing senate debate next week on his “freedom to marry” bill. Debate will occur next Thursday, according to his advisers. If the debate does indeed proceed, this puts the Liberal party in an interesting position. Will parliamentarians get a conscience vote? I suspect this might be the good senator’s point in telegraphing a procedural development.
Back to metadata briefly. A bit more intelligence on the state of play over the press amendment. Things are still much as Daniel reported, but we do expect the amendment to surface today. Like everything – all things subject to change without notice.
If the government wants an early election, bring it on.
That’s Labor’s Tony Burke, on Sky News. This is sort of Labor’s position and sort of not Labor’s position in truth. A snap poll would put the opposition on the hop. Policy preparation work is going on steadily in the background, and is tied in at least in part to stage management efforts for the July ALP national conference. But no-one in politics really likes surprises.
Updated
The House has begun today’s session. The metadata bill will be back on for debate in a little bit. There is still no sign of the amendment concerning warrants that I’ve been flagging all week. This was my colleague Daniel Hurst’s take on the state of play as of late yesterday.
It is understood media representatives are growing increasingly frustrated at their exclusion from the negotiations between the Coalition and Labor over the shape of the amendment. A major point of contention is the threshold test for judges to grant a warrant. Media representatives want the amendment to enshrine a presumption in favour of press freedom, and a requirement for agencies seeking metadata to prove that the principle was outweighed by the legitimate reason for access.
This would be similar to the arrangements contained in the federal shield law, which notes “the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts”.
We wait, with a certain amount of teeth grinding. In due course, we shall see.
I’ll be back.
And .. I’m back.
Plugs in. Happy days.
I’m just about to switch locations, so if I drop out for twenty minutes or so, don’t fret.
I am on the job, and will be right back with you, as soon as I fix my plugs. As it were.
Out of the funny walks and the rolling reconstructions after the fact, my colleague Shalailah Medhora is on the trail of serious news. “Foreign minister Julie Bishop is seeking confirmation that an Australian was among those killed in the attack on the Bardo museum in Tunisia, after the Tunisian prime minister Habib Essid listed Australia as one of the countries that had lost citizens.”
At least 20 people have been killed in Tunisia after two gunmen stormed the Bardo National Museum – one of the country’s leading tourist attractions in the capital, Tunis – sparking a three-hour siege and hostage situation.
Our news report can be read here.
Meanwhile, the education minister Christopher Pyne is drawing on wide sources of advice.
Fortune cookie at China Plate, Kingston! #auspol pic.twitter.com/RYdwu42vhp
— Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) March 18, 2015
I suppose the prime minister’s office feel they have no choice but to issue the stern talking point and deny deny deny but it’s really hard to erase open secrets. Every sensible government considers its full range of options, however crazy the various options might be. Labor has been planning for ages on the supposition that the government will go to the voters early, on a range of possible scenarios.
Why a prime minister might contemplate ‘whatever’/‘never mind the bloody fineprint’ means of breaking through his senate nightmare.
The sequel.
Sen. Leyonhjelm says Christopher Pyne has discussed prospect of using higher ed bill as a double dissolution trigger @NewsTalk2UE
— Frank Keany (@redneckninja) March 18, 2015
Why a prime minister might contemplate ‘whatever’/‘never mind the bloody fineprint’ means of breaking through his Senate nightmare.
Stefanie Balogh and Rosie Lewis in The Australian, this morning.
Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie has met twice with Mr Abbott but remains unimpressed by his prime ministerial charm. “He just sits there and ums and ahhs,” she told The Australian. “He’s either incompetent or doesn’t know the subject. The Liberal government is in chaos. It’s like having an office manager in the office that can’t run an office.”
Updated
Glass half full. Cheers, everyone.
On the ABC now. Cormann.
The important thing is to keep heading in the right direction.
In addition to putting the fire hose on the double dissolution, Cormann has had to explain the government’s budget strategy. We started with a budget emergency. Now we are back to prudent and almost boring. We started with shrinking the size of government. Now we are shrinking the size of government in a manner where households won’t be hurt. We started with surplus worship. Now the prime minister has endorsed a trajectory of “sort of almost balance” followed permanent deficits.
It is hard to keep on top of where things are at. The finance minister keeps its simple this morning.
Mathias Cormann:
There is more work to be done and we need to keep at it.
Q: Is the emergency over?
We did inherit and emergency and we have a plan to fix it.
Q: Are you content with deficit for decades?
We have been able to reduce the deficit trajectory by half.
Updated
Top of the morning everyone and welcome to Thursday in Canberra. I hope Thursday finds you well. It finds me well enough.
As we wrapped the blogue last night, reports were starting to appear alleging that at the start of this parliamentary week, the prime minister had raised the prospect of a double dissolution election with cabinet colleagues as one option to blast the government out of its current parliamentary deadlock. The idea that the government will seek a date with destiny early is a widely contemplated and chewed over theory around this building – still, as my colleague Lenore Taylor reports – some ministers were very surprised the issue was raised even as a possibility, given the government’s tenuous political situation. “One described it as a ‘bizarrely bad’ idea.”
It’s an arguable proposition, this – but I’d be in the bizarrely bad idea camp for two reasons apart from the obvious one – the current field evidence that suggests voters are waiting for the Coalition with baseball bats. My two reasons are: 1. Early elections always look tricky, and voters are pretty much right over tricky. 2. A double dissolution benefits micro parties because Senate quotas are halved, so I can’t see how the government’s senate fortunes would be improved in an election that, in a structural sense, favours smaller players.
It just doesn’t seem logical.
But then regular readers of this blog know I struggle daily with the “logic” of contemporary politics. I keep defaulting to a deeply ingrained reflex that governments won’t self harm, despite the overwhelming evidence presented between 2010 and now that governments will happily destroy themselves before our very eyes if given the opportunity. I need to get over this reflexive optimism I know.
I gather from the early morning radio that the prime minister’s office is hosing double D gate right down.
And the government’s first light spokesman this morning has been the finance minister Mathias Cormann. It’s not surprising that today it’s Cormann – if you want to deliver the line straight he’s your man.
Cormann has told NewsRadio he’s not been part of any meetings where a double dissolution has been discussed. Maybe he was out of the room, or indulging in a restorative stint of Angry Birds. In his present position – trying to prepare a budget which will magically return to almost balance in five years and be almost boring and not hurt anyone – I would. I’d be full time in my happy place.
For many of you, bless you, your happy place is the PL comments thread. That’s why I welcome you all warmly every morning sometime between 7am and 8am. This morning is no exception. We are open for business so jump on board. You can also reach me on Twitter @murpharoo and the man with the camera @mpbowers
Pack lunch, comfortable shoes and a drink bottle. Here comes Thursday.
Updated
