This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/sep/11/crossbench-to-call-on-parliament-to-declare-a-climate-emergency-politics-live

The article has changed 20 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 12 Version 13
Labor attacks government's wages record – question time live Labor attacks government's wages record – question time live
(38 minutes later)
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
What steps did the Prime Minister take to ensure that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament? Did the minister for Home affairs’ actions meet the high standards expected of ministers under ministerial standards, given an ABC report that the minister for home affairs had a lunch with a man arranged by a lobbyist who called the minister one of his best friends, and said he could arrange access to the minister’s office for $20,000, and has the Prime Minister taken any steps to investigate that report?
Morrison:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The declarations that are made in relation to donations are set out on the public record. I want to make something very clear. When I was talking about money changing hands, I wasn’t talking about donations. I was talking about expenses that were picked up personally by Senator Dastyari, by Senator Dastyari personally, his legal expenses and his travel expenses. I have made no reference, Mr Speaker, to donations. Donations should be declared in the ordinary course of business, and they are, and they should be transparent, and that is the case here, Mr Speaker.
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
Can the prime minister explain why it was proper for the Liberal National party to accept a donation from the CEO of Brisbane-based company Canstruct which resulted in a lucrative contract.
It is ruled out of order. Tony Smith says it is about the third one in a row, and if he thinks that this is an attempt to raise issues Labor knows will be out of order, he will cut off the question.
One of the points that is well-established is that ministers and prime ministers are not responsible for political parties’ statements by members, by ministers, obviously, occurrences and party rooms, and a range of statements. I won’t keep repeating myself, it is clear. The question is out of order.
Tony Burke says the prime minister opened the door for the question, by giving an answer to the House yesterday about donations, which should allow the question.
Smith says the question didn’t actually address that.
Certainly members’ statements can be referred to. I mean, that’s a well-established precedent, I couldn’t stop that. But just because the prime minister has made a statement, it doesn’t allow the member for Isaacs to ask whatever he feels like.
And let’s be frank here, we are all politicians. I am ruling the question is out of order, and there doesn’t seem to be, you know, any upset or outrage from my left. I mean, let’s just call a spade a spade.
Sorry, I should have corrected that. I don’t...
(The government side goes nuts.)
Let me correct my statement. There doesn’t seem to be any outrage or upset from those on my left to know what they are doing.
Awwwww Peter Dutton gets another opportunity to smile, with another lickspittle on JUST HOW SAFE ARE WE.
tl;dr – VERY. BUT JUST IMAGINE IF PETER DUTTON AND THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT DIDN’T WIN THE ELECTION.
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
I refer to his comments in the House yesterday and today, the front page headline of the Daily Telegraph... Why does he promise to go over the top when he sees political advantage, but go into hiding when there is Liberal party corruption in his own party members are breaking the law? (he holds up a front page)
Tony Smith:
The member for Isaacs will not use props, the question is out of order, it offends. Ministers could stop interject! The member for Sydney is warned. If the member for Isaacs is having difficulty, I suggest he acquaint himself with pages 553 and 554, a practice that outlines a whole list of elements that ministers can’t be question on, and he offended five of them.
At the National Press Club, Mark Dreyfus gave some hints about his thinking on press freedom – which is significant because he is a Labor member of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security examining the issue.
Dreyfus suggested the raids on the ABC and Annika Smethurst were “a product, not of the laws which have been in place for very, very many years, but of the way that this government has chosen to go about demanding that leaks are investigated”.Dreyfus said:
I’ve been a bit concerned about some of the public commentary in this area because it’s been so focused on black letter law. I think some of it needs to be focused on what you call unwritten law on the exercise of discretions on the conventions which have surrounded the way in which, just to take a simple example, section 70 and 79 of the Crimes Act 1914, have been there since the first world war, have manifested. What’s happened to them? On the face of them, they criminalise a lot of journalistic activity. They criminalise the publication when the journalist know that is it is a leak from government. But no journalist has been prosecuted for that in the more than 100 years which have gone past. And you have to ask the question is why is that so? It’s so because of the way in which governments exercise discretions and apply conventions to make sure that journalists and ordinary media work in this country is protected.
So Dreyfus seems to be suggesting instead of changing laws, governments should just stop complaining to the cops about some non-critical leaks.
Dreyfus also opposed a blanket exemption for journalists to national security disclosure laws. He downplayed expectations around the PJCIS review, suggesting the report would likely be “rather securitised”, by which I assume he meant opaque, technical or not expansive. He suggested a separate Senate review might be more fruitful.
Christian Porter delivers the ‘unions are terrible’ lickspittle.
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
I refer to the prime minister’s previous answer where he said the test was whether money had changed hands. I refer to the responsibility for the AEC and its role in political parties, and I refer to the article in the Herald Sun by James Campbell that the Liberal party returned $300,000 in donations from dinner guests associated with the member for Chisholm because of security concerns, and to the member for Chisholm’s statement last night that the donation and its return was all made up. Prime minister, is she correct?
Tony Smith moves to rule the question out of order, given the PM doesn’t have any responsibility for the AEC.
Morrison wants to answer it. “On indulgence?” he asks Smith.
Tony Burke and Christian Porter both make their arguments – Porter, seeing that Morrison wants to answer the question, just asks for a small tweak.
Smith rules the question out of order.
Peter Dutton has waited very patiently for almost 24 hours and now gets to give the answer to the lickspittle he had lined up yesterday, after Andrew Hastie says the magic words “alternative approaches”.
“Give us a smile,” Labor backbenchers call out. It is, after all, a year after Dutton told us all he wanted was to smile more.
But Dutton is never happier than when he gets to talk about how terrible Labor is, unless of course it is talking about how terrible unions are.
He gives the answer he prepared yesterday.
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
When Sam Dastyari failed to support the bipartisan position on the South China Sea, the prime minister said Sam Dastyari has been caught betraying his country, and that means he is betraying every patriotic Australian in this country. Does the prime minister stand by that statement, and the standard it sets? Will the prime minister apply this test to the member for Chisholm?
Tony Smith allows the question.
I further comment on the statement by the member for Chisholm today which makes it very clear her support for the government’s position.
The prime minister can pause for a second. I have made it clear I need to listen to the question, because I need to make rulings on these matters. I am going to listen to the answer without interjection. Prime minister.
Morrison:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I refer the member to her statement which makes it very clear about her support for the government’s position in the long-standing position we have taken in relation to those matters. What the member has raised with me is the conduct of the former senator, Sam Dastyari.
Now, what he will remember about Senator Sam Dastyari is, not only, Mr Speaker, not only was he a minister, shadow minister, I should say, in the executive of the opposition at that time, he seems to forget the fact that money changed hands between then senator Sam Dastyari... Money changed hands...
... And his position was bought by that, Mr Speaker, with a concession alone, with alone, I should say, to off his legal expenses, and he was caught in his own web of corruption, Mr Speaker. He should have resigned, and he did.
Goodness. Michael McCormack just got so worked up during that previous lickspittle, he shifted from 11-4001 TPG to 11- 4801 TPG on the Pantone colour chart.
Deputy PM Michael McCormack gets a little heated during and answer to a dixer when Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon interjected @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus #PoliticsLive https://t.co/Ll819z9AWU pic.twitter.com/MJInEVaChh
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
What steps did the prime minister take to ensure that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament?
Tony Smith immediately rules it out of order, before Christian Porter is even fully out of his seat.Tony Smith immediately rules it out of order, before Christian Porter is even fully out of his seat.
That question is out of order. It doesn’t go to the Prime Minister’s response abilities at all.” That question is out of order. It doesn’t go to the prime minister’s responsibilities at all.
We move to another lickspittle, which Josh Frydenberg is very excited to answer, particularly about whether or not he knows of any “alternative policies”.We move to another lickspittle, which Josh Frydenberg is very excited to answer, particularly about whether or not he knows of any “alternative policies”.
He still doesn’t seem to realise that the Liberals won the election. And have been in power since 2013.He still doesn’t seem to realise that the Liberals won the election. And have been in power since 2013.
It’s been 116 or so days – can someone please tell Josh Frydenberg he won the election?It’s been 116 or so days – can someone please tell Josh Frydenberg he won the election?
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
The Australian industry group wants the nation has a skills crisis, 75% of businesses struggling to find qualified Australians to fill jobs, why has this government ripped $3 billion from TAFE in training and done nothing to stop the loss, 150,000 apprenticeships and traineeships? The Australian Industry Group warns the nation has a skills crisis, 75% of businesses struggling to find qualified Australians to fill jobs. Why has this government ripped $3bn from Tafe in training and done nothing to stop the loss of 150,000 apprenticeships and traineeships?
Morrison:Morrison:
Mr Speaker, between 2011 and 2013, when the Member for Sydney while sitting around a cabinet table, Labor cut employer incentives to businesses, nine times, that totalled 1.2 million, the Member would be fully aware TAFE is funded by State Government, not Commonwealth governments. That is why last year, I initiated a review conducted by Stephen Joyce. That review found, the funding and spending going into skills education, every year, was not getting the results, the results they were not getting was that people went been trained with the skills, for the skills needed by the employers who wanted to employ them. Mr Speaker, between 2011 and 2013, when the member for Sydney was sitting around a cabinet table, Labor cut employer incentives to businesses, nine times, that totalled 1.2 million. The member would be fully aware Tafe is funded by state government, not commonwealth governments. That is why last year, I initiated a review conducted by Stephen Joyce. That review found the funding and spending going into skills education, every year, was not getting the results, the results they were not getting was that people weren’t being trained with the skills, for the skills needed by the employers who wanted to employ them.
That’s because of the outdated funding model, the process is put in place over many years, run by previous governments, these other things we need to fix and this is what we intend to fix.That’s because of the outdated funding model, the process is put in place over many years, run by previous governments, these other things we need to fix and this is what we intend to fix.
Michael McCormack appears to have sprinkled too much sugar on his weetbix this morning, as he gets very worked up at Joel Fitzgibbon over not caring about farmers. He screams that Fitzgibbon is “a disgrace”. Fitzgibbon gets upset. The chamber is upset, but at different things. Michael McCormack appears to have sprinkled too much sugar on his Weet-Bix this morning, as he gets very worked up at Joel Fitzgibbon over not caring about farmers. He screams that Fitzgibbon is “a disgrace”. Fitzgibbon gets upset. The chamber is upset, but at different things.
It’s amazing what happens when salt is added to bland carbohydrates.It’s amazing what happens when salt is added to bland carbohydrates.
Michael McCormack is attempting to act like a politician.Michael McCormack is attempting to act like a politician.
It’s going about as well as you would expect.It’s going about as well as you would expect.
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
As Plibersek is announced, a small cheer goes up from the government benches:As Plibersek is announced, a small cheer goes up from the government benches:
The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower than it was a decade ago. Why has this government cut $3bn from Tafe and training?The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower than it was a decade ago. Why has this government cut $3bn from Tafe and training?
Morrison:Morrison:
I have learnt when the member for Sydney puts forward figures they can never be taken at face value. At the last election our government committed to 80,000 new apprentices, as the government program has been wound out, 2000 people have taken up the program. We look forward to further success.I have learnt when the member for Sydney puts forward figures they can never be taken at face value. At the last election our government committed to 80,000 new apprentices, as the government program has been wound out, 2000 people have taken up the program. We look forward to further success.
Plibersek attempts to table the document which shows the cuts, but is denied.Plibersek attempts to table the document which shows the cuts, but is denied.
Luckily, there is already a press release on that lickspittle, for those who need the information (and given the fires, there will be some of you), so here it is:Luckily, there is already a press release on that lickspittle, for those who need the information (and given the fires, there will be some of you), so here it is:
Disaster-hit communities will be back on their feet faster, with the Government introducing legislation for a new $4 billion future fund.Disaster-hit communities will be back on their feet faster, with the Government introducing legislation for a new $4 billion future fund.
The Emergency Response Fund will grow to up to $6.6 billion over the next decade.The Emergency Response Fund will grow to up to $6.6 billion over the next decade.
...The type of assistance provided could include, but is not limited to, recovery project grants, service provision, adoption of technology helping recover and resilience or economic aid packages for affected communities or industry sectors to help build their resilience to future natural disasters....The type of assistance provided could include, but is not limited to, recovery project grants, service provision, adoption of technology helping recover and resilience or economic aid packages for affected communities or industry sectors to help build their resilience to future natural disasters.
The Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. The Board has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of Government and maximising returns over the long term.The Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. The Board has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of Government and maximising returns over the long term.
Phil Thompson gets the first lickspittle of the day, but given he has tomato sauce on his bacon and egg roll instead of barbecue (and hot sauce if you are me), I can’t listen to anything he says.Phil Thompson gets the first lickspittle of the day, but given he has tomato sauce on his bacon and egg roll instead of barbecue (and hot sauce if you are me), I can’t listen to anything he says.
Question time begins and we are straight into it.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
My question is addressed to the prime minister. Can he confirm wages have grown more slowly than the last 38 consecutive forecasts?
Morrison:
I can confirm when it comes to wages growth, and the most recent quarter, it was 0.7%. I can confirm, in the September quarter of 2018 when we came to office it was 0.5%. Wage growth was higher than what we inherited from the Labor party.
Scott Morrison on prostate cancer:
But the message today is pretty simple, blokes – don’t muck about with your health. If, like me, you’ve hit the big 50 then you’ve absolutely got to get on to it straight away and must be getting on to it much sooner than that.
Go and talk to your doctor. I did that last Friday as part of my usual check-up and did the usual thing in making sure that these issues were totally sussed out. That’s what we all should be doing on a regular basis. Go to your doctor, know the risks, get the test. Treat it like your life depends on it. Because it does. And it’s important that we appreciate that.
And if you can’t do it for yourself, do it for your family, do it for your kids, do it for those who love you. Because you know how much you love them.
And you should understand that they love you just as much, and they want you around for as long as possible.
It’s almost question time.
Put your predictions down below
As Sarah Martin, who has had a read through the drug testing bill, has pointed out, the government is not releasing the cost of the trial.
The financial impact of these amendments is not for publication.
That’s despite the front page in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph saying up to $65,000 would be available for those determined to need referrals.
Also, it just appears to apply to those on a “job seekers” payment (which will become the new Newstart term) or youth allowance. No other welfare appears to be included.
You can find the whole bill here.
Someone has been paying attention:
It’s clear @GladysLiuMP needs to answer some serious questions. Her statement is shocking. She should be held to the same standard that I was - a standard the PM set. I resigned. I took responsibility. That was the right decision in my circumstances.
Does Mark Dreyfus see any reason for a religious discrimination act?
Dreyfus:
Some of the public commentary and some of the submissions, Senator Lambie, for example, the day before yesterday, expressed the view that the legislation wasn’t necessary at all. I imagine that that’s going to be part of the debate because some people are expressing that view – but speaking for myself, I think that there’s a number of groups in the Australian community that have suffered discrimination because of their religious belief, and the community that most springs to mind in recent years would be the Muslim community among us, who directly suffer discrimination in employment and the provision of services.
I think that it’s absolutely a worthwhile innovation that the attorney general has produced to add this additional ground of discrimination to our existing set of anti-discrimination laws.
Precisely how that’s going to be done is the argument that’s ahead of us. But I hear the voices that have said, ‘What’s the need for this?’, or, ‘Why are we doing this?’
Other voices saying the reason we’re having the discussion is because of what occurred in the same-sex marriage debate.
Put that to one side, there’s been calls now for a long time for a new ground of discrimination based on religious belief. Four states of the commonwealth have acted to create that ground of discrimination.
I’m very happy we’re having that debate at the federal level now.
The whole question and answer exchange is here:
Paul Karp:
In the context of the marriage debate, Bill Shorten gave a very simple commitment that Labor would not vote for legislation that watered down the protection of LGBT Australians.
Now, I know the religious discrimination bill is just an exposure draft and I know Labor is still consulting about it, but will you recommit today that Labor will not vote to water down existing protections in state and federal discrimination law?
And if not, why is that principle no longer a red line for Labor?
Mark Dreyfus:
Well, I don’t want to give an absolutely clear answer to Paul’s excellent question.
It’s one of the questions raised by the exposure draft bills that Christian Porter released about 10 days ago.
The reason I don’t is that, as I said publicly as recently as yesterday at a press conference that Paul asked me a similar question about, I said these are exposure drafts.
Labor’s now consulting on those exposure drafts and when the government resolves on whatever final position it gets to and introduces legislation to the parliament, that will be the time for Labor to form a final view of whether the legislation that the government has introduced to the parliament is an appropriate change to Australia’s anti-discrimination law.
One thing I can say, though, is that we have longstanding Labor values in this area.
Labor is committed to the elimination of all forms of discrimination in our community.
We have shown that since 1975, when we enacted the Racial Discrimination Act, through to the Sex Discrimination Act through to the Disability Discrimination Act, another Labor enactment, and then supporting the Howard government when it enacted the Age Discrimination Act.
Those are the four acts of the Australian parliament that set up the anti-discrimination framework that governs conduct in Australia today.
We look carefully at the other provisions that have been enacted at the state level, because one of the parts of the debate prompted by the exposure drafts that Christian Porter has produced is whether or not, in addition to the existing framework of the four acts, there should also be a new attribute protected against discrimination, namely religious belief.
Four states already have such a protected attribute in their anti-discrimination frameworks. There’s a question raised by this legislation as to whether or not at the federal level we should have that as well.
And one of the questions that’s going to need to be resolved, as it always has been when a new anti-discrimination statute is produced, is how that new anti-discrimination statute needs to interact with the existing anti-discrimination statutes.
This is something that international human rights has dealt with and political rights deals with directly. It’s where you have potentially conflicting rights.
And the resolution of that conflict or competition between rights is the subject matter of the debate. We have seen bits of it so far in the commitment that the prime minister made during the Wentworth byelection, for example, to abolish the exemption that’s there for religious schools to discriminate against students and children in those schools – that’s unresolved, of course, because the prime minister didn’t keep that promise, and still hasn’t.
[That] perhaps demonstrates the degree of difficulty, but that’s the issue that’s going to have to be resolved.
The issue raised by your question is going to have to be revolved when we come to debating the legislation that the government says it’s bringing forward.
Sighhhhhhhhh
Mark Dreyfus refuses to recommit to principle @billshortenmp established that Labor won't vote to water down protections of LGBT Australians. Says it's "not of assistance to commit" and he doesn't want to "pre-empt" consultation by giving that guarantee. #auspol #NPC
Cory Bernardi has been unable to file his weekly “commonsense” missive to supporters, because he is “under the pump in Canberra”.
Given what the Senate is dealing with this week, he may be the only one, but I guess we all handle transitions differently. Or in this case, approaching a transition.
On the ongoing Labor review, and what may happen to some of the policies of the last six years, Mark Dreyfus says this:
I’m not going to pre-empt the outcome first of all of the review being conducted by eminent former figures of the Labor party. That review is going to report to the party later in the year. And this will be an ongoing debate in the Labor party, as it should be after an election defeat.
It’s an election defeat where the government increased its majority by precisely one seat, moving from having a one-seat majority after the 2016 election to a two-seat majority after the 2019 election.
But it’s an election result which has caused shock right across Australia because of the deep expectation that Labor was going to win the election.
We do have to review the way in which we campaigned; we do have to review the policies we took to the people at the last election. That’s an entirely appropriate process for us to be engaging in.
And might I say – we are not going to win the 2022 election by making announcements right here and now – or for me to make an announcement at the Press Club of what our policies are going to be.
One of the striking things, I would say, about the last election was just the way in which the winning party, the one that won a majority of seats, 77 seats in the parliament, in their Coalition, was able to go from the knifing of a prime minister for the second time in five years to a just winning position in May of 2019.
But it does tell you something about the speed in which things can change in Australian politics and the closeness to the election that changes a position that might be able to be achieved.