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.
Question time: Labor calls on government to back its super plan
Not into ‘bunch of meetings’: Scott Morrison defends cancelling Coag
(35 minutes later)
Laura Jayes from Sky just raised the point that the deputy prime minister and leader of the Nationals – you know, the party which mostly represents farmers in this place – was not beside Scott Morrison when he made the strawberry contamination crackdown announcement.
He’s not in the videos either.
The Australian Berry Force is on the case:
Sabotaging our strawberries is sabotaging our farmers. It’s not right. It’s not on. It's a crime. pic.twitter.com/2B9TTg9JOf
So I guess the takeaway from that is meetings are dumb, but summits are cool.
Scott Morrison, continuing his new tradition of telling us exactly how many questions we have suffered through, tells us today, 23 is enough, and calls an end to today’s torture.
Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:
Why won’t the prime minister fulfil the commitment he made to the house last week and say whether or not the minister for home affairs excuse himself from discussions on childcare?
Morrison:
Once again, I refer to the statement by the minister on 13 September, where he said he complied with the requirements under the cabinet handbook and I take advice in relation to this position which puts the question beyond doubt.
The cabinet handbook is a public document. Here it is, quite straightforward; the wording is quite clear. It does not say whatever the opposition wants it to say to suit the political purposes they try to pursue in this parliament.
I have nothing further to report on that matter, Mr Speaker. It has been absolutely cleared up and I am happy for the matter to rest.
EXTREME Jonathan Van Ness voice (from Queer Eye) “But has it? Because...I don’t think it has, hunny.”
Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:
Last week the prime minister said to come back after making inquiries of the secretary as to whether the minister for home affairs excuse himself on questions on childcare. Now that the prime minister has had a week to make inquiries, did the minister for home affairs excuse himself from all discussions on childcare?
Morrison:
I refer the member to the statement made by the minister for home affairs on this matter and I have nothing further to report.
One would think if they had the answer, and it proved their point, we would have heard about it by now.
Sometimes, you really can say it best, when you say nothing at all.
Cathy McGowan and Rebehka Shakie had a message for their own for the women of Australia:
‘Don’t get mad, get elected’: a message to all of Australia’s Independent women. After all, Independents have all the fun!
The poster was created by the Victorian Women’s Trust, for those wondering.
Hello again, I’m just adding to information I shared earlier about the new material on Peter Dutton’s use of ministerial discretion in relation to au pairs. The material, as I said earlier, makes clear that officials warned Dutton that costs would be incurred as a consequence of the planned removal of the young woman detained in Adelaide not proceeding because of the minister’s intervention.
Dutton’s office has pointed me in the direction of a question on notice that has been submitted to the Senate inquiry. It says no additional costs were incurred. I’m sharing it with you in full for completeness.
Senator Watt: I noticed in this case that the minister was advised that there may be some additional costs to the department if the intervention occurred and this person was allowed to stay in the country. From reading between the lines of the submission, it seems that maybe an airfare was booked. Because, ordinarily, what would happen is that this person comes in –
Mr Pezzullo: I’m a public official: I don’t read between the lines; I just read the lines.
Senator Watt: Ordinarily, had the intervention not occurred, she would have been deported.
Mr Murray: Senator, I can help you there. In that case, the visa had been cancelled and was then subject of removal. As part of the migration provisions, we’d already served notice on the airline. They have 72 hours to effect the removal.
Mr Pezzullo: That’s reflected at paragraph 16 of the released submission.
Senator Watt: I’m interested to know: did the department, ABF or any entity of the government incur any costs as a result of the fact that she didn’t end up being deported?
Mr Murray: I don’t believe so, no.
Mr Outram: We’ll take that on notice.
Senator Watt: It was flagged that that might occur.
Mr Outram: We’ll take that on notice. As I said, there are 4,500 cases where we cancel visas at the border and it’s—I want to impress upon you the degree of churn here. This is a high-volume, high-paced operation at the border and, with those sorts of turnarounds, we try to do them on the day sometimes even where people don’t even go into detention centres. So I will come back to you as to whether there was an actual cost incurred with regard to the airfares.
So what was the answer provided to the committee on notice? “No additional cost on these matters were incurred.”
I’ve asked the minister’s office if they can explain why officials warned costs would be incurred as a consequence of the removal not proceeding, and square that with this answer to the committee saying no additional costs were incurred. If an answer is forthcoming, I will share it.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull prime minister? (He says it’s a question Morrison has failed to answer on 21 different occasions)
Morrison:
I refer the member to my earlier answers and simply say he has had five years and he can’t convince anyone that he should be the prime minister.
Right. So Coag was cancelled, because there is a drought summit.
But the drought summit is being held weeks after Coag was due to be held.
So now Coag has been cancelled, because Scott Morrison doesn’t believe in standing around having meetings.
But the drought summit is a meeting.
So Coag was cancelled because...
Morrison:
When people tell lies and repeat them, it doesn’t make them any more true. That is a fundamental principle. When people tell lies, it doesn’t make them any more true the more you repeat them. Most people know that. What I said in a very plain answer to the last question was simply this:
I don’t think you need to have a meeting if you don’t need to have a meeting. You don’t need to have meetings for everybody to come and have a cup of tea.
The reason we don’t have to have that meeting is because the very education funding issues that are referred to by the member will be addressed within that time frame.
... The conversation I had with the premiers when I called each of them and I spoke to each of them and none of them raised a concern with the meeting, not one, because they knew where the progress of those matters when it came to education funding was up to.
Previously as treasurer I had been progressing those matters through the council of federal financial relations and they will be resolved.
But on this side of the house, we don’t think you had to have meetings just for the sake of it. You just get on and do the job, Mr Speaker.
Now the shadow treasurer is terribly irritated because there is not going to be a meeting. What I know about the shadow treasurer is this: when he was immigration minister, people couldn’t trust him on the border, can’t trust him on budget either.
The Australian people know about me, that they can trust me on the borders and they can trust me on the budget because that’s my record.
Well this is a sobering thought:
Well this is a sobering thought:
A delegation from Saudi Arabia during Question Time has 25% female representation, the coalition today has 13 women out of 69 members, so 18% female representation. #auspol #qt pic.twitter.com/h2rjev7Qua
A delegation from Saudi Arabia during Question Time has 25% female representation, the coalition today has 13 women out of 69 members, so 18% female representation. #auspol #qt pic.twitter.com/h2rjev7Qua
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison: Essentially – why did you cancel Coag? Remember when you cancelled parliament for a week? Why do you keep cancelling things?
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison: Essentially – why did you cancel Coag? Remember when you cancelled parliament for a week? Why do you keep cancelling things?
Morrison:
Morrison:
You know why we are not having that in October? Because we are having a drought summit.
You know why we are not having that in October? Because we are having a drought summit.
That is what I announced today. We are having a drought summit. The jeers that come from the opposition in the Labor party when I say we are having a drought summit tells us a bit about where their priorities [are] ... They want to come in here and go on with all this political rubbish day after day after day.
That is what I announced today. We are having a drought summit. The jeers that come from the opposition in the Labor party when I say we are having a drought summit tells us a bit about where their priorities [are] ... They want to come in here and go on with all this political rubbish day after day after day.
Earlier today I met with the deputy prime minister and I met with the member for New England [Barnaby Joyce]. I met with the head of the National Farmers’ Federation. I met with Maj Gen Steven Day and we received their update on work that was done by Maj Gen Steven Day, who is coordinating the government’s response to the drought. And on 26 October as we will ring together people from around the country. I will invite all the state and territory leaders or their nominees or those within their government directly involved in coordinating the drought response to come and align all our efforts to ensure we are doing a number of things.
Earlier today I met with the deputy prime minister and I met with the member for New England [Barnaby Joyce]. I met with the head of the National Farmers’ Federation. I met with Maj Gen Steven Day and we received their update on work that was done by Maj Gen Steven Day, who is coordinating the government’s response to the drought. And on 26 October as we will ring together people from around the country. I will invite all the state and territory leaders or their nominees or those within their government directly involved in coordinating the drought response to come and align all our efforts to ensure we are doing a number of things.
Firstly, that we are getting the feed to where it needs to get to, to support the efforts of our farmers, to keep their properties going and to keep them in business, to support the towns, support the centres, support, make sure ...
Firstly, that we are getting the feed to where it needs to get to, to support the efforts of our farmers, to keep their properties going and to keep them in business, to support the towns, support the centres, support, make sure ...
Tony Burke interrupts to make the point I just raised in the office – that Coag was scheduled for early October, but the drought summit isn’t until the end:
Tony Burke interrupts to make the point I just raised in the office – that Coag was scheduled for early October, but the drought summit isn’t until the end:
The question went to collect meeting scheduled for 4 October, not the drought summit scheduled for 26 October. He was asked about a different meeting.
The question went to collect meeting scheduled for 4 October, not the drought summit scheduled for 26 October. He was asked about a different meeting.
But Morrison continues to say how he is not standing around having “a bunch of meetings”. But correct me if I am wrong – and I often am – but isn’t a drought summit, basically a giant meeting?
But Morrison continues to say how he is not standing around having “a bunch of meetings”. But correct me if I am wrong – and I often am – but isn’t a drought summit, basically a giant meeting?
Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:
Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:
Has the per-resident funding for the complex high care aged care funding instrument gone down as a result of the 2016 budget?
Has the per-resident funding for the complex high care aged care funding instrument gone down as a result of the 2016 budget?
Wyatt (after originally trying to compare it to 2012 levels):
Wyatt (after originally trying to compare it to 2012 levels):
The funding for ACFI expenditure has continued to increase against claims across all three domains.
The funding for ACFI expenditure has continued to increase against claims across all three domains.
Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:
Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:
I refer to his previous answer where he denied blaming the new prime minister for [hitting] the age care sector with a $1.2bn cut. If it wasn’t the prime minister’s fault, which person was responsible for cutting $1.2bn from aged care?
I refer to his previous answer where he denied blaming the new prime minister for [hitting] the age care sector with a $1.2bn cut. If it wasn’t the prime minister’s fault, which person was responsible for cutting $1.2bn from aged care?
Wyatt:
Wyatt:
The question you have asked is inaccurate. We have continued to increase funding as I have said from $13.1bn through to $18.6bn through to another $5bn to $23.6bn, and we are continuing to have work undertaken in respect to the ACFI instrument, which has served the sector well.
The question you have asked is inaccurate. We have continued to increase funding as I have said from $13.1bn through to $18.6bn through to another $5bn to $23.6bn, and we are continuing to have work undertaken in respect to the ACFI instrument, which has served the sector well.
The funding instrument was capped at a time in which there were claims that were much higher than the trajectory and all governments have a responsibility to live within their means. And within the budget that is established. Now, but we have not cut, because we have continued to grow the ACFI level of funding over the forward estimates and they will continue to grow, but the new RUCKS program that we are working on with Wollongong University will provide a better instrument for people assessing people.
The funding instrument was capped at a time in which there were claims that were much higher than the trajectory and all governments have a responsibility to live within their means. And within the budget that is established. Now, but we have not cut, because we have continued to grow the ACFI level of funding over the forward estimates and they will continue to grow, but the new RUCKS program that we are working on with Wollongong University will provide a better instrument for people assessing people.
As you heard in the Four Corners program, by their own admission, staff were told to game the instrument.
As you heard in the Four Corners program, by their own admission, staff were told to game the instrument.
Just a reminder that both Labor and the government are right – like in health and education, funding has increased, but not by as much as was anticipated.
Just a reminder that both Labor and the government are right – like in health and education, funding has increased, but not by as much as was anticipated.
Tveeder, which is the transcription service I use to help me get these answers up as quickly as possible, keeps referring to the prime minister as the “pie minister” and combined with all this strawberry talk, I am now STARVING.
Tveeder, which is the transcription service I use to help me get these answers up as quickly as possible, keeps referring to the prime minister as the “pie minister” and combined with all this strawberry talk, I am now STARVING.
Peter Dutton has been allowed to give a dixer answer today – and it is on strawberries. Mostly. He does get this in, at the end:
Peter Dutton has been allowed to give a dixer answer today – and it is on strawberries. Mostly. He does get this in, at the end:
I also want to take the opportunity today to acknowledge work being done by the Australian federal police in concert with the other state policing agencies and in fact all law enforcement agencies across the country in relation to countering child exploitation.
I also want to take the opportunity today to acknowledge work being done by the Australian federal police in concert with the other state policing agencies and in fact all law enforcement agencies across the country in relation to countering child exploitation.
This is a serious threat to families. Mums and dads are worried about kids online. They are worried about images of being uploaded. They are worried about predators not just in the park, next door or down the street; they are worried about kids online in the hours spent online.
This is a serious threat to families. Mums and dads are worried about kids online. They are worried about images of being uploaded. They are worried about predators not just in the park, next door or down the street; they are worried about kids online in the hours spent online.
And last week we announced $70m investment into the centre for countering child exploitation, and that is a commonwealth-led effort that involves the other policing agencies as well. We know that shockingly every seven minutes a webpage shows a child being sexually abused.
And last week we announced $70m investment into the centre for countering child exploitation, and that is a commonwealth-led effort that involves the other policing agencies as well. We know that shockingly every seven minutes a webpage shows a child being sexually abused.
We know that through the money that we have put into the Australian federal police, they have received additional funding in the 2018-19 budget which includes that money as I said before, and the centre will remove 200 children from danger in the first year alone, and it builds on the work we have done to cancel the visas of people who have been involved in sexual offences against children and women, and we will build on that work every day of this government.
We know that through the money that we have put into the Australian federal police, they have received additional funding in the 2018-19 budget which includes that money as I said before, and the centre will remove 200 children from danger in the first year alone, and it builds on the work we have done to cancel the visas of people who have been involved in sexual offences against children and women, and we will build on that work every day of this government.
Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:
Is the minister aware of a report that while visiting a nursing home he conceded the government’s $1.2bn cuts to aged care was hurting, saying these things are controlled by treasury. Can the minister explain why the then treasurer [denied making] the $1.2bn cut to aged care, and is this why the prime minister described his own government as a Muppet show?
Wyatt:
The report in the paper is not accurate and it is not a comment that I would make when I am in an aged care facility. The decisions around funding and our increased funding going from $13.7bn to $18.6bn to $23.6bn is an increase in our budgets are continuing to grow.
In terms of the active instrument, the work undertaken at the moment, it is looking at the RUCKS program and we will continue to work with the department on the reforms required.
Andrew Wilkie has today’s crossbench question – and it’s on why Tasmanians have to wait so long to see specialists.
Scott Morrison is listing the funding the government has previously announced, and says that [Tasmanian premier] Will Hodgman is helping them deliver it.
It doesn’t look like Wilkie is overly impressed.
Nope, he’s not. He asks about relevance, but the PM has concluded his answer.
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:
People earning less than $450 a month don’t have to be paid superannuation. This means that many women in low-paid casual jobs can’t build up their retirement savings.
When will the government stopped fighting itself, start governing and match this commitment to help women in low-paid and casual jobs plan for security in retirement by ensuring that superannuation is paid to those Australians earning less than $450 month.
Morrison:
Our government has acted to provide catch-up contributions for women in the work force. Our government has acted for those women starting their own businesses, those working from home to now access the superannuation tax concessions that others can access, and I don’t understand why the Labor party oppose those measures.
Why would the Labor party want to oppose someone running their own business from home, getting access to the same superannuation tax concessions that are enjoyed by other female workers?
These provisions particularly support those in trades and small businesses but it does include those who run their own home-based businesses. What that shows is they are happy to support the superannuation savings of those who are in the union workforce, but they are not happy to support the superannuation savings of people who run small- and medium-sized businesses.
The Labor party has never understood the psychology or the incentive or the mindset of someone who decides to run their own business. Who wants the independence and takes the risk and goes out there to ensure that they can provide for their future, and Mr Speaker, that betrayal by the Labor party is also demonstrated – they want to talk about retirement savings.
If they are so interested in retirement savings, why do they want to put their hand in the pocket of senior Australians who have saved and take around $5bn out of their savings, and do you know who the biggest burden of that retirees tax fall on? Women. Thirty per cent more women will be impacted by the Labor party’s retiree tax.
Sucking $5bn out of the pockets of hard-working Australian families, and at that time when women are on their own, when their partners may have been deceased and passed on, what was left to them, what was left them in the shares that they had in Telstra, all the shares that they had in one of the Australian company they had, that’s the money, that shadow treasurer, that leader of the Labor party wants to get their grubby hands on, and we won’t allow it.
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
Can the prime minister confirmed this government has hit the retirement savings of Australian women by supporting cuts to penalty rates, abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution before being shamed into bringing it back, and delaying the increase in the superannuation guarantee? Doesn’t this just confirm this government’s failure to increase the representation of women in important national institutions have a real and lasting impact on the everyday lives of Australian women?
Morrison hands it to Kelly O’Dwyer:
I thank the member for her question, and it is very important to place on the record that there has been no cut to penalty rates by the government. The government has made no decision to cut penalty rates, as she well knows.
When the leader of the opposition was the minister responsible, he was involved in setting up the Fair Work Commission.
The Fair Work Commission and all of the architecture around it can be laid at the feet of the leader of the opposition. The Fair Work Commission has made decisions regarding penalty rates for five awards and they haven’t abolished those penalty rates for the awards as those opposite would have us believe.
They have made some adjustments. Now, what they have done, for instance, for public holidays, is they have changed, the Fair Work Commission has changed it from double time and a half to double time and a quarter, so it is still there.
It is completely false for the deputy leader to make a suggestion. And it deserves to be called out in this house. But as she should know, it is the people who are sitting on their side of the chamber who have been working hard to ensure the financial security of Australian women.
We have been doing that because we have wanted to increase the job opportunities for Australian women. And under our government, there are more women in work than ever before. It is very hard ... It is very hard to be on the path to financial security if you do not have a job.
And it is this side of the house that has been working incredibly hard to put in place important superannuation reforms that would provide flexibility so that women who want to actually catch up on their superannuation contributions can do so under our measures, measures that would be scrapped by those opposite.
We have levelled the playing field. We have levelled the playing field to make sure that anyone regardless of their circumstances can make a personal deduction and have the same concessions with their superannuation, which costs us more than $1bn to do that.
But the thing that they could really do to actually help the security of Australian women would be to support the government’s protecting your super legislation.
That legislation would protect Australian workers, protect hard-working Australian people from the rorts and rip-offs in the superannuation sector but they are going to stand with high, fee paying funds, high-speed charging funds and they will stand with the big insurers, not the Australian people.
Roman Quaedvlieg has written to the au pair Senate inquiry – and he is not backing down (it looks like it was sent on 16 September) and has now been tabled:
My letter to the au pair committee about the PM, Dutton, and a slew of other government entities, discrediting a witness attempting to engage in a parliamentary process and who had not yet completed his evidence. Makes a mockery. https://t.co/xY4kgjfdtB
My very strong view is that I am appropriately engaged with the committee as a non-compellable witness who has not yet provided my full evidence pending comprehensive discovery processes being completed. It is a blight on the parliament and it erodes the integrity of the Senate committee’s deliberations that I can be so publicly, gratuitously and unashamedly attacked in the manner in which I have described, particularly by an active member of the committee, before the full evidence has even been adduced.
It is beyond my knowledge to state definitively what is motivating government members to mount and sustain this attack on me.
I am obviously aware that my evidence thus far contradicts the minister’s statements on the issue of visa interventions but to put this into context, mine is simply one piece of evidence in a much broader mosaic and the minister has the absolute prerogative to contest facts, put evidence before the committee, either in writing or in person, without resorting to public attacks.
Minister Dutton’s incendiary remarks in question time on 11 September came immediately after he took a question without notice, which in part referenced an article in the Age that day alleging he inappropriately sought to influence recruitment processes for two Queensland police service officers seeking employment with the Australian Border Force.
While I have detailed knowledge of those recruitment events, it is evident from the Age article that I was not the source of the article, nor have I made any public comments on the events. It is also totally disconnected from the matters under the committee’s inquiry.
I can only presume therefore that my engagement with the committee, coupled with other presumptions on his part in a broader suspicion, have catalysed these discrediting attacks.
I contend that this unprecedented behaviour not only impedes the committee’s current inquiry and jeopardises the veracity of its ultimate findings, but establishes a wicked disincentive for any non-compellable witness to attend future Senate inquiries to present relevant evidence.
I am willing to continue to cooperate with the committee inquiry. However, before I do so, I ask for you to ensure a comprehensive discovery activity is undertaken by the department of home affairs, not just for the provision of ministerial intervention briefs, which fall into the parameters of the committee’s inquiry, but for the provision of data which I have identified in my second submission.
I am adamant the conversation I have described in both of my submissions took place and I am equally adamant that departmental and ABF records exist which corroborate the statements made in my submissions.
While this latest dixer takes away more minutes of my life I will never get back, Penny Wong delivered a speech to the Senate about inclusion:
I want to make a contribution today about a more equal and a more representative parliament.
For some weeks now we have seen those opposite consumed by a long overdue debate on how it is that deep into the 21st century just one in five of the government’s members and senators are women, and what they can do to turn this around.
I say it is long overdue not to score a political point here, but because of a more fundamental principle; regardless of race, sexuality, religion, ethnicity or gender, we should be striving for a society where all people are judged on their abilities alone.
This is a principle that certainly guides my public life. It is a principle of Australian democracy and it is a principle the Labor party holds dear.
This principle includes making sure that the parliament is more equal, both in its numbers and in its practices. Because without one, you will not get the other.
A parliament that is more representative of the Australian people will be one that acts, and behaves in a way that more closely is aligned with the community expectations of the Australian people, and the make-up of the Australian people. And that change is also necessary to make parliament a more attractive and better career option for Australian women.
For over a quarter of a century now our party has been committed to this goal of making our party better represent the Australian people and reflecting the principle of equality by ensuring more women were elected to federal, state and territory parliaments.
Labor supports affirmative action not just because we think women have just as much right as men to serve in this place and others, but also because we think this parliament is a better place when it more closely reflects the people we represent.
And we support affirmative action because it is the best way to tackle and defeat the systemic failures in our political system.
It also changes culture and it changes policy. Recall it was a Labor government that put in place measures such as the increase to the tax-free threshold, the low-income superannuation contribution, paid parental leave, and now the Labor party has announced an addition to paid parental leave for women’s superannuation.
All of these are economic policies which reflect the experience of Australian women.
We often hear from some of those opposite sarcastic remarks about ‘quota girls’, as if none of us on this side have any right to be here.
Well, I’d like to ask them this question: why is it that you think women make up so few of the members and senators in your party?
Because, since women make up more than 50% of the population, there can really only be two answers: either women are not seen by the males in your party as talented, and therefore not as deserving of a place in this Parliament as men, or there is something more systemic preventing women from being elected to Parliament as members of the Liberal or National Parties.
So, unless you are prepared to stand up in this place and argue that, if merit alone determines pre-selections, women in the Liberal and National Parties are consequently only one fifth as meritorious as men, then you accept that there are barriers of prejudice to equal representation.
And once you accept there are barriers, then clearly action is required to break those down, and that action is affirmative action.
A book I will be launching in the near future by Claire Wright, “You Daughters of Freedom” documents how in the early years of the 20th Century other nations looked to Australia with admiration as the land which led the world in universal suffrage, something of which we can be extraordinarily proud.
We were a place where women had not only won the vote, but had also won the right to stand for Parliament, an almost unheard of concept in the first decades of the 20th Century.
And yet today, Australia is ranked 50th in the world when it comes to gender diversity in Parliament.
Where once we led the world, today the latest figures from the Inter-Parliamentary Union show we trail the UK, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Rwanda, Cuba, Slovenia and 42 other nations. And why? Because of the Liberal and National Parties.
If Labor were the only party in this place Australia would rank 4th in the world.
So the debate we have seen over the last few weeks, and the growing recognition something needs to be done to change this, is very welcome, not just for those opposite, but for the Parliament as a whole, and for the nation.
However, I do sound this word of warning, if the experience in the Labor Party is any guide, you do face decades of struggle prosecuting this case, at multiple party conferences.
In 1996, the last election where Labor branches could avoid taking action about the fact we had so few women MPs and Senators, we were left with just four female MPs, fewer than one in ten of our lower house members.
But with party rules demanding at least 35 per cent of winnable seats go to women, by the next election that number had quadrupled, and women made up over a quarter of our MPs. People such as Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon and many others entered our Parliaments.
Since then we have twice lifted our quota, to 40, and then 50 per cent. And today, 46 per cent of our Caucus are women and we are on track to achieve equality at the next election.
This will be a historic and proud moment – a party of government, for the first time in this country, accurately reflecting the diversity of the Australian people.
It is also proof affirmative action, quotas, whatever term you want to use, work.
By contrast, on the Government benches, where senior figures routinely deride Labor women as “quota girls” we see the exact opposite trend occurring.
In 1996 there were 18 women sitting as MPs in John Howard’s new Government. 22 years and seven Prime Ministers later there are just 13 women and we see reports that is likely to drop to single figures after the next election.
And there is absolutely no sign this is going to improve. If anything, it will get even worse.
In the 13 most marginal Labor seats the Government might be expected to target at the next election, in just one has a woman been preselected by the Liberal Party.
This confirms, I think, that too many people in the Liberal Party have a problem with women.
And when so few of your numbers are women, this leads to the sorts of behaviour we have seen widely reported in recent weeks – the claims of bullying with no fewer than five Liberal women calling out their appalling treatment during the bitter infighting that led to the dumping of the Prime Minister.
And when those few women left are so dismayed by bullying and intimidation that some of them are quitting this Parliament, worsening the gender inequality in the Coalition Parties, then you create a vicious cycle that sees women marginalised, driven out of Parliament, and of course Parliament made less attractive to women.
For many years the Liberal Party sought to disguise its poor record on gender by pointing to Julie Bishop, Australia’s first female Minister for Foreign Affairs. Yet we also saw how the party treated her during the leadership ballot.
It’s no wonder the Member for Curtin memorably declared she would not be another bloke’s deputy and left the front bench.
However, one point on which I would disagree with the former Foreign Minister is her reluctance to describe herself as a feminist, something on which she was joined by many women on the other side.
The Oxford English Dictionary comprises 20 volumes yet its definition of feminism is commendably concise – advocacy of the rights of women based on the theory of equality of the sexes.
Christine Wallace I thought put this very well in her recent column when she declared this;
“the reluctance of Liberal women to name and organise around the liberal feminism they actually practice, psychologically undercuts their power and keeps them in a prone position.
They need to name and unashamedly organise around the set of ideas that can end the present male Liberal monoculture in a way consistent with their political philosophy: that is, liberal feminism.
Every time Ms Bishop and those like her shy from declaring themselves liberal feminists, they pull the rug from under not only their own feet, but also from under the feet of every other Liberal woman around them.”
I recognise that some women in the Liberal Party are recognising that they need to change their approach and I think that is a good thing.
To my way of thinking it is somewhat counterproductive to the cause of equality to be proud of not being feminist
As a general rule, not talking about discrimination or inequality has historically not been a successful approach to remedying it. Those in power, and those with control of pre-selections, rarely cede that power willingly.
As the 1970s Equal Pay song put it - don’t be too polite girls!
Ultimately you have to decide whether you want to make that change, and how to best prosecute that case, and male leaders have to decide whose side they are on. Are they going to stand against that tide or work with you, as people on our side from Paul Keating to Simon Crean and Bill Shorten have chosen to do?
Sadly, at this moment, surveying the Coalition benches, I have to say, there are too few male allies.
But, when only 17 per cent of your members in the House of Representatives are women, and you are going backwards, you obviously have a problem.
When your MPs and Senators are routinely referring to women in this place as “quota girls”, “the handbag hit squad” and calling on them to “roll with the punches” and to “get out of the kitchen” you have a problem.
And this gets back to the point I raised earlier about the culture of a party, or a Parliament and how that is affected by the lack of equal representation.
It is time for those opposite to understand that a lack of female representation in this Parliament is not only bad for women, and bad for the Liberal Party, it is bad for democracy.
It is time for those opposite to join the 21st Century, to stand up to the bullies, and to support affirmative action so that this Parliament, on all sides, whether Government or Opposition, truly represents the Australian people.
The NYT profile on Scott Morrison had some great tidbits, including the art in his office.
I had never seen this before – I don’t think a lot of people had – but here is the “I stopped these” sculpture it mentioned:
Here's the trophy asylum seeker boat the prime minister has as a reminder he stopped them.https://t.co/kXUJHSDtg8 pic.twitter.com/ai9NqHDQ92
I missed the first part of it, but it was from Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison, and essentially, is about whether or not the government will support Labor’s newly announced superannuation policy.
Morrison starts of his answer by listing all of the superannuation reforms Labor has not supported.
So things are going well.
From the office of Penny Wong:
Labor joins with the government in strongly condemning the atrocities committed in Myanmar’s Rakhine, Shan and Kachin states.
The full report of the UN fact-finding mission on Myanmar finds that:
‘Gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law have been committed in Myanmar since 2011 and that many of these violations undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law.
‘The gross human rights violations and abuses committed in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan states are shocking for their horrifying nature and ubiquity.’
The report makes clear the Myanmar military, or Tatmadaw, is directly responsible for these gross human rights violations, ‘including sexual and gender-based violence and grave violations against children’ and that its leadership must be removed.
The report concludes that there is now sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and prosecutions for genocide perpetrated against the Rohingya.
The Myanmar government can no longer ignore its responsibilities and must now act to rein in the Tatmadaw, and hold to account those responsible for these horrific crimes.
Labor welcomes the government’s commitment to work with the international community, including considering targeted sanctions, and use our position on the UN human rights council to bring accountability and justice to Myanmar.
The development of strong democratic practices and institutions - including the protection of human rights - is crucial to Myanmar’s long-term prosperity.
