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/2018/sep/19/coalition-labor-morrison-shorten-super-aged-care

The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
'Large number' of strawberry contamination reports fake, ABF chief says Question time: Labor calls on government to back its super plan
(35 minutes later)
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 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 for. 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 $5 billion out of their savings, and do you know who the biggest burden of that retirees tax fall on? Women. 30% more women will be impacted by the Labor Party’s retiree tax.
SUCKING $5 billion 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 $1 billion 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.
Holy moly it is almost question time.
I’ve switched over to play who’s that MP.....
And it’s Susan Lamb
Under pressure when asked again, if it is normal to take someone off a plane as was in the Adelaide case, Peter Dutton says:
You can’t have ministerial intervention after someone has been deported. The opportunity for the minister to do that is while the person is still in Australia or in immigration detention.
From my perspective, and I suspect from yours as well, no surprise is when you read a Labor-Greens report that dominated for political reasons ... The witnesses have been discredited and I think you will see it pretty obvious what they recommend by way of recommendations. I would brace yourself for that.
Question time should be interesting.
Peter Dutton said there was no cost to the commonwealth.
But the department advised it would be charged for the flight:
Strange Peter Dutton says no cost the the Commonwealth. Strategic Border Command advised him "there will be financial implications for cancelling the planned removal tonight" @AmyRemeikis #auspol
It’s always challenging to read more than 100 pages of material in five minutes and produce something sensible, but let’s give it a crack. Here’s my main takeout from the new material.
1. It’s very clear that the minister’s office was in overdrive to try and get these cases resolved. Dutton was at the airport, about to leave the country, when the submission regarding the Adelaide au pair was delivered to him to sign.
2. We also know that taxpayers picked up the costs when Peter Dutton intervened in the Adelaide au pair case. The woman was on the plane, about to be deported. She was taken off the Emirates flight.
3. The ABF advised Dutton not to intervene in the Adelaide case. It’s very clear in the correspondence.
4. In the Brisbane case (involving Dutton’s former Queensland police colleague), the minister’s office let the host family know the intervention had happened. Labor says that level of attention to detail is unusual.
Peter Dutton is now being questioned on the content of the emails, the highlights of which you’ll find below.Peter Dutton is now being questioned on the content of the emails, the highlights of which you’ll find below.
Is he comfortable he acted within ministerial guidelines?Is he comfortable he acted within ministerial guidelines?
I don’t want to preempt the report of the Labor Greens Senate inquiry, so I don’t want you to be surprised I don’t want you to be surprised that when you got a Labor Greens majority Senate report, which is nothing more than a witch-hunt... I suspect, and again, without preempting or spoiling your surprise, suspect they’re going to say I’m a bad person. I don’t want to pre-empt the report of the Labor-Greens Senate inquiry, so I don’t want you to be surprised I don’t want you to be surprised that when you got a Labor-Greens-majority Senate report, which is nothing more than a witch-hunt ... I suspect, and again, without pre-empting or spoiling your surprise, suspect they’re going to say I’m a bad person.
The evidence went back that up but that will be the claim made by Labor and the Greens. That’s their political angle they want to take. They thought they had a star witness who proved to be discredited. The evidence went back up but that will be the claim made by Labor and the Greens. That’s their political angle they want to take. They thought they had a star witness who proved to be discredited.
There is no third case, as referred to by one of the witnesses... The witness didn’t come forward to be cross examined. This is nothing more than a witch-hunt. It was always the case, and, if they can point to something to the contrary, let them do that. But I suspect they can’t because they haven’t provided the evidence and that was clear in the inquiry. It will be a political report with political recommendations from the Labor Party and the Greens, who have the numbers on that committee, and I’m sorry to spoil your surprise.” There is no third case, as referred to by one of the witnesses ... The witness didn’t come forward to be cross-examined. This is nothing more than a witch-hunt. It was always the case and, if they can point to something to the contrary, let them do that. But I suspect they can’t because they haven’t provided the evidence and that was clear in the inquiry. It will be a political report with political recommendations from the Labor party and the Greens, who have the numbers on that committee, and I’m sorry to spoil your surprise.”
Does every case get this sort of personal attention?Does every case get this sort of personal attention?
Again, have a look at the thousands of cases and Immigration Minister deals with on a yearly basis across administrations. Contact is made through members of Parliament. Cases are presented to my office on the phone, people ringing up my office every day, sending emails in to my MP address. The queries come in through a number of ways. Again, have a look at the thousands of cases and immigration minister deals with on a yearly basis across administrations. Contact is made through members of parliament. Cases are presented to my office on the phone, people ringing up my office every day, sending emails in to my MP address. The queries come in through a number of ways.
We can ask for information in relation to those cases. The two issues you talk about don’t deviate from normal practice, not for me as Immigration Minister, not for Chris Bowen as Immigration Minister, and many before that.” We can ask for information in relation to those cases. The two issues you talk about don’t deviate from normal practice, not for me as immigration minister, not for Chris Bowen as immigration minister [when Labor was in government], and many before that.
But does every case get that sort of attention?But does every case get that sort of attention?
In terms of the assessment, I look at matters on their merit, and, as I reported the other day to the house, cases I intervene going back to the previous point, when kids are involved, when they are sick, when there’s an aged parent with a terminal illness, the end of their visa period and being deported, advising me they should be deported, I overturn the decision of the department. In terms of the assessment, I look at matters on their merit, and as I reported the other day to the house, cases I intervene going back to the previous point, when kids are involved, when they are sick, when there’s an aged parent with a terminal illness, the end of their visa period and being deported, advising me they should be deported, I overturn the decision of the department.
That’s the whole idea of ministerial intervention. The case of a lady wanting to go to a funeral, I intervened in a matter of hours in relation to that. That’s been the history of Immigration Ministers.” That’s the whole idea of ministerial intervention. The case of a lady wanting to go to a funeral, I intervened in a matter of hours in relation to that. That’s been the history of immigration ministers.
Despite Pauline Hanson labelling the contamination ‘terrorism’ Peter Dutton asks for some perspective: Despite Pauline Hanson labelling the contamination “terrorism” Peter Dutton asks for some perspective:
We need to put this in perspective. What we are dealing with is trying to identify who is at the source of the original offence, the original crime, that is under investigation obviously. We have a number of people who are across jurisdictions obviously and they are uploading photos, they are being a copycat of the regional offence. That’s what we’re focused on at the moment. If people have information, we want them to contact Crime Stoppers as soon as they can.” We need to put this in perspective. What we are dealing with is trying to identify who is at the source of the original offence, the original crime, that is under investigation obviously. We have a number of people who are across jurisdictions obviously and they are uploading photos, they are being a copycat of the regional offence. That’s what we’re focused on at the moment. If people have information, we want them to contact Crime Stoppers as soon as they can.
AFP boss Andrew Colvin said most of the strawberry contamination reports have been hoaxes:AFP boss Andrew Colvin said most of the strawberry contamination reports have been hoaxes:
The minister has mentioned over 100 incidents have been reported. I say incidents reported loosely because we do believe that a large number of these are fake, or they are hoax incidents. That’s a significant distraction of police resources at a time when we need to focus on finding out the perpetrators of what is a very serious criminal offence.The minister has mentioned over 100 incidents have been reported. I say incidents reported loosely because we do believe that a large number of these are fake, or they are hoax incidents. That’s a significant distraction of police resources at a time when we need to focus on finding out the perpetrators of what is a very serious criminal offence.
On that point, let me say this, and let me be very clear: if there’s anyone that thinks this is in any way ... appropriate to walk into a supermarket anywhere in this country and place a foreign object into a piece of fruit, or they think it’s anyway appropriate or amusing to take a photo of fruit they may already have and to put an object into it and put it on Facebook or Twitter and to spread it around and contact health authorities, they are seriously deluded and they are potentially committing serious criminal offences.On that point, let me say this, and let me be very clear: if there’s anyone that thinks this is in any way ... appropriate to walk into a supermarket anywhere in this country and place a foreign object into a piece of fruit, or they think it’s anyway appropriate or amusing to take a photo of fruit they may already have and to put an object into it and put it on Facebook or Twitter and to spread it around and contact health authorities, they are seriously deluded and they are potentially committing serious criminal offences.
On top of that, the minister’s office contacted the Adelaide au pair host family to alert them to the decision Peter Dutton had decided to use his ministerial discretion to let her stay.On top of that, the minister’s office contacted the Adelaide au pair host family to alert them to the decision Peter Dutton had decided to use his ministerial discretion to let her stay.
That’s from page 58.That’s from page 58.
So, that was a very, very quick speed read.So, that was a very, very quick speed read.
But according to page 146 of that 169 email dump of the Peter Dutton au pair visa saga, the Australian Border Force officials were very against having their decision overturned, particularly in the Adelaide case.But according to page 146 of that 169 email dump of the Peter Dutton au pair visa saga, the Australian Border Force officials were very against having their decision overturned, particularly in the Adelaide case.
The ABF does not agree with the content, or think it is appropriate the minister intervene,” one part of the email reads.The ABF does not agree with the content, or think it is appropriate the minister intervene,” one part of the email reads.
The emails also confirm that the department had to pay for the removal flight in the Adelaide case, given that she made it all the way to the plane.The emails also confirm that the department had to pay for the removal flight in the Adelaide case, given that she made it all the way to the plane.
Dutton was heading out of Australian on a flight, I believe to the Middle East, which made it a “tight” turnaround, to get the decision overturned with his ministerial discretion.Dutton was heading out of Australian on a flight, I believe to the Middle East, which made it a “tight” turnaround, to get the decision overturned with his ministerial discretion.
It looks like they sent ABF officials to meet him at the airport to sign all the documents, handing it to him as he was about to board his flight.It looks like they sent ABF officials to meet him at the airport to sign all the documents, handing it to him as he was about to board his flight.
The decision made in her favour, the woman was removed or “offloaded” from her flight (which the department calls a removal flight) and put in one of the Adelaide airport interview rooms.The decision made in her favour, the woman was removed or “offloaded” from her flight (which the department calls a removal flight) and put in one of the Adelaide airport interview rooms.
But Dutton missed signing one part of the papers – the “decision instrument” – which, in this case, is the big one, because it’s what authorises his discretion to be used.But Dutton missed signing one part of the papers – the “decision instrument” – which, in this case, is the big one, because it’s what authorises his discretion to be used.
Because they knew his intent though, they were able to take the woman from the plane and the minister signed his permission a little later (the Wednesday after) – backdating the decision – in order to “reflect his decision on Sunday night”.Because they knew his intent though, they were able to take the woman from the plane and the minister signed his permission a little later (the Wednesday after) – backdating the decision – in order to “reflect his decision on Sunday night”.
Scott Morrison has announced a national drought summit:Scott Morrison has announced a national drought summit:
Helping our farmers and farming communities is my number one priority. Today I am announcing the next steps of my government’s drought response. I will be hosting a National Drought Summit on 26 October, 2018.Helping our farmers and farming communities is my number one priority. Today I am announcing the next steps of my government’s drought response. I will be hosting a National Drought Summit on 26 October, 2018.
The coordinator general for drought, Maj Gen Stephen Day, and the special envoy for drought assistance and recovery, the hon Barnaby Joyce MP have been listening to farmers across the nation.The coordinator general for drought, Maj Gen Stephen Day, and the special envoy for drought assistance and recovery, the hon Barnaby Joyce MP have been listening to farmers across the nation.
They want coordinated action to support drought-affected families and their communities, and hosting a drought summit will unite our national efforts.They want coordinated action to support drought-affected families and their communities, and hosting a drought summit will unite our national efforts.
The summit will put our national leaders, key people and organisations together at the same table. We will look at actions to deliver assistance, cut red tape and tackle gaps that need addressing.The summit will put our national leaders, key people and organisations together at the same table. We will look at actions to deliver assistance, cut red tape and tackle gaps that need addressing.
We’re ensuring families and communities in drought-affected areas are getting what they need. We need to act and respond to the immediate issues while we are putting in place better frameworks for long-term preparedness and resilience.We’re ensuring families and communities in drought-affected areas are getting what they need. We need to act and respond to the immediate issues while we are putting in place better frameworks for long-term preparedness and resilience.
Peter Dutton will be standing up at 1.30 with the AFP police commissioner and the AFB commissioner to talk more about the strawberry response.Peter Dutton will be standing up at 1.30 with the AFP police commissioner and the AFB commissioner to talk more about the strawberry response.
We are at full flag capacity.We are at full flag capacity.
Just hours before the Senate inquiry looking into the Peter Dutton au pair visa approvals is due to report, a whole heap of new emails on the case have dropped into the inquiry.
We haven’t had a chance to go through them all as yet, but it does show that in the Adelaide case, the woman made it as far as the removal flight before she was “offloaded”.
You’ll find those emails tabled, here.
Brendan Nelson has started his last address to the National Press Club.
At the end of the press conference, after being asked three times about the ABC story about media moguls being involved in the leadership spill, Scott Morrison had this to say:
I don’t believe it happened at all. And you’d think I’d know, given I was involved.
Meanwhile, it doesn’t look like the right-of-reply negotiations are going well between Roman Quaedvlieg and the powers that be:
This citizen’s right of reply to comments under parliamentary privilege is not really working for me. A minister makes an extemporaneous personal attack on me, not repeated outside of parliament, and I’m at the mercy of when the Privileges Committee meets to “negotiate” a reply?
Scott Morrison on why the government is getting so tough on this:
There are two parts to what we are doing. I am trying to stress very clearly the seriousness with which these types of acts of sabotage should be considered. I don’t care if you have a gripe with the company, I don’t care if you have a gripe with your fellow worker, this is a very serious thing which is damaging our economy, but it is affecting families.
And the amount of traffic they have known, just mums and dads talking to each other because of this week is totally understandable. They need to know that there is a clear message being sent about how we see these things.
And on the second point, and the new offence, which relates to recklessness and we would hope the states would look at similar measures in their own jurisdictions, if it is to have that deterrence value straight away. That people do not go and add to this problem and that they understand and they check themselves. Because if they don’t check themselves, we will.
Scott Morrison is announcing changes to the legislation around food contamination.
The maximum penalty will increase from 10 years to 15 years – the same as you get for possessing child porn.
Morrison:
It is important to send a very clear message to ensure that we have the right penalties and have the right offences that are in place to ensure that we protect against these sorts of things into the future, and so yesterday I asked the attorney general to consider these matters and what we will be doing is two things when it comes to federal offences.
The first one is to be increasing the penalties for those who would be found guilty under the existing provisions, from 10 years in prison to 15 years in prison.
That basically takes you from someone who has an offence for forgery or theft of commonwealth property, they currently get 10 years. That’s what you get 10 years for.
What you get 15 years for are things like possessing child pornography and financing terrorism. That’s how seriously I take this. And that’s how seriously our government takes it.
But the other thing we are doing is to create a new offence which deals with the offence of recklessness. Now, any idiot who thinks they can go out into a shopping centre and start sticking pins in fruit and thinks this is some sort of lark or put something on Facebook which is a hoax – that sort of behaviour is reckless and under the provision will be seeking to introduce swiftly [that] that type of behaviour would carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
It’s not a joke. It’s not funny. You are putting the livelihoods of hard-working Australians at risk. And you are scaring children and you are a coward and a grub. And if you do that sort of thing in this country, we will come after you and we will throw the book at you.
The government plans on introducing the new legislation tomorrow.
Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne had their regular spot on Adelaide radio station 5AA, and the subject of Tony Abbott versus the empty chair preselection challenge came up, and well, it doesn’t sound as though Pyne is overly cut up that Abbott got a scare from a non-existent challenger:
PYNE: Well these matters are for the organisation. I defeated a sitting member in pre-selection 26 years ago. That is part of the democracy of the Liberal party. It’s the same in the Labor party, the same in the Greens for that matter. The truth is that everyone has to be selected before they can actually run for the seat if you are running under the flag of a political party, rather than as an independent. And that is a matter for the Liberal party branches on the northern beaches [of Sydney], and they obviously had a vote and he won the vote. In spite of the fact that there was no other candidate, they indicated some displeasure and that is a matter for the organisation on the northern beaches. That’s just the fact.ALBANESE: (Laughter)HOST: (Laughter)PYNE: Why is it funny? It’s just true.ALBANESE: You said that so straight, Christopher.PYNE: It’s true. That’s what happened. That’s the process. They have a vote on, you know, whether the person should be endorsed.ALBANESE: You can have Tony Abbott or an empty chair.HOST: And the chair was coming home with a wet sail.ALBANESE: The chair, if it had gone on for another hour, the chair would have won.HOST: People were warming to the chair.
Tom Connell from Sky News is reporting Ann Sudmalis has been offered the New York UN secondment trip – also known as the naughty corner.
Cory Bernardi and Warren Entsch were both recent recipients at times when they were both causing issues for the government, by breaking ranks.
Julia Banks was offered it and turned it down.
It’s three months, between September and December, to learn at the UN, and a WONDERFUL way for a political party to remove a burr in its side.
No word yet on whether Sudmalis has accepted it.
(Labor also gets the opportunity to send someone)
Scott Morrison is holding a press conference in the blue room, which, as we know, is the second most fancy of the prime ministerial press conference locations – the first being the courtyard.
Christian Porter will be joining him, so it’s a minimum two-flag affair.
(I believe it is on the response to the strawberry contamination crisis)
After Angus Taylor’s admission that the government was not planning on replacing the renewable energy target, which runs out in 2020, with anything in question time yesterday – in response to Adam Bandt’s question, which, coming from the crossbench, he had in advance, meaning the answer was prepared, not a spur of the moment – Bill Shorten was asked what Labor plans on doing:
We are willing to look at a market-based emissions trading scheme, but the so-called party of the free market dumped that. We were happy to look at an initial trading scheme, which made sense, but the Liberals ran away from it. Then Malcolm Turnbull and his cabinet commission to chief scientist, Alan Finkel, to do some work, and they came up with a clean energy target, and again, as constructive as we are, we said we would have a look at it, but they didn’t like the chief scientist’s work – and then the national energy guarantee.
The current treasurer endorsed it, and now the government won’t do that, so I think people are sick and tired of the climate denierlists pulling the strings, Tony Abbott and again, pulling the strings, with Scott Morrison. We are prepared to look at a national energy guarantee. The Liberal party have been – we think that’s a good starting spot.
You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. In terms of the attack on renewables, the vacuum created by the government on energy policy is creating greater disincentives for people to invest in renewable energy. I’m having a forum on the future of energy policy tomorrow here in parliament. We do think we need to provide more certainty. The single biggest driver of energy prices in Australia is a lack of policy. How can you invest in new generation if you don’t know what the rules are? We are having a forum tomorrow. We will let you know how that goes.