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.
Labor continues to pressure Dutton over au pairs in question time – politics live
Labor continues to pressure Dutton over au pairs – politics live
(35 minutes later)
The government has again refused to table the religious freedom report:
Government refusing to set free its own report on religious freedom. Says Cabinet hasn’t seen it yet. They’ve had it since May! What have they been doing all this time? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/5B2b4q7M0t
We know it is because they don’t want it out before the Wentworth byelection, where voters tend to be a bit more socially progressive than the usual Liberal electorate, and also because there are quite a few Liberal MPs who are antsy about the coming debate once it is released.
Christian Porter told Paul Karp the government also wants time to get the legislation in order.
That debate is going to be absolutely toxic.
There were also actual muppets in the parliament today.
Luke Gosling and Milton Dick were ejected for bringing in the toys into the chamber.
Everything is totally fine and normal.
Right, now that I have my head back on straight, just a clarification – the Network Nine story that Tanya Plibersek mentioned in her questions said it was the ‘member for Banks’ which made the Peter Dutton comment – but the story actually references Julia Banks.
It happens quite frequently – that the member for Chisholm’s surname is mixed up with the member for Banks.
So David Coleman made clear it wasn’t him, the Nine story identifies Julia Banks as having made the comment, and the government is totally, and completely united and happy to stand behind Peter Dutton.
Got it?
Paul Karp just asked Christian Porter why won’t the government release the religious freedom review – because don’t the voters of Wentworth have a right to see it before the byelection?
Porter says it takes time to prepare a response.
The government has had the review since May.
Cathy McGowan is offering a personal explanation, after she handed a poster to Rebekha Sharkie yesterday in the chamber, encouraging women to get involved in politics – which included the words, don’t get mad, get elected.
She handed it to Sharkie in the chamber, at the same time as a delegation from Saudi Arabia was visiting. She apologises for any offence which may have been inadvertently caused.
The member for Banks, David Coleman, also makes a personal explanation, about the Network Nine report, which alleges he said “the last thing I want to do is support this man” (that’s my memory, may not be the exact quote) and that it did not happen.
Tony Burke makes a personal explanation and says Peter Dutton mischaracterised the letter he wrote him (which Dutton said was asking for an intervention in the case of a hate preacher) and says that was not what the letter was about.
Dutton gets up to “clarify” but repeats his claims. Burke calls for him to table the letter to clear it up and Tony Smith tells him he can’t make him.
The parliament moves on.
Scott Morrison ends our torture and question time ends.
Joel Fitzgibbon to Scott Morrison:
“Can the prime minister confirm that in the last month, the government deposed the democratically elected prime minister for a new prime minister no one voted for, Nationals MPs have been in open revolt against the deputy prime minister because of his failure to deliver an agriculture minister, and women in the government are quitting in disgust and being forced out? Why should Australians pay the price for a government which the prime minister himself has described as the Muppet Show?”
Morrison:
We don’t accept those lies, everything over here is awesome, we are awesome, Labor is not awesome, but thanks for supporting our awesome strawberry laws, something about dust
Paul Fletcher arrives to kill whatever remains of my vibe to get through this day without screaming.
Paul Fletcher arrives to kill whatever remains of my vibe to get through this day without screaming.
Jim Chalmers to Scott Morrison - why did you describe your own government as the muppet show?
Jim Chalmers to Scott Morrison - why did you describe your own government as the muppet show?
(which really, is an insult to Kermit and co, who had, a great show. One of my all time favourites, in fact)
(which really, is an insult to Kermit and co, who had a great show. One of my all time favourites, in fact)
The chamber erupts and Morrison has to wait for Labor to stop laughing before he can answer:
The chamber erupts and Morrison has to wait for Labor to stop laughing before he can answer:
Morrison:
Morrison:
“The events of about four or five weeks ago I think disappointed Australians greatly in the way that things were conducted in this place. I am honest enough to admit that and tell the Australian people straight about it.
“The events of about four or five weeks ago I think disappointed Australians greatly in the way that things were conducted in this place. I am honest enough to admit that and tell the Australian people straight about it.
I did tell this to people straight about.
“I did tell this to people straight about.
But I will tell you what has happened since then. Our party is coming back quickly together, getting on the front foot,
“But I will tell you what has happened since then. Our party is coming back quickly together, getting on the front foot.
And I hear the jeers and sneers of the members opposite, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition isn’t looking as certain as he was two weeks ago before we came back to the south, Mr Speaker.
“And I hear the jeers and sneers of the members opposite, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, the leader of the opposition isn’t looking as certain as he was two weeks ago before we came back to the south, Mr Speaker.
He has been sitting there in Question Time today with his cheeky little sneers and they are doing their little stunts, Mr Speaker. I can tell you they are looking under a bit more pressure than they did two weeks ago, Mr Speaker.
“He has been sitting there in question time today with his cheeky little sneers and they are doing their little stunts, Mr Speaker. I can tell you they are looking under a bit more pressure than they did two weeks ago, Mr Speaker.
... And you know why? Because they know our government is getting on with things, they know we are getting on with dealing with the issues that concern Australians, like food tampering, Mr Speaker.
“... And you know why? Because they know our government is getting on with things, they know we are getting on with dealing with the issues that concern Australians, like food tampering, Mr Speaker.
...They know we are focused 100% on them, that we are looking through all of the dust that those opposite want to kick up as they come into this place. Do you know how many questions they have asked me about about drought this week out of their 50 questions to me this week? One, just one question on drought, Mr Speaker.
“... They know we are focused 100% on them, that we are looking through all of the dust that those opposite want to kick up as they come into this place. Do you know how many questions they have asked me about about drought this week out of their 50 questions to me this week? One, just one question on drought, Mr Speaker.
“They had been more concerned about the politics of Canberra than the beliefs and values that the Australian people are interested in. Our government over five years has been delivering for Australians, whether it is a stronger economy, guaranteeing essential services that Australians rely on, keeping Australians safe and keeping Australians together.
“They had been more concerned about the politics of Canberra than the beliefs and values that the Australian people are interested in. Our government over five years has been delivering for Australians, whether it is a stronger economy, guaranteeing essential services that Australians rely on, keeping Australians safe and keeping Australians together.
Now the Leader of the Opposition interjecting and I know that the Leader of the Opposition after there was our last change of leadership, he said he has been responsible for despatching four leaders, Mr Speaker. Two of them were his own, Mr Speaker.
“Now the leader of the opposition is interjecting and I know that the leader of the opposition said he has been responsible for despatching four leaders, Mr Speaker. Two of them were his own, Mr Speaker.
...That is how the Leader of the Opposition sees this place, he sees it as the game, he sees it as a political game where he gets together with his union thug mates and tries to dispense with leaders for kicks. Well, the Australian people see right through this, Mr Speaker.
... That is how the leader of the opposition sees this place, he sees it as the game, he sees it as a political game where he gets together with his union thug mates and tries to dispense with leaders for kicks. Well, the Australian people see right through this, Mr Speaker.
Mood
Mood
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
“Is the prime minister aware of a report about the no-confidence motion in the minister for home affairs, which says Nine News has confirmed the member for Banks was overheard telling colleagues that ‘supporting that man is not what I want to be doing’. How can the prime minister continue to protect the minister for home affairs when even his own colleagues have lost confidence in him?
“Is the prime minister aware of a report about the no-confidence motion in the minister for home affairs, which says Nine News has confirmed the member for Banks was overheard telling colleagues that ‘supporting that man is not what I want to be doing’. How can the prime minister continue to protect the minister for home affairs when even his own colleagues have lost confidence in him?
Is this why the prime minister described his own government as the muppet show?”
Is this why the prime minister described his own government as the muppet show?”
The question is ruled out of order.
The question is ruled out of order.
Dear Beyonce, this is DISMAL today. I think everyone is exhausted.
Dear Beyonce, this is DISMAL today. I think everyone is exhausted.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
“The prime minister has ridiculed the people who want to know why Malcolm Turnbull is not the prime minister, telling them to ‘get over it’. But how can you expect Australia to get over something that has never been explained to them? Why won’t the prime minister answer this simple question? Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull still prime minister of Australia?”
“The prime minister has ridiculed the people who want to know why Malcolm Turnbull is not the prime minister, telling them to ‘get over it’. But how can you expect Australia to get over something that has never been explained to them? Why won’t the prime minister answer this simple question? Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull still prime minister of Australia?”
Morrison:
Morrison:
“I refer the speaker to the my previous answers. Our government is taking action on the things that mattered to them, whether it is a royal commission into residential aged care, which has been our focus this week, whether it has been taking action on the drought, which has been our focus this week, whether it is resolving the issues and ensuring [funding] on state schools, that has been our focus is week.
“I refer the speaker to the my previous answers. Our government is taking action on the things that mattered to them, whether it is a royal commission into residential aged care, which has been our focus this week, whether it has been taking action on the drought, which has been our focus this week, whether it is resolving the issues and ensuring [funding] on state schools, that has been our focus is week.
What the leader of the opposition has been doing today and all week has just been focusing on the Canberra bubble. He has been sitting over there during question time, sledging away, carrying on like the usual Canberra politician that Australians are sick of.”
What the leader of the opposition has been doing today and all week has just been focusing on the Canberra bubble. He has been sitting over there during question time, sledging away, carrying on like the usual Canberra politician that Australians are sick of.”
Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:
“Yesterday in question time, the minister said the funding for ACFI [Aged Care Funding Instrument] funding has continued to increase across all three domains. Can the minister confirm there was actually a cut from the 2017 due to his government’s cuts, according to a report commissioned by uniting care?”
Wyatt:
“Record funding this year, $6.1bn more than Labor provided in its last potential year. The funding for ACFI expenditure has continued to increase across all three domains. All subsidies and supplements per person per year and aged care is $66,000 in 2017/18, compared to 2012/13, with payments increasing every year under this government.
“Complex healthcare payments per person per year up from 2015/16, before the MYEFO and budget changes, on average, $1100 paid per person per year in 2017/18, compared to $18,900.
“In 2016/17, it went to $9,500, this is per person, yes, of course it is. And in 2017/18, it was $19,800. But let me quote from a joint press conference between Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Butler to announce living longer, living better legislation on the 20 April 2012.
“Look, there are some providers who have been unusually claiming levels of money that we do not think they are entitled to.”
After a whole heap of interjections, he decides he has finished his answer.
As promised – all of Adam Bandt’s speech on why Peter Dutton should be censured by the parliament:
There’s a golden rule in this place if you are a minister: tell the truth. Do not mislead the parliament. The parliament is there to hold ministers and the government to account. We might not like the answers they give. We might disagree with the decisions they’ve made. But, because ministers have enormous power that, in many instances, they exercise behind closed doors, we need them to be honest with us. So one of the most vital questions that we have to resolve now – and before question time, when all the ministers line up and give their answers – is: are any one of these ministers telling the truth? Can we have confidence in what they say?
What has become crystal clear is that, with respect to the minister for home affairs, you cannot trust what he says to this chamber. I asked him a simple question: did he know someone? Did he have a personal connection with someone? He stood up in this chamber, with full knowledge of who I was referring to, and said no. He not only said, ‘I have no personal connection with that person,’ he went on, of his own volition, to say, ‘I did not know them.’ But it is now crystal clear, and the Senate inquiry has confirmed this, when the minister told parliament he didn’t know someone, he did. He did, and that throws everything into question, because now the minister’s credibility is on the line.
The prime minister has laid down some very clear rules for ministers, and those rules say that you have to exercise your power with the sole objective of the public interest and you must not mislead the house. But what we have here is a minister who’s about to get up in a couple of hours, which is why this is so urgent – a minister who, when he knows exactly who it is the question is about, is prepared to say to the house: ‘No, I don’t know them. I have no personal connection with them.’ Then he goes on radio and says, ‘They’re a former colleague of mine.’ Then he comes back later into the house and says that, yes, he did, in fact, know them. Then, not of his own volition, but because the Senate does its job and inquires into the decisions of the minister, several emails popped up. And one email popped up in response to a question from the opposition spokesperson in this house that says, ‘Peter, long time between calls.’ This comes from someone the minister said he didn’t know.
What is also becoming crystal clear is that the department and the minister’s office bent over backwards to help this person, in a way that has not happened with anyone else, with the exception, perhaps, of another au pair. This person got special treatment. Why? The inference is clear: because they were known to the minister. So there are multiple parts of the ministerial standards that the minister has breached.
The prime minister has refused to take the action that’s needed, which is to dismiss the minister. The minister has refused to resign. The best the minister has come up with is a Bill Clinton style defence where ‘personal connection’ apparently doesn’t mean ‘personal connection’. ‘Knowing someone’ apparently does not mean ‘knowing someone’. So he has been caught out, and that is why nothing could be more important than suspending standing orders to deal with this before question time.
... One thing I would say to people who are considering which way to vote on this motion is that this is not about whether or not you agree with the government’s border policy. It is well known that I have a difference of opinion with the minister about that.
This is not about whether you in fact even agree with the decisions that the minister has made. This is about whether ministers in this government can be trusted to tell the truth to the House. I say to the members of the government backbench and to other members in this place that this won’t even affect the numbers in parliament, tightly balanced as they are because the government has decided to leave the people of Wentworth without representation. This won’t even affect the numbers in parliament. This is just a clear message that this minister is no longer fit to sit on the front bench. If the minister is not going to take the course that would be the honourable course, which is what you do when you are in clear breach of the ministerial standards, if he’s not going to take it himself, then parliament needs to send the clearest possible message. And precedent would dictate that, if this suspension motion is passed, and then the ultimate motion is passed, the minister goes to the back bench. For that reason, we must suspend standing orders right now.
Michael McCormack just snapped his fingers, but unfortunately I am still here.
Tanya Plibersek to Dan Tehan:
Two out of every three children, 2.5 million kids go to a public school. Why is this government continuing to cut $14bn out of public schools over the next decade? And will they guarantee that agreements with state and territories’ public school funding will be signed in the next 14 days as the prime minister promised yesterday?
Tehan:
“Can I just reiterate again, and this comes from someone who attended a public school for part of their public schooling, a state school. So this is something which I take incredibly seriously. Commonwealth funding to state schools was $6.8bn last year.
“It will be $7.3bn this year, it will be $7.9bn next year, and $8.6bn the year after that. Now when it comes to the bilateral negotiations with state and territory governments, as I said last Friday at the education council meeting, I look forward to beginning those negotiations as of now, and I look forward to concluding them as soon as I possibly can, and I have already had very good discussions with New South Wales, very good discussions with the Northern Territory, and I made an offer to Queensland, who I’m sure the shadow minister would know, that I am happy to fly to Brisbane and begin negotiating with her at any time that she would like as well.”
Again – it is possible for both arguments to be right, and in this case, they are – yes, it is record funding, and yes, it is going up. An increasing population means it will ALWAYS be record funding. But it is not going up by as much as was anticipated, given the funding changes the 2014 budget made to health and education funding.
I do not have the energy to even sass any of these dixers today. Dear me, they are a scourge on our democracy. The sooner they are gone, and we actually get proper questions without notice, the better.
Tanya Plibersek to Dan Tehan:
The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has denied that it is cutting school funding. Today, the prime minister stood up and admitted it cut funding to Catholic and independent schools and pledged to restore some of that funding. Will the prime minister and the education minister also restore the $14bn that has been cut from public schools?
Tehan:
“I thank the shadow minister for her question. And it gives me the chance to inform the house that when it comes to government schools, they are getting record funding levels.
When it comes to Catholic schools, they are getting record funding levels, when it comes independent schools, they are getting record funding levels. And it also gives me the chance just to mention to the house what that funding looks like.
Commonwealth funding for state schools was $6.8bn last year, $6.8bn last year. It will be $7.3bn this year, it will be at $7.9bn next year, and $8.6bn the year after that. I think that is going up.
As a matter of fact, it is quite interesting, from 2017 to 2027, commonwealth funding to state schools will grow by 86%. According to the productivity commission, since 2006, on a per student basis, commonwealth funding to state schools has increased by a 78.5%.
But this is an incredibly important point is, this is compared to 7.7% increase in the contribution from the state and territory governments. So if we need to be encouraging anyone to increase their funding for state schools, it is state and territory governments.
The strawberry laws have passed the Senate – Australian Berry Force is go.
By the way – the legislation is not retrospective. So if they catch who is responsible for kickstarting this crisis, none of the legislation changes will apply to them.
Adam Bandt says the Greens will not be giving up, when it comes to Peter Dutton:
The government has used its numbers to run a protection racket for Peter Dutton.
“Peter Dutton is now hanging by the barest of threads. Soon his position may be untenable.
“The facts haven’t changed. It is clear Peter Dutton has misled the parliament and he needs to face the consequences.
“Shamefully, the PM has now given a green light to all his ministers to mislead parliament.
“There was only one vote in it and that vote was Peter Dutton himself.
“This is not over. The motion is still on the notice paper and we will continue to pursue the minister over this issue up until the next election.”
Bill Shorten to Peter Dutton:
I miss the beginning of this question, but it involves members of the Australian Defence Force, who have come to parliament to lobby for their translators to be given visas, saying they wore Australian uniforms and served Australia, but have been unable to get a meeting with the minister – and yet, the two au pairs were granted special attention.
Dutton:
“The reality is Mr Speaker, is that this government has granted many hundreds of visas to people who have helped [our defence force] almost 1000 for people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are many examples that we have been able to help and we have been able to settle here.
Mr Speaker, I have not intervened in cases where there is advice to me, not advice that I can go into publicly, but advice that has been received from the intelligence agencies, in relation to [the cases of particular] individuals.
I will not act against the national interest or the national security interests of this country. My officers met with Mr Scanes, and I haven’t it with them, but we have made it clear in relation to this particular case, and I don’t know whether the leader of theopposition has sought any sort of briefing on this matter – I do know that the opposition has received everything before this has been raised in this place, but there are always threats to our country ...
“Mr Speaker, I assume that the leader of the opposition has not had such a briefing. I’m happy to arrange that everything be provided with as much information as possible. I can assure you that the government is in particular through the advice of the ADF and some of our international partners’ [attempts] to settle people who are worthy of the support our country.
But to finish on this note, there are some cases where I receive advice from the intelligence agencies. In those cases, acting in the national interest of our country, I wouldn’t not give that visa.”
Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison:
“Can you confirm that it has been revealed that the minister for home affairs intervened in the matters of two au pairs and misled the parliament on whether he knew one of the employers of the au pairs, participated in parliamentary discussions about childcare when he had an interest in child-care centres, and that there are doubts as to whether or not he can be a member of this parliament? Why is the prime minister to support the minister for home affairs?”
Morrison:
“I’ll tell you why I am continuing to support the minister for home affairs. That is the question. Because he is doing a fantastic job. That is why. I’m asked about interventions that he made.
“It may interest the house that during his time as minister, the minister when he had responsibility for these matters, or exercised ministerial intervention power in 116 visas.
“In just two financial years between July 2011 and June 2013, the member for McMahon, when he was the minister intervened over 23,000 times.
“Over 23,000 times. 23,000 times. You ... would need a lot of paper to go through those 23,000 occasions, Mr Speaker, but there is a number that is bigger than 23,000 interventions the member for McMahon [made] and that is the 35,000 people who turned up on illegal boats on his watch, Mr Speaker.
“That is his form. That is their form, Mr Speaker. The other reason that I support the minister for home affairs is because together he and I commend the decisions we took as minister for immigration, and when he was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and Minister for home affairs, we cancelled 3763 visas of non citizens who committed crimes. 694 convicted criminals. 250 child sex offenders. 193 for violent offences, 194 for outlaw motorcycle gang members.
“We cancelled the visas of people like Alex Vella, who was head of the rebels motorcycle gang.
“When I became the minister for immigration, they were quick to tell me in the police force this was a person who should not be in Australia.
“And I was happy to act on that. The Labor party sat and did nothing. And did nothing. As the visa was renewed, they sat on their hands, because when it comes to border protection, the Labor party are more interested in protecting Australian from au pairs than they are from protecting Australia from violent criminals.”
Sidenote: I don’t think anyone is suggesting Australia be protected from au pairs, but that Peter Dutton gave special attention to these cases, where a personal connection to himself, or senior members of his office, has been suggested.
