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.
Coalition faces losing Nauru bill battle on last sitting day of year – politics live
Furious Scott Morrison vows to 'fight' Nauru bill as pressure builds on government – politics live
(35 minutes later)
While Scott Morrison had his press conference of power in the House, Tony Burke and Adam Bandt have just walked in to a room together to have a chat. Christopher Pyne is talking with his staff.
Tony Abbott is in the chamber tapping away with two fingers on his laptop. That is how he types.
Burke is back and is talking to Pyne behind the Speaker’s chair.
Scott Morrison walks out of the press conference as more questions are yelled at him.
Last question was called and it was on how is it a threat to national security to allow the minister in charge (right now that is David Coleman) to make the decision:
Morrison says he dreads the day a “Labor minister is in charge” of those decisions:
You know what – I’m not going to see an arrangement put in place that could ever see potentially, and I hope a long way down the track, a Labor minister being responsible for a decision like that. We’ve got a clear policy – it’s working. It is worked for five years. It has kept Australians safe. Anyone who wants to have a debate with me about that, happy to line up, any day of the week.
Why would you change something that has ... worked so successfully, so hard won, and at great cost. Why on Earth would Bill Shorten sell all of that out for a cheap day in politics?
Siri, show me a politician under pressure:
Scott Morrison:
Stopping terrorists is more important than getting a cheap win for the nightly news out of Canberra. Their support for amendments in the Senate to abolish offshore processing as we know it, the cheap win in the House of Representatives, don’t do it, Bill.
The cheap win on the House of Representatives floor is not worth it. You know what you’ll be telling every Australian? Every single Australian, if you support those amendment, Bill, you’ll be telling them what they really already know, when it comes to border protection, your heart isn’t in it, and you and your party cannot be trusted that you have learnt nothing from the horror show you inflicted on them when you were last in government.
So I think you know where I stand on this issue. I have always stood on the same place in this issue, I will never move from where I stand on this issue. We’ll continue to ensure a strong border protection framework for Australia that’s been successful, and we will continue to deliver the leadership on national security, we’re no longer joined at the hip when it comes to the Labor Party, I doubt we really ever were.
Every single time, they have to be dragged along, dragged along, we’re the party of national security and we can keep Australians safe. Bill Shorten hasn’t got the mettle for it.
The games being played over the encryption bill are basically boiling down to this: the government wants to change the timetable in the House to stop the Nauru bill.
The amendments to the encryption bill were going to be made in the Senate. Now the government is saying the amendments have to be dealt with in the House.
Here’s the letter Christian Porter has sent to the opposition pic.twitter.com/WPbtEy8Iql
Meanwhile, Christopher Pyne is in the House having very quick meetings with the crossbenchers, after most of them rejected the government’s come and see how important our border-security message is.
Scott Morrison:
I will fight them on this. I will seek to stop them doing this. I will fight to get those encryption laws passed. And I will fight to stop any change to that offshore processing arrangement which I know directly and personally has been so critical to maintaining the successful border protection framework that has kept our borders secure, and has prevented young people, children, going on to boats and drowning.
Let’s not forget the horror of 6,500 children being put into detention, 17 detention centres being opened, $11.5bn in cost blowouts.
And we’ve come to government, and we fixed the problem. In the last three months I have taken 100 children off Nauru.
There are 10 children on Nauru today. So, don’t let them tell you this is about getting children off Nauru. That’s a con. That’s happened. And it happened under the government’s border protection arrangements. This is about getting rid of offshore processing.
They never believed it in the first place, they had to be forced into even doing it in the dying days of their previous government, and when they implemented it, it was a tragic shocker of an implementation, which took incredible investment and effort to fix it.
I know, because I was the one who had to fix it. These are important issues. And the obsession with the political games of Canberra, to try and score a one-upmanship for the nightly news is damaging our national interest today. I would call on the Labor party to pass the encryption bills.
Scott Morrison (who seriously looks the most emotional I have ever seen him)
Bill Shorten’s mettle has been tested on national security today, and border protection, and has been found untrue.
Bill Shorten does not have the mettle to deal with national security. He does not have the mettle to deal with border protection. Our government has demonstrated that we do. I have demonstrated that I do. In this place, people can have some short memories.
It wasn’t that long ago where boats crashed on the rocks and children were dragged up from the sea face down. I remember it. I stopped it.
With the suite of measures that were necessary together to stop that horror. Temporary protection visas, I had to legislate through the parliament and Labor tried to stop me. But we passed them. Offshore processing, which they resisted and resisted and resisted, and then put into place and then we made it work.
And turning back boats – where it’s safe to do so, which everyone told us wasn’t possible – but I did it. We did it. And it worked. Labor has already said they want to get rid of temporary protection visas, they said it doesn’t matter. Kevin Rudd said the same thing in August of 2008. He got rid of it and the boats came again. Now Labor want to abolish offshore processing as we know it. Turn it into a transit lounge. They have learned nothing when it comes to what it takes to protect our borders in this country.
Just a reminder that this change leaves the medical evacuation approvals with the minister, who has the power to reject it on the grounds of national security and border protection.
It needs two doctors to sign off on any transfer. If the minister rejects the advice, then they have to publish their reasons why. An independent medical panel will then review the decisions.
It is also only for temporary medical transfers. Which already occur.
Scott Morrison is having all of the feelings right now.
He is also speaking as if he is making this up on the spot. Which I think he is.
This is not reality television. This place should not be about who gets the win on the nightly news. Our government is not going to play those games. What has is happening in this parliament today should concern Australians.
Right now, in the House of Representatives, the Labor party is not cooperating to pass important encryption legislation that would ensure that police, Asio, other agencies, they won’t have the powers to access encrypted messages which can help them thwart a terrorist attack.
They are delaying the passage of those bills to play games in the parliament with national security. That’s in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the Labor party is playing games with crossbenchers and others to try and introduce laws that completely undermine the successful border protection framework that has been saving lives for the last five years.
For what purpose are they doing this? To seek a cheap win in the House of Representatives. The Labor party have shown Australians today that when it comes to national security, and border protection, they will trade it all for politics.”
While we wait for Scott Morrison to step up to the Blue Room podium, we’re just checking into the Senate, where the Greens are absolutely tearing into Labor for agreeing to pass the encryption bill.
The drug-testing bill, which was once part of the welfare bill, is also popping its head back in the Senate again today, so try and keep an eye out on that.
Sometime between 12.45 and 1.50, Tim Storer and Nick McKim plan on moving this motion:
That—
(a) the home affairs legislation amendment (miscellaneous measures) bill 2018 be called on at 12.45 pm on Thursday, 6 December 2018, and have precedence over all government business until determined;
(b) if, by 1.50 pm the bill has not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate; and
(c) paragraph (b) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
Then, when that debate is underway, Storer will move an amendment, a version of the Kerryn Phelps bill
Once this debate is under way, Senator Storer will move an amendment which is very similar to the Phelps private members bill. Labor, the Greens, Centre Alliance, Derryn Hinch and Tim Storer will see that pass.
Then it gets to the House, just after 3pm, when question time ends.
The government can be defeated (on the numbers, this stage) or run down the clock, so it won’t come to a vote this year.
Running down the clock seems to be the favoured option right now. Because, according to all the messages flying around this building at the moment, losing this legislative vote means “we’re fucked”. (The “we’re” here, being the government.)
Scott Morrison has called a press conference in the Blue Room for 10.20am.
Scott Morrison has called a press conference in the Blue Room for 10.20am.
BREAKING: Frantic series of phone calls/messages between Cabinet ministers last night and this morning. Fear in ministerial wing that if independents succeed, government is cooked. #7News #auspol https://t.co/3BZBhoEh23
BREAKING: Frantic series of phone calls/messages between Cabinet ministers last night and this morning. Fear in ministerial wing that if independents succeed, government is cooked. #7News #auspol https://t.co/3BZBhoEh23
So (and thank you to the experts, who are frantically answering my procedure questions), it seems that a delay in the Senate would mean the House would have to suspend standing orders to consider the message from the Senate. That is where the absolute majority comes in - 76. Labor and the Greens and the crossbench, minus Bob Katter, make for 75.
So (and thank you to the experts, who are frantically answering my procedure questions), it seems that a delay in the Senate would mean the House would have to suspend standing orders to consider the message from the Senate. That is where the absolute majority comes in - 76. Labor and the Greens and the crossbench, minus Bob Katter, make for 75.
The House has an automatic adjournment standing order that kicks off at 4.30pm (no more government business).
The House has an automatic adjournment standing order that kicks off at 4.30pm (no more government business).
Looking at the daily program, number three on government business today, is Christopher Pyne suspending standing orders 31 and 33, which would prevent the automatic adjournment and remove a limit on new business being introduced after the scheduled adjournment time – meaning the House decides when it adjourns.
Looking at the daily program, number three on government business today, is Christopher Pyne suspending standing orders 31 and 33, which would prevent the automatic adjournment and remove a limit on new business being introduced after the scheduled adjournment time – meaning the House decides when it adjourns.
If those standing orders get suspended, the time limit won’t apply. If they don’t get suspended, they will.
If those standing orders get suspended, the time limit won’t apply. If they don’t get suspended, they will.
BASICALLY – the government is trying to arrange the timetable to make any sure the motion from the Senate which will bring this all on doesn’t make it to the House in time to be passed.
BASICALLY – the government is trying to arrange the timetable to make any sure the motion from the Senate which will bring this all on doesn’t make it to the House in time to be passed.
What that means is that the government will bring the Senate motion on so late, that it is too late to make it into the House, where they are all but guaranteed of losing the vote.
What that means is that the government will bring the Senate motion on so late, that it is too late to make it into the House, where they are all but guaranteed of losing the vote.
Shiz is getting REAL
Government planning to time Senate message on refugee bill to ensure House can’t vote before rising. Desperate attempt to avoid once in a 100-year loss on floor of House. Indies will need 76 votes to stop. Govt MP will have to cross floor knowing could bring down Govt. #auspol
This is the most sunshine and lollypops and rainbow cakes served by unicorns take on this ever uttered in the history of capitalism:
.@JoshFrydenberg says he is not worried about the slowdown in household savings. 'It reflects consumers confidence in the economy that they can feel they can spend.'MORE: https://t.co/N9jCbV08Og #FirstEdition pic.twitter.com/i9Q688OUD2
The bells have rung and parliament has begun.
Scott Morrison wandered over to Tony Abbott and had a chat to start the parliamentary morning off.
Thinking through some scenarios about today
It looks at the moment like the government is going to lose this vote on transferring people from Nauru and Manus.
The Senate crossbenchers appear locked and loaded, and the numbers appear to be there in the House.
Losing a legislative vote is extremely rare.
It can be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the government of the day. So the next logical question in my mind after absorbing these facts is will Labor take things to the next step this afternoon and move a motion of no confidence in the government?
At this stage, it doesn’t seem likely. Some independents have confidence and supply agreements with the government, and don’t want an election any time before next year.The only rule on the last sitting day of the year is anything can happen. But a formal no-confidence vote seems unlikely ... as of now.
So while you all marinate on no confidence and de facto no confidence motions, here are a couple more of your snapshots of the 2018 political year:
Sophie: I think we’re in a big political moment right now. The far right of the Liberal party have revealed themselves as primarily preoccupied with fighting culture wars on climate, sexuality, gender and immigration – and willing to go to extraordinary, destructive lengths to pursue their ideological ends. The Labor party have revealed themselves emboldened to stand up only when they don’t believe they face any electoral threat in doing so (hello, Adani); and the Australian people have shown that grassroots organising and collective action is well and truly alive and kicking.
From the many many rallies calling for refugees to be brought here to safety, to the extraordinary efforts of LGBTI activists and their allies to ensure a YES vote in the destructive plebiscite (one year on, I know), to the grassroots organising of Democracy In Colour activists fighting race-baiting and division during the Victorian election, the mobilisation of women in Queensland to see abortion finally decriminalised, to the persistent efforts of First Nations people, farmers, climate activists and young people to protect the climate and stop Adani ... this year has had some awful, depressing political moments; but it has also been a year of community power.
Ivy: I don’t think I will ever forget or forgive the Coalition for suspending parliament on the day Malcolm Turnbull was deposed in order to avoid the scrutiny of the House – a shameful, undemocratic, action, as far as I was concerned.
Kate: At the beginning of the year it seemed that the composition of the Senate changed every week. Other than that, the many demonstrations of narcissism (mostly from the ‘Right’) are what I take from the year just passed.
Patricia: A standout for me was the Liberal party floundering in Victoria during the recent election campaign when we had a shocking incident in Melbourne with the owner of a famous coffee shop, Pellegrini’s, being killed. [Scott] Morrison couldn’t wait to make what he thought would be political gains from this incident, holding a press conference 50 metres from Pellegrini’s doorstep and preaching hatred and fear to the people of Victoria and the country. The voters gave Morrison their reply and decimated the Victorian Liberal party.
A sign I think that the worm has turned. A sign of hope for decency to be returned in this once-great country. A sign that Morrison will be the shortest-term PM that this country has seen in its history, after the federal election.
Scott: Simply everything the senator Penny Wong has said or done has been a highlight. Is that too gushy?
OK, let’s try this: 2018 highlight is senator Penny Wong’s reaction as the marriage equality result was revealed. It was a beautiful reminder that, after all the noise and agendas and distractions were removed, it was simply a question about people and their relationships. People matter.
Just a little more on no confidence and de facto no-confidence motions as per the House of Reps practice.
A government may consider it appropriate, if it is defeated on a matter which it deems to be of sufficient importance, to seek the feeling of the House at the first opportunity by means of a motion of confidence. A motion of confidence could also be used pre-emptively – for example, in October 1975 prime minister Whitlam, following an announcement of the opposition’s intention to delay in the Senate bills appropriating money for the ordinary annual services of the government, moved a motion of confidence in the government. An amendment was moved and negatived and the original motion agreed to.[261]
In 1903 the government was defeated on an important amendment to a conciliation and arbitration bill. Prime minister Barton stated that the vote created a situation of some gravity and the ministry would consider its position before any further business was undertaken.
The next day he announced that the government could not accept the amendment or proceed with the bill as amended and, therefore, the government intended to drop the bill.[262]
The same government also decided not to proceed with the Papua (British Papua New Guinea) bill after the government was defeated on certain amendments.[263]
... Although it has been claimed that the loss of control of the business of the House is a matter over which governments should resign, the loss of a vote on such an issue is not necessarily fatal for a government.
In 1908 prime minister Deakin resigned when he accepted that any amendment to a motion to alter the hour of next meeting was a challenge to his government, and the 1909 and 1931 resignations of governments followed from similar acceptances (see below).
In each case the governments were on the point of losing the necessary support to remain in power.
In 1923, however, the government having lost control of the business of the House the previous evening, prime minister Bruce confidently assured the opposition “the government will very soon take it back into its own hands today”.[267]
During 1962 and 1963, when the Menzies government had a floor majority[268] of one, it suffered a number of defeats on procedural motions[269] and, although it did not resign, its precarious majority was a factor which led to an early dissolution.[270]
During the 43rd parliament the minority Gillard government lost a significant number of divisions.[271]
In the 45th parliament the Turnbull government, with a floor majority of one, was defeated on several procedural motions.[272]
While there has never been a successful vote of no confidence or censure of a government in the House of Representatives, on eight occasions governments have either resigned or advised a dissolution following their defeat on other questions:
Deakin Ministry, 21 April 1904—The Government resigned following its defeat 29:38 in committee (detail stage) on an amendment moved by the Opposition to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill.[273]
Watson Ministry, 12 August 1904—The Government resigned following its defeat 34:36 on an amendment to its motion that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, which it inherited from the previous Government and carried through the committee (detail) stage, be recommitted for consideration of certain clauses and a schedule.[274]
Reid Ministry, 30 June 1905—The Government resigned following the House agreeing 42:25 to an amendment to the Address in Reply (proposing to add the words ‘but are of the opinion that practical measures should be proceeded with’).[275]
Deakin Ministry, 10 November 1908—The Government resigned following its defeat 13:49 on an amendment to the motion to alter the hour of next meeting.[276]
Fisher Ministry, 27 May 1909—The Government resigned following defeat 30:39 on a motion moved by a private Member to adjourn debate on the Address in Reply.[277]
Bruce–Page Ministry, 10 September 1929—The Governor-General accepted the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the House after an amendment had been agreed to in committee (detail stage) to the Maritime Industries Bill (35:34). The amendment was to the effect that proclamation of the Act would not be earlier than its submission to the people either at a referendum or a general election.[278]
Scullin Ministry, 25 November 1931—The Governor-General accepted the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve the House after the question ‘That the House do now adjourn’ was agreed to 37:32, against the wishes of the Government.[279]
Fadden Ministry, 3 October 1941—The Government resigned when, during the Budget debate in committee of supply, an opposition amendment to the effect that the first item in the estimates be reduced by a nominal sum (£1) was agreed to 36:33.[280]
Again, a government losing a vote on the floor happens – when it comes to procedure.
Legislative losses are very, very rare.
The last time a govt lost a vote on legislation on the floor of the HoR was in 1929 when the Maritime Industries Bill was amended by 35 votes to 34. PM Stanley Brice called an election the next day - and lost. #auspol
Stanley Bruce took that loss as a de facto loss of confidence, which is why he called the election.
This government doesn’t have to accept the loss as a no confidence. As the House practices lays out:
Withdrawal of confidence shown by defeat on other questions
The withdrawal by the House of its confidence in the government may be shown:
By a direct vote of censure of or no confidence in the government.
By defeat on an issue central to government policy or rejecting a legislative measure proposed by the government, the acceptance of which the government has declared to be of vital importance. Conversely, a vote by the House agreeing to a particular legislative measure or provision contrary to the advice and consent of the government could similarly be regarded as a matter of confidence. Following defeat a government may choose to resign, as in April and August 1904, 1929 and 1941 (see page 322), or to seek a direct vote of confidence.
By defeat of the government on a vote not necessarily central to government policy but accepted by the government as one of confidence, as in 1905, 1908, 1909 and 1931 (see page 322).
A defeat of the government in the House of Representatives does not necessarily mean it has lost the confidence of the House or that it ought to resign. As Jennings states:
It must not be thought … that a single defeat necessarily demands either resignation or dissolution. Such a result follows only where the defeat implies loss of confidence … [259]
What a government will treat as a matter of sufficient importance to demand resignation or dissolution is, primarily, a question for the government. The opposition can always test the opinion of the House by a vote of no confidence. No government [in the United Kingdom] since 1832 has failed to regard such a motion, if carried, as decisive. A House whose opinion was rejected has always at hand the ultimate remedy of the refusal of supply.[260]
Some more of your snapshots:
Greg: The major turnaround and thus lowlight of the year was the brain snap of the Liberal party in August. They shot themselves in the foot and have continued to do so while their feet are in their mouths since ... fancy thinking the public would wear Peter Dutton when their best marketing politician Malcolm Turnbull was actually making headway.
They even managed to sideline their best-performing minister, Julie Bishop, and lost the balance of power as well.
They lost a safe blue-ribbon seat and helped force the Victorian Liberal party into four more years in exile and possibly longer.
They killed the chance for a climate and emissions/energy policy and ruined the chances of a win by the Coalition in NSW. And what was it all for? Payback by the far right? ...
The highlight for the year was the children’s strike for climate change that was only soured by conservative politicians who abused them for giving voice to their concerns.
These children in a very short time will vote and breathe a new life into politics which badly needs resuscitating.
The regret of the year has to be Manus and Nauru but it has been the same regret for nearly a decade.
Harry: I want to say that there are many who post BTL who have been standouts with their wit, drollery, their astute observations and sometimes biting comments. There has been many a coffee spurt caused by the usual suspects. Their contributions always enlivens the blog and infuriates the conservatives, which can only be a Good Thing. I hope every one has a safe and happy holiday period. With only 10 sitting days in eight months coming up we politics tragics are going to go through withdrawal symptoms without Politics Live.
Tony Abbott will be delivering his Indigenous Blueprint at 9.30 in the House.
Compulsory reading, obvs.
The encryption bill debate will come to the House in the first session this morning, where it will be amended as per request of the PJCIS committee.
The government amendments will be moved in the House and then once it is amended (which it will be because Labor is onboard) then it goes to the Senate and then the security agencies can start sending out all those notices.
