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

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/oct/17/morrison-coalition-labor-drought-farmers-politics-live

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

Version 15 Version 16
Morrison accuses Albanese of 'throwing tantrums' – politics live Morrison accuses Albanese of 'throwing tantrums' – politics live
(32 minutes later)
This is not a sight you will see too often - a LNP senator sitting with the crossbench, against the government.
Susan McDonald chaired the committee that recommended the additional maintenance requirements be removed from charity flight operators - which is what Rex Patrick is calling for.
Labor voted with the government.
And from this, I think you can infer from this answer on the voice to parliament, Ken Wyatt has set out that the government will be pushing to legislate, before heading to the referendum
Patricia Karvelas: You do know you’ll break a lot of hearts by not putting the voice to the people?
Ken Wyatt:
We also have to be pragmatic and that’s a reality.
PK: But do you acknowledge you’re going to break a lot of people’s hearts?
KW:
Some people have told me it will break their hearts. We have to think about whether we want to be recognised in the Constitution.
PK: What’s the point of recognition without power, Senator?
KW:
Recognition was in section 127 in the Constitution but in the sense of not allowing us to be counted. 127 was struck out.
The 1967 referendum created a number of myths around what it really meant to people. The reality was, was the striking out of that and then the amendment, the 51-26.
This requires further work on what are the sets of words that recognise this within the Constitution. 51-26 has been predominantly used for Indigenous Australians to support Commonwealth legislation on very critical issues such as the Mabo decision, land rights, etc ... What I don’t want to see is that removed totally which then leaves a challenge in terms of the legitimacy of those.
PK: Would you like to see it changed?
KW:
I’m going to wait to see what comes out.
I’ve been meeting with people and there is a degree of willingness to have recognition. I think that once we work through whatever the voice is, and that may give us another option.
What I suspect will happen is that we may legislate first and then when that’s successful, then we can go back for the next bite of the Constitution.
On the legislated voice issue, Ken Wyatt says he is pushing ahead:
Well, we’ve got a timetable I’m proposing to take to the PM. Once that’s been agreed to in the process that he and I will undertake, and my cabinet colleagues and certainly members of parliament, then we will announce that and we will clearly lay out the process and the structures that are within that.
Patricia Karvelas: What about if people don’t want a legislated voice?
KW:
I suspect that if we went with a nebulous notion of a voice to the greater Australian public, it would not have the support. Constitutional recognition, with the exception of John Howard’s referendum, tends not to come back as a question to be put at a later stage. Local government is slightly different because people have fought to try and get local government recognised in the constitution and we’ve had parliamentary committees deal with that.
But I don’t want to see us lose an opportunity. And that’s what we’ve got to do, do it very steadily. I don’t want this to be rushed that we get it wrong and that we lose it. When I look at the referendums that have been successful, Labor was successful with one on social services. That’s because Bob Menzies is the leader and did not oppose what Labor had done to the Australian public.
In a sense there was this bipartisan support. But you need both sides to the political divide.
PK: What process have you gone through now to get Labor on board? It is meant to be bipartisan.
KW:
I’m having dinner with my colleagues on an evening that we have chosen next week – the Indigenous members of the parliament who are predominantly Labor.
PK: In terms of the timeline, I know you’re taking this to the PM, can you give me an indication of the kind of timeframe that you think is workable.
KW:
It is before the next election because we don’t a referendum tied in with an election. There is an unintended consequence of that we don’t need. It’s important we have this pristine space in which the question can be put, the debate’s had andAustralians make the decision.
PK: You think you can have a referendum on recognition before the next election?
KW:
I’m optimistic.
Patricia Karvelas: Many Indigenous people are opposed to this idea of legislating the voice. Have you convinced them?
Ken Wyatt:
No. I haven’t. But we will start a process. I’ve been talking to a lot of people as I’ve moved across the nation. Issues like sovereignty come up. Communities say, “Who will listen to our voice? We want local issues and access to health, better education.” I think Linda Burney discovered that when she travelled from Port Hedland to Uluru because I saw her and she made the very pertinent point – they were concerned about local matters that needed resolving.
PK:
In terms of a proposal for changing the Constitution, you’ve made it quite clear to the disappointment of many that you don’t want the voice to be in the Constitution. So what will constitutional change look like under the Morrison Government?
KW:
We will work through those over the next 12 months.
PK: Can you give me some parameters?
KW:
There will be recognition.
PK:
What will that look like?
KW:
That will need to be worked through with our people. And has to be acceptable within a legal framework. What I don’t want is a section 44 issue being created. We have to be pragmatic and have many non-Indigenous Australians who are supportive but are saying, “I’m concerned until you tell us what the sets of words are because I’m not going to commit to something that creates a division between a nation that is becoming more unified.” The number of non-indigenous people who have said, “We will stand with Indigenous Australians. We want to see them recognised but get the words right.”
On the ABC, Patricia Karvelas has an interview with Ken Wyatt about where the plan for Indigenous reconciliation is at.
We will announce in the very near future a working group that will define the voice but will take in to consideration local, regional, state and national approaches. One of the things I’ve made very clear to state and territory ministers is they already have voices ...
I don’t want to take them out of the equation. There will be a substantial piece of work that will be undertaken and as soon as I finalise it, crossing a couple of Ts and dotting some Is then we’ll start the process.
PK:
My understanding is you’re about to take that proposal to the PM. Can you give me an indication of what is in that proposal?
KW:
I can’t do that until I’ve had a discussion with my leader.
PK: Am I right you are about to take a proposal to the PM for a way forward on legislation to actually establish a voice in this term of parliament?
KW:
What I’ll be doing is taking forward a series of propositions to do with constitutional recognition, the voice and truth telling. Each of those are separate pieces of work because they are critical in their own right.
But what I also want to do is talk about the way in which government will take elements of that forward as we co-design. I’m seriously committed to working through with our people to a solution that they’re comfortable with as well, not just as we’ve always done in the past, come forward with the voices of a few. And then made a decision.
Rex Patrick has been fighting to have the aviation body, Casa, reduce the number of maintenance requirements on charity aircrafts, and adopt the NZ model.Rex Patrick has been fighting to have the aviation body, Casa, reduce the number of maintenance requirements on charity aircrafts, and adopt the NZ model.
Over in the Senate, new LNP senator Susan McDonald is crossing the floor to support a motion from Rex PatrickOver in the Senate, new LNP senator Susan McDonald is crossing the floor to support a motion from Rex Patrick
. @SenMcDonald has just crossed the floor to support @centre_alliance in protecting the important work Angel Flight offers to sick patients in regional communities #auspol. @SenMcDonald has just crossed the floor to support @centre_alliance in protecting the important work Angel Flight offers to sick patients in regional communities #auspol
This is either “waiting for a mate”, or “sorry, it’s saved”, depending on your generation.This is either “waiting for a mate”, or “sorry, it’s saved”, depending on your generation.
Question time as seen by Mike BowersQuestion time as seen by Mike Bowers
Scott Morrison, playing the role of today’s mood (as captured by Mike Bowers)Scott Morrison, playing the role of today’s mood (as captured by Mike Bowers)
And we are done.And we are done.
The folders are very stacked though.The folders are very stacked though.
Hopefully this means we are coming to the end.Hopefully this means we are coming to the end.
Nope. Scott Morrison just raised a finger and said “one more” to Tony Smith.Nope. Scott Morrison just raised a finger and said “one more” to Tony Smith.
It’s on the Prime Minister’s Science Prize. So at least it’s a worthy dixer.It’s on the Prime Minister’s Science Prize. So at least it’s a worthy dixer.
We’re at the swap sides of the chamber stage of the latest farce
Luke Howarth and Andrew Laming have both made beelines for the frontbench this time round.
Christian Porter seems very confused about whether or not there is a motion before the House.
Tony Smith seems very confused about why Christian Porter is confused.
Tony Burke is now trying to explain to Christian Porter about how the motion process works.
Tony Smith is now agreeing with Tony Burke while still trying to work out why Christian Porter is confused.
And now we all have to sit here for another four minutes because that whole explanation of standing orders took so long, Smith has to extend the bells.
“Bring back Christopher,” Anthony Albanese yells.
Christian Porter has been confused into silence, so I guess there has been some silver lining.
Labor is attempting to suspend standing orders, to debate the economy.
It will fail. Obviously.
Joel Fitzgibbon is taking the silences in between the divisions to troll Michael McCormack about his press conference being overshadowed by the prime minister’s radio interview, where he made the same announcement, but got in first.
National MPs are still sending ‘can’t believe that happened’ messages.
Good times all round.
Stay with me folks. My computer program is struggling.
I know the feeling.
After a Senate estimates session dominated by two topics – the economy and raising Newstart – Labor’s Kristina Keneally has asked Mathias Cormann three ways why the prime minister has repeatedly refused to deny that he sought to have Brian Houston invited to the White House.
Cormann is keeping the answers simple - he has nothing further to add to what Scott Morrison has said.
Labor MPs are calling out “what are you hiding?”
Seems they’ll need Senate Estimates next week, or maybe to bring out medieval instruments of torture like thumbscrews, to get to the bottom of this.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister: Yesterday in the Parliament the Prime Minister shut down a proposed debate on the economy and organised an additional question to himself so that only he could talk about the economy. Is that because the Prime Minister only wants to listen to himself? Will the Prime Minister agree to a debate on the economy today or doesn’t he have the confidence in his own economic management?
Morrison:
When the Labor Party can confirm what their actual policies are, maybe that’s when they want to start asking those questions.
That’s the entire answer.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
Former prime ministers John Howard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull all facilitated parliamentary debate at this time in the parliament on important economic issues facing the nation.
Does the prime minister have the confidence in his economic position to be able to swallow his pride, follow their example and agree to a debate on the state of the economy today?
Morrison:
Every time, almost without exempt exemption, I come to this despatch Box, I’m talking about our economic policies. And the reason I do that – the reason I did that at the last election, Mr Speaker, the reason I do that is because I know that the strong economy is absolutely central to everything.
It’s ensuring that you have the right economic policies that provide the bedrock to create the budget that can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. That’s exactly what our government has been doing.
In season and out, despite what the global challenges are, we have continued to be able to build the strength and capability of our budget position, but also of the Australian economy which has seen now almost 1.5 million Australians get a job.
Now, Mr Speaker, that is the greatest argument when it comes to the economic policies of this government and that’s almost 1.5 million Australians who have got a job. That’s - that’s the great evidence, Mr Speaker, of 1.5 million almost lives of Australians that have been transformed because as a result of the policies of this government that has set the framework and economy for people to go and invest and take people on, Australians’ lives have been changed because the Liberal Party and Nationals believe that strong economic management, that disciplined and stable and certain financial policies are what actually at the end of the day guarantee our ability to reach record levels of hospital funding, record levels of education funding, and in the midst of what is a very severe drought, Mr Speaker, that we could again today confirm that those who would be coming off the farm household allowance will be given a $13,000 payment as a supplementary payment and just over $7,000 - $7,500, Mr Speaker, for individuals to continue to support them.
And we’re able to do this within the constraints of the budget which has been brought back to surplus.
As I remarked in this place some time ago, the Leader of the Opposition, he wants to have debates. I’m getting on with things.
But how can the Leader of the Opposition have a debate when he can’t tell us what his tax policy is, what his climate change policy is or any other critical issues that he fails to answer questions on a daily basis.
He hasn’t got a policy agenda, Mr Speaker. The reason we have to talk about their record in government and their policy agenda from the last election is they haven’t had any policies since that time.
So it is absolutely fair for the Australian people, Mr Speaker, to hold them to their record of the policies they took to the last election and they were condemned for those policies by the Australian people at that time. We will continue, Mr Speaker, to deliver the policies that were confirmed at the last election - policies that over the last six years have created more almost 1.5 million jobs for Australians.
To his credit, Dave Sharma manages to look a little embarrassed asking the next dixer, especially when he gets to the ‘alternative views’ part.
“It’s terrible when bad questions happen to good members,” Ed Husic says.
He is very much making hay from his backbench position.
We are just about 3/4 through this and we have had 11 mentions of “panic” and eight uses of “crises” from government ministers in response to Labor questions.
Deidre bloody Chambers!
It’s almost like they ... have talking notes ... on ... a ... phrase they would like to catch on.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that yesterday the Treasurer falsely claimed that drought was the number 1 call on the budget, will the Prime Minister agree to have a debate on Australia’s economy and in particular the plight of farmers today based upon the facts?
Morrison:
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems quite insistent on this point. But he obviously wasn’t insistent this morning because the matter of public importance which has been tabled today by the federal member for Barton does not mention the word “economy” at all, Mr Speaker. The word “economy”... is not even in it. So, Mr Speaker, if he can’t get his own side to agree about something, and that’s not uncommon at the moment, Mr Speaker, it’s not uncommon...
I know that the Labor Party’s penchant is for panic and crisis, Mr Speaker, but honestly - he’s got to try to resolve the panic and crisis that is going on within his own party on so many issues.
Whether it’s on - their response to climate, which they say is an emergency, but we’re not going to know their policy about it until the next election.
And in between times, we’re going of the constant infighting between the member for Hunter and the member for South Australia...
What is it again? Hindmarsh. The member for Hindmarsh, or member for Sydney or any other members. Or whether the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party is going to tear itself apart. Not only ridden by corruption but also seemed today by sexism as well, Mr Speaker.
The leader of the Labor Party has got plenty on his plate and so I’ll leave him to deal with that all on his own measure