Australia politics live: Coalition welcomes ‘backflip and capitulation’ as Labor adds extra week of Senate estimates | Australia news

So Simon Birmingham and the crossbench have had a win – the February estimates week is back on the agenda.

But the government has used what had been a proposed Senate sitting week to do it.

Coalition welcomes ‘backflip and capitulation’ on Senate calendar

Daniel Hurst

Fletcher stands by Coalition’s censure motion decision

Paul Fletcher is continuing to defend the Coalition’s decision to not support the Scott Morrison censure motion (as you would expect)

On the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing he said in answer to this question:

Q: There were a few arguments employed, particularly by the member for Cook himself. One is that journalists, the media, should have asked. And if we had we might have got an honest answer. That’s a bit disingenuous, isn’t it?

Fletcher:

Only Scott can talk about what he would have done in particular circumstances. This was a very specific political exercise designed to damage the reputation of Scott Morrison as an individual and his term as prime minister.

The fact is Scott led the Morrison government through one of the most difficult times our nation has ever faced. It’s a matter of factual record the economic outcomes, the health outcomes were amongst the best in the world.

We’ve seen this government focusing on a particular issue from the moment the revelations emerged, the overwhelming motivation of the Albanese government was to maximise this for political advantage.

They had not just the solicitor general’s opinion, but they had it from former Justice Bell which didn’t save anything additional to what HIH already been said, including it was not unconstitutional, despite claims repeatedly by Mr Albanese and his ministers that it was not illegal. These are the facts on the face of the report.

Senior Liberal senator demands full four weeks of Senate estimates

Simon Birmingham wants the February estimates sitting week and he won’t stop until he gets it. From his statement:

The Coalition and Senate crossbench will not tolerate the Albanese government’s attempt to push through a parliamentary sitting calendar for 2023 without the usual four weeks of Senate estimates.

The opposition, along with the cross bench, have written to the leader of the government in the Senate, Senator Wong, stating that the Albanese government must reinsert a fourth Senate estimates week into the sitting schedule.

As the longest serving clerk of the Senate, the late Harry Evans, said in 2006:

The value of estimates hearings in improving accountability and probity of government has long been widely recognised. The hearings allow apparent problems in government operations to be explored and exposed, and give rise to a large amount of information which would not otherwise be disclosed. They have come to be recognised as a major parliamentary institution of accountability.

The axing of a whole week of Senate estimates is a case of the Albanese government taking an axe to accountability and transparency.

This extraordinary change, along with the unprecedented addition of Friday sitting days without committing to the transparency of having a Question Time, has been proposed with no consultation with the opposition and no regard for Senate conventions.

It is also extraordinary that the Greens have failed to join the Coalition and cross benchers in demanding the extra Senate estimates week. Whatever happened to the Greens commitment to transparency and accountability, or what deal have they done to trade away Senate estimates?

I thank Senators Babet, Hanson, Lambie, Pocock, Roberts and Tyrrell for ensuring the convention of this critical parliamentary institution of accountability is rightly upheld.

Dr Helen Haines has released a statement on the passage of the national anti-corruption commission:

The legislation is based largely on my model and I am proud to have played a significant role in its development through the government’s consultation process and as Deputy Chair of the committee which scrutinised the Bills.

I am disappointed that my amendments which would have removed the exceptional circumstances clause for public hearings, and further strengthened the independence and powers of the NACC, were not agreed to by the major parties. But overall, this is good legislation and I wish the future NACC every success.”

From Mike Bowers’ lens to your eyeballs:

Bob Katter has put out a statement on the Indigenous voice to parliament, where he seems to be in support of it, but also wants to add another senator as part of any referendum.

I think.

Kennedy MP Bob Katter has called on the prime Minister to include an alternative question in the Indigenous voice to Parliament referendum.

Mr Katter said he agreed that First Australians deserved to have their voice and their needs heard and recognised by the parliament, but stressed the importance of that voice being a true representation of Indigenous people.

He proposed members of community areas geographically delineated be given the right to elect one senator to represent First Australians of those communities in parliament, as opposed to a government-appointed “silver tongue from Sydney University.”

“Canberra has been granted two senators with a few hundred thousand people, and it’s a similar situation for the Northern Territory as well,” Mr Katter said.

“So I can’t see how you could argue that these people in community areas, who desperately need special representation, shouldn’t be given at least one senator in the Australian Senate.”

The federal parliament has moved on to the matter of public importance – it is led by Goldstein independent MP Zoe Daniel and is on the importance to act on eating disorders.

And then there is a dixer to Tony Burke and Anthony Albanese calls time on question time.

One. More. To. Go.

Allegra Spender gets the next crossbench question:

Senator Pocock said that you made a commitment to him to review modern awards. Can you please confirm you have made this commitment and provide further information to the chamber, particularly regarding to the form of the review, its timing and whether it will be conducted independently of government.

Tony Burke:

Thank you and I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the question and acknowledge both the member for Wentworth and a number of members of the crossbench in this house raised issues yet that ended up being a part of the negotiation taken place in the Senate. The review of the awards is one of the issues that had been raised by crossbenchers within this house as well.

The review is something something that has not been taken yet but it is to my understanding the review will be undertaken next year put the reason for the review and one of the reasons why I readily agreed to it is as part of the secure jobs better pay bill, we are not only updating the objects of the act, we are updating the objects of the modern awards. That means the award system will now have objects that it did not have when it was developed.

For example, the principles of gender equality, particularly under the amendments made here, they will now be requirements of the act but when requirements whether what was. And secure jobs as an objective once legislation is passed, and objective of the award but wasn’t when it was designed.

I am not proposing that the review would be committed to these issues. Certainly there will be decision of government as to the full breadth. But when you change the objects of the award system, I think it is very important that you then have some sort of review to work out what that actually means for the awards themselves.

Angus Taylor has a question for Stephen Jones:

I refer the minister to reports today in the Financial Review, that former ACCC Chair Rod Sims said multi-employer bargaining raises issues for competition and consumers. Can the minister guarantee the that consumers won’t pay higher prices as a result of the government’s extreme industrial relations changes?

(Jones was the subject of quite a scathing attack from the Fin review, which Stuart Robert was a fan of, so I don’t think the reference to the paper is an accident)

Jones:

I thanked the member for hume for his question. What I will guarantee and what every member of the Albanese Labor government can guarantee, as we stand for higher wages. That we stand for workers having a fair go and being able to negotiate on an equal basis with employers and to be able to get wages moving again. This is in stark contrast to the policies of those on the other side of the House because for nine years.

For nine long years on the watch we saw wages stagnate, and for those who are struggling with cost of living increases, there are two ways to deal with this and we want make sure we can get wages moving again. And we had heard time and time again from employers in the childcare sector, aged care sector, and other caring sectors across the economy, that they cannot attract workers. In one of the reasons they cannot attract workers is because the wages are not able to compete with other comparable jobs across the economy. So what we on the side of the House and can her, as our policies…

There is a back and forth about points of order, which end as you would expect – with Jones returning to the question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I tell you one lot of price increases they don’t want us to talk about, that’s the 40% increase in childcare costs occurring on their watch.

That is one set of price increases they don’t want to talk about we have implemented measures that will address the 40% increase in childcare costs that they were very happy to see occur on their watch.

One of the first priorities that we addressed when coming into government was to make sure households could make a choice of whether they wanted to go back to work three days, four days five days a week because we are addressing the price increases in childcare by ensuring the majority of Australian households cannot pay for childcare.

I can understand the leader of the house got a bit jumpy when I was talking about negotiations, but we are concerned to make sure low-paid workers are able to access a bargaining stream which enables them to negotiate fairly. Which enables them to negotiate fairly.

It understands the leader of opposition is very jumpy when we talk about negotiations, because the last negotiation he was involved and didn’t go so well.

He was able to provide $27m worth of taxpayer money for a block of land only worth $3m in 2010, so whenever we talk negotiation they get very jumpy over there because the last negotiation he was involved in [didn’t end well].

Karen Andrews has a question for Andrew Giles

It is a privilege, not a right, to be welcomed as a guest to our country. In government, the Coalition cancelled more than 10,000 visas of dangerous non-citizens who posed a threat to the Australian community. Minister, how many visas have you cancelled under the provisions of the Migration Act?

Giles is cranky:

Thank you and I thank the shadow minister for home affairs for her question as she will be well aware of the side of the house, we supported the 2014 changes to be tessellation regime. [Jason Wood interjects]

As the member for Latrobe should remember because he was in this place, we supported in 2014 the changes introduced by the former government to be carried a cancellation regime. We believe it is important that we cancel visas where appropriate. We deny visas and counsel visas as appropriate.

We also think this is an area where a commonsense approach is required. Because we have seen unintended consequences of the regime that was put in place by the former government. We have been working through those in particular to the critical importance of our relationship with our good friends in New Zealand. These are issues that should be, should be, of significance to the leader of the opposition. Who put a wrecking ball through the emigration portfolio when he was minister. He built an edifice around himself instead of focusing on the national interest. Particularly on questions like this should be beyond this cheap partisan politics. Cheap partisan politics.

After all this time, after all this time…

[There are points of order and then Giles continues]

I am sure, like all ministers for immigration, we also have responsibilities in this area as the shadow minister will no, make these decisions on the basis of the law and materials before me.

What is so disappointing here is that everyone in this parliament everyone in this parliament recognises the policy grounds we have that go to visit France.

And indeed to the cancellation of visas to non-citizens who should not be in the community who present a range of risks.

These are not issues that should be shamelessly politicised. Indeed, many issues, Mr Speaker, that go to the migration system go to the shameless politicisation of this regime by members opposite. Over nine years of neglect.

I expect a bit more from the shadow minister of home affairs. A bit more because one thing that unites or should unite every member of this place is a concern for the safety of the Australian community.

The safety of the Australian community. The fact that members opposite seem entirely unconcerned about this is frankly disappointing.

From the last election, they have learned absolutely nothing. Perhaps they could consider how we could work together in the national interest on these questions instead of engaging in this shameless, shameless scaremongering.