Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Amy Remeikis

Peter Dutton misled parliament over au pairs, inquiry finds – as it happened

Peter Dutton
Inquiry has found Peter Dutton misled parliament over au pairs. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

So tomorrow looks like being interesting!

From what I understand, not a lot can happen, even if the no-confidence motion gets up, but it is a terrible, terrible look and not something the government wants at any time, let alone when Scott Morrison is attempting to establish himself as a “strong” leader.

Morrison seized his chance with Australia’s Berry Force today – and if you don’t think his advisors saw this as the perfect opportunity to display is prime-ministerialness, then you haven’t been paying enough attention – and for the most part, the government didn’t have to deal with questions on bullying or its lack of women.

But, a no-confidence motion in Peter Dutton will change all of that. They’ve tried to keep him out of the spotlight as much as possible – today’s ABF presser non-withstanding – with limited dixers and a low profile.

No word on what is happening with his section 44 concerns – but I can’t imagine Labor or the Greens would want to wet all their powder tomorrow – there is another sitting coming up in three weeks after all.

We will bring you all the updates as they come to hand, along with whatever else this insane place brings us.

A big thank you to Katharine Murphy and Gareth Hutchens for dragging me over the line today – I could not do it without them, or the people behind the scenes who clean up the mess my muddled brain and too fast fingers create.

Mike Bowers will be back with us tomorrow and I know he missed you as much as you missed him.

I’ll be back bright and early as well, but in the mean time – thank you for hanging out with us today – and take care of you.

Updated

Labor hasn’t given an official response as yet, but:

And there we go:

Updated

But it looks like the no-confidence motion against Peter Dutton the government had been pushing against will be put to the lower house tomorrow.

No word on what the independents would do – they wanted to see the report before making any decisions.

Updated

This is why Ian Macdonald and Eric Abetz don’t believe the report’s findings:

This inquiry has been a farcical and shambolic witch-hunt that, despite the hyperbolic majority report, has come up with nothing except findings that mirror the Labor party’s initial talking points which actually fall outside the terms of reference of this inquiry.

Despite Labor Senators’ constant changing of the goal posts in order to try and locate a smoking gun, the extensive hearings show that not only is there no smoking gun, there is in fact no gun.

The undisputed evidence provided to the Committee was very clear:

The evidence has disclosed no instances of inappropriate conduct by the Minister for Home Affairs as has been so recklessly alleged by Labor and Green Senators. The findings listed in the committee report are unsustainable

That of the 24 subclass 600 interventions signed by Minister Dutton, only two (the already publicised Brisbane and Adelaide cases) related to au pairs;[1]

In both of these cases, the minister accepted the department’s recommendation to grant a short-term visitor visa to the two individuals involved;[2]

That neither the minister nor his office had any contact with the department on either the Brisbane or Adelaide cases, other than through the usual channel of the departmental liaison officer;[3]

That no additional costs were incurred by the department on the two cases;[4] and

The minister acted within ministerial intervention powers as prescribed under the Migration Act 1958 and the department’s guidelines for ministerial intervention.

Updated

Adam Bandt is one of the first lower house MPs out of the blocks to respond to the Senate report:

Peter Dutton has misled parliament over the au pair scandal and the Senate inquiry report confirms this. If he won’t resign, the parliament should take matters into its own hands.”

Updated

Eric Abetz and Ian Macdonald do not agree with the majority report. They have issued a dissenting report, where they conclude the Senate should recommend:

  • The Minister for Home Affairs be commended for his prudent and diligent work as a minister
  • Mr Quaedvlieg’s correspondence be referred to the privileges committee and be considered as to whether privilege should apply to these documents; and
  • The Minister for Home Affairs ignore the majority report’s findings.

Updated

And what do they recommend?

  • That the government strengthen the minister’s tabling statements to parliament on ministerial interventions, by requiring the minister’s statements to declare whether or not each ministerial intervention was made in accordance with the ministerial guidelines.
  • The committee recommends that the Senate consider censuring the Minister for Home Affairs (the hon Peter Dutton MP) for the actions examined in this report, when he was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, for failing to observe fairness in making official decisions as required by the Statement of Ministerial Standards
  • That the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.

Updated

The committee (except for the Coalition senators) has found:

  • It is the view of the committee that Minister Dutton had a clear personal connection and existing relationship with the intended employer of the au pair in the Brisbane case. Given his definitive answer in the House of Representatives, it is the view of the committee the minister misled Parliament in relation to this matter.
  • It is the view of the committee that Minister Dutton acted expeditiously in using his ministerial intervention powers to grant a tourist visa to the au pair in the Adelaide case. Whilst the use of these powers is within his rights as the relevant minister, the committee recognises this request for intervention may not have come to the attention of Minister Dutton prior to the individual’s removal from Australia if it was not for the fact it was raised through personal connections. Minister Dutton appears to have failed to give consideration to the damage to public confidence in the integrity of the immigration system that his actions could cause and, at best, reflects very poor judgement on the part of the minister.
  • In the Adelaide case, Minister Dutton signed the intervention documents despite acting ministerial arrangements being in place. No evidence presented assured the committee that there were any reasons why Minister Dutton signed the ministerial intervention in the Adelaide case rather than acting Minister Keenan, heightening perceptions that Minister Dutton acted due to a personal interest.
  • It is the view of the committee that substantial inconsistencies in evidence provided by the department during the course of the inquiry leaves significant doubt as to whether all relevant ministerial interventions have been captured by the inquiry.
  • Given the broad powers of the immigration minister, any perception of conflict of interest or corruption in relation to the use of ministerial intervention powers is detrimental to the integrity of Australia’s immigration system. While these powers are intended to ensure legitimate cases of humanitarian need or public interest can be addressed, Minister Dutton’s interventions in these au pair cases do not reflect community expectations of how such powers should be used.
  • At best, Minister Dutton’s actions have resulted in a perception, if not an actual, conflict of interest. To ensure transparent and accountable decisions, the government should give serious consideration to strengthening the minister’s statement to parliament, requiring the minister’s statement to declare that the ministerial intervention was made in accordance with the ministerial guidelines, thereby maintaining community confidence in the integrity of Australia’s immigration system.

Updated

You can find the whole report – including the Coalition senator’s dissenting report – here.

Updated

Louise Pratt: “I can’t think of all the extraordinary humanitarian cases which require intervention, but this is an extraordinary level of service provided by the minister’s office which underscores the minister’s [personal involvement]”.

Updated

Peter Dutton 'misled' parliament – committee finds

“There is no basis for the minister to say he had no personal connection, when the very genesis of the request came through his office because of a personal connection,” Louise Pratt says.

She said the committee has found (I would imagine there is a dissenting report) that it has undermined the integrity of the immigration department.

Given how strong Pratt’s language is here, I think we will be seeing a no confidence motion coming the parliament’s way.

Updated

“It is the view of the committee that the minister misled the parliament in this matter,” Louise Pratt says, in handing down the report.

The Senate is receiving the Peter Dutton report as I type this.

The Greens have released this statement:

The Senate has today ordered the government to table the Ruddock review by 9.30am Thursday, after a passing a motion from the Australian Greens.

Greens LGBTIQ+ spokesperson Janet Rice said: “LGBTIQ+ communities have been left in the lurch for months awaiting the release of this report. Our rights are at stake and we’re being kept in the dark.

“Scott Morrison’s recent anti-LQBTIQ+ comments have ignited fear in our communities that the government is planning to wind back the laws which protect LGBTIQ+ people from discrimination.

“We need to know to what extent he is planning to further discriminate against everyday LGBTIQ+ Australians in order to shore up the support of powerful religious institutions.”

Greens justice spokesperson Nick McKim said:

“The prime minister has already has made it clear that he has plans to dismantle anti-discrimination laws.

“The far right lost the marriage equality debate and now they want revenge and are going to try to entrench discrimination in other parts of society.

“We will fight them every step of the way.”

Updated

Feel free to pass this on to anyone you know who it could interest. It is very easy to be cynical about politics, but it’s the most important thing in the world and we keep trying to make it better – and generation Z have a pretty good chance of making that happen:

Updated

The senate inquiry report into Peter Dutton’s au pair decision is due to be handed down very soon - we are keeping an eye on the committee website for you.

“I’ve got leftwing branches in my conference, I’ve got conservative branches in my conference ... and some of them [the left] were attached to the former prime minister,” he says.

He says that the votes for the empty chair were in response to that and “that is understandable”.

Updated

From the prime minister’s office:

Over the past few days, we have seen a very distressing series of events unfold relating to tampering with strawberries, particularly out of Queensland. This is a shocking and cowardly thing to do.

The Liberal-National government is acting to increase the penalties on the cowards who commit these crimes.

Our priorities are to keep Australians safe and support the farmers whose livelihoods have been put at risk.

We are announcing:

  • $1m to make more food safety officials urgently available to increase detection, fast-track recalls and assist the strawberry industry to rebuild confidence.
  • An increase to the penalty for existing offences relating to the contamination of goods. These offences currently carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Given the seriousness of the offences, this penalty is not high enough. The changes we are making elevate the offence, in terms of penalties, from one similar to forgery or theft of commonwealth property (which carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison), to one akin to possession of child pornography or funding a terrorist organisation (which attract penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment).
  • New offences of being reckless as to whether this type of conduct will cause harm, which will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
  • For the most serious cases that have national security implications, we will amend the commonwealth sabotage offences to ensure that sabotage of Australia’s food supply is captured by the sabotage offences. The penalties range between 7 and 25 years imprisonment.

The government will introduce its new criminal legislation tomorrow.

These actions reflect the seriousness with which the government views the current threats against Australian industry and, in particular, the livelihoods of growers, communities, towns and whole regions.

This government remains committed to working closely with industry, and state and territory law enforcement agencies to ensure that we protect Australian consumers and protect our farmers.

Families need to have the assurance that the Australian produce they are buying is safe for their kids.

Updated

The prime minister is having a chat to Miranda Devine as part of her Miranda Devine Live show this afternoon.

Updated

I missed this yesterday – but the Manly Daily, Tony Abbott’s local paper, had an interview with the former prime minister regarding the empty chair challenge, and when it comes to the insurgency against him, he blames, well, I’ll let him tell you:

Tony Abbott has taken aim at members of his own electoral conference who voted against his endorsement for the 2019 election labelling them a ‘small minority of ultra-leftists’.

Ultra. Leftists. In the Liberal party’s northern beaches.

2018 just keeps bringing all of the gifts.

Updated

The first instalment of a $30m handout to Foxtel by the Coalition was spent on 12 sports that were previously shown on the pay TV carrier and that include men’s rugby league, a freedom of information request from Fairfax Media has revealed.

The $30m windfall for Foxtel was meant to “support the broadcast of underrepresented sports on subscription television, including women’s sports, niche sports, and sports with a high level of community involvement and participation” when it was announced in the 2016 budget.

But the $7.5m allocated for the 2017-18 financial year was used to screen the AFL, soccer, rugby union, rugby league, cycling, lawn bowls, surfing, Ironman, surf lifesaving, cricket, basketball and hockey, some of which are already seen on free-to-air.

There has been very little explanation from either Foxtel or the government about how the subscription broadcaster will use the funds or why they were allocated.

An earlier freedom of information request by the ABC revealed there was no paperwork to explain why the government had given the funds to Foxtel.

Updated

Laura Jayes from Sky just raised the point that the deputy prime minister and leader of the Nationals – you know, the party which mostly represents farmers in this place – was not beside Scott Morrison when he made the strawberry contamination crackdown announcement.

He’s not in the videos either.

Updated

The Australian Berry Force is on the case:

So I guess the takeaway from that is meetings are dumb, but summits are cool.

Updated

Scott Morrison, continuing his new tradition of telling us exactly how many questions we have suffered through, tells us today, 23 is enough, and calls an end to today’s torture.

Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:

Why won’t the prime minister fulfil the commitment he made to the house last week and say whether or not the minister for home affairs excuse himself from discussions on childcare?

Morrison:

Once again, I refer to the statement by the minister on 13 September, where he said he complied with the requirements under the cabinet handbook and I take advice in relation to this position which puts the question beyond doubt.

The cabinet handbook is a public document. Here it is, quite straightforward; the wording is quite clear. It does not say whatever the opposition wants it to say to suit the political purposes they try to pursue in this parliament.

I have nothing further to report on that matter, Mr Speaker. It has been absolutely cleared up and I am happy for the matter to rest.

EXTREME Jonathan Van Ness voice (from Queer Eye) “But has it? Because...I don’t think it has, hunny.”

Updated

Tony Burke to Scott Morrison:

Last week the prime minister said to come back after making inquiries of the secretary as to whether the minister for home affairs excuse himself on questions on childcare. Now that the prime minister has had a week to make inquiries, did the minister for home affairs excuse himself from all discussions on childcare?

Morrison:

I refer the member to the statement made by the minister for home affairs on this matter and I have nothing further to report.

One would think if they had the answer, and it proved their point, we would have heard about it by now.

Sometimes, you really can say it best, when you say nothing at all.

Updated

Cathy McGowan and Rebehka Shakie had a message for their own for the women of Australia:

‘Don’t get mad, get elected’: a message to all of Australia’s Independent women. After all, Independents have all the fun!

Crossbenchers Cathy McGowan and Rebekha Sharkie with their poster in parliament.
Crossbenchers Cathy McGowan and Rebekha Sharkie with their poster in parliament. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

The poster was created by the Victorian Women’s Trust, for those wondering.

Updated

Questions, in this case, on notice

Hello again, I’m just adding to information I shared earlier about the new material on Peter Dutton’s use of ministerial discretion in relation to au pairs. The material, as I said earlier, makes clear that officials warned Dutton that costs would be incurred as a consequence of the planned removal of the young woman detained in Adelaide not proceeding because of the minister’s intervention.

Dutton’s office has pointed me in the direction of a question on notice that has been submitted to the Senate inquiry. It says no additional costs were incurred. I’m sharing it with you in full for completeness.

Senator Watt: I noticed in this case that the minister was advised that there may be some additional costs to the department if the intervention occurred and this person was allowed to stay in the country. From reading between the lines of the submission, it seems that maybe an airfare was booked. Because, ordinarily, what would happen is that this person comes in –

Mr Pezzullo: I’m a public official: I don’t read between the lines; I just read the lines.

Senator Watt: Ordinarily, had the intervention not occurred, she would have been deported.

Mr Murray: Senator, I can help you there. In that case, the visa had been cancelled and was then subject of removal. As part of the migration provisions, we’d already served notice on the airline. They have 72 hours to effect the removal.

Mr Pezzullo: That’s reflected at paragraph 16 of the released submission.

Senator Watt: I’m interested to know: did the department, ABF or any entity of the government incur any costs as a result of the fact that she didn’t end up being deported?

Mr Murray: I don’t believe so, no.

Mr Outram: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator Watt: It was flagged that that might occur.

Mr Outram: We’ll take that on notice. As I said, there are 4,500 cases where we cancel visas at the border and it’s—I want to impress upon you the degree of churn here. This is a high-volume, high-paced operation at the border and, with those sorts of turnarounds, we try to do them on the day sometimes even where people don’t even go into detention centres. So I will come back to you as to whether there was an actual cost incurred with regard to the airfares.

So what was the answer provided to the committee on notice? “No additional cost on these matters were incurred.”

I’ve asked the minister’s office if they can explain why officials warned costs would be incurred as a consequence of the removal not proceeding, and square that with this answer to the committee saying no additional costs were incurred. If an answer is forthcoming, I will share it.

Updated

Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:

Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull prime minister? (He says it’s a question Morrison has failed to answer on 21 different occasions)

Morrison:

I refer the member to my earlier answers and simply say he has had five years and he can’t convince anyone that he should be the prime minister.

Updated

Right. So Coag was cancelled, because there is a drought summit.

But the drought summit is being held weeks after Coag was due to be held.

So now Coag has been cancelled, because Scott Morrison doesn’t believe in standing around having meetings.

But the drought summit is a meeting.

So Coag was cancelled because...

Morrison:

When people tell lies and repeat them, it doesn’t make them any more true. That is a fundamental principle. When people tell lies, it doesn’t make them any more true the more you repeat them. Most people know that. What I said in a very plain answer to the last question was simply this:

I don’t think you need to have a meeting if you don’t need to have a meeting. You don’t need to have meetings for everybody to come and have a cup of tea.

The reason we don’t have to have that meeting is because the very education funding issues that are referred to by the member will be addressed within that time frame.

... The conversation I had with the premiers when I called each of them and I spoke to each of them and none of them raised a concern with the meeting, not one, because they knew where the progress of those matters when it came to education funding was up to.

Previously as treasurer I had been progressing those matters through the council of federal financial relations and they will be resolved.

But on this side of the house, we don’t think you had to have meetings just for the sake of it. You just get on and do the job, Mr Speaker.

Now the shadow treasurer is terribly irritated because there is not going to be a meeting. What I know about the shadow treasurer is this: when he was immigration minister, people couldn’t trust him on the border, can’t trust him on budget either.

The Australian people know about me, that they can trust me on the borders and they can trust me on the budget because that’s my record.

Updated

Well this is a sobering thought:

Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison: Essentially – why did you cancel Coag? Remember when you cancelled parliament for a week? Why do you keep cancelling things?

Morrison:

You know why we are not having that in October? Because we are having a drought summit.

That is what I announced today. We are having a drought summit. The jeers that come from the opposition in the Labor party when I say we are having a drought summit tells us a bit about where their priorities [are] ... They want to come in here and go on with all this political rubbish day after day after day.

Earlier today I met with the deputy prime minister and I met with the member for New England [Barnaby Joyce]. I met with the head of the National Farmers’ Federation. I met with Maj Gen Steven Day and we received their update on work that was done by Maj Gen Steven Day, who is coordinating the government’s response to the drought. And on 26 October as we will ring together people from around the country. I will invite all the state and territory leaders or their nominees or those within their government directly involved in coordinating the drought response to come and align all our efforts to ensure we are doing a number of things.

Firstly, that we are getting the feed to where it needs to get to, to support the efforts of our farmers, to keep their properties going and to keep them in business, to support the towns, support the centres, support, make sure ...

Tony Burke interrupts to make the point I just raised in the office – that Coag was scheduled for early October, but the drought summit isn’t until the end:

The question went to collect meeting scheduled for 4 October, not the drought summit scheduled for 26 October. He was asked about a different meeting.

But Morrison continues to say how he is not standing around having “a bunch of meetings”. But correct me if I am wrong – and I often am – but isn’t a drought summit, basically a giant meeting?

Updated

Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:

Has the per-resident funding for the complex high care aged care funding instrument gone down as a result of the 2016 budget?

Wyatt (after originally trying to compare it to 2012 levels):

The funding for ACFI expenditure has continued to increase against claims across all three domains.

Updated

Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:

I refer to his previous answer where he denied blaming the new prime minister for [hitting] the age care sector with a $1.2bn cut. If it wasn’t the prime minister’s fault, which person was responsible for cutting $1.2bn from aged care?

Wyatt:

The question you have asked is inaccurate. We have continued to increase funding as I have said from $13.1bn through to $18.6bn through to another $5bn to $23.6bn, and we are continuing to have work undertaken in respect to the ACFI instrument, which has served the sector well.

The funding instrument was capped at a time in which there were claims that were much higher than the trajectory and all governments have a responsibility to live within their means. And within the budget that is established. Now, but we have not cut, because we have continued to grow the ACFI level of funding over the forward estimates and they will continue to grow, but the new RUCKS program that we are working on with Wollongong University will provide a better instrument for people assessing people.

As you heard in the Four Corners program, by their own admission, staff were told to game the instrument.

Just a reminder that both Labor and the government are right – like in health and education, funding has increased, but not by as much as was anticipated.

Updated

Tveeder, which is the transcription service I use to help me get these answers up as quickly as possible, keeps referring to the prime minister as the “pie minister” and combined with all this strawberry talk, I am now STARVING.

Peter Dutton has been allowed to give a dixer answer today – and it is on strawberries. Mostly. He does get this in, at the end:

I also want to take the opportunity today to acknowledge work being done by the Australian federal police in concert with the other state policing agencies and in fact all law enforcement agencies across the country in relation to countering child exploitation.

This is a serious threat to families. Mums and dads are worried about kids online. They are worried about images of being uploaded. They are worried about predators not just in the park, next door or down the street; they are worried about kids online in the hours spent online.

And last week we announced $70m investment into the centre for countering child exploitation, and that is a commonwealth-led effort that involves the other policing agencies as well. We know that shockingly every seven minutes a webpage shows a child being sexually abused.

We know that through the money that we have put into the Australian federal police, they have received additional funding in the 2018-19 budget which includes that money as I said before, and the centre will remove 200 children from danger in the first year alone, and it builds on the work we have done to cancel the visas of people who have been involved in sexual offences against children and women, and we will build on that work every day of this government.

Updated

Julie Collins to Ken Wyatt:

Is the minister aware of a report that while visiting a nursing home he conceded the government’s $1.2bn cuts to aged care was hurting, saying these things are controlled by treasury. Can the minister explain why the then treasurer [denied making] the $1.2bn cut to aged care, and is this why the prime minister described his own government as a Muppet show?

Wyatt:

The report in the paper is not accurate and it is not a comment that I would make when I am in an aged care facility. The decisions around funding and our increased funding going from $13.7bn to $18.6bn to $23.6bn is an increase in our budgets are continuing to grow.

In terms of the active instrument, the work undertaken at the moment, it is looking at the RUCKS program and we will continue to work with the department on the reforms required.

Updated

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 [Tasmanian premier] 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.

Updated

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 force. 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 $5bn out of their savings, and do you know who the biggest burden of that retirees tax fall on? Women. Thirty per cent more women will be impacted by the Labor party’s retiree tax.

Sucking $5bn 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.

Updated

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 $1bn 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.

Updated

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 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.

Updated

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 preselections, 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 Clare 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 fourth 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 10 of our lower house members.

But with party rules demanding at least 35% 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%. And today, 46% 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. Twenty-two 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 [it] 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 frontbench.

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 practise, 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 [away] 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 preselections, 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% 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.

Updated

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:

Updated

Question time begins

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.

Updated

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.

Updated

Peter Dutton said there was no cost to the commonwealth.

But the department advised it would be charged for the flight:

Updated

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.

Updated

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?

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 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.”

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.

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?

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.

Updated

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.

Updated

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.

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.

Updated

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.

ABF didn't think it 'appropriate' that Dutton intervene in au pair case

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

Updated

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.

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.

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.

Updated

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.

Peter Dutton au pair emails drop

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.

Updated

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.

Updated

Meanwhile, it doesn’t look like the right-of-reply negotiations are going well between Roman Quaedvlieg and the powers that be:

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.

Updated

Food tamperers to get up to 15 years in jail

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.

Updated

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.

Updated

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)

Updated

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)

Updated

Labor plans energy forum

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.

Updated

For all those wondering about the “Ken Wyatt was asked to join Labor” story and where it is – it is because both Wyatt and Linda Burney had flat out denied it happened.

Burney:

A total flight of fantasy, and Ken Wyatt has been on the radio this morning saying it’s exactly a flight of fantasy. He is as baffled as I am, and I cannot comment on the inside machinations of the Liberal party.

When we bring you stories, even just what we are hearing when it is not attributed, we make as many attempts to verify it as possible – with the sources – and don’t add fuel to the ones we can’t independently verify.

Updated

TPP leaks

On the leak of the TPP minutes, Bill Shorten had this to say:

First of all, let us go to the substantive issue which was being debated last week. The government has signed a trade agreement with other nations which we think has a serious deficiencies.

We are concerned that this government never focuses on Australian jobs and protecting Australian jobs. So that is the debate. Right through my caucus there is concern that this agreement has plenty of problems with it.

Having said that, the debate was how do we [get] some of the benefits for farmers who are going through a drought, for higher education, for our steel and metal industries, and take those benefits and correct the defects in the agreement, on the election of a Labor government, whenever that is. The other people were saying the whole agreement is rubbish and we should not do any of it.

What we saw was, I thought, a thorough and fair dinkum debate. What we should never do in Australia is confuse debate and disagreement with disunity. I welcome the full range of opinions being expressed are my parliamentary team. We are in touch with everyday people. What I don’t do, is confuse that with disunity.

And whether the leak concerned him:

I want to remind you that I myself referred to this debate on the the Insiders ... TV show, ... and said I reluctantly support this agreement and intend to improve it when we get into government. I don’t begrudge journalists getting background briefings. That’s your job.

But seriously, let’s not confuse debate and difference of opinion with disunity. I’m on to my third Liberal prime minister, Tanya Plibersek is on to a new deputy ... [Liberal] leader, Chris Bowen has had three treasurers, Linda Burney has had more social services ministers then you can think of. That’s disunity. Debating ideas – that’s what we are paid to do.

Updated

The Australian Services Union has responded to Labor’s superannuation plan as a step in the right direction, but says more needs to be done.

Labor’s announcement that it would pay super to people on parental leave if elected to government is a long-overdue reform, advocated by the union movement for several years and will change lives. Reforms to make it easier for employers to contribute more to women’s super is also positive.

The fact that employers can avoid paying superannuation to those earning less than $450 in a given month is an injustice that clearly discriminates against women who dominate the casual and part-time workforce.

One in every two employed women works part time compared to only one in every five men, and women are 68.6% of all part-time employees, according to official data.

The ASU supports the abolition of the threshold but want to see a faster phase-in of the reform and will work with all sides of politics to achieve that.

A recent survey conducted through Galaxy Research (sample of 1,068) found 76% of Australians thought that those earning under $450 per month from an employer should earn superannuation on their income. Only 16% disagree (8% said they don’t know).

Updated

Labor announces its superannuation plan

Labor is officially launching its superannuation pay gap bridge plan.

Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen, Clare O’Neil, Linda Burney and Jenny McAllister have come together to make the announcement.

Plibersek:

We know that Australian women, throughout their working lives, are earning less than men. We continue to see a gender pay gap. They are also retiring with less than men. As Bill said, the gap is about $130,000 on average at the moment, about 40% less than men.

There is a lot of things that we need to do over time to fix the income gap between men and women. Of course we have to address the gender pay gap during the working lives of women. But we also need to address this retirement income gap. Today’s measures are a significant step towards reducing the unequal retirement incomes of men and women.

Today, we are announcing, of course, that we will be paying superannuation to people who are on commonwealth paid parental leave, either maternity leave or dad and partner pay. That is a very big step. We are also progressively getting rid of the $450 per month threshold, below which superannuation currently isn’t paid.

We know that more and more people, instead of working one full-time job, work in multiple jobs. They are working part-time, they working cattle, doing seasonal work – quite often they are missing out on superannuation in all of those jobs.

That is also contributing to the retirement income gap between men and women. These two measures combined and the other measures we are detailing today mean that over time we will reduce the gap between men and women’s superannuation. It is absolutely unconscionable that today, in Australia, the fastest-growing group of people moving into homelessness are single, older women. Addressing this superannuation gap will help reduce that terrible statistic.

Updated

Tanya Plibersek visited the ABC this morning to talk about Labor’s superannuation plan:

There’s two main measures that we are talking about. The first is paying superannuation when someone’s on parental leave – so maternity leave or dad and partner pay.

We know that one of the big reasons that women retire with less superannuation than men is because they are taking time out of the workforce to care for their families.

The second measure is another really important one. At the moment, if you earn less than $450 a month you don’t get paid superannuation. And what we know is that more and more people are making up one income from lots of small jobs, part-time or casual jobs.

So they are missing out on superannuation in each of those jobs. We want to make sure that we move that $450 limit over time, over the next few years. We will phase it out, so that whatever job you are working, if it’s a few hours a week, you will end up getting superannuation on that job.

We are also going to make it easier for employers to make voluntary contributions to women’s super, if they want to do that. We will make sure that when we make changes to superannuation, we consider the gender impact of those changes.

Updated

Jordon Steele-John has been leading the latest push to have abuse against the disabled included as part of the aged care royal commission.

The Greens senator broke down in parliament earlier in the week while asking Mathias Cormann why it was being ignored.

Last night, he used parliamentary privilege to name some of those who had died, while in care. It’s horrific reading, but important:

Tonight, I’d like to read a passage from a speech given by my fellow disability activist and advocate Craig Wallace, who, in 2015, as part of the White Flower Memorial to commemorate all those who died in institutional and residential care, spoke to the sorrow and pain of our community.

In concluding, he said, ‘I call for those who have left us to be remembered, for their names and stories to be said out loud in the sunlight and amongst the people who love them’.

Tonight, I seek to speak their names, and though the sun does not shine in this place I hope that their stories will move the hearts of those who have it within their power to see justice done.

The following names are those who have died in the lead-up or subsequent to the Senate inquiry which called for a royal commission.

Shellay Ward, aged seven, was found locked in a room without sunlight, surrounded by faeces. Shellay died from starvation and thirst, and she weighed only nine kilograms—a third of her expected body weight. She had severe autism and was considered to be profoundly disabled.

Levi Bonnar, seven years old, was found beaten, tortured and finally killed by the people who were meant to care for him.

Hayley Dea Bell was eight years old. When she was found in 2013 she was starved, suffering from pneumonia and her hair was infested with lice and matted with dirt.

Isabella Leiper was nine. She died from a combination of internal injuries which paediatricians said were caused by blunt force to the stomach, such as a fist.

Julian was 11. He was left to freeze to death in a shed. He had first been hosed with water after having faeces rubbed in his face.

Liam Milne and his younger brother.

Craig Sullivan, 17, who was arrested for a minor driving offence and later bashed by another inmate at the Ashley youth detention centre, died in isolation from a massive brain haemorrhage.

Brandon Le Serve suffered severe learning difficulties and was killed by a family member.

Jack Sullivan, 18, died in state-funded care in the ACT from drowning.

Lara Madigan, 20, was returned to her parents’ care at 19, despite stating that they could not look after her. Nine months before her death, authorities were warned she would die if the situation was not addressed. Two weeks before her death, both of her legs were amputated to attempt to stem infection. She died covered in her own faeces and urine in a room infested with cockroaches.

Sarah Hammoud, 22, a disabled young woman who was unable to speak and reportedly half-dragged and half-carried herself from a taxi after a shocking incident, allegedly witnessed by community workers, later died in hospital in 2016 of septicaemia.

Christopher O’Brien, aged 22.

Neil Summerell.

Rebecca Lazarus was found with multiple stab wounds in her chest and abdomen in a group-care home.

Jamie Vincent Johnson, age undisclosed. His care plan stated that he should not be left alone with water because he would drink it without stopping. He died after being left alone in the shower.

Carney Schultz died in a group home. She had a seizure at 2.23am that was documented by staff and was found dead seven hours later.

Shona Hookey, 29, died as a result of medical neglect in an institutionalised setting.

Stephen Ind, 29, a quadriplegic man who made complaints of sexual assault and misconduct by his carers. He was left face down and suffocated to death.

Stuart Lambert.

Melanie Cutmore, who died in the same hospital and under similar circumstances as Shona Hookey.

Brett Ponting, 33, died after being left unsupervised in a bathtub for an extended period of time. His carers were blamed for negligence.

Darren Kingma died in his respite facility as a result of an unexplained incident in which he broke his neck. He was left on the floor for over an hour after his support workers gave up trying to pull him up, saying that he was being non-compliant.

David Veech.

Miriam Merten, a mother of two who was left naked and covered in faeces at a Lismore psychiatric hospital.

Amanda Gilbert, 47, who had an acquired brain injury as a result of attempted suicide and was placed in the Graylands hospital psychiatric care centre in my home state of WA. She was raped and assaulted 111 times and died as a result of complications used in the medication to sedate her. The WA coroner believes this to have been an underestimation of the number of times that she was raped.

Leah Elizabeth Floyd died when a pressure sore she had received at her care home became septic. The inquest heard about serious issues in the facility that she lived [in].

Julie Jacobson, a 51-year-old amputee who died a preventable, avoidable death after a private disability support provider withdrew essential supports.

Sandra Deacon, 59.

Janice and Robyn Frescura, 68 and 50. A family friend of the three people who died in a shooting near Hervey Bay says it was a mercy killing.

Shirley Thompson.

Janet Mackozdi.

Julie Betty Kuhn. A 81-year-old from Armadale was charged over his elderly partner’s apparent mercy killing. It was described as a beautiful act of mercy for his wife.

These are the names that don’t get spoken. These are the reasons. These are the human beings. These are the loved ones, the mothers, the fathers, the sons and the partners who need justice, who demand justice, whose lives were worth living, in whose memory I tonight wear a white flower and whose passing fills me with an ironclad determination. I will not stop and I will not rest until they find the justice that is so desperately owed them

Updated

Speaking of the Nationals and the ABC, Catherine Marriott, who accused Barnaby Joyce of sexual harassment (which Joyce has denied) spoke to Leigh Sales for 7.30 last night.

Gabrielle Chan reported on what she said, with the interview coming after the Nationals were unable to come to a finding on the allegations:

Marriott did not describe the incident in detail, saying she did not want to be defined by it, but she struggled over whether to make a complaint.

“[After the incident] I walked up to my hotel room and I burst into tears. I then couldn’t sleep that whole night. I didn’t actually sleep for a week.

“I rang two of my closest friends and I told them what had happened, and they said they couldn’t believe … they were just absolutely shocked, and they said, ‘You can’t tell anyone. You cannot tell anyone … you will be destroyed if this comes out’.”

Updated

Bridget McKenzie spoke about the strawberry crisis – and for growers, who are facing ramifications not just this season, but next, it is absolutely a crisis – and said consumers needed to keep it in perspective:

We have a great food safety system and we have been coordinating daily meetings between state and territories to keep abreast of the situation. You have seen commentary on social media, whipping up concern where maybe it is unnecessary.

Earlier in the week we had three punnets contaminated out of 800,000. We need to keep it in perspective. Australians need to be assured that what they are eating is safe, but we need to put it in perspective because this has huge far-reaching implications when people stop purchasing or indeed retailers such as Coles taking all strawberries off their shelves. That has flow-on effects for businesses and thousands of Australian employees that we need to consider when people go off half-cut.

The deputy Nationals leader was chatting to the ABC there.

Updated

For some reason* this bill is back on the agenda – the treasury laws amendment (working holiday maker employer register) bill 2017

Basically, it would stop the tax commissioner from making a public register that backpackers could access to see if their employers comply with tax obligations.

As a general rule, those who are transparent tend to be less exploitive employers.

The register was part of the backpacker tax legislation, which was passed in 2016. (Doesn’t that feel like a lifetime ago?)

The bill to remove the register popped up in February last year, and then last hit the Senate in May. It went away, but now is back. And all of a sudden – it didn’t hit the agenda until late yesterday.

Labor’s Andrew Leigh is against it:

We’ve heard too many reports about the exploitation of vulnerable working-holiday makers and that’s why Labor was pleased when the Libs committed to a public register of those employers that have employed working-holiday makers.

Now they’re trying to go back on that. There [is] backing in the Senate a bill that would kill off the public register. Less transparency means more exploitation and it means Australians are less likely to see the taxes paid that ought to be paid.

The Senate should vote down this bad bill. We need more transparency, stronger protection for working-holiday makers and better compliance with Australia’s tax laws.

* The reason is the government has run out of legislation after taking the Neg and company tax cuts off the table, and is yet to start working out what its policies are under Scott Morrison, creating a lag in legislation.

Updated

And while the world watches the latest Korean summit, where Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un are holding their third meeting in an attempt to officially end the Korean war, ending nuclear weapons also has a local focus:

Updated

From the office of foreign minister, Marise Payne:

The Australian government condemns in the strongest terms the atrocities committed in Myanmar’s Rakhine, Shan and Kachin states, as detailed in the full report of the UN fact-finding mission on Myanmar.

Following the mission’s preliminary report of 27 August, the full report documents in detail serious violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, committed primarily by Myanmar’s military against ethnic minorities.

In the case of Rakhine state, the fact-finding mission concludes that crimes against humanity and war crimes have occurred, as well as finding sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and prosecutions for genocide perpetrated against the Rohingya.

The full report of the fact-finding mission adds to a large body of evidence indicating the commission of the most serious crimes under international law, particularly against the Rohingya.

The Australian government is considering options in response to the fact-finding mission’s report, including targeted sanctions.

In line with the mission’s recommendations, Australia will support new international efforts on accountability and justice in Myanmar, including at the human rights council, of which we are a member.

Myanmar continues to face formidable challenges as it transitions from five decades of military rule. As a regional partner, Australia will continue to support efforts to achieve democracy and national peace and reconciliation for the benefit of all of people in Myanmar.

Respect for human rights, and full accountability for the human rights violations that have occurred, will be essential to this process.

Updated

The future of work report is also due to be tabled at around 5pm - keep an eye out for that one as well, because I know it has caused some Senators some sleepless nights.

In addressing the leak, Chris Bowen said there are real-world examples of where deals had been changed after the fact:

We had a good and constructive debate in caucus. You would expect us to do, as a serious political party. The caucus accepted the recommendation from Jason Clare, with my strong support, to facilitate the legislation. That’s not to say we think it’s a perfect deal. That’s not to say there aren’t things we would move to improve in government, of course. But we are a trading nation.

One in five jobs in Australia depends on trade. The important and responsible thing for the Labor party to do, as [New Zealand’s prime minister] Jacinda Ardern has done and as [Canada’s prime minister] Justin Trudeau has done, for example, is to facilitate the TPP. We will have improvements to make in negotiations with countries as Jacinda Ardern has done. I mean, when she came to office she’s negotiated changes to the ISDS [investor-state dispute settlement] regime, for example. Jason Clare has put together an excellent policy which was endorsed by the caucus. You would expect that we would have a good and proper respectful debate about the policy, as we did.

Updated

The fallout from the strawberry sabotage is continuing. This is just absolutely heartbreaking, given the drought and storms that have already affected so many growers.

Queensland, which was ground zero for the crisis, has announced a package to attempt to keep the industry afloat in the face of growers having to dump their stock, and has called on the federal government to follow suit.

Updated

The bells are ringing – parliament is about to begin.

The governor general address-in-reply debate is listed as fourth – if the Senate gets to it, you know they have officially run out of stuff to do.

Updated

Rob Harris and James Campbell were handed minutes from a Labor meeting on the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, the support of which has become Labor policy, by a very, very slim margin.

That very, very slim margin has created some consternation – so much so, that Bill Shorten has suffered his first major show of public dissent in some time – with the leaking of the meeting minutes.

From the Herald Sun report:

Former ACTU president Ged Kearney, the Member for Batman in Victoria, dismissed the TPP’s provisions to protect workers as “weak and aspirational at best”.

Josh Wilson, the Member for Fremantle in Western Australia, told caucus: “We have known the serious shortcomings of the TPP for some time” and warned that in the past “the Coalition has used trade agreements to advance their deregulation agenda”.

And WA senator Glenn Sterle raised the spectre of the deal being used to create low-tax, low-wage areas, asking: “How do I go back to WA and say this won’t impact Gina Rinehart setting up a special economic zone?”

Doug Cameron also said it would prove negative for them in western Sydney and Queensland.

Chris Bowen and Labor are not denying there is dissent – everyone asked has admitted there have been some “spirited” discussions.

The line in response has been – we’ll fix it, if we win power. But that doesn’t seem good enough for quite a lot of MPs, who have indicated they will continue to fight the decision internally.

Updated

In other news, the Peter Dutton Senate inquiry report is due today – we are expecting it around 5pm.

Updated

Anne Aly was asked about the timing of Labor’s announcement when she stopped by doors* this morning:

Let me start by saying the Coalition doesn’t have a problem with women, the Coalition has a problem with men.

I think it comes at a time when we’re starting to talk about older people, older Australians, and it’s particularly a pertinent time to shine the spotlight on how women in particular fare worse off in their later years. Particularly because of the fact that they are behind in superannuation, 30% of older women are likely to live in poverty, and I think it’s time we really addressed this issue and addressed this inequality. It’s a very stark inequality. And we can start by making some measures to address that, and Labor has taken that on, we’ve recognised it, and we’ve started to do something about it.

*Doors is what we call the short doorstop interviews. MPs only come by when they have something to say.

Updated

Good morning

Labor has beaten the government to filling the policy void, announcing a superannuation plan that would see women on maternity leave, and on low pay, paid super in a bid to bridge the superannuation pay gap.

The gap in retirement savings is often raised as part of the pay equality issue, with several reports finding that women are penalised in retirement for taking time out to have a baby, or because they work in industries that are traditionally paid less.

On average, it works out to about $113,000 less in superannuation, or 40% less.

Labor has pledged to continue super payments for anyone on paid parental leave, dad and partner pay, as well as phase out the $450 minimum monthly income threshold for the super guarantee.

Any future changes to superannuation would also have to include a published impact to women.

The timing of the announcement is no coincidence. The Liberal party is still struggling to come up with an answer to the lack of women in its ranks, as well as how to deal with allegations of bullying, which have been levelled by some of its female MPs.

But it is not all smooth sailing for Labor – Rob Harris from the Herald Sun has published sections of leaked meeting minutes, revealing the extent of unrest within caucus over the decision to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Labor has given its support to the trade deal, with the caveat it will amend parts of the labour deal if it wins government. But those in the left, who have stood against the deal, remain sceptical and concerned. It was raised in the caucus meeting again yesterday, with MPs attempting to overturn the decision. That was narrowly defeated, but doesn’t look like going anywhere soon.

We’ll bring you all of that and more as the day rolls on. Mike Bowers is off today, so it’s just me and the Guardian brains trust, and we’ll do our best to fill the gap.

I have managed two coffees today so far, so this should be interesting?

Ready?

Let’s get into it!

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Matt Damon and Ben Affleck confirm bleak, bizarre rumour about Netflix original movies
The stars of the Netflix action movie ‘The Rip’ may have just let slip a big secret about the way the streaming platform tells stories
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
The best wake-up under the sun: Lumie Bodyclock Glow 150 sunrise alarm clock review
Our reviewer loved this wake-up light more than any other he’s tested – it’s even knocked his previous best sunrise alarm off the top spot
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
AI can make the dead talk – why this doesn’t comfort us
For as long as humans have buried their dead, they’ve dreamed of keeping them close. The ancient Fayum portraits – those stunningly lifelike images wrapped in Egyptian mummies – captured faces meant to remain present even after life had left the body.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Matt Damon says some people would have preferred jail to ‘cancellation’
The ‘Good Will Hunting’ star was speaking to Joe Rogan when he said cancellation follows people ‘to the grave’
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Far from ‘upcharged grape juice’: the 13 best nonalcoholic wines in the US
The top booze-free wines – from pinot noir to sparkling rosé – taste surprisingly similar to traditional offerings
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
Are Eman Pacquiao and Jillian Ward Dating as Fans Spot Clue in Viral TikTok Post
Fans speculate Eman Pacquiao is the mystery man in Jillian Ward's viral TikTok video. Read how the boxer addressed the dating rumours and cleared the air.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play