Health News at Your Fingertips

Scott Morrison breaks his evening fast with Japan’s PM

Josh Butler

He missed the formal beginning of the 47th parliament, but Scott Morrison did get to meet a prime minister this week after all, tucking into breakfast with Japan’s leader Fumio Kishida in Tokyo today.

The former PM has come under criticism for skipping the opening week of the new parliament, after he guided the Coalition to an election loss in May, instead choosing to stick to a commitment to address a conservative leadership event in Japan. Yesterday Morrison said he was “unable to attend” parliament because of his attendance at the Global Opinion Leaders Summit – even though the main event doesn’t start until Thursday.

Labor has questioned whether Morrison is being paid for the event.
In a Facebook post, Morrison said he’d been invited for breakfast with Kishida and his wife at their residence in Tokyo – which he called “an honour”.

We were able to convey our sincere condolences and extend our sympathies for the terrible loss of PM Abe. It was also an opportunity to reflect on the strong and close personal relationship we had shared, in particular concluding Japan’s first ever Reciprocal Access Defence agreement, PM Kishida’s strong support for AUKUS and the work we did together In the Quad,” Morrison said.

Morrison wrote that he also visited the Meiji shrine to pray for former Japanese leader Shinzo Abe, who was killed by a gunman earlier this month.

Prayer for peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Gratitude for the life and service of PM Shinzo Abe,” he wrote in a message left at the shrine.

If passed in the Senate, it arrives at the governor general’s desk for its Royal Assent.

This begs the questions of:
“What happens if it is not passed by the Senate?”
“Can it be re-introduced at a later date?”
“What happens if it is amended by the Senate?”
I think I know the answers, but I’d like to be sure.

For a bill to be passed in the parliament, it has to pass both chambers.

So usually it goes from the house to the Senate (a bill can start life in the senate and then go to the house, but this is rarer, just because of the numbers).

Usually, governments who know a piece of legislation won’t pass the senate, don’t introduce it there. It stays in bill purgatory until the government thinks it has the numbers, or it is quietly dropped.

Governments set the order of the day (unless there is a change of standing orders) so it can introduce bills to a chamber and then pull it without notice, depending on how things are going with the negotiations with crossbenchers.

If a bill is amended by the senate, it has to go back to the house for another vote. If a bill which started in the senate goes to the house and is amended, it has to go back to the senate for another vote as well (because the bill which the chamber sent was not the bill which was approved)

The house can vote down the amendments from the senate (and vice versa), in which case, the bill often goes back to legislation purgatory.

So in short, if the bill the house sends to the senate isn’t approved, it has not passed the parliament. If the bill is amended by the senate and the house doesn’t approve those amendments, and the senate won’t budge, the legislation does not pass the parliament.

Paul Karp

Greens say Labor willingness to negotiate on climate bill ‘may well be enough’

Greens leader, Adam Bandt, has held a press conference with new Greens MPs and senators, in which he welcomed progress on the climate bill but said the minor party is still negotiating with Labor.

In particular, Bandt described Chris Bowen’s apparent openness to including a ratchet that is consistent with Australia’s nationally defined contributions under Paris as a “good step”.

He said this “may well be enough” to address “fixable problems” – that the 43% has to be a genuine floor, and not a ceiling – ie a future government has to be able to lift ambitions “without parliamentary obstacles”. This is a signal the Greens are looking for a deal – but also that it’s early days, and they haven’t seen the detail of what Bowen was referring to.

Bandt said the Greens’ preference remains to “improve and pass climate legislation” but the party wants “real action”.

Asked if a promise to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act could address the concerns about no new coal and gas, Bandt acknowledged that that was one of a “variety of ways” to deal with the problem, along with improving the safeguards mechanism.

Bandt said the issue with using the safeguards mechanism is it isn’t clear “what obligations … that imposes” – he cited the WA government giving an exemption for new gas projects, so that carbon offsets weren’t required.

On process, Bandt said the Greens “traditionally, usually support Senate inquiries”, so the bill could go to an inquiry between now and September, when it will come to the Senate.

There have been a few variations of this question appearing in the comment threads (thanks to our tireless moderators for pulling them out to me)

Just how long can an MP absent themselves from Parliamentary sittings before some disciplinary action can be taken against them – by either their own party or the Parliament?

That is obviously in relation to Scott Morrison, and his absence from parliament this week. (Side note – has anyone seen Barnaby Joyce?)

The answer, in short, is no. There is no limit to the amount of leave a MP can take.

There has only been one federal MP booted from the parliament for taking leave – John Ferguson, who wanted to seperate central Queensland from Brisbane, was mostly against the White Australia policy (of 1901) and against bills which sought to deport Pacific labourers. He was also very ill and only attended 128 days of the 222 days parliament sat and then was on leave without absence for two months. And that is what got him kicked out – he triggered a constitutional amendment. That was in 1903 and was the first and only time it has happened.

This was the section:

38. Vacancy by absence

The place of a member shall become vacant if for two consecutive months of any session of the Parliament he, without the permission of the House, fails to attend the House.

But the key point there is ‘without permission’.

These days, MPs get permission fairly easily. And they can take as much leave as they like. It is up to their electorates whether or not that is good enough, come election time.

Here are the latest coronavirus numbers from around Australia today, as the country records at least 100 deaths from Covid-19:

ACT

• Deaths: 0
• Cases: 949
• In hospital: 151 (with 1 person in ICU)

NSW

• Deaths: 30
• Cases: 14,067
• In hospital: 2,344 (with 66 people in ICU)

Northern Territory

• Deaths: 0
• Cases: 530
• In hospital: 71 (with 1 person in ICU)

Queensland

• Deaths: 21
• Cases: 8,612
• In hospital: 1,123 (with 31 people in ICU)

South Australia

• Deaths: 3
• Cases: 3,773
• In hospital: 379 (with 7 people in ICU)

Tasmania

• Deaths: 2
• Cases: 1,328
• In hospital: 177 (with 3 people in ICU)

Victoria

• Deaths: 40
• Cases: 12,339
• In hospital: 869 (with 39 people in ICU)

Western Australia

• Deaths: 4
• Cases: 4,409
• In hospital: 457 (with 17 people in ICU)

Greens ‘open to discussion’ on climate safeguard mechanism

Adam Bandt wants to know what any safeguard mechanism would look like – and whether it could just be overruled if it was politically expedient.

The base proposition is this: we cannot keep opening up new coal and gas projects and tackle climate change. If we open up new coal and gas projects, we will not only blow the domestic targets but put the global task of combating climate change potentially beyond reach.

That’s how big some of these projects are. As for the mechanism … whether in this particular regulation or another different rule on another act, we are open to discussion on all that. But what matters is at the end of the day whether or not the government is going to start opening up new coal and gas projects.

New coal and or gas projects remain the sticking point on the climate bill, Adam Bandt says:

Our preference as I said before is to improve and pass climate legislation in this parliament. [Prior to the election], both Labor and the Coalition have supported more coal and gas projects.

You can’t put the fire out while you’re pouring petrol on it. That remains a point of difference between us and the government. The government has said publicly that it’s OK to keep opening projects below.

We will continue those negotiations in good faith to see if we can reach a position where we can pass legislation that allows us to start taking climate action because that’s what people want. People want the government to do more than a promise. People want the coal and gas to stay in the ground.

We can have a debate including potentially over the remaining three years of this parliamentary term about how quickly we should get out [of] gas and what we do to support gas workers in the change.

But I think everyone across the country would be in agreement that while we negotiate climate legislation, we shouldn’t be making the problem worse by opening up new coal and gas mines.

The Greens are holding a press conference after all being sworn in.

Adam Bandt is talking about the Greens position on the climate bill:

On the climate legislation … we have been very concerned [that] Labor’s 42% target is not compliant with the Paris agreement. It’s not a science-based target, it’s based on Australia and the world exceeding two degrees of warming.

We’ve been concerned that the bill may put that weak target in to war that will put a handbrake on future governments [being] willing to act according to the science.

It’s not possible to go below even this weak target without concerns that the bill doesn’t have any teeth and doesn’t oblige the government to do anything and also coal and gas remain … and the government may in fact go and open new coal and gas projects.

I welcome the announcement from the minister today that there will be changes to the previous version of the bill that will circulate. That’s a good step and we are having negotiations in good faith discussions with the government about those areas that I’ve raised publicly.

There is a protest inside the parliament’s public foyer, where young people from the Tomorrow Movement have gathered to call for more climate action and better social housing and public services.

It looks like the police are stepping in to shut that protest down.

It’s good to be back

The guns (cannons) are outside parliament ready for the salute.

Protesters are on the lawn.

Police and politicians are everywhere.

Parliament is back, baby!

(Yes, I know there was a typo – apologies, I have been up since 5am. I shall have another coffee.)

Some members seemed to enjoy voting for the new Speaker:

Thanks for your questions, readers

I am just putting together some more answers to the questions you have sent through – stay tuned for those.

I’ll headline them as a key event so you know where they are – and thank you for sending so many in.

Government seeks to ban ‘unfair’ contracts in bid to protect small businesses

There is not a lot of parliamentary legislative business going on as yet, but Julie Collins and Andrew Leigh have announced the government will introduce legislation to ban “unfair” contracts to protect small businesses and consumers:

Small businesses and consumers often lack the resources and bargaining power to effectively review and negotiate terms in standard form contracts. Existing laws haven’t stopped the use of unfair terms, which remain prevalent in standard form contracts.

The government will introduce legislation in the upcoming sitting period to strengthen unfair contract terms protections for small businesses and consumers.

The amendments will introduce civil penalty provisions outlawing the use of, and reliance on, unfair terms in standard form contracts. This will enable a regulator to seek a civil penalty from a court.

Additionally, a larger number of small business contracts will be afforded protection. This will occur by increasing the small business eligibility threshold for the protections from less than 20 employees to less than 100 employees, and introducing an annual turnover threshold of less than $10 million as an alternative threshold for determining eligibility.

For those who missed it, Milton Dick has been elected Speaker. As per tradition, he was dragged to the Speaker’s chair after winning the vote.

Behind the lens at parliament

A little more from Mike Bowers and Blake Sharp-Wiggins

On the new Speaker:

Chris Bowen tight-lipped on climate discussions with Greens

Chris Bowen’s office has released the transcript from his earlier press conference.

Here is how he addressed questions on the climate negotiations with the Greens:

Q: So the Greens want to hold future parliament’s to account with the legislated target … but you say you don’t need legislation to be able to proceed with the target. So are those some powers that you’re willing to give up in the process to hold future governments and future ministers accountable? And during negotiations with the Greens what’s your message to them about the future of gas and coal projects?

Bowen:

Well, in relation to your the first part of your question, no parliament can bind a future parliament is my first point. My second point is no Dutton government will be good for climate. Regardless of what any piece of legislation says, if you want a government that’s good for climate keep re-electing the Albanese government. That’s the message. Mr Dutton has made it crystal clear he’s not got the memo from the Australian people. He’s continuing on like the same old Liberal party, hasn’t learnt a thing …

In relation to discussions with the Greens …, those discussions have occurred and no doubt there’ll be some further discussions, but they have occurred along the basis of our public position and to be fair the Greens’ public position as well. I’m not going to go in the details, but they would reflect the positions we’ve reflected publicly.

Q: With regard to the Greens demand on coal and gas, new coal and gas developments, you suggested last week about the safeguard mechanism being adequate to keep those under control. But would coal and gas developments be exempt under the safeguards mechanism because they are emissions intensive?

Bowen:

The position on safeguards mechanism is crystal clear. We’re not changing the threshold of firms or facilities that get impacted, but any new facility which goes over 100,000 tonnes would be impacted. I’ll be having more to say about the design of the safeguard mechanism in coming weeks, and be consulting about some particular elements about the design of our reforms to the safeguard mechanism, as you’d expect, because it’s a complicated undertaking … it will play an important role in emissions reduction. It currently covers the 215 biggest emitters. That’s why we took to the election a policy to deal with it and reform it and improve it, sort a mandate and received it.

For those who missed it, here is part of Anthony Albanese’s emotional speech from earlier today:

Speaker ballot continues

The secret ballot is continuing in the House of Representatives.

Milton Dick will be the successful candidate.