What did we learn in question time?
Amy Remeikis
Every question from the opposition was again on security arrangements for Palestinian visas, in a rehash of every QT from this week.
But after questions on how many visas Qatar has issued to Palestinians (a December report said 3,000 places in Qatar would be made available) and Abul Rizvi debunking the Coalition’s interpretation of his interview with the Australian newspaper before QT began, there was not much left in the pot.
Not a single question was asked about whether the government had received advice from its department to issue humanitarian visas, which is what the opposition was lining up in its attacks this morning.
Paul Fletcher, who is chief wrangler of the opposition in the House, was also seen dropping off sheets of papers to backbenchers who asked questions (actual paper is how new instructions or questions are usually delivered – they don’t do it in text messages).
Anthony Albanese stuck to his strategy of not engaging in the back-and-forth by sitting down whenever a point of order was raised and the government kept every dixer on what it is was doing either on policy or cost of living relief.
That culminated with Albanese delivering his own dixer answer designed to get the Labor troops “hear, hearing” and present a positive, uplifted “team” (the Coalition’s Nola Marino could be seen pretending to conduct the “hear, hears” as if in front of an choir)
And Peter Dutton stayed fairly quiet. He had just the one question, which was cut off over a debate over imputations in questions and then reworded.
That is the last QT until 9 September when parliament returns. Enjoy that break.
Key events
Daisy Dumas
Courts across New South Wales will be shut without notice as sheriffs down tools in protest against a work environment they say is increasingly risky.
The state’s 300-plus sheriff officers are demanding a “reclassification” of their roles and a pay rise to reflect the increasingly dangerous nature of their work, according to the Public Service Association, which represents the workers.
Their stop work action has forced the closure of court houses since early July, with more rolling stoppages expected. A statewide strike took place for the first time on Thursday, affecting all local, district and supreme court houses.
Scheduled court hearings have had to be adjourned while a record-breaking number of pending trials await to be heard.
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures released last week show the state’s remand population is now 5763, the highest on record. Many of those cases relate to intimate partner and family violence.
Sheriffs oversee court security, enforce writs and serve warrants across more than 170 courthouses and are employed by the state government.
Stewart Little, General Secretary of the PSA said the introduction of stab vests, ballistic vests, pepper spray and batons for sheriffs were a result of the increasingly dangerous nature of the work.
He said:
Within the remand system, they are often very high needs inmates, high risk and difficult.
He said ASIO’s raising of the threat level to “probable” had “flow-on consequences for all secure, high-risk locations, including courts.”:
It’s certainly the case that it’s been really, really busy for the last six months. What’s brought [industrial action] to a head is there are significant vacancies coupled with an extreme workload because we can’t attract or retain sheriffs.
He did not rule out another statewide stoppage and said he would fight for his members for months, “if that’s what it takes.”
A Department of Communities and Justice spokesperson the department is “currently in discussions with the Public Service Association and it would be inappropriate to comment on these matters.”
Contingency plans were in place to reduce impacts on courts, they said.
An Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions spokesperson said the office “continues to work with the courts as this matter is resolved”.
Jordyn Beazley
Hello, and thank you to Amy Remeikis for guiding us through another busy week on the politics live blog. I’ll now be with you until this evening.
Amy Remeikis
This is Amy, signing off
And with that, I will pass the blog over to Jordyn Beazley, who will take you through the evening.
The politics live blog will go dark again until 9 September when parliament returns – but you will be kept updated with Emily Wind and the team behind the Australia live general news blog in the mean time.
It is going to be a big couple of weeks between parliament sessions – and there is also the Pacific Island Forum next week, so make sure you check back for coverage of that.
Thank you to everyone who joined with us for the last two weeks – it means so much. Particularly when you have so many things fighting for your attention. You are the reason this little blog keeps ticking over and we are grateful.
Politics live will be back in two weeks, but until then, as always – take care of you.
Paul Karp
Labor and the Coalition have reached in-principle agreement in negotiations on aged care reforms which will involve greater user-pays for aged care residents, particularly with respect to residential accommodation and food.
Guardian Australia has confirmed Labor has offered to drop criminal penalties against aged care directors for breaches of standards and to exempt people on home care waiting lists from the new fee structure.
But we don’t have the full details of the bill, because the government won’t release it until the Coalition has given formal notice of its support.
The aged care minister, Anika Wells, said:
It has been clear all along: there must be bipartisanship. We can’t have this change from government to government. The sector won’t invest if they’re not confident about the rules. The finances and care options of older Australians are just too important.
We’ve had long constructive negotiations with the opposition, but haven’t yet secured a formal agreement to allow us to introduce legislation.”
Earlier on Thursday the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said:
We’ve made it really clear we’ve been working methodically to make sure that we can deliver a higher standard of care and better services in a more sustainable way … We’ve been engaged I think in meaningful discussions and negotiations across the parliament, and we hope to be able to say more about that soon …
Spending on aged care will continue to grow even if we are able to implement the sorts of reforms recommended to us by the aged care taskforce.”
Advocates dissapointed in proposed parliamentary standards legislation
Renee Carr, the executive director of advocacy group Fair Agenda, has responded to the tabling of the independent parliamentary standards commission legislation.
Carr says that the group has “major questions about the lack of transparency provided by this reform”. Carr:
If a parliamentarian has engaged in serious misconduct, the detailed report and recommendations of the independent commission appear to only be provided to the members of the privileges committee. This means that a small group of MPs will decide not only what sanctions are voted on by the chamber, but also what information is then made available to the public.
How are the public supposed to have faith that they are making an informed decision at the ballot box, or that parliamentarians are actually being held to account, if their colleagues are the ones determining the flow of information? It doesn’t pass the pub test.
Carr says more needs to be done to strengthen the transparency around the commission, so the public is kept informed of the IPSC’s findings:
Under this reform, it appears that information may never be made public, if the parliamentarians who make up the privileges committee disagree.”
… We’re also disappointed to see the scope of these standards limited only to conduct within the course of a parliamentarian’s role. Given the influence parliamentarians have, and the power they have over our lives, the community should be able to expect a certain standard of conduct and character in all aspects of their public life.
Greens fire back after Labor says motion on Indigenous women’s deaths was ‘disrespectful’
Greens senator Dorinda Cox has responded to the minister for Indigenous Australians, Malarndirri McCarthy’s comments on the motion Cox attempted to move in the senate earlier today.
McCarthy said the government had only had the report on Missing and murdered first nations women and children for a week and was considering it in detail. She said she only received notice of Cox’s motion five minutes before it was tabled, and was “disappointed” in how Cox had handled the issue.
She said it was “disrespectful” to suggest the government wasn’t doing anything.
Cox has responded in a statement:
I brought this motion because of the calls and conversations I have had since the missing and murdered first nations final report last week. These are the same conversations that have been had with the relevant ministers, who still turn their backs on the calls for urgent action.
Well, I won’t be silenced and I will keep demanding action from this government.
We should be outraged that our women and children continue to be slaughtered and that our women and children are not safe. Yet this government, who [have] the power today to change this, says it needs “more time” and calls my motion to address this national emergency and implement the Greens recommendations, which are based on lived experience and stakeholders and that will save lives, “disappointing”.
Well, this government’s lack of action is disappointing and shameful. You have been elected to do your job. Do it.
Communities are rallying on the streets, stakeholders and frontline services are exhausted and overwhelmed, and we are relying on victim survivors to count our dead women and demand action – for some whilst trying to stay alive or while seeing their loved ones being terrorised or hurt. This is shameful.
Here is Anthony Albanese in question time, responding to one of the visa questions:
What did we learn in question time?
Amy Remeikis
Every question from the opposition was again on security arrangements for Palestinian visas, in a rehash of every QT from this week.
But after questions on how many visas Qatar has issued to Palestinians (a December report said 3,000 places in Qatar would be made available) and Abul Rizvi debunking the Coalition’s interpretation of his interview with the Australian newspaper before QT began, there was not much left in the pot.
Not a single question was asked about whether the government had received advice from its department to issue humanitarian visas, which is what the opposition was lining up in its attacks this morning.
Paul Fletcher, who is chief wrangler of the opposition in the House, was also seen dropping off sheets of papers to backbenchers who asked questions (actual paper is how new instructions or questions are usually delivered – they don’t do it in text messages).
Anthony Albanese stuck to his strategy of not engaging in the back-and-forth by sitting down whenever a point of order was raised and the government kept every dixer on what it is was doing either on policy or cost of living relief.
That culminated with Albanese delivering his own dixer answer designed to get the Labor troops “hear, hearing” and present a positive, uplifted “team” (the Coalition’s Nola Marino could be seen pretending to conduct the “hear, hears” as if in front of an choir)
And Peter Dutton stayed fairly quiet. He had just the one question, which was cut off over a debate over imputations in questions and then reworded.
That is the last QT until 9 September when parliament returns. Enjoy that break.
Amy Remeikis
What did the speaker rule on imputations?
One of the interesting parts of that QT (which is a rare sentence to write) was Milton Dick’s ruling on imputations.
The speaker said he had “spent a bit of time overnight dealing with imputations in questions” because it has been raised so frequently lately. He used practice (which sets the precedents that speakers use in dealing with disputes) and went back to the 2000s and Speaker Neil Andrew.
Andrew outlined “improper motives” in questions and those not allowed, “particularly with personal motives, regardless of where it’s directed to”.
He then went to Speaker Tony Smith, who made rulings in a similar space in 2021 and 2018. Smith said he was “certainly not comfortable with a language that just makes assertions as it did, I’m really not, and those on my left, who within the opposition, would not be comfortable if that sort of language was directed back at them”.
And then he quoted himself from 14 February when he asked a Greens MP to “redirect and rephrase the question” and another occasion when he asked Kate Chaney to also change her question.
So for “consistency” Dick said he would be ruling those parts of the questions (imputations) out.
Question time ends
As Anthony Albanese lists off all the “numbers” he says the government is proud of, the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, almost gives himself a hernia yelling “You forgot the $275!!!! You forgot the $275!!!!!!”
Question time ends.
(The $275 is in reference to the average the government said people would be saving on their energy bills by 2025.)
Anthony Albanese takes a dixer so he can end question time on a rallying “rah-rah” on what he says Labor has done in the term.
I think we are safe to say that at the end of this answer, the final question time of the sitting will be done.
Julian Leeser is back:
Prime Minister, does supporting Hamas pass the character test for an Australian visa?
Anthony Albanese:
Everyone who applies for an Australian visa is subject to the same security standard set by the same agencies and the same personnel as under the former government, and our intelligence agencies make those decisions.
Our intelligence agencies have the confidence of this side of the House, this side of the House, and so does Mike Burgess, who has made it very clear that if you have violent extremism as an ideology, then you certainly have a problem with an Asio assessment.
Asio makes these national security assessments. They’re not made on a partisan basis or a political basis.
Asio do this work and they do it as well on an ongoing basis on an ongoing basis, which is relevant to previous questions that have been asked over the last couple of weeks.
And national security is too important to be used as a political football.
Our national security is something that historically in this place, in this place has been above the sort of game playing and targeting that we’ve seen here.
The targeting of any group based upon hate is a bad thing, whether that’s people of Jewish faith, people of Islamic faith, people of whatever colour or creed. It is a bad thing. And we see the consequences of hate in too many places of the world at the moment. What I want to do in this great multicultural nation is provide …
Dan Tehan goes to raise a point of order and a visibly annoyed Albanese ends his answer.
Julian Leeser asks PM whether supporting Hamas passes the character test for Australian visa
Julian Leeser asks Anthony Albanese:
Prime Minister, on October 7, Hamas terrorists went into small Israeli farming villages and a music festival where they filmed themselves gleefully murdering children, raping women and mutilating their victims, including after death.
1,300 innocent people were gunned down and murdered for sport, and 251 hostages were forced at gunpoint into Hamas terror tunnels under Gaza. On return, thousands of people were dancing in the streets in celebration. Prime minister, does supporting Hamas pass the character test for an Australian visa?
Albanese:
I thank the member for Berowra for his question, and I know that he, as a proud Jewish Australian, was hurt, as are other members of the Jewish community right around not just Australia, but around the world by the events, the horrific events of October 7.
They shocked also, I think, anyone with any human values at all.
One of the things that I’ve said to people here who I think have been in any way equivocal, unlike the government that has been unequivocal and as has the opposition in their condemnation of what happened in October 7, is that the people who were there at the Nova music festival looked like a whole lot of people who would attend a Splendour in the Grass concert, would attend the sort of events that happen here in Australia where young people celebrate their common humanity, where they engage in fun and where they also tend to be people who are open to ideas and open to collaboration across people of different faiths, etc and one of the things that some of the, Jewish community leaders have said to me in the wake of October 7 is that they are precisely the sort of people who want to see peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians, as well.
They were very close to where the border was. And to have them subjected to the horrific murder, rape and abuse that occurred, the kidnapping of people, is horrific, if it occurred to any human being.
But of course, because of one of the reasons why the world came together in the wake of world war two in the wake of the Holocaust …
(There is a point of order at this part of the question and Albanese sits down, completing his answer.)
Rebekha Sharkie asks Mark Butler:
According to the National Rural Health Alliance, regional Australians receive $848 less per year in health spend than metropolitan Australians. How will the government urgently address this alarming health care spending inequity?
Butler (the bit that counts):
We’re currently undertaking [a review] about the distribution rules to ensure that all areas have access to doctors, but other health professionals as well.
‘We want to see an advance in peace and security between Israelis and Palestinians’: PM
The LNP MP Pat Conaghan asks Anthony Albanese:
When the Rafah border crossing reopens, will the thousands of people holding a tourist visa to travel to Australia be eligible to travel immediately?
Visa approvals expire and lapse. That is normal.
Anthony Albanese:
I’m asked about the reopening of the Rafah border crossing by the member for Cowper and he may have information that I don’t have, and that’s possible, Mr Speaker. That is possible.
But I think it’s unlikely, Mr Speaker. I think it’s unlikely. But what I do want to see are borders which are able to be opened because there is a release of hostages from Gaza currently being kept by Hamas. Because there is an end to the death and destruction that we see against too many innocent civilians in Gaza on our TV screens every night.
Because we see want to see an advance in peace and security between Israelis and Palestinians. Because we see in the region, a recognition by Arab states of the state of Israel and the right for it to continue to exist with insecure borders, but also the right of Palestinians, the legitimate aspiration that they have, to live in peace and security behind their borders.
That’s what I hope for. That is something that has been longstanding bipartisan policy in the Australian parliament for a long period of time.
And Australia has a proud history going back to our role in the United Nations, with, importantly, the creation of not one state, but the creation of two states, which was the vision of the United Nations in which Australia played an important leadership role. I believe that Australians, when they look at what is happening in that part of the world are horrified. But particularly for people of Jewish background or descent or faith, people of Islamic background or people with relatives in that region, want to see this happen. And what they don’t want also is conflict because [of that] here.
They want Australia to play a constructive role.
They object to some of the misinformation which is out there about Australia’s role in that conflict which is we are not participants, but we are people who, consistent with the role Australia has historically played, advocates for peace and security and for humanitarian values and for the protection of all innocent life, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian.
Karen Middleton
In the Senate, the subject has shifted from agriculture and mining to whaling, with the Greens’ Peter Whish-Wilson asking what the government thinks about Japan slaughtering endangered fin whales for the first time in more than 50 years.
Jenny McAllister, representing the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, reiterates that the government is “deeply disappointed” in Japan’s decision to expand its commercial whaling program.
McAllister says that as of a month ago, Australia had made “strong representations” to Japan eight times about the decision:
We are opposed to all forms of commercial whaling.
She confirms the foreign minister, Penny Wong, had pressed this with the Japanese government on multiple occasions. She says that in June, Australia led a “united representation” with the European Union, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States to express its disappointment to Japan directly.
McAllister says Australia will continue to play “an active and vocal role” in failing of the international moratorium on whaling.
Daniel Hurst
What has Asio said about whether home affairs has ‘cut corners’ on visa processing?
In parliament, Peter Dutton has repeated the claim that the government was “cutting corners” on security checks, so let’s once again see what Asio said about this.
In March, Guardian Australia asked the Asio boss, Mike Burgess, for a response to Coalition concerns that Asio or the Department of Home Affairs might have been under pressure to “to cut corners, or do this more quickly than they already would”.
Burgess said Asio had a role in the visa process but he would not explain the precise arrangements “because we don’t want people to game that process”. Burgess explicitly said his organisation was not being put under political pressure and “I’m confident the process is where it needs to be”.
Anthony Albanese continues raising Abul Rizvi’s comments.
[Rizvi] had this to say … Talking about the leader of the opposition: ‘The guy who allowed the biggest labour trafficking scam in Australian history and at the same time made massive cuts to immigration compliance funding. A labour trafficker’s dream.’
And indeed today he has gone on to say [to] shadow minister Senator [James] Paterson: ‘If you read the whole article, I actually said the national security dimension of this is a beat up. The checks these people go through [are] extensive so to suggest that as a national security risk here is a complete beat up. There is no evidence that the government recklessly concluded …’
Albanese runs out of time.
