Opposition accuse Labor of gagging them on draft religious discrimination legislation
The opposition is accusing Labor of gagging them from sharing the details of its proposed changes to religious discrimination laws, describing the situation as “absurd” and “reaching a farcical level”.
The shadow attorney general, Michaelia Cash, has called on the Albanese government to release the two draft bills as soon as possible, saying the process shouldn’t play out behind closed doors.
It was revealed early last week the government had two draft legislation in tow. One would amend the Sex Discrimination Act, presumably to repeal a controversial passage - section 38 - that gives religious schools blanket exemptions to discriminate on the basis of sexual and gender diversity among other things.
A second bill would introduce protections against religious discrimination within Australia – a promise years in the making since the Turnbull government passed laws legalising same-sex marriage.
But Anthony Albanese has said the bills won’t go ahead unless the Coalition agrees to offer its support to pass them. And we don’t know exactly what the bills are proposing to change because the government won’t release them publicly until it gains that support.
Cash said the opposition has copies of the draft legislation but have been sworn to secrecy over them.
Mr Albanese went to the election talking about transparency, but his government has failed to live up to his promises. We have copies of the government’s draft legislation, but we are not allowed to distribute it. We are allowed to speak with stakeholders about the legislation, but to our surprise and alarm it seems that many groups simply don’t know what’s in it.”
Cash said the opposition is working on tweaks to the proposed changes that take “faith communities forward, and not backwards”.
Last Thursday, the Australian Law Reform Commission’sreport into the potential pathways on changes to the law was publicly released. It recommended repealing the blanket exemptions but added faith groups and schools should be able to preference hiring employees in line with their beliefs, so long as it is proportionate, “reasonably necessary” and does not breach discrimination laws.
Joe Hockey has repeated his criticism of the aesthetics of windfarms, saying he finds them “quite appalling” and that they detract from the beauty of Australia’s landscapes.
Speaking at a Bloomberg summit in Sydney on Tuesday, the federal treasurer replied in the affirmative when asked if he would repeat comments made to radio host Alan Jones that he finds the wind turbines around Lake George “utterly offensive”.
According to Renew Economy, the treasurer told the Sydney summit: “Renewable energy is hugely important, it’s a part of the fabric of development of a diverse energy supply right around the world.
“We have some beautiful landscapes in Australia, and frankly, putting up those towers is just to me, quite appalling in those places.
“Destructive, dangerous, ugly” – WA Liberal Andrew Hastie opens his 90-second statement with what sounds like a Monday when you run out of coffee, but no. It’s wind farms.
Last weeks so-called consultation in Mandurah was nothing short of a charade, a tiny attempt to pacify my community while advancing the corporate interests of wealthy activist investors.
Locals were even told by a representative of a massive energy company which stands to profit from this project, that my opposition is quote, ‘interfering with democracy’.
They don’t want the truth out there. That the stunning beauty of our coastline will be damaged and compromised and the massive wind farm make our ocean look like a scene out of a dystopian science fiction movie.
There are massive sunk costs with this wind farm which will be paid for by Australian families and businesses and it will increase our energy dependence on a foreign power.
We’re not a laboratory for Labor’s radical energy policies or the vested interests of crony capitalists. This is our home. It’s our region and we will protect it
For some context about the gas bill now being debated in federal parliament, it’s worth pointing out how Western Australian greenhouse emissions are going.
WA is one of the big gas states and it has not been very active in trying to cut its carbon pollution, as we noted here earlier today:
For a state with about 10% of the nation’s population, its emissions are about 17% of Australia’s total. And in stark contrast to other states and the ACT, WA hasn’t bothered to come up with an overall emissions reduction target.
Yes, it would like the power sector to reach 80% renewables but it’s not a legislated target – and presently (and currently), clean energy is only supplying about one-third of the state’s power.
That’s despite being blessed with sun, wind, space and a state-owned grid ... much like Queensland, which has a 75% reduction goal on 2005 levels by 2035.
In other words, lift your game WA!
Anyway, the gas bill that Labor seems keen on will likely increase emissions in WA unless the extra fossil gas can be offset or sequestered. Don’t bet on early reductions soon.
And the division goes as expected and the Greens motion was lost.
The moves on to the main speeches for the Greens amendment, but it is pretty close to QT, which means that the house has to move to 90-second statements (the airing of the MP grievances/fate reports).
Greens set for defeat on gas debate motion in House
The House is dividing, but with Labor and the Coalition on a unity ticket here, the Greens motion will be defeated.
It’s not the end – there will be more pushback in the Senate – but if the Coalition continues its support, it will get through there without the need for the Greens or crossbench support as well, meaning the bill’s passage is pretty much a fait accompli.
The Greens’ Griffith MP, Max Chandler-Mather, has also spoken against the urgency of the gas bill the government is trying to get through the house without debate (the Coalition is in agreement here).
MCM tells the house:
Now, if the government claims that are this won’t do what the Greens are claiming, well then let it go through a committee process.
Let the experts come in, let’s actually properly scrutinise this, not trying to rush it through on a day when we’re already experiencing a massive climate catastrophe.
And it should be alarming to members of the public that stuff like this can happen without the proper scrutiny without the proper debate, but the government isn’t even willing to stand up and defend their own bill.
They tried to claim ‘well, there’s nothing to see here. Nothing’s changing. Don’t worry, we’re not really doing anything’.
Well, if that’s the case, why move the bill at all? But that’s the thing, right?
[If this bill won’t] change anything –well, if that’s the case, don’t change it. Because the reality is, is what this does, is at the behest of gas corporations like Santos is giving them more power to bulldoze over the top of First Nations students and those Australians who are trying their very best to stop the madness between the major parties who are in the middle of a climate catastrophe being caused by coal and gas, what they are doing is trying to open more of.
Future generations will remember this, they’ll look back at moments like this, and they think ‘what were you doing?’
This government should be ashamed that it is has fallen to the Greens to try and stop this madness.
Bandt calls Labor ‘climate con artists’ over ‘rushed’ gas bill
There is an increasing tension between the Labor government and the teal crossbench on issues like environment, transparency, economic and social issues.
The government is making it clear it wants to negotiate with the Coalition on a lot of these issues as part of the ‘middle of the road’ approach the Albanese government takes. Negotiating with a progressive Senate would mean going further than this government is comfortable with when it comes to these policy areas.
Why? Because politically, it leaves them open to attack from the Coalition, in an election year, that the government is a Labor-Greens alliance. And in some areas, this is still seen as an election killer.
(Which ignores that in other areas and demographics, it is a vote winner – but our politics hasn’t caught up on the duality of this yet. Both things can be true.)
The Green’s leader, Adam Bandt is becoming increasingly frustrated at the Greens being frozen out on these policies. On the attempt to rush the gas bill through the house, Bandt said:
Rather than let that [review] process finish and come back to us with a full package, about what you environment was in consultation provisions might look like, rather than do that, they’ve said, in the meantime, ‘no. What we want to do is slip this bill through, with no speakers from the Labor backbench having the guts to come up and even speak to it’.
And the Liberals offering the only speaker in support of it to say ‘this is great. It’s exactly the legislation that we want to pass this through. Quickly, please, please Parliament don’t notice it don’t scrutinise it. So that we can rewrite those consultation provisions and take away people’s rights. And hopefully no one will notice’.
Well the Greens have noticed, the crossbenchers have noticed. First Nations organisations have noticed, the environment groups have noticed, the climate groups have noticed that Labor are climate con artists trying to rush through a bill a week before Easter to remove First Nations’ right[s], while working with the climate deniers in the Coalition to fast-track gas projects.
Well we are here to call you out. You don’t even have the guts to come and speak to this bill, at the very least defer [it] ‘til you’re done your consultations
Australia has not technically exported ‘weapons’ to Israel, but it has permitted defence-related exports
Just a small point of explanation on my previous two posts: it is true that the government has repeatedly stated that Australia has not exported “weapons” to Israel for at least the past five years.
Defence has repeatedly stated that this can include dual-use items (the government says such permits are “required for a broad range of goods and technologies such as software, radios or chemicals that have legitimate civilian and commercial applications”).
A major issue is that Defence has refused to be more specific about what it has approved. Some exporters have also marked their exports to Israel under the “arms and ammunition” category in official export figures.
More transparency would enable a more factually informed debate.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion