Just in case I have to fact-check Fraser Anning’s speech for anyone, Muslims have been in Australia since before federation.

There is evidence Muslims from south-east Asia traded with Indigenous people as far back as the 1600s.

If you want to talk nation building, their camel trains helped map out trading routes and then, actual train routes for this nation.

There has been a steady stream of migration from largely Muslim nations, since the 1800s, including from Lebanon, where Fraser Anning’s party leader Bob Katter’s family hails from.

Oh, and that is before we even consider that one of our largest trading partners, Indonesia, who are very, very fond of the products of our farmers, which Anning wants to support and protect, also happens to have the largest Muslim population in the world.

I could go on. I would hope though, that I really don’t have to. Because it has been debunked. So many times. And we still have a representative of this nation’s parliament, standing in your house, not only calling for a ban of all Muslim immigration, but a plebiscite on non-European migration, because Whitlam never asked you if it was OK.

And he did it while invoking the term, “the final solution”.

Last month marked the 77th anniversary since Nazi leader Hermann Goering gave the order to SS General Reinhard Heydrich to enact the “final solution”.

We all know how that ended. We all know what that phrase refers to. And it was just used in your parliament by someone who now claims that any sinister meaning taken from his use of that phrase is “simply ridiculous”.

If you are not up in arms about that, or demanding that your political representatives are up in arms about that, then that’s exactly the reason someone just stood in this building and used the language the Nazi party used to order the murder of millions of Jews, LGBTI people, migrants, and dissenters.

The standard you walk past is absolutely the standard you accept.

I’m going to end the blog here tonight. I’m too angry to even attempt to come up with a witty comment to finish today on. Instead, I will just say a very big thank you to everyone at Guardian Australia for their response to that speech, to all the readers who immediately condemned it, and hope that tomorrow is better. It’s all we can do.

Take care of you. And particularly, take care of all those who are continually made to feel like “the other” in their own country, those who are consistently targeted by the ignorant and the hateful for reasons I could never even begin to understand.

We should be better than that. I had hoped we were. I hope we will be.

For those who can’t access the video, here is what Tony Burke said in full in response to Fraser Anning’s speech:

“Don’t give them what they want. That’s a question that you always ask when there is an appalling speech. Don’t give them what they want. They want to incite a debate and the debate when it happens when you hit back is exactly what they might have hoped for. But there has to be a point when this parliament says enough.

“If we haven’t reached that point tonight then, for some of us, there is apparently no limit at all. In the other place Senator Anning has just delivered his first speech and in giving the sort of bile that we get from time to time against Muslim Australians he has decided to invoke the term ‘final solution’. Another speech belittling Australians. Another speech dividing the nation. Another speech wanting to incite debate. Those who have thought that maybe the best thing is to not give them what they want? I say if we continue to hold back they got exactly what they want. Muslim Australians, African Australians, Chinese Australians, when you invoke the final solution Jewish Australians in the same way as in years gone by Greek Australians and Italian Australians have been the subjects of prejudice the bigotry of today is no different to the bigotry of yesterday.

“The bipartisanship against it that we had in years gone by we don’t have right now and it must return.

“The words that happened in the other place are not the words of a proud Australian. They are the words of people who hate modern Australia, people who hate who we are as Australians.

“The overseas voices have been encouraged and welcomed into this country. We had Lauren Southern turn up to my local area. She arrived with a camera crew here from North America looked around said it’s all monoculture, all monoculture just like we had the so-called person in charge of multicultural affairs claim that we’ve got all these monocultural areas throughout Australia.

“The film crew and the journo there were good enough to say well which monoculture? Is it the Arabic culture represented by that shop? Or the Vietnamese culture represented by that shop? The Pakistani, the Pacific Islander, which monoculture are you talking about? To which Lauren Southern said there isn’t even an English pub and they said well there’s actually one immediately behind you.

“Our diversity is nothing to be afraid of but the silence that has come from those opposite is everything to fear because the fight for modern Australia when it’s under attack in this way is only going to be won when we get to the point of bipartisanship again and be in no doubt we are not there right now. If anyone wondered whether we were there a lot changed at the last election. Immediately after the last election members of One Nation were returned to the Parliament. At that time instead of adopting the sort of language that John Howard had adopted the Government members started to refer to One Nation today as being more sophisticated than they used to be.

“Bigotry is not sophisticated.

“In the Longman by election they are now allocating preferences to One Nation, not following John Howard’s lead on putting One Nation last. We had the 18C legislation not referred to during the election campaign suddenly brought on the parliament to give extra licence for racist hate speech.

“We had the immigration minister stand right there and refer to Australians not as second and third generation Australians but as second and third generation Lebanese Muslims and then described them as a mistake. We had the government introduce university level English test but you didn’t have to read university level English if you were immigrating from the five English speaking nations that are predominantly white.

“Canada, the United States, Ireland, the UK or New Zealand, they didn’t have to do the test. Only the people from the non-white countries if they had grown up with English had to do it. We had the member for New England constantly in his book Weatherboard and Iron referring to the poor, white regional fringe. Why is the white reference there all the time? I say to those opposite it’s not good enough to turn up to the community fundraisers and events and say all the right things there and think people won’t notice what’s been happening in the parliament.

“Don’t apologise for racism don’t imitate it and don’t preference it.”

Tony Burke:

“Don’t give them what they want. That is a question that you always ask when there is an appalling speech. Don’t give them what they want – they want to incite a debate and the debate, when it happens, when you hit back, is exactly what they might have hoped for.

“But there has to be a point when this parliament says enough. And if we haven’t reached that point tonight, then for some of us, there is apparently no limit at all.”

Tony Burke on Fraser Anning’s speech in full:

Tony Burke in the House of Representatives:

He finishes with: “Don’t apologise for racism, don’t imitate it and don’t preference it.”

I only switched over at the last moment, but he also questioned why Barnaby Joyce used the phrase “the poor white regional fringe” repeatedly, in his book.

“Why is the white reference there all the time?” he said.

“I say to those opposite, it is not good enough to turn up to the community fundraisers and events, say all the right things there and think people won’t notice what has been happening in the parliament.”

This is also what they told me. But it wasn’t “last solution” or “ultimate solution” or even just “solution” that was used, none of which have deeper meaning.

It was “final solution”.

The statement is on its way I am told.

For those who missed the speech, here’s the moment he said it:

And from my colleague Luke Henriques-Gomes previous professional life comes this story:

Fraser Anning’s office has just been in contact with me.

They are sending through a statement, but said it was “laughable” his words could be interpreted that way, given Anning’s admiration of Israel.

I’ll put up the statement as soon as it arrives.

Richard Di Natale on Fraser Anning’s speech:

Fraser Anning’s vile comments in the Senate today were absolutely beyond the pale and if he has a shred of decency, he will immediately apologise. Referring to immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, with the same language that the Nazi’s used to discuss the extermination of Europe’s Jews during the Holocaust is vile, racist, bigoted and has no place in out society, let alone our parliament. Australia is a proud multicultural society that is made better every day by the contributions of immigrants. If only Fraser Anning had a fraction of the decency I see in the many Muslim Australians I speak with across this country, perhaps he would realise just how harmful his words are.”

The states have agreed during their conference call with Josh Frydenberg to release an exposure draft of the amendments to the national electricity law, changes which will underpin the national energy guarantee.

As promised – here is what Richard Di Natale had to say during the censure motion:

I want to make this point. Senator Leyonhjelm’s defence seems to be that he was provoked. Let’s put on the record, firstly, that what Senator Leyonhjelm alleges was said is contested. Senator Hanson-Young and indeed her colleagues who heard what she said contest the nature of what Senator Leyonhjelm says was said to him. But that misses the point. It entirely misses the point. There is never an excuse for the personal, vindictive attack levelled at a colleague of the Senate. There is never an excuse under any circumstances.

What Senator Leyonhjelm did was that he attempted to humiliate and intimidate one of his fellow parliamentary colleagues. He was simply asked to apologise. Instead of apologising, he went as far as to double down. He went on to several radio and television interviews and sought to capitalise on those defamatory and sexist statements.

There is never an excuse to do what Senator Leyonhjelm did. It doesn’t matter what was said to him. His response was disgraceful; it was shameful; it was sexist; it was misogynist; and it was personal. Now, we can have robust debate in this place, but there is never an excuse, both within this chamber and outside of it, to exercise so-called free speech in the manner in which Senator Leyonhjelm chose to exercise it—by vilifying, intimidating and smearing the reputation of somebody who has made an enormous contribution to this place. And, at a time when we should be making this an environment that is welcoming to all people so that we have a more representative parliament, those comments undermined everything that needs to change in this place so that we welcome more women and more diversity to ensure that this place is much more representative of the people we seek to represent.

I just want to finish by saying we did not want this to happen. We did not want it to get to this point. All we sought from the outset was an apology from Senator Leyonhjelm. Instead, he chose to besmirch the reputation of somebody who has made an enormous contribution to this country. He chose to use a sexist and derogatory attack on an individual senator, and if we can’t censure a senator for those actions then there’s no good having that standing order within the provisions.

Penny Wong has responded to Fraser Anning’s speech:

My parents were married in the dying days of the White Australia Policy.

We’ve rightly consigned that policy to the dustbin of history.”

As far as I could tell, she was not in the chamber when he delivered it.

I have heard a lot in this place in the last couple of years.

But I am floored. I am absolutely floored.

The “final solution” is not a term used naturally. Most people would say, in that context – which, again, was calling for a plebiscite on whether we should return to the White Australia policy – “the answer is....”. It’s as if those words just roll off the tongue, or you hear them together, every day.

I don’t think I have ever put those two words together in speech. I don’t know any one who would.

I’m sorry, but I just can not believe that anyone could use the term “the final solution” and not understand the implications of what it means.

Particularly when talking about immigrants, and those you have decided you don’t want.

And that is what we just heard in the Australian Senate. In a chamber of the people’s house. In the context of the “final solution” to the “immigration problem” would be a popular vote on whether or not non-Europeans should be allowed in this country.

Or, more plainly, to return to the White Australia policy.

I am heartsick. Absolutely heartsick that I just heard that come from the Senate floor. And that people whose family history is forever torn by the actual “final solution”, that absolute stain on the fabric of human history, know it was uttered.

For shame. For absolute shame.

To answer your censure motion questions:

For:

Labor, Greens, Hinch

Against:

Liberal/Nationals, Anning, Bernardi, Burston, Hanson, Leyonhjelm,

Crossbenchers who did not vote:

Griff, Patrick, Georgiou, Storer

It’s not only immigration which Fraser Anning has an issue with:

Given that everyone knows that there are only two genders, if you can persuade and agree to advocate in support of the false claim of an infinite number of genders, then without realising it, you have surrendered your political soul.

Today, with so many unwittingly in lockstep marching to the culture revolutionary tune, options to oppose them politically are increasingly limited.

So that is why I joined the Katter Australia party, the only political force which seeks to return to the pre-Whitlam consensus. I want to see the defeat of cultural Marxism and their ilk and the rolling back of the subversion of Australian culture and values that they have wrought.

There is no practical implication to a Senate censure. But it is noted by the Hansard record.

Sigh. This is another thing which is happening:

Scott Morrison is so proud of the Taylor Swift line, he tweeted it:

Fraser Anning is delivering his first speech to the Senate.

He’s with Katter’s Australian party now, having entered as a One Nation senator, for anyone trying to keep up with the Senate musical chairs.

David Leyonhjelm’s opening words:

What exactly is the Senate being asked to censure? On the afternoon of June the 28th, Senator Hanson-Young made an interjection, I made an interjection in reply. Senator Hanson-Young then approached me and made a face to face comment, I made a reply.

So there were four statements in the Senate.

We should know which of these four statements the Senate is being asked to censure. Let’s start with the original interjection.

Senator Hinch, no supporter of mine on this issue, tweeted on the night of the second of July that Senator Hanson-Young said something like women wouldn’t need to have the spray if men weren’t rapists. If you don’t think those words are objectionable, then insert a reference to another group of people instead of men and see what it sounds like.

Would it be OK to say women wouldn’t need pepper spray if blacks weren’t rapists? Would it be OK to say women wouldn’t need pepper spray if Muslims weren’t rapists?

Interrogation of Senator Hanson-Young’s original interjection has been sadly lacking. Senator Hanson-Young has not acknowledged what she said and not one journalist in this country has asked to Senator Hanson-Young what she said

All we have had is Senator Hanson-Young denying my claim that she said something to the effect that all men are rapists.

The failure of journalists to ask Senator Hanson-Young what she actually said is a sad indictment of journalism and modern culture.

Senator Hanson-Young’s failure to outline what she said also reflects poorly on her it indicates an unwillingness to stand by her comments and be a person of her word.

To inform this censure motion, I request Senator Hanson-Young finally outline her original interjection. let’s not rely on my recollection of what Senator Hanson-Young said, nor on Senator Hinch’s recollection. That would be mad. Let’s hear it from her.

I was scorned in the media for not recounting Senator Hanson-Young’s verbatim. If Senator Hanson-Young is unable to recount her words exactly, I trust she will be held to the same standard.”

David Leyonhjelm wants to give a seven-minute statement.

Labor agrees.

He begins by asking “what exactly is the Senate being asked to censure?”

How Mike Bowers saw QT:

The Senate is coming up to the censure motion the Greens are putting up against David Leyonhjelm over his comments regarding Sarah Hanson-Young.

Annnnnd … Barry O’Sullivan has crossed the floor again to support Cory Bernardi’s motion coming to a vote:

To move that the Senate —

(a) notes that the United States of America has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement; and

(b) calls upon the Australian government to also withdraw from the agreement, and cease taking any steps towards enacting at law or by policy any steps towards the agreement’s targets.

Brian Burston has put up a motion for a vote which has the support of Barry O’Sullivan, who I am told has crossed the floor to support it.

Big Baz is going to enjoy the freedom these last few months in the Senate will bring, me thinks.

Here is what Burston wants the Senate to note:

(that)

(i) Coles is still advertising $1 per litre milk, and Woolworths $1 per litre milk is shown as temporarily unavailable,

(ii) both Coles and Woolworths have exerted downward prices on dairy farmers for many years which has damaged the financial resilience of Australian dairy farmers,

(iii) many dairy farms are family operations which involve long work hours,

(iv) as dairy farmers are obligated to lock in forward milk sale prices, these forward prices are effectively capped by the pressure exerted by Coles and Woolworths,

(v) these forward prices could not contemplate the drastic increase in the cost of hay, wheat and other feed products for the dairy cattle, and

(vi) what Australia grows, grows Australia;

and

(b) calls on Coles and Woolworths to:

(i) increase the price of milk to their customers by 20 cents per litre for the full period of the impacts of drought on feed prices, and

(ii) pass the full price increase onto dairy farmers.

The Nationals leaders and Matt Canavan are talking up their support for the Neg, which they say will do all the things they want it to – lower prices and give network security.

This is also happening

Kristina Keneally has made a habit of updating her Twitter bio (during the Bennelong byelection, she reminded us she knew how to use a phone, after John Alexander was pictured holding a phone which wasn’t plugged in) and here’s the latest:

It’s a niche market, but I am here for it.

I have known this man for many years and I can tell you, he absolutely fricking loved being able to do this: (it is Steve Dickson, the Queensland leader of One Nation, in case you were wondering. You wouldn’t have seen him lately, because he left the LNP to join One Nation and lost his Sunshine Coast seat in the Queensland election. Looks like he is keeping busy though, which is good to see.)

Craig Laundy finished question time on this dixer – and here’s the statement:

Minister for small and family business, the workplace and deregulation, Craig Laundy, says it’s time Bill Shorten cut his ties with the law-breaking CFMEU.

Mr Laundy’s comments come after the Federal Court today issued two more damning judgements against the CFMEU, whacking the union and its leaders for repeated law-breaking and calling for it to be de-registered.

In one case, Justice Tracey said the CFMEU’s conduct was an “anathema in a democratic society”.

In another case, Justice Logan said the union’s conduct extended to contraventions of “the worst possible kind” and that its history of lawbreaking was, “disgraceful and shameful”.

He went on to say their conduct was “but a further manifestation of a lengthy and repeated pattern of unrepentant, outlaw behaviour by the CFMEU.”

Fines against the CFMEU now total $15.6 million, already hitting $409,090 this financial year.

“Former PM and ACTU boss Bob Hawke is among the Labor luminaries to urge Bill Shorten to cut his ties with the CFMEU, yet he refuses to listen,” Mr Laundy said.

But will Craig Kelly actually cross the floor:

When I make my mind up, then I will decide.”

Craig Kelly is back on Sky News.

It is possible he spends more time in that chair than his own at home now.

Spoiler – he is still against the Neg.

Sky News has helpfully isolated Malcolm Turnbull refusing to say who had the idea to give the Great Barrier Reef Foundation half a billion dollars it didn’t ask for:

And on that note, question time ends.

Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull:

(I miss the wording, but it’s basically, the CSIRO had no idea about the Great Barrier Reef Foundation fund, so whose idea was it?)

Turnbull:

The minister for the environment has set out the process already yesterday. It came through the budget process. It went through the normal way.

Labor senator Kristina Keneally has asked a series of questions on the grant of $440m to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

More specifically, she focused on a curious incident in which ABC’s Insiders deleted a tweet with video of Guardian Australia editor Lenore Taylor questioning whether due diligence had been conducted after a complaint from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Asked who contacted the ABC, the finance minister Mathias Cormann said he was “not personally aware” of the incident and took the question on notice.

Keneally said the PMO had claimed the government had “worked with the foundation in March” on due diligence, a claim which “publicly collapsed” within 24 hours. She asks if the PMO misled the ABC and whether it did so “deliberately or incompetently”. Cormann took all questions on notice.

The head of the foundation was not aware that due diligence had occurred before the initial 9 April meeting. On Monday in question time the environment minister Josh Frydenberg tried to clear up the mess by explaining there was a “two stage” process.

The first phase – before the meeting – was a departmental check on the foundation’s “governance, structure, constitution, project management, fundraising history, capacity for growth, competition and scientific expertise”. That explains why the foundation didn’t know – but not why the PMO said what it did to the ABC ... watch this space.

Congratulations!

Your borders are safe.

But unions are terrible, Labor is terrible, and people smugglers vote Labor. Probably.

And so concludes your daily dose of Dutton.

Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull:

Yesterday, the environment minister confirmed the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s formal proposal for the grant was not received by the government until the 29th May. This was more than 20 days after the treasurer had delivered the budget, which included money for the foundation. A month after the grant was announced, and more than a month after the prime minister first offered it to the foundation. Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. Why is the prime minister so reckless with taxpayer funds?

Josh Frydenberg gets another call up:

I am surprised the member for Sydney asked this question, because when we announced the funding, the member for Sydney welcomed it, Mr Speaker. Welcomed it! And it is going to create jobs in the member for Herbert’s electorate, in the member for Flynn’s electorate. In the member for Dawson’s electorate, Mr Speaker.

That is why we have invested $500 million in the Great Barrier Reef, on top of that $2 billion we have contributed through the 2050 plan with Queensland, Mr Speaker. We have made it very clear that, in my correspondence with the chair of the foundation, who are formally wrote to on the [23] April, where I said the formal offer of any Australian government funds is dependent on negotiating and executing a new grand agreement. In consultation with the foundation, they formally lodged their proposal on the 29th of May.

This was after I had released the commonwealth grant guidelines. On the 20th of June, under section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, I approved the grant to the foundation, having conceded a detailed assessment of the application by my department, which had included the second stage of due diligence by my department, and the Australian government solicitor, Mr Speaker.

And I want to read to the House what my department recommended to me. And I quote that this investment in the foundation would meet the government’s policy objective to protect and manage the Great Barrier Reef. That it will represent value for money and the proper use of commonwealth resources. And that it was consistent with the provisions of the governance and accountability act, Mr Speaker. And that due diligence included a close investigation of financial reports, compliance and applicable laws, litigation, property services, and Mr Speaker this had been through the ERC process.

This was money put to work with the reef, with our scientists and farmers, with Indigenous communities to underpin regional jobs and the 64,000 jobs that depend on the Great Barrier Reef. There we have it, the Labor party only wants to obstruct, only wants to criticise, because when they were in government they abandoned the Great Barrier Reef.

Terri Butler to Malcolm Turnbull:

I refer to the prime minister’s previous answers. Is the prime minister aware that guests at the chairmans panel weekend were warned that there ‘will be no buggy parking at the helipad?’ This half a billion dollar lump sum payment becomes increasingly ridiculous every day.

There’s some argy bargy and Tony Smith points out that it wasn’t Malcolm Turnbull who answered the previous question, but Josh Frydenberg. He allows Butler to rephrase the quesiton:

“That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker,” Butler replies, which, given his tone when asking what she just said, Smith misheard, but then laughs and thanks her after Butler repeats it.

She re-phrases.

Turnbull:

I refer the honorable member to the previous answer by the minister for the environment and energy. I can understand the shock of unfamiliarity that the honourable member has to learn that members of the chairmans’ panel, according to the statement from the foundation, paid for their own accommodation. That would fly in the face of many great traditions of the Labour party, not least that practised by the leader of the opposition, whose latest reef trip was paid for by Geoffrey Cousins.

Labor senator David Smith, who replaced Katy Gallagher has announced he will be nominating to replace Gai Brodtmann in Bean:

That clears up a problem – Gallagher had announced she was renominating for the Senate, Penny Wong wants her back – but Smith wasn’t moving. He said no to Canberra’s new seat, but it looks like the lower house holds some appeal after all ...

From his statement:

I am announcing today that I will be nominating for preselection for the seat of Bean.

I would like to say thank you to Gai Brodtmann MP for her service to the Canberra community. Gai has been a mentor and good friend who has been a powerful advocate for the ACT and her constituency.

The time and commitment Gai has given to the people of the ACT has been second to none. Since 2010, Gai has fought on issues that matter to the people of Canberra such as cybersecurity, women’s health, small business and the Public Service.

When I took my position as senator for the Australian Capital Territory, I stated that I was committed to serving the people of Canberra to ensure that their interests are represented in the parliament.

Being only the 9^th Senator for the ACT has been an absolute honour. I will continue to work hard for all the people of the ACT right up until the next election.

I would like to thank all those who have supported me in my current position. However, my decision to nominate for preselection in Bean provides a way of ensuring that the Party continues to offer quality representation across the entire ACT. The ACT Labor team is committed to working towards the election of a Shorten Labor government whenever the election is called.

Bean is my local electorate. It is where I grew up and where I have chosen to raise my own family with my wife Liesl. There can be no greater honour than representing the people of this area in the House of Representatives.

I look forward to following the party process for preselection and if successful, I will ask the people of Bean for their support at the next federal election.

My priorities will continue to be fighting for the Public Service here in Canberra, tackling rising inequality, investing in STEM careers and restoring fairness to the world of work.

I look forward to speaking to many rank-and-file members of the ACT Labor Party over the coming days and weeks.

Terri Butler to Malcolm Turnbull:

“Is the prime minister aware that after he offered the Great Barrier Reef Foundation almost half a billion of taxpayers money, it held a weekend at Hamilton Island resort which apparently had an itinerary featuring a transfer to the yacht club and a bonfire on the beach. Is this what the prime minister means when he says the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has a track record of philanthropic support.”

Josh Frydenberg is back up:

“Everybody remembers the snorkelling tour of the Leader of the Opposition. A $17,000 freebie, Mr Speaker! Now the foundation has put out a public statement today. I read from it. The foundation has 56 members of a chairman’s panel. An engagement with the chairman’s panel allows a foundation to explain the complexity of the challenge the threat to the reef faces and how scientists are responding. In turn, the members of the panel lent their personal expertise and the skills and resources. This is the key point. Costs associated with this are fully paid by the membership fees and no taxpayer dollars, grants or other donations received are used.

“That is why the day we announced this record investment, the head of the tourism operators in the Reef and surrounding areas said it would underpin regional jobs in Queensland, Mr Speaker. And that is why Australia’s chief scientist announcing half a billion said this was a great day for science and for the reef. The Labor party is trying to cover up the fact they were absent when they were in parliament, and in contrast we put money on the table, we are funding the experts, and we are helping protect jobs and the Reef.”

Let’s all take a moment for Christopher Pyne, who for the second day in a row has been made to talk about government policy in a dixer, and not how terrible unions are.

An update from outside the chamber:

(And yes, to clarify, the Speaker was saying the point was not in order and neither was Tim Watts)

And so has the Business Council of Australia:

From its statement:

The Coalition party room’s strong support for the national energy guarantee is a welcome step towards policy stability and certainty in the energy sector, Business Council chief executive Jennifer Westacott said today.

Coalition members have demonstrated their strong support for a policy which will help boost much needed investment in the energy sector and in turn put downward pressure on prices for households and businesses.

This is another step in the right direction but there is more work to do.

We call on state and territory leaders to now get on with the job of implementing the national energy guarantee by releasing the draft legislation.

It’s up to Victoria and Queensland, along with the other states and territories, to stop playing political games with people’s power bills.

COAG Energy Council must stop dithering and finally act to end the decade of dysfunction that has plagued our energy sector.

Today’s result means we are closer to implementing a coherent, durable national energy policy which would help prevent the risks of volatile electricity prices and inadequate investment, but only if state and territory governments step up, put politics aside and do what is in the interests of all Australians.

There is no doubt that it will be households and businesses that will pay the price if our political leaders continue to play politics with energy and climate change policy.

The Smart Energy Council have had their say on the Neg:

(From its statement)

The Smart Energy Council is calling on State and Territory Governments to not endorse the national energy guarantee today.

Chief executive of Smart Energy Council, John Grimes said:

“The Turnbull government has taken a belligerent approach to energy policy, refusing to compromise or negotiate in good faith with State and Territory governments around the national energy guarantee.

“The Turnbull government has ruled out increasing the emissions reduction target beyond a pathetic 26% reduction by 2030 and has ruled out meeting a number of threshold issues raised by state and territory governments.

“Among other things, the Turnbull government has refused to rule out changing the target by regulation, setting the target by regulation not legislation and ensuring the emissions reduction target can only go upwards.

“There is still no credible mechanism for increasing the emission reduction target under the national energy guarantee

“With its pathetic 26% emissions reduction target for electricity and its refusal to develop any policies to reduce emissions in other sectors of the economy, the Turnbull government has effectively walked away from the Paris Climate Change Agreement.”

The Nationals have announced a press conference to talk about the Neg following question time.

Matt Canavan will join Michael McCormack and Bridget McKenzie.

Cathy O’Toole to Malcolm Turnbull:

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences and James Cook University are all based on my electorate. Why is the prime minister now making these vital research bodies in my electorate apply to a small private foundation made up of big business mates of yours to try and get back any of the taxpayers’ money it gave away? Why is the prime minister privatising the protection of our most precious and fragile environmental asset?

Josh Frydenberg takes it:

(Labor had no plan, Labor abandoned the reef, we have a plan, we have not abandoned the reef)

Mark Butler to Malcolm Turnbull:

For the 2013 election this government promise to reduce power bills by $550 per year. But since then, power prices have gone up and up. Today, the government is again promising to reduce power bills by $550 again. Why should the straight in people believe any promises this government makes, promises that the member for Warringah referred to as merchant banker gobbledygook?

Malcolm Turnbull:

“The honourable member is no doubt very familiar with an organisation called the Labor environment action network. The member for Rankin is the Queensland patron and the member for Watson is the New South Wales patron. I assumed the members of Port Adelaide is the South Australia patron. The Labour environment action network said on August one 2018, they said the truest thing, that the clean energy council conference was, and they quoted, this is what they thought was the truest thing that was said, high prices are not a market failure, they are proof of the market working.

“Really? The member for Rankin, the member for Watson, they should take the member for Port Adelaide with them, doorknocking and when they complain about high prices, they say don’t worry about it, this is proof that the market is working well. I mean, really. That is what the Labor Party is all about. We are determined to ensure that we deliver more affordable and reliable power for Australians and we are putting the policies in place to do that. The national energy guarantee is one of them but not the only one. Right across the board, we have seen support for this policy from one industry group or another. All of them...”

Tim Watts interrupts with a point of order, asking if merchant banker gobbledygook is in order and Tony Smith rules that it is not and then sends him out of the chamber.

Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:

A few moments ago in the Senate when finance minister was asked if the treasurer was correct when he says there is no such thing as new, cheap energy with a coal-fired power station. The minister for finance replied he was correct at that time. Mr Speaker, if even the finance minister won’t stand by the treasurer, how can the treasurer retain any credibility?

Scott Morrison:

I must collect myself from that withering assault! What I am surprised by, is that the shadow treasurer has no clue at all about energy policy whatsoever. He has no idea that if you build a new plant, the cost of capitalising that means the cost of that is going to be higher than an existing plant right now. It is simple economics, simple economics, I commend to the member to actually read up a bit on this topic. We haven’t heard very much on this topic on energy policy.

What we have heard a lot about from the member for McMahon is higher taxes. That is what we have heard about for the member for McMahon. All we hear about from the member for McMahon is not how to get electricity prices down but how to put people’s taxes up. We learnt just recently why he wants to put taxes up so much. Because the member for Rankin recommended a cap. He says he will abolish the limits in the public service. Higher taxes for more desks in Canberra. Not more desks in schools, but more in public servants’ offices here in Canberra. Higher taxes for more public servants. And then he had these are the brainwave. He is going to abolish the efficiency dividend to increase...

He stops and sits down, and says he is finished, before Tony Smith has a chance to tell him he has drifted off topic.

Andrew Wilkie had the crossbencher question and once again, it comes down to the crossbench to ask a question their electorate actually cares about – which is what dixers should be used for.

There has been a meningococcal outbreak in Tasmania, with six cases, one fatal. These infections are preventable. Currently, the commonwealth limits funding and doesn’t fund the B vaccine at all. Will you fix this and fully fund both vaccines so everyone, not just the wealthy, can be protected against this horrid disease? Prime minister, will you meet personally with Erica Burleigh*, who was left legally blind by meningococcal B, and who is in the gallery today? She and her friend, Casey Johnston, are the driving force behind a campaign for the B vaccine to be put on the national vaccine schedule.

Malcolm Turnbull:

“I think the honourable member for his question, and I look forward to meeting with Erica and Casey if they have time to do so after Question Time. I want to assure the honourable member that the government makes decisions about vaccines based on the advice of independent experts. We don’t play politics with this issue, and I’m not suggesting the honourable member is but it is very important we do so with the right science, I think you will understand that. When independent experts recommended that we had meningococcal ACWY vaccines, we did, and we are taking action with vaccine manufacturers towards a program to apply for adolescents. Since April we have been negotiating to make this vaccine broadly available in accordance with the recommendation of the experts. It is important to ensure that it meets the advisory committee’s rightly strict cost effectiveness criteria.

“The advisory committee also considered another brand for meningococcal ACW Y. The government ... is unable to include a new medicine on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme unless it has first been recommended by the independent pharmaceutical advisory committee. And, an expert medical recommendation.

“I remind the honourable member, that unlike the Labor Party and government can guarantee that the experts on the advisory committee recommend meningococcal B vaccine, we will make it available on the national immunisation program. If the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee recommends it we will list it. We will not defer it, as will happen under a Labor government.”

*apologies for the spelling mistake in the first draft of this post

Michael McCormack just used another three minutes trying to find his QT personality.

He is still looking.

Which is funny, because in the House:

Chris Bowen: A year ago the Treasurer said: ‘There is no such thing as new cheap energy with a coal-fired power station. Does the Treasurer standby that remark?

Scott Morrison:” I stand by exactly what I say on this matter because I made a simple observation. You have a new coal-fired power station, it produces ... that is why I am a strong supporter of keeping coal-fired power stations open as long as possible! The only thing I don’t understand is why the member for McMahon wants to shut them down.

“Coal-fired power stations remain an important part of the Australian affordable, reliable energy supply. So why does the Labor Party want to shut them down and increase the cost by households is that businesses? What the Labor Party’s plans on electricity will do is to put their prices up. They want to increase the emissions target which will increase power bills forAustralians.

“Because they have no plan to deliver affordable, reliable energy. On this side of the house we have a plan. We have a plan that involves the national energy guarantee, that is to deliver on gas supplies for Australia, and remove the legal loopholes. We had a plan to get rid of a carbon tax and we got rid of the carbon tax. They said they would never introduce it and that is exactly what they did. You cannot trust Labor, because under Labor you will always pay more for everything.”

Over in the Senate

Jenny McAllister: A year ago the treasurer said, and I quote: “There’s no such thing as new, cheap energy with a coal-fired power station.” Was the Treasurer correct?

Mathias Cormann: He was correct at that time.

Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:

(short version) - Will you use taxpayer funds to build a coal-fired power station, yes or no

(I tried this at the Queensland press club last month it went about as well as this)

“I thank the honourable member for his question and I am amazed that the Leader of the opposition is going to turn his back on all of those coalminers that are represented by his offices. People that work in coal-fired power stations! The Leader of the Opposition has got to get out of this ideological trap set for him and by the Greens and get on the side of hard-working Australian families and ensure they have lower power bills. Mr Speaker, recommendation number four of the ACCC report would provide government support for any new firm dispatch will power regardless of technology, as long as it is not being delivered or built by one of the big retailers. It would add greater supply. We will see around the country plenty of different technology competing to receive that support and you know what, Mr Speaker, I tell you who’s side we are on, we are on the side of Australian families! They want to pay less for electricity and we are the only parties in this Parliament who have planned for them to do so.”

Katharine Murphy, who is in the chamber, tells me that Tony Abbott has just walked in.

Scott Morrison is now using Taylor Swift’s birth year as a time measurement.

There is before Taylor Swift’s birth and after Taylor Swift’s birth.

I think some people might be looking for the second coming in the wrong places.

“Thirty years before Taylor Swift was born, Mr Speaker. That’s how far you have got to go back for a better years of fiscal growth in youth employment in this country! Now, the Labor party might shake that off, Mr Speaker but we are not going to shake it off ...”

You get the idea.

This is why people are #teamkimye

Meanwhile, his statement – which you’ll find a few posts down – is doing the rounds of the opposition front bench.

A secret squirrel has just let me know that Clive Palmer is here, and is at Aussie’s (the parliament cafe inside the security zone).

We hope he and Brian Burston are having some nice chats.

We’ve switched over to the chamber for ‘who’s that MP’ and.....

It’s Andrew Broad.

Who I can not see without remembering his contributions to the marriage equality debate, which involved shading his daughter’s electric guitar playing (“she’s not very good at playing the electric guitar”) and then threatening to send her into people’s homes, because marriage equality was somehow linked to giving up the privacy of your home, or something.

After Alex passed on Mike Bowers’s fashion inspo yesterday (Craig Kelly is a massive sartorial hero of Bowers. Ask anyone), Bowers has returned the favour. (Alex is a vegan. There is legitimately only onions in this roll)

And so has the Climate Council (from its statement):

Climate councillor and energy expert Greg Bourne said the federal government’s proposed policy was originally created as an alternative to a clean energy target with the aim of lowering greenhouse gas pollution levels, but had now been amended to the point of becoming totally unrecognisable as a climate and energy policy.

“The national energy guarantee has been trimmed, pulled, poked and prodded to the point that we are now left with a weak and inadequate policy that fails across the board, especially when it comes to effectively tackling climate change,” he said.

Bourne said should the Neg move through federal parliament, focus must then urgently be placed on developing strong and credible policies committed to cutting Australia’s rising greenhouse gas pollution levels across other sectors such as transport, industry and agriculture to tackle climate change.

“Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution levels have increased for the past three consecutive years. Today, due to the federal government’s inability to put in place credible climate and energy policy, our greenhouse gas pollution levels (excluding land use) are close to all-time highs,” he said.

“With the national energy guarantee locking in such woefully inadequate electricity sector emissions cuts of 26% by 2030, we can no longer expect the electricity sector to play its role in cutting pollution through transitioning to clean, affordable, low-cost renewable energy.”

Bourne said that, excluding Australia’s biggest polluting sector, electricity, there are seven other major sectors responsible for the nation’s rising greenhouse gas pollution levels. These sectors are transport, stationary energy, agriculture, fugitive emissions, industrial processes, waste and land use.

“Since 2005, greenhouse gas pollution has skyrocketed in some of these sectors, with transport up 22%, stationary energy up 18% and fugitive emissions up 42%,” he said.

“By restricting the role of clean, low-cost, reliable, renewable energy, the Neg has now locked Australia in to a more challenging, more expensive path to effectively tackling climate change.

“The Neg means we will now have to double-down on cutting greenhouse gas pollution in sectors like transport and agriculture in order to protect Australians from worsening extreme weather events, including severe heatwaves, bushfires, flooding and drought, driven by accelerating climate change.”

Bourne urged states and territories to continue leading the charge on Australia’s transition to clean, affordable and reliable renewable energy, by implementing their strong policies to encourage renewable energy and storage.

The IPA has made its position on the Neg clear (from its statement):

“The national energy guarantee puts emissions reductions ahead of reliability and lower energy prices. It is disappointing that this bad policy has proceeded further today,” said Daniel Wild, research fellow at the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

“There is bipartisan support for energy policy which favours high-cost, intermittent, weather-dependent energy generation from wind and solar at the expense of low-cost, dispatchable energy generated from coal.

“There is no policy or political reason why the government needs to reduce emissions. Emissions are coming down under the status quo. Government policy should just focus on lower prices, which means ending subsidies and regulatory favours to wind and solar, and cutting regulation and red tape on coal-fired power stations.”

IPA research released yesterday estimated that the cost of Australia meeting its Paris climate agreement emissions reduction targets – which are embedded in the Neg – to be $52bn from 2018-2030. That is the equivalent to funding 22 new hospitals, 20 years’ worth of the Gonski 2.0 education funding and four years’ worth of the NDIS.

“Following the emissions reduction requirements of the Paris climate agreement will impose significant and irreparable economic damage without delivering an environmental dividend,” Mr Wild said.

“The immutable law of energy policy is lower emissions mean higher prices.”

Goodness me, we are just a few minutes out from question time....you know what to do - predictions in the comments.

Malcolm Turnbull said he would be happy to have the emissions reduction target debate with Labor at the next election, to which Mark Butler said:

“We agree on something then, because we are happy to have a strong debate within the community in the context of an election about the need for real ambition on energy investment. We know that will create jobs and investment, we know that’s the way to get serious jobs to dangerous, unhealthy pollution from the power sector, and we know from modelling released in recent weeks that this is the way to get downward pressure on wholesale power prices.

“The only reason there is downward pressure right now is the big expansion in renewable energy driven by Labor’s renewable energy target. That is what will or won’t happen depending on whether Labor’s plan or Malcolm Turnbull’s plan goes forward.”

Mark Butler said Labor will be seeking to amend the Neg (if it passes the states):

“We’ve said clearly, if the legislation comes for debate, and that’s subject to Coag processes, it’s our view that the emissions reduction target of 45% should be put in place. The government’s plan of 26% is a reduction of 2% over the course of a decade and will pull through absolutely no new investment, and that will be felt in higher power prices. The Labor party will be arguing for that position in parliament.”

The Neg press conference meant the barbecue for a Republic event was interrupted.

Bill Shorten gave a speech – the main takeaway being:

“The Labor party in our first term as a government will hold a national referendum. We’ll ask Australians a very straightforward question: do you want to have an Australian head of state?

Now, this question is not the only question for the nation to consider. There are many issues which Australians deal with in their daily lives, from their cost-of-living to their health care.

But merely because Australians have plenty else to think about is not a reason to delay thinking about having an Australian head of state.

The Australian people are capable of engaging in more than one issue at a time and it is well past the hour for Australia to have our own head of state.”

A little more Malcolm Turnbull:

“Remember it was my action as prime minister that resulted in the gas shortage on the east coast being resolved and that is the big factors that brought down the cost of wholesale generation. It was Josh’s legislation that got rid of the limited-merits review, which, of course, reduces the ability of the owners of the poles and wires to game the system with endless appeals.

“In every area you look at, we are seeking to reduce costs. Look at the action we took with the retailers. We hauled them in and said too many people are on your standard offers. You’re taking advantage of them. And they wrote to them and hundreds of thousands of people have switched to more competitive plans or switched suppliers and are now paying less for electricity. Every single element of the supply chain for electricity is being addressed by us to reduce the cost for families and businesses. That’s our commitment and we are demonstrating that our policies are working.”

So how important is it that Labor supports this legislation, according to the prime minister?

“The Labor party has to decide whether they want to support cheaper and more reliability electricity. You know, we have got to bring an end to the years of ideology and idiocy which have been a curse on energy policy for too long and that is why industry – whether you’re talking about big industrial consumers or small business – consumer groups are calling on government, governments and oppositions to get behind this policy. We need to get a certain environment so that people will invest and that’s really the question for Bill Shorten. Bill Shorten wrote to me last year and in the middle of last year and urged me to adopt a bipartisan approach, you know, a non-political approach to energy policy. Well, he’s got everybody lined up supporting – industry, consumer groups – supporting the national energy guarantee. Now is the time for him to support it and vote for it.”

Malcolm Turnbull on whether he’ll tell his colleagues to “stop bagging” the Neg:

“I’ll discuss matters with my colleagues directly rather than through your offices. Thank you for the kind offer. But this is a policy which has been the subject of extensive consultation. It’s been discussed at Coalition party room meetings on a number of occasions now, and we have received overwhelming support for it. It’s the policy of the government and it will deliver, as the experts have advised, and as industry have advised us – which is why they’re urging us to get on with it – it will deliver more reliable power and cheaper power. We want to see the corner we have turned on electricity prices, that to continue. We want people’s bills to keep coming down.”

Malcolm Turnbull on the five who have reserved their right to cross the floor (which if Labor doesn’t support the bill, will have it teetering):

“But the concerns were expressed across the board about prices. And we share those. Everything, everything we’re doing is seeking to bring town energy prices. The national energy guarantee, of course, addresses one part of the puddle, you know, the addresses the cost of generation but you’ve got poles and wires, retail costs, green schemes, it’s a complex business.

“Now what we are seeing already is our policies having the result of bringing down retail prices. We’ve seen big reductions, thanks to our policies in wholesale generation costs and we expect to see minister and we will do more, but ... our commitment is to use every single leave available to us, one of which is the Neg, to bring down energy prices. Now, as Josh said, Bill Shorten has only got a plan for higher electricity prices and a less reliable system.

“The time has come for him to support the national energy guarantee. It’s been designed by the experts. It has the broadest support of any energy policy, any energy policy that has ... In my time in politics and possibly a lot longer than that. So now is the time to provide the certainty and the investment climate that is going to see more generation and lower prices.”

Malcolm Turnbull is feeling so good about the Neg outcome, he’s called a press conference at the prime minister’s courtyard for 12.45.

Josh Frydenberg gets the lectern next to him.

The PM’s courtyard is the most fancy of the press conference locations, reserved for the most serious/look at all our flags moments.

And Katharine Murphy has confirmed Craig Kelly is also a hard no – so four Coalition MPs prepared to cross the floor, while one (Christensen) is seriously considering it

Senate debate has resumed on the David Leyonhjelm bill proposing to give territories the right to decide whether to allow euthanasia.

So far Labor’s Jenny McAllister and Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff have spoken in favour and National John Wacka Williams against.

Labor senator Kristina Keneally tells the Senate she does not have an “in-principle opposition to euthanasia” but is concerned about practical considerations like protections on the practice and that parliament “might move to legalise euthanasia before we consider the adequacy of palliative care”.

“However the legislation does not ask us to approve or disapprove of euthanasia – but whether territories should have power to determine question for themselves.”

Keneally is another vote in favour – we’re expecting the bill to pass with at least 42 votes.

We’re going on a dissenter hunt ...

Lee Rhiannon gave her valedictory speech late yesterday – she’s leaving the Senate

Her replacement is also finishing up at the NSW parliament:

Anne Aly got to have some fun this morning at the launch of the children’s book: If I was Prime Minister (which I can’t help but think should have been: If I were Prime Minister, but I digress)

Here’s a taster from the book - #ReubenforPM

The bells are ringing for the start of parliament.

And maybe also in Malcolm Turnbull’s head:

Birds of a feather....

Following the decision last sitting by the Senate not to deal with any legislation until David Leyonhjelm’s euthanasia bill has been voted on, the Senate is getting down to business.

The big test for that, if it passes the Senate, will be whether or not it is taken to the House for a vote – and what the government does with it.

This push to get out of the Paris Agreement by Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce has received some pushback from another sector – the guy who sits in the same room as them and looks after Australia’s trade.

Steve Ciobo told Sky News a little earlier this morning that if Australia abandons Paris, then it can also kiss goodbye to any chance of an EU trade deal, post-Brexit.

“They would walk away from it. I have no doubt about that at all. The impact on Australian exports and Australian jobs would be profound,” he said.

Which is something Joyce should have considered – he is not only re-re-branding himself as the voice of the bush – you know, that place where the farmers live, who rely on things like trade deals – but he also spent time laying the framework for a post-Brexit trade deal world with the EU while he was deputy prime minister.

Someone’s happy

Greg Hunt has responded to the announcement Labor will be heading an inquiry into the Myhealth Record rollout (spoiler - we were doing it first)

The cheese has found a friend

Pauline Hanson has said she is in favour of David Leyonhejelm’s bill to re-instate the rights of territories to legislate euthanasia laws (which was taken from the NT and ACT in 1997 when the NT passed it’s voluntary assisted death laws).

Cory Bernardi is against it. His man in Queensland, Lyle Shelton, who is aiming for a Queensland Senate spot and fighting for the same voters as One Nation, claims Hanson’s support proves she is not a “true conservative”.

From his statement:

Senator Hanson’s support for doctor-assisted suicide and changing the role of the territories is further evidence that One Nation is not based on conservative principles.

“Senator Hanson has played an important role in articulating many legitimate grievances Australians have with the major parties,” Shelton said.

“However, she sadly lacks a coherent and principled policy platform.

“Conservative voters expect conservative parliamentarians to uphold the dignity of human life and not allow the abuses that have occurred in the small number of countries where euthanasia has been legalised.

“Conservatives also expect conservatives to uphold our federation, not seek to radically re-shape the role of the territories.”

The Queensland conservative war is shaping up as one of the ones to watch in the next election. Don’t forget there is Katter’s Australian Party as well, who are also chasing the same voters. And this time, there is no lowered quota for senators.

And further to that Neg modelling update a couple of posts ago, here’s the letter the government sent when lodging the documents, which we already had.

The Greens and Labor have both emerged from their respective party room meetings.

The Coalition is still working through the Neg.

Fairfax’s Dana McCauley reports Barnaby Joyce has passed on a letter written by his partner Vikki Campion to Emma Husar, through Bill Shorten’s office, offering her “support and sympathy”.

You can read the story here

Kristina Keneally is continuing to lead the Labor charge into the Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant. That would be the $444m one which was handed to the foundation, unsolicited, and which has been causing all sorts of headaches for Josh Frydenberg and Malcolm Turnbull as they struggle to explain why.

Here is what Keneally had to say this morning:

Yesterday, we learnt that the government’s top environment bureaucrat has decided refer this grant to the Audit Office. And well he should – well he should – it shows that the government’s own environment department does not have confidence in the government’s decision to award $444mil dollars of public money to a private foundation. But what did we learn today? Revelations in the media that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, within days of getting this nearly half a billion dollars of public money, took their mining and banking mates from their Chairman’s Panel on a three-day luxury holiday to Hamilton Island.

Now, this is a very disturbing revelation today. As I read it, as I see it, there is nothing in the partnership agreement struck between the Turnbull government and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation that would prevent the

Foundation from spending taxpayer dollars on holidays for its Chairman’s Panel - for its banking and mining mates. Under the agreement, there is wide latitude for stakeholder engagement and fundraising, which means, under this agreement – where the Turnbull government has given away half a billion dollars of taxpayer monies – now we’ve got a foundation with a demonstrated track record of taking their mining and banking executives on luxury holidays – they’ve got the capacity to do that again under this agreement struck by the Turnbull Government.

It is time for Malcolm Turnbull to get this money back – to get this nearly half a billion dollars back, and invest it into our public sector science agencies – our public sector agencies tasked with looking after the Reef. The CSIRO, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science – we have public bodies who can look after the Reef, they should get the public money to do so.

Meanwhile, because sports and politics go hand in hand in this country and you can’t have the fun without the games, Andrew Leigh is pushing for the ACT to get an A-League team:

The A-League needs a team from the capital region. Maybe you’ve already committed to joining the Canberra and capital region A-League bid. Maybe you’ve already signed up as a foundation member. If you haven’t, do it now. Put your name to the cause. Be a part of the bid to bring A-League football to the capital.

Your support is just the start. What about your friends, your family, your teammates? Clubs need volunteers at all stages. You’re on board with the bid already? Why not visit the website for the capital region bid and get the tools to sign up more foundation members.

Yesterday, the Senate voted to have the national energy guarantee modelling released, after a push from the Greens.

The government responded – by putting up the spreadsheet which was already on the website.

Adam Bandt is not happy:

Yesterday the Senate ordered the government to release the full modelling behind the Neg and its wild claims of $550/yr power bill cuts. The government tabled their response this morning, confirming what analysts feared. That there is no proper modelling, just a single Excel spreadsheet. Previous modelling reports for government reviews of the electricity market by Jacobs have run to hundreds of papers. It is now clear the government’s claims for the Neg are built on a foundation of sand. The Neg is a toxic farce.

There’s officially a Possum in caucus.

Act natural

From the Coalition party room meeting:

Basically, the cheese stands alone.

Matt Thistlethwaite, the MP whose name, as someone who had a debilitating speech impediment as a child, I dread saying on live broadcasts, is launching the “BBQ for an Australian Head of State” campaign, with Peter FitzSimons today, with, what else - a BBQ.

He gets the gig as Labor’s shadow minister for an Australian head of state, which I imagine is an awkward title to fit on a business card.

Labor is yet to comprehensively decide on where it will land with the Neg – they are waiting to see what the government comes up with as a final package and hear from their state counterparts before coming up with that decision – but Nick Champion was the latest to comment on the government’s process in developing an energy policy:

The Neg was not our preferred model. In the first instance we preferred Finkel’s report. A report which was very comprehensive and was given a life-span of about a month. That’s how long it lasted. We had the chief scientist do a report that went to government, it lasted a month. Then they came up with the national energy guarantee. So it’s not good enough of this government to cry for bipartisanship when they can’t even get certainty within the government about their own policy making processes, their political processes and what we see here is division writ large.

Some Mike Bowers for your morning

It’s all gone a little quiet now, as practically every MP is in a party-room meeting.

Bill Shorten has allowed the cameras in for the start of the Labor party room meeting – they called Mike Bowers and co in for a photo opportunity a smidge bit earlier, now that Susan Lamb, Justine Keay and Josh Wilson are back in the parliament. Labor also welcomed Patrick Gorman to his first federal party room. (Emma Husar and Brendan O’Connor are both still away for personal reasons.)

Here’s some of what he had to say:

Today the government is back to doing their favourite past time – fighting each other. The only thing guaranteed to come it of today is higher power prices and less renewable energy. We have a cobbled together today a Frankenstein’s monster of a policy, whilst Mr Turnbull goes around attacking Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull is in fact giving in to a lot of Mr Abbott’s values when it comes to climate change and energy.

What we will see is promises to deliver new money, new coal-fired power stations. We will see less renewable energy in the system which means higher prices. What we have now is the dreadful situation in Australia where Mr Turnbull is so weak that although he may call something an energy guarantee, the fact of the matter is he is surrendering energy policy making in this country to people who do not believe in climate change.

What we must do every day between now and the next election, is stand up for more renewable energy, which will lead to lower energy prices and more action on climate.

An important story from Chris Knaus - NSW Labor has decided to condemn the prosecution of Witness K - the whistleblower who alleged we had bugged the East Timor cabinet room, during the gas pipeline negotiations (which no subsequent government has denied).

Federal Labor has been largely silent on the issue. Why? Well, the smart money would be on electoral concerns – that it would be giving Peter Dutton ammunition to accuse them of being soft on national security. And there are not too many votes to be gained by standing up and saying this is a terrible move.

One of the fascinating things in the debate about euthanasia is whether senators and MPs see it as a vote on the rights of the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory to govern themselves or a proxy for the substantive issue of the right to die.

The ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja has explained his reasons for voting against – “it’s a matter of life and death”, he says in a Fairfax Media opinion piece, and Labor has voted to override the territories’ self-governing powers (on other issues) before.

I’ve just spoken to ACT Labor senator David Smith - who opposes euthanasia but will vote for the David Leyonhjelm bill because he sees it as a territory rights issue.

He said:

“The ACT assembly has a right to conduct a mature and respectful debate about this issue ... there’s a reason we have self-government in the ACT.”

Smith says he has “grave reservations” about voluntary euthanasia because “we have to be very careful” that there is not pressure on the “vulnerable and weary” to end their lives.

Smith is currently locked in a preselection contest with Katy Gallagher who wants to come back to the Senate after being disqualified for dual citizenship. After the resignation of Labor MP Gai Brodtmann, Smith could attempt to move to the lower house but he said it was too soon to say if he would seek preselection in the seat of Bean.

Barnaby Joyce has again been blaming renewables and the Paris agreement for electricity price hikes, despite the number of independent reports that point to the gold plating of the poles and wires being the main price driver. The network charges.

And let’s not also forget that Joyce was part of the government – led by Tony Abbott – which offered states a sweetener from a $5bn infrastructure pool if they ‘recycled’ their assets, the power assets they still owned. Which Victoria and NSW took advantage of. And now these same two people want the government to fork out for new coal-fired power stations, after criticising the private companies for doing what they want with the assets they bought off the states, at the Abbott government’s request.

THIS IS WHY THE EMUS WON, PEOPLE.

Here was Joyce this morning:

Right now, it is a reality, especially in New England, that people cannot afford power and they’re trying to make up for it by doing things, such as pensioners going to bed early so that they can stay warm. Now, I can’t go back to them and say, this is about the Paris agreement. The reason that you’re going to bed early is that you can lie back and think of the Paris agreement. We have to have an a mechanism that is able to enforce the savings that we’re talking about.

Joyce did say he was a fan of the ACCC report though, particularly the recommendations which target the market power the electricity companies have.

The latest Guardian Essential poll is out – as Katharine Murphy reports, Labor and Bill Shorten are both up.

The latest survey of 1,032 voters has Labor ahead of the Coalition on the two-party preferred measure, 52% to 48%, an improvement within the poll’s margin of error since the result last fortnight, which was 51% to 49%.

There has also been a three-point improvement in the Labor leader’s approval ratings. 34% approved of the job Shorten is doing as opposition leader (up 3% from last month), and 44% disapproved (down 3%) – a change in his net approval rating from -16 to -10.

Craig Kelly has been doing his best to explain his opposition to the Neg, despite the biggest users in the country – the industry groups – asking the Coalition to back it in.

I’ll let him explain it, because it’s a bit all over the shop:

Mark Butler has been out early this morning talking all things Coalition and Neg:

There is now no ground left for Malcolm Turnbull to concede to the hard right on energy policy. This morning, Malcolm Turnbull will present an energy plan where there is not a single energy renewable project built for an entire decade that will mean that the rates of installation of rooftop solar for Australian households is cut in half. And we learned today billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will be directed to building new coal-fired power plants.

This is a plan that will smash jobs and investment in renewables, will fail to achieve cuts from the power sector and will push power prices further and further up. No matter what the debate, the vote in the party room today, the hard right and Tony Abbott have won the day. Any shred of credibility around energy change and power prices lies in tatters today.

I also want to talk about reports about taxpayers’ money being directed towards coal-fired power stations. Every industry body and expert that advises government on energy policy has said that new coal-fired power stations are, to use the words of the industry, “simply uninvestable”. The chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, said there was no way investors would put money into coal-fired power stations.