PM’s department evades question on Brian Houston’s White House invite – politics live | Australia news

Penny Wong is now asking the PM&C officials whether they are aware of any international agreements Australia has entered into unwillingly.

They are not.

*fin*

“When you say this unaccountable, unelected international bureaucracy – the only thing you can point to is they give us lectures,” Penny Wong says.

Mathias Cormann eventually concedes that “they” can’t direct us, but from “time to time” “they” try.

Wong wants him to take on notice who “they are”.

Cormann won’t because he says he has answered who “they” are. (He has not)

“I am asking the department to take on notice who the ‘they’ is … which organisations are included in the ‘they’ [in the prime minister’s speech].”

This is an actual exchange in Senate estimates and not a rebooted Laurel and Hardy sketch.

Mathias Cormann won’t say who “they” are, when he says that sometimes “they” impose judgements or decisions which the government doesn’t believe supports Australia’s national interest.

But he won’t say who “they” is.

It’s just “they”.

Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong are now using Malcolm Roberts’s support as a sledge.

Fair.

Asking about the prime minister’s Lowy institute speech – the “negative globalism” one – Penny Wong asks for the difference between positive and negative globalism.

It doesn’t look like anyone can.

The PM&C officials can’t think of any other reference to negative globalism.

Mathias Cormann jumps in to say it was a great speech, which was very well received by those who heard it.

“One Nation loved it,” Wong quips back.

Cormann says he believes the “quiet Australians” would have received it well.

Wong then asks what global organisations demand conformity.

There is silence in the room.

Cormann is now reading directly from the speech.

Penny Wong is asking PM&C officials about “BurnedSpy” (a name she laughs as she says out loud) and whether the department has taken any investigations as a consequence of the claims made in the story (that he regularly posts on conspiracy QAnon conspiracy sites and their partner works on the prime minister’s staff).

Mathias Cormann takes everything on notice.

I imagine this will be in response to Ken Wyatt’s interview last week, in which he said he would be moving to legislate a voice to parliament, rather than enshrining it in the constitution, in order to get the recognition referendum up (and passed).

Indigenous people called for the voice to be enshrined, so it could not be overrun, as Atsic was.

For those interested, Bob Katter and Adam Bandt are both in the chamber arguing against the free trade deal – it s not often you see those two on the same side of an argument.

Labor has picked up on the prime minister’s statement during question time (highlighted below) that

I do not believe that those decisions about who should be prosecuted at the end of the day should be made on the whim of politicians.

Which contradicts the line that Christian Porter has taken on this – that he will need to approve any brief from the commonwealth director of public prosecutions (if there is one) before any charges could be moved ahead.

Mark Dreyfus says Scott Morrison has confused the issue, asking whether Porter’s directive stands, or not.

Mr Morrison’s statement suggests that this government does not know where it stands on freedom of the press and the Australian public’s right to know.

Zali Steggall will officially present the largest ever parliamentary e-petition (there have been bigger hardcopy ones presented, including one to stop a beer tax) calling on the parliament to declare a climate emergency, in the chamber tomorrow. There were over 400,000 signatures on that one, which is no mean feat.

But for it to pass, a few government MPs would need to cross over.

Steggall tells Patricia Karvelas “we are writing around to request a conscience vote”.

We are a democracy,” she says.

PK points out that the conservative government in the UK passed a climate emergency declaration, so she asks whether she thinks anyone from the conservative side of politics would support it, if a conscience vote was allowed (which it most likely will not be).

Absolutely. A lot called for a climate act to be introduced in the UK. It needs to be done, it has to be done and we need to find the political will in Australia.

You need more than just lip service at an election, saying that you do believe in climate change and you will take action. We needed to be for more than just inside the party room, it needs to be outside. Everyone should be able to have a conscience vote in parliament and declare whether or not this is an issue we need to address.

Back in environment estimates, Labor has been asking about the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, which received a controversial $443.3 m six-year grant from the government.

At the time the grant was awarded, it was said the foundation had “unique” capacity to attract further donations for reef projects from the private sector.
Senator Nita Green notes the department’s annual report says there is an investment target of between $300m to $400m.

“How many funds have actually been raised?” she asks.

Deb Callister, from the department’s heritage, reef and marine division, says: “To date, the amount that we’ve been advised of is that they’ve raised more than $21m as in-kind contributions from their projects.”

Asked what in-kind means, she says it refers to additional provided by organisations and groups that had received funding from the foundation via the grant. This could be staff provided for projects, office space, or cash.

Callister says the federal election had affected the foundation’s ability to “participate more actively in the fundraising sphere”.

Labor warned the foundation before the election it would terminate the grant if it was elected.

“It would come as no surprise to senators that some of the uncertainty around the future of the partnership that arose around the election…has impacted on their (the foundation’s) ability to participate more actively in the fundraising sphere,” Callister says.

“But now that that outcome is known and their future is known they’re moving more actively to engage with potential donors.”

Callister says in the first year of the grant the foundation spent “in the vicinity” of $25m on projects and just under $8m on administrative costs.

She said the foundation anticipated they would spend $58m on projects in 19-20.

Seems to be a lot of incorrect responses flying around