Anne Aly takes a dixer to defend Indian migrants after Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s grandstanding yesterday.

I want to say to Indian Australians, this is our message. You do not have to justify your belonging in this country. We know you. We value you. We thank you for everything you have contributed to Australia to communities, to charities, to business, to politics, to our medical profession, to our economy. We stand with you as we always have. When the immigration of Lebanese Australians was described as a mistake, that was wrong. When the African Australian community were unfairly stereotyped, that was wrong. When the Chinese Australian community were accused of being spies, that was wrong. And the scapegoating of Indian communities, designed to undermine their sense of safety and belonging, is wrong. Every member of this Labor government stands by the communities that they represent, and we will always call out attempts to divide us because it is by calling them out that we will strengthen our social cohesion.

The second crossbench question goes to the Independent Member for Bradfield, Nicolette Boele.

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. We need an emissions reduction goal go high, says the science, that’s your role. Will the government have ambition, take a 75 per cent position or side with the sellers of coal?

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen:

The Climate Change Act requires the government to receive the advice of the Climate Change Authority before setting a target. It’s a matter of law. The law also requires the Climate Change Authority to have regard to the best available scientific knowledge and the global temperature goals under article 2 of the Paris Agreement , which is two degrees and 1.5 degrees and under the Act I must take account of that advice in setting the targets. And I am also able to take into account other factors such as the economic impact and the social impact of the target we set. The election makes it clear, this process makes it clear what we must consider when setting the target and that is exactly what we will do.

With the news yesterday that the Albanese Government is looking at fixed, four-year terms (and then the news today that they’re not looking at them very hard), we’ve had a question:

How do fixed, four-year terms interact with the Australian Constitution’s quirks like the “staggered” Senate and double dissolution elections?

The short answer is that it would depend on how the constitutional amendment is drafted, but we know what earlier governments have proposed.

“Staggered” Senate terms

Each of Australia’s six states is represented by 12 senators, but you only elect 6 of them at an ordinary election. We have elections every three years (roughly) and each senator serves for six years, so at any given time only half the senators are facing re-election.

What happens if you go from three-year terms to four-year terms?

There’s two options:

Option 1. Get rid of staggered terms. Elect all 12 senators for a state at the same time, for the same four-year term.

Option 2. Keep staggered terms. Elect every senator for an eight-year term, but still only elect 6 at a time.  

Option 1 would mean the Senate becomes more proportional to the vote. Instead of needing about one-in-six votes to get elected, a senator would only need about one-in-twelve.

This is what already happens at a double dissolution election, like the 2016 election where a record number of minor party senators were elected.

Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not what most people think about when they hear “four-year terms”.

Option 2 would mean senators serve for a long time. Australia in 2025 is very different to Australia in 2017, but your vote up to eight years earlier would decide who represented you.

When Bob Hawke had a referendum to introduce four-year terms in 1988, he went with Option 1.

If the House of Representatives and Senate fall out of sync, how do they get back in sync?

It used to be common that House of Representatives elections were held at a different time to Senate elections. That can happen because of how our Constitution is written.

For one thing, the Constitution is strict about senators serving roughly six-year terms, but allows the House of Representatives to go to an early election instead of seeing out the full three years.

For another, the way the Constitution says Senate terms must be backdated after a double dissolution election can mess things up.

The Prime Minister can sync up the two houses of Parliament by going to an early election. Bob Hawke had to do that in 1984, going to an election almost two years early to catch up to the Senate. But if terms are fixed, that’s not an option.

In practice, you could resolve this by amending the Constitution to say that senators serve for exactly two House of Representatives’ terms, however long or short they may be. 

Three earlier referendums tried to achieve this change; they failed each time. Bob Hawke’s referendum in 1988 instead would have set senators’ terms at exactly one House of Representatives’ term, again avoiding the problem.

Member for Mallee, Anne Webster:

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told the bush summit last Friday and I quote, ‘I won’t BS people.’ But yesterday in the House he claimed he was the first Prime Minister in 40 years to visit Horsham in my electorate. Given former Prime Minister Tony Abbott visited Horsham to announce $1 million to open an oncology unit in 2015, wasn’t your answer just more BS? Prime Minister, isn’t your BS the real reason you were chased out of Ballarat by a convoy of tractors?

Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese:

They’re on the big picture today. Indeed, Tony Abbott was elected in 2013, but he didn’t make it to a 2-year anniversary. Depends when in 2015 ’cause he didn’t make it. I’m asked about the renewables issue. In that part of Victoria, and the bush summit. I can quote from someone’s first speech. ‘Mallee is perfectly positioned for renewables but the capacity of our existing grid infrastructure is making some promising options unviable. I look forward to working further to improve connectivity to the grid in Mallee.

Dr Webster welcomed announcements, she said, would benefit the Mallee electorate. These included to quote, ‘Up to $250 million to accelerate major transmission projects including VNI west, which will benefit Mallee in order to deliver reliable energy.’ Well, Mr Speaker, I’ll tell you what. The member used a term. I’ll tell you what the term is. The term for someone who, in their first speech in this Parliament, speaks about these projects and champions them, two backs it in, in 2020. Who went money is put in the budget, $250 million, puts out media releases saying, ‘Whoa, this is gonna be of great benefit.’ And then pretends somehow that they’re against the very project that was given the tick by the coalition government, funded by the coalition government, and then tells people, ‘Yeah, national parks no worries, get out there, bring along a noose to a public meeting’, as if that’s appropriate.

Wow, the Libs really do care about women?

Liberal senator, Jane Hume, has proposed to address “the motherhood penalty” with a new bill , which would mean the partner with the larger superannuation can top up their spouse’s savings.  

The gap between men’s and women’s super can be as large as 25% in large part due to women taking time off from the workforce to raise children. 

Currently, superannuation rules allow one partner to top up their partner’s fund. However, due to a low awareness of the rule, The Guardian reports that, in 2021-22, only 1.1% made any such top-up. 

Hume says this bill will address structural reform, ensuring the top up process is voluntary and accessible.

“Financial security in retirement should reflect a lifetime of shared contributions, not just paid employment. That is what this bill aims to fix.”

Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, Kevin Hogan:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the New South Wales police have publicly confirmed they are working with the Commonwealth on the return of ISIS brides to Australia. Prime Minister, are you calling the New South Wales police Deputy Commissioner David Hudson a liar?

Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese:

That is an outrageous suggestion. I have respect for our police officers. The questions that were asked yesterday went to whether the Australian government was giving support to this cohort. I confirmed that the Australian government is not providing assistance to this cohort. Syria is an increasingly unstable region.

But the Australian government is not providing assistance to this cohort. The report yesterday was wrong. I declared it to be wrong. And long may the Opposition continue to get their questions from Sky after dark.

Sussan Ley turns the debate (back) to Isis brides. In doing so, she quotes Sky News, which sends the house into uproarious laughter.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley:

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his answer yesterday, where he rejected reports that ISIS brides were coming to Australia. Last night Sharri Markson revealed on Sky News that Deputy Commissioner Dave Hudson had confirmed New South Wales police were, ‘Working through that issue with the Commonwealth’. And that New South Wales police will meet with the AFP next week in relation to this matter. Can the Prime Minister explain this contradiction?

Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese:

Thank you. There is no contradiction between my answer yesterday was absolutely correct.

First crossbench question goes to Andrew Wilkie:

Attorney-General, last week Australian Tax Officer whistleblower Richard Boyle was sentenced after facing a lengthy prosecution for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in the ATO. His case was, of course, yet another demonstration that our whistleblower protections are deeply inadequate. Minister, exactly when will the government table the necessary amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Corporations Act so the whistleblowers aren’t the ones being punished?

Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland:

I thank the member for Clark for his question and I acknowledge his ongoing advocacy over many decades in this important area. Last week the district court of South Australia sentenced Mr Boyle, in relation to four charges, under the Commonwealth Taxation Administration Act 1953, and the South Australian Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972. I understand the court did not record a conviction and imposed a 12 month good behaviour bond. I will not otherwise comment on the specifics of Mr Boyle’s case. The decision to prosecute Mr Boyle is a matter for the independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. But what I can say to the honourable member is that the Albanese government is committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for public sector whistleblowers through reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. That’s why yesterday we announced a public consultation process on exposure draft legislation will commence next week on a second stage of reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We want meaningful engagement only this. We want to bring forward a package of reforms that will improve the accessibility, operation and Administration of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The government’s reforms will be designed to clarity and — clarify and strengthen protections for whistleblowers, simplify public interest disclosures and strengthen the oversight of the system. In addition, the government proposes to establish a new whistleblower Ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which would be the most significant addition to the Federal integrity landscape since the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. 

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley:

This month the Prime Minister expelled the Iranian Ambassador, an action the coalition has strongly supported but what message does it send when the Prime Minister of this country doesn’t have the spine to condemn his former flatmate, Daniel Andrews for posing in photos with the Iranian President, a leader whose regime has actively orchestrated attacks on Australian soil?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

I am not responsible for what every Australian citizen does. What I’m responsible for is … what our government does, and the former government was responsible for sending Minister Ronaldson to the previous event. Mr Speaker, we stand unequivocally in condemning the Iranian regime and what international affairs requires, requires, is for governments of purpose, with that sense of purpose, to engage diplomatically with our friends, and we had yesterday people such as President Prabowo Subianto and a whole range of people attending there. My position is very, very clear, which is we did not send any government representative because it would not have been appropriate. None of my people would have sat in that position, as simple as that.

Sussan Ley, kicking into the wind, picks up where she left off yesterday, asking about Daniel Andrews‘ trip to China.

Anthony Albanese, defending a huge three-quarter time lead, turns from yesterday’s “last time, you sent a Minister” to:

I haven’t, and never will, meet Vladimir Putin. I haven’t and never will meet the leader of North Korea as well, and we will give every support to people fighting for democracy right around the world. That’s my government’s approach.