Blog Archives

Britain’s Moving on Marriage, Why Can’t We?

A draft bill which aims to establish marriage equality in England and Wales  has passed through the House of Commons – their equivalent of our House of Representatives. The vote was won by a handsome margin – 400 votes to 175 in the lower house in Britain. The Conservative Party, governing in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, allowed a conscience vote on the same-sex marriage bill put before the House. And a majority of Labor MP’s and Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the bill.

Unsurprisingly, given the recent history of the marriage debate in Australia, after the proposition was voted down by a wide margin in the Australian parliament and how strong support for gay marriage still is in Australia – the discussion of the successful vote in the United Kingdom quickly led to a discussion of the consequences of the move for the Australian cause.

As it has been from the start, the big issue was the comparison between the stance of the Conservative Party in the UK and that of the Liberal Party in Australia. The former, David Cameron’s Conservative Party, gave their MP’s a conscience vote in the parliament. Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party, with a history of granting conscience votes, opted not to go down the route of a conscience vote, using the excuse of going to the 2010 promising to keep the marriage act unamended.

Many will say that it is the Coalition held back the cause of equal marriage with their decision not to hold a conscience vote. The Liberal Party should certainly have allowed a conscience vote, hoping to at least appear more liberal than they have been. It is however far from certain, even with a conscience vote, that the bill would have passed the Lower House. At the very least it would have been a close-run thing.

It has also been said that today’s win in the UK will put pressure on the Liberal Party when it comes to marriage equality. Will it? Not necessarily. In fact, probably not. The Liberal Party will likely decide, at least for the foreseeable future – not to take their cues from outside and foreign influences. The move toward marriage equality in the UK should, even though it will not – prove that legislating for same-sex marriage is not a scary thing and not a step too far for conservatives.

Perhaps the best thing for the cause of gay marriage, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, would be for the remaining liberal forces in the party, though they are rapidly dwindling, to continue to try to muster the political strength to call on the party to adopt a conscience vote. This in itself will not be an easy task. But there have been branch wins reported and if these continued, then the pressure will continue to mount on the parliamentary Liberal Party to change their stance.

Where the argument will not be won is through trying to claim that the issue would be a vote-winner for the Liberal Party. There is no doubt that marriage equality is at its most popular as a concept and a future reality in Australia. Polls continuously show that a majority of respondents favour amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. And that cuts across all political parties, even the Liberal Party.

But that does not translate into votes. On the face of it, it may seem like overwhelming support for an issue would equal votes if that policy direction was pursued. But contrary to what some appear to believe, most people do not vote on one single issue or even two or three. They might vote on the economy as a single issue, but very few would vote for marriage equality as a single issue. People voting for marriage equality are likely overwhelmingly vote for a political entity hoping to pursue a whole suite of progressive measures.

Really, what needs to be continually pointed out is that the demise of the sanctity of marriage will not come from gay marriage, but outside forces, more related to the way in which we live our lives.

The UK example should serve as a reminder to the Liberal Party that gay marriage is not an evil concept which conservatives must avoid at all costs. But minds will not be dramatically shifted because of what has happened in Britain.

The Liberal Party will however have to realise that a change to the Marriage Act is inevitable, even if they do not wish to go along with it.

Equal Marriage Voted Down, Looks Like You Can’t Have National Civil Unions Either

The vote on the private members bill from MP for Throsby Stephen Jones on gay marriage has now been seen through both houses of parliament and of course the result was never in doubt. With the ALP allowing a free vote and the Coalition voting ‘no’ there was never any prospect of the bill having success. Yesterday the same-sex marriage bill was easily voted down in the House of Representatives, with just 42 parliamentarians voting in favour of the bill and 98 against. Today, the Senate also emphatically rejected the proposition of marriage equality, 41 votes to 26.

First, had the Coalition been afforded the opportunity for a conscience vote on the matter, it would have been hard, even impossible to foresee a different outcome to the one arrived at both yesterday and today. There would have been just as many, if not more on the Coalition side voting against the bill as there was on the Labor benches of parliament.

Particularly in the last few weeks there have been talks of pursuing the path of civil unions, clearly because the result finalised today was foreseen and an appetite to “do something” exists in the minds of some within the parliament. This barrow has been pushed publicly by MP’s, most notably Chief Opposition Whip, Warren Entsch and Malcolm Turnbull. Curiously, both of these MP’s are from the Liberal Party and have been the most vocal supporters of pursuing civil unions as a step toward equal marriage rights.

There has been and will of course continue to be a number of those in favour of marriage equality who view an interim step toward the inevitable as a ‘cop out’, but it’s not as the Greens are calling it a step backwards, it’s plainly not. It is however, not equality and would entrench “two tiers of love” as Adam Bandt today said. Overall however, it is closer to equal rights in marriage than the status quo.

Of course, the prospects of that step look doomed before the bill, according to Mr Entsch ready to go, sees the light of day. Tony Abbott today said “we really should let the dust settle on these parliamentary votes before we rush off and do something else.”

Mr Abbott further said that the concept of civil unions was the domain of the states and that is traditionally the case. But all we need do is look at the history of civil unions, particularly of late in Queensland and realise that the states too find positive change a challenge.

So why not push for the national recognition of civil unions? Surely achieving that end, though seemingly impossible at the present time, effectively dragging all states into line on a rights issue, would be a good thing? Clearly there are some deeper divisions within politics, but not the wider community,  stopping even such a small change toward what many in political circles view as the inevitable, same-sex marriage.

So, we’re at a stage where equal marriage has just been rejected. Even the prospect of civil unions at a national level seems equally despised and not wanted by just about all political parties in Canberra. The positive ideas of a few, whilst not great leaps forward, but still positive steps, albeit tiny ones, appear likely to stay just that, ideas.

Could Senator Bernardi Have Been Sacked for Something Sooner?

So, South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi overnight said something incredibly dumb and offensive, the second time in just a couple of days in fact. He’s been hauled into the office of the Leader of the Opposition and offered, or was perhaps in reality nudged, to offer his resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Opposition Leader himself and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families. That would be a huge relief to a great majority of the party who might share some of the same general beliefs on the matter of marriage equality, being against it, but not for the frankly both hilariously stupid, but at the same time downright offensive reasons offered up in the Senate last night.

Senator Bernardi in speaking on marriage equality, which has just been through the lower house where it was soundly defeated, last night said that allowing marriage equality would lead to polyamory and bestiality. This echoes some of the more insane and hurtful thought-bubbles that people from the Australian Christian Lobby and the like offer up as pseudo reasons for masking, though not successfully, their downright bigotry and hatred of same-sex couples.

If Senator Bernardi had not been sacked for this latest indiscretion, the outcry would have been massive. These were not only highly discriminatory comments, but as many have pointed out before and indeed after this entry into the debate by Senator Bernardi, they were also based on fairy tale assertions, they are urban myths. No government is going to ever, no matter how progressive, legalise bestiality and even the lesser of the two evils, polyamory. Those changes to marriage simply will not be tolerated by anyone in the Australian community, let alone those that represent or will ever represent us in the parliament.

But this whole matter raises another interesting question, a question that could have been answered with the sacking of Bernardi prior to these remarks, though he certainly would have made them as a lowly backbench MP too. The question that is raised is of vocally condemning what is largely bipartisan policy, though the extent of the agreement from time-to-time faces small tests and the policy does face questions, however brief.

Multiculturalism, since its official adoption as government policy in the 1970s has been largely bipartisan policy though the strength and depth of that commitment has come into question briefly, particularly in response to violent events like the Cronulla riots and the scenes in Sydney at the weekend as well as in the ongoing asylum seeker debate. But largely and broadly, that commitment to continuing a policy of a multiculturalism in a broad sense has never really disintegrated.

Early in the week, along came Cory Bernardi with ill-thought out comments, lacking any critical thought as he often does, about multiculturalism. He used the events in Sydney at the weekend, the truly horrific and disturbing actions as proof that there is a problem with the official government policy. This is plainly not the case and as has been pointed out by a number of commentators, it is a problem with society and human nature. His was, as argued yesterday, a crass generalisation, painting a violent few as representative of the whole of Islam and the Muslim community in Australia.

So could Senator Bernardi have been sacked over his insensitive comments in relation to government policy, a policy that mostly enjoys some level of support from the Coalition? The answer is yes. Generally, you could sack someone that didn’t agree with party policy, even if commitment to that policy within the party is a little iffy. It is especially the case that he could have been sacked or forced to resign on this matter alone for making those views known publicly in parliamentary proceedings, official government business. This is especially the case as Senator Bernardi  was effectively a junior minister in a shadow portfolio.

Certainly, as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and responsible therefore for sensible commentary in the area of familial relationships, his decision to stand aside was the right one. This is true whether he was quietly pushed to save what little face he had left or made the decision for himself.

Again in politics, the question is asked- ‘did it really need to come to this first?’. The answer is at worst, not really and at best, definitely not. But then parliamentary processes and traditions are well and truly blurred now.

So the Previous Stupidity from the Australian Christian Lobby Wasn’t Enough?

There’s a big debate going on in Australia about marriage equality. The issue has been elevated in the public consciousness very successfully over the last 5 years. Same-sex marriage has now become so popular as an ideal that it now continuously receives poll support of more than 50%. The recent ALP National Conference voted in favour of allowing a conscience vote in the federal parliament on allowing people in single gender relationships to wed. This was received with congratulations, even though a motion to change the party platform so that the Labor Party could pursue the issue as a party bloc failed. There is still much pressure on the Liberal Party to allow their MP’s the same courtesy when the legislation comes to a vote in Canberra.

In light of these developments it was odd that Julia Gillard, one was asked to speak at the Australian Christian Lobby, given that her party would be able to use their consciences in a vote on the legislation and two, that she accepted the invitation from the controversial and homophobic lobby group. The Prime Minister is, after all, not even a Christian. For some reason though, and one that’s  proved hard to explain, the Prime Minister is personally against a change to allow for same-sex couples to join in marriage.

But today, Prime Minister Gillard has announced that she will no longer speak at the ACL conference when it takes place. This comes after horrific comments yesterday from ACL head, Jim Wallace which have sparked outrage from supporters of equal marriage.

The PM, in pulling out of her speaking duties at the conference said that Mr Wallace’s comments in a debate last night over the issue were “heartless and wrong”. That’s bang on the truth.

The controversial ACL chief last night said “I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health – which it presents when it wants more money for health – are that it has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years”.

Mr Wallace went on to say “The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.”

So there it is, the head of the ACL compared the health of people in single-sex relationships to that of smokers, a strange journey into the absurd that we’re no stranger to from the likes of the Australian Christian Lobby.

For his part, today Mr Wallace denied that he was comparing the health effects of smoking and same-sex partnerships, but from the comments it doesn’t take a master of the English language to work out that that’s the exact comparison that he was making.

But this isn’t the first case of verbal or textual diarrhoea and homophobic comments from Jim Wallace. Every so often the Managing Director of the ACL lets his fingers or his mouth spew forth ridiculous statements including the incredibly hilarious argument that allowing gay marriage would mean that bestiality and other unacceptable practices.

The fact that this isn’t the first stupid foray into the same-sex marriage debate from Mr Wallace calls into question why Julia Gillard agreed in the first place to speak at the Australian Christian Lobby national conference.

Polls show that even a significant number of Christians support allowing same-sex couples to marry and those attending church on a regular basis are in the minority, so why give so much attention to such a group? Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that it’s one group of voters that she can manage to hold onto as the Labor Party head towards a likely election defeat in 2013.

It must be said though, that Julia Gillard isn’t the first Prime Minister or Australian political leader to court the attentive ears of the Australian Christian Lobby, leaders previous have done so. So perhaps the organisation does curry more favour than surface examinations show.

But that’s beside the point. The point is that there have been a number of stupid assertions from Jim Wallace and the ACL and the Prime Minister, desperate for attention should not have even considered speaking at the conference unless it was to correct some of the offensive rubbish that has been released.

Turnbull Appearance on Q&A Again Launches the Twitter Derp

There’s just something about Malcolm Turnbull going on Q&A, pretty much anything publicly other than talking on broadband and communications that results in the unleashing of unmitigated derp from both sides of the political spectrum. Combine this with a predictable recipe of asylum seekers and marriage equality, with a bit of a healthy and thoughtful discussion on the arts and at least some of the chaos and stupidity was held back.

You see, the situation is quite strange when it comes to Malcolm Turnbull being a part of the public debate on a broader range of issues than his present shadow portfolio.

Pretty much everyone on the moderate left at times profess some kind of what they say and act like is undying love for Mr Turnbull when he isn’t so much in the spotlight, or more rightly when he might well be saying something that they tend to agree with, like on climate change, after last night somewhat on the arts and also to a large extent on marriage equality.

There are even people on the left who shout “Malcolm for PM” but would surely recoil from that belief were there a Liberal Party government in power, even with Turnbull at its head.

And so it goes that there was all of that fake, ‘soft’ love from the left for Malc0lm Turnbull that would surely diminish again among this demographic were he to return as leader.

Some too may profess a love for Malcolm Turnbull now but forget they used to decry his substantial wealth, self-made no less, undoubtedly much of it to do with people in this country seeming to despise entrepreneurialism and success and yes that tall poppy bashing syndrome definitely rings true.

There are those however, somewhere around the centre that would and do accept Malcolm Turnbull as a sensible and at least relatively balanced choice for leader of a Liberal Party that more and more lacks the ideology in its name. Turnbull is one of the few you’d consider to be a liberal in the modern Liberal Party or at the very least, someone with strong liberal tendencies.

Then you get started on what the right of the party, though more often the more right wing supporters of the Liberal Party think of the man and that’s where things start to get just a little misguided.

Those on the right of him decry him for sticking up for markets, for advocating that for the most part, the market is by far the best response to a range of things, notably climate change, though the electoral reality with this is that the idea of a market response has lost after having prevailed just years ago.

Then comes the socially progressive stance of the former Liberal Party leader, particularly on marriage equality, which closely behind his climate change stance attracts the most ire from Liberal Party supporters. He wants a conscience vote on the matter, said so some time ago, a conscience vote being a long-term stance of the party on controversial matters.

Mr Turnbull also over the weekend backed calls for a compromise of a nationally backed civil unions scheme which will be seen by many on the right of the party again as too far even though it is just a compromise position, though some on both the left and right will not see it that way.

The Twitter response last night mirrored the public thoughts on Turnbull with some soft backing and the next minute complete disavowal of all Turnbull believes in from the left and the occasional outright condemnation, simply because he’s a member of the “evil” Liberal Party.

Of course then, at the same time from the right was the complete disavowal of all he’s ever said even though the vast majority, if not all, is fully aligned with what the Liberal Party is supposed to stand for.

The reality of the situation is that Malcolm Turnbull on social issues lies somewhere around the political centre without being radically progressive but still being open to social progress that can’t be delivered by markets.

On economic issues Turnbull is clearly of the right so that clearly makes Turnbull centre-right overall which should at least in reality give comfort to the knocker’s on his own side of the spectrum but it does not.

Stay tuned for much of the same before, during and after the next installment of Q&A featuring Malcolm Turnbull, complete with predictable leadership comments masquerading as questions and the “you have him, no you take him” fight between right and left which is sure to spawn more of the most lovely derpiest derp.

Social Progress and the ‘Invisible Hand’: It’s Not All About the Economy Stupid

There seems to be a constant battle between those who think that all social progress comes from good economic management and those that think the government needs to be responsible for most if not all social progress. The truth is that the solution (and solution is probably the wrong word) lies somewhere in between a completely free market/economic response to social progress and a government response which can either be to get out of the way or to legislate for social improvements.

In all likelihood on the ‘free market/it’s all about the economy in social progress and government intervention is the best way to ensure social progress’ pendulum the best answer would likely be very close toward the ‘let the economy sort out social disadvantage’ end of the pendulum. Note that it’s only the best answer. Not one single political ideology offers a solution that will completely solve pretty much every single problem and that is both a political and electoral reality.

Now back to that pendulum. While it is self-evidently true that much social progress comes from a strong economy there is also a need for limited government intervention, be it legislating in an attempt to benefit society or stepping away from legislating in areas that might act to prevent the advancement of the people, most importantly the individual regardless of social group.

So what work does the economy do as regards social progress? Well, a strong economy provides many with the opportunity to be employed in a meaningful job. A strong economy means that more jobs are created and more people will have the opportunity to live at the very least a modest and comfortable lifestyle in what is becoming an increasingly expensive world.

More jobs too means more tax being collected by the government without having to raise taxes for any one group and that means for those who do happen to fall through the cracks, and there will always be people that do regardless of effort and exertion and economic circumstances in the nation and the world, it means that there will be assistance available for them for as long as they need it.

So having a job or a business and earning an income is certainly a big part of social progress but there are things which cannot be provided for by a strong economy or the free market.

A free market does not, will not and cannot stop forms of discrimination, particularly relating to participation in the economy, though in some small way the more people able to be given jobs then it flows that less discrimination may well exist because some ordinarily discriminated against may well be invited into employment opportunities.

Ordinarily though, discrimination will exist and will continue to exist and should at the very least be responded to by educating people about diversity and difference.

Anti-discrimination legislation is also a necessary evil though in many cases it is nigh on the impossible to determine when real discrimination, particularly in employment exists, even though the statistics on minorities show in a broad sense that it is clearly an issue. But again this kind of government intervention needs to be coupled with educating people of the capabilities that people from all works of life possess.

One thing that a free market can never bring, not at all, though I’m sure we’d like to see it happen is the very topical issue of marriage equality. Try as it may, the ‘invisible hand’ just cannot bring about people being able to take the tangible hand of their same-sex partner in marriage.

Same-sex marriage is one area in which the government can either intervene to legislate for marriage equality or completely bugger off from the whole process. Reality says that government, in an eventual move would vastly prefer to legislate for same-sex matrimony rather than to say “hey we really have no place here” and that is okay as long as it is inevitable and you’d have to say it is.

For the most part many of us would love for the government to stay out of our lives and the biggest forms of social progress can be provided for with little or no government intervention, but there will always be a place for government particularly when that means correcting ills that they have fostered or fomented, but that power cannot be unlimited.

Why Amend Civil Unions At All?

Today the Queensland Government announced something that Queenslanders and those interested in politics and gay rights were probably not expecting. The Premier, Campbell Newman was widely expected and feared to be about to say that there would be a full repeal of the civil unions laws instituted by former Treasurer and Deputy Premier, Andrew Fraser. This didn’t happen, though pretty much everything but a full repeal of the laws, a step toward marriage equality that the state finally took just months ago was announced today by the Queensland Premier.

It was identified before the March election that an incoming LNP government would look at repealing the laws introduced to the Queensland parliament by the former MLA for the electorate of Mt Coot-tha and it was, as said, pretty much viewed as a fait accompli by advocates, indeed just about everyone in Queensland you would expect.

Then today, we got a bit of a shock, less than a half shock, but a shock nonetheless. A full repeal is not going to happen, but the announcement has been a hollow victory for supporters of same-sex marriage and equal rights for same-sex couples with the announcement pointing toward taking a pretty big step back from heading toward marriage equality, a step which the commonwealth will inevitably have to take with marriage being within the federal jurisdiction.

What will happen now is that the Civil Partnerships Act will be amended by the LNP Government to remove the provisions that “mimic” same-sex marriage. Couples will still be able to register their relationships by signing documentation papers which will provide acknowledgement that their relationship exists but they will not be able to have a state sanctioned ceremony that was allowed under the provisions brought into law by the Fraser legislation.

Unfortunately, the Christian lobby saw it as an affront to have a special ceremony legislated for by the state which they saw as being akin to gay marriage even though people in these relationships surely have not seen it as such. Further, the ceremony itself was a voluntary act and out of the 609 civil partnerships registered in Queensland since the legislative change, a massive 21 (sarcasm fully freaking intended) opted to have that voluntary ceremony.

Did churches have to involve themselves in these ceremonies at all? No. Were those celebrants out there who hold religious views compelled to preside over same-sex marriage ceremonies? No.

So why does the Christian lobby fear something that isn’t marriage and isn’t foisted upon them by the state? The answer is likely just that, fear. A type of fear of love between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, not a scary concept at all, though perhaps it is to an institution that has continued to struggle for relevancy with declining levels of adherence.

The reality too is that same-sex marriage, though a while away yet is inevitable and that too is likely to not call upon churches to hold actual marriage ceremonies within their hallowed halls.

The government really shouldn’t have bowed to the church lobby when they were not being impacted on at all, but the outcome isn’t altogether awful and is at least a half-relief for people in these equally special relationships where their love is no different to your love for your wife, husband, boyfriend or girlfriend.

Bob Katter and His Band of Merry Men and Women Should Be Thanked

Overnight many Queenslanders, less than two weeks out from polling day in the state election were introduced to the first major foray of Katter’s Australian Party into election advertising. This ad was not about the market monopoly of Coles and Woolworths, not about the struggles of farmers  trying to live off the land or mining interests trumping those of the agriculture sector. No, it was a heinous anti-gay marriage advertisement which particularly targetted the Leader of the LNP, Campbell Newman and Australian Greens leader Bob Brown, whilst at the same time treating the gay and lesbian community of Queensland with absolute disdain.

The majority of Australian’s should be thanking Bob Katter and his party for this advertisement released overnight. We should be thanking Katter’s Australian Party not because it is a sensationally good advertising campaign against gay marriage, it is not, but because it has probably done more for the cause of marriage equality in its divisive content.

Now, it is of equal disgust to the advertisement itself that some of the response to the campaign has been to resort to low acts like death threats and insults against members of the party. Such behaviour is not on and deserves the same level of condemnation, if not more than the bigoted ad in question.

For some time now, polls on the issue of marriage equality have shown  that the majority of the population think, to steal a phrase from the political lexicon, that “it’s time” for a change. Politicians have generally lagged behind on the issue of marriage equality, even the so-called “small-c conservatives” on the progressive side of politics. There are elements of all parties these days, except it seems, from Katter’s Australian Party who think, not just that marriage equality is inevitable, but that it should happen. It is inevitable too that a majority of politicians will eventually vote in favour of same-sex marriage.

So why does the commercial broadcast for the first time yesterday mean that people in favour of marriage equality owe a debt of gratitude to Katter’s Australian Party? Okay, pick your jaws up off the floor. Those who support gay marriage should be thankful to Bob Katter and his colleagues because the response has highlighted just how much support exists in the community on the topic, again, not excusing the equally shameful response from some in the community.

Aside from helping the cause of marriage equality in its own unique way, the intensely conservative political ad also proves just how little of a contribution that Katter’s Australian Party think they can make, particularly in the “big smoke”. Over all other issues facing the people of Queensland it was decided, in what certainly cannot be classified as “infinite wisdom”, that above cost of living and other economic and social pressures, a small minority of people expressing a want to be married to someone they love is simply the greatest of threats facing Queenslanders in this election.

So a big thank you to you Mr Katter and your 76 candidates across Queensland for raising the prominence of the marriage equality campaign again, which is continuing to gain momentum, without your party’s helpful entry into the debate. Your party must also be thanked for highlighting exactly how few reasons there are to vote for your mob on March 24.

Question Time Ahead of Time

Parliament resumes today for the second parliamentary sitting week of the year and the same areas of debate are set to continue but other policy areas will be added to the the mix. As well as the economy, Craig Thomson and Fair Work Australia (FWA), the carbon tax and Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) you can expect the Private Health Insurance Rebate means testing and the introduction of two bills on gay marriage will spark debate.

The Opposition will certainly continue to focus on the FWA investigation into Craig Thomson which has taken too much time to conclude. The Abbott led Coalition will also likely focus questions around the Private Health Insurance Rebate means testing, the carbon tax and the Minerals Resource Rent Tax, the latter two in the prism of an economy which could be in strife were Europe to collapse again this year.

The Government will again focus the deployment of the Dorothy Dixer to prosecute what they view as their strong-point, the economy. These questions will undoubtedly focus on policy measures which have provided or will provide in the near future for the electorate rather than on the budgetary situation itself, unless in comparison to the world.

Marriage equality is not likely to result in a question from the Opposition or the Government, with both sides not fully behind the idea, but we may see an Independent MP, likely Andrew Wilkie or the Greens MP Adam Bandt if they are allocated one of the questions for Independent MPs in Question Time today. This comes on the back of two different bills being put to the House today on marriage equality, one from Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie and the other a Private Members Bill from ALP MP Stephen Jones.

The unknown factor is, as always whether there will be any ejections during Question Time, especially since the warning has been removed by the Speaker, Peter Slipper, though if last week is an indication, there will not be a large number warming  the parliamentary cafeteria seats early.

The one thing we do know is, like always Question Time will be loud and even though there isn’t supposed to be, likely also debate. We will look to about 3pm AEDT to see if the Abbott censure motion creeps in just in time for the end of Question Time. That is also a distinct possibility.

%d bloggers like this: