From the Crikey grapevine, the latest tips and rumours …
Macdonald hits new low. While this week’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs estimates hearing didn’t feature the debacle of May, when the senate’s worst committee chair, Ian Macdonald, tried to silence a Greens senator and — after a very heated private meeting in which Eric Abetz and Penny Wong had to play peacemakers — learnt he didn’t have the power, Macdonald found a different low point. Yesterday, Macdonald asked the Australian Federal Police about the incident last December when a man tried to blow himself up near the offices of the Australian Christian Lobby in Canberra. Now, to be fair, we think the ACL’s stoush with the AFP about this isn’t entirely unreasonable. The man concerned, who recently took his own life, was clearly motivated by the desire to self-harm, but also expressed hatred for the ACL. However, the AFP rejected that as a motivation for his actions. The ACL is quite right to query the AFP’s stance on this. But Macdonald, who admitted he was asking questions at the behest of the ACL, wanted to go further with the issue, and then was followed by Eric Abetz, who proceeded to ask detailed questions about the man concerned and his actions. Wong and Labor colleague Louise Pratt both raised concerns about the sensitivity of publicly discussing suicide details. But Macdonald was having none of it, and explicitly said that an estimates hearing shouldn’t be worried about such issues.
So, there you have it — just when we’ve reached the point where the media have properly taken responsibility for sensitively handling the reporting of self-harm, Macdonald reckons it’s open slather in the formal, taxpayer-funded environment of senate committees.
Lifeline: 13 11 14 www.lifeline.org.au
Suicide Call Back Service: 1300 659 467 www.suicidecallbackservice.org.au
beyondblue: 1300 22 4636 www.beyondblue.org.au
A Deidre Chambers moment in estimates. There has been a flurry of conjecture after the Australian Federal Police, under the instruction of the newly formed Registered Organisations Commission, raided the offices of Opposition leader Bill Shorten’s old Union, the Australian Workers Union. The raid was, apparently, on account of suspicions that documents relevant to an ROC investigation into Shorten’s donations back in 2006 were going to be “concealed or destroyed”. The raid has raised questions about possible government overreach, the independence of the bodies involved and whether this represents the use of government agencies to smear political opponents. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s Senate estimates week, and who should be fronting the Employment committee — who are grilling senator and Employment Minister Michaelia Cash at time of writing — this afternoon, but representatives of the Registered Organisation Commission?
Ms Tips is grabbing some popcorn and looks forward to some fireworks.
Ad that to the bill. The Coalition for Marriage’s most recent ad couldn’t be screened before 8.30pm due to “references to genitalia”. It faced further criticism for the unauthorised use of the image of Paola Mitchell, a chef and volunteer interpreter for the deaf, who shared a stage with Safe Schools founder Roz Ward. She went to the media to express her devastation at being used in this way — to which a CFM spokesperson replied: “We sympathise with her and can understand why she would want to distance herself from Roz Ward and the radical safe schools program”, which, even by their standards, is quite the reaction. Mitchell initially posted on her Facebook seeking legal advice on what she could do.
The answer, most likely, is nothing. The case serves as a reminder that there is no law that protects you from the unauthorised use of your image in Australia. But, by implying that it is damaging to be in this advert, could the Coalition for Marriage opening themselves up to a claim of defamation?
Tick Tock. This coming Friday, the High Court will finally bring to an end one of the most bizarre and pervasive issues to seize the gears of power in this country, when it hands down its decision about the eligibility of Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Nationals Senators Fiona Nash and Matt Canavan, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, Greens Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters and Nick Xenophon to be elected. All seven and their parties are facing a nervous wait until that point, but only one, as far as Ms Tips can see is the subject of a slightly gleeful countdown clock:
It’s an easily edited dynamic website, making it nigh on impossible to find out who put it together, but looking at Roberts’ self-appointed enemies, we can narrow it down to ABC journalists, climate scientists, and anyone who’s had to listen to Roberts ask a question during estimates.
Hold the headlines! You gloomster! Hold the rate rise looms headlines all you gloomsters and inflationistas, the September quarter Consumer Price Index saw a less than expected rise of 0.6%, which will not stampede the horses in the Martin Place corral owned by the Reserve Bank. In fact if anything the headline figure was a touch on the low side considering the boost from energy prices in the quarter. The annual rate eased to 1.8% in the year to September from 1.9% in 2016-17. That of course is well below the RBA’s target range of 2% to 3% over time. It also makes you wonder about the bank’s continuing belief that we will see faster wage rises soon. Treasurer Scott “Pollyanna” Morrison is also a believer in the wage-rises-looms-at-some-point theory.
The underlying weakness in the result was emphasised by a dip in the RBA’s preferred measures — the trimmed mean (0.4% from 0.5% in the June quarter) and the weighted media (0.3% from 0.4%). Both came in at an unchanged annual rate of 1.8%. So don’t be surprised to see some inflationistas yelling “rate cut looms” as a result of this report.
*Heard anything that might interest Crikey? Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au, use our guaranteed anonymous form or other ways to leak to us securely
I will express my extreme dislike of the ACL and the CfM on the basis that they are absolute unmitigated liars. The claptrap bout children and compulsory this and that. They turned me from a not too fussed person into a strong yes proponent. How are they allowed to do this? Some of the stuff is completely untrue (ie the events did not happen)
So why has ittaken over a week for the High Court to reach their conclusion?
I’d suggest to coincide with the rise of parliament & avoid the prospect of a no confidence vote on the government.