Liberal's big call on ‘domain' of abortion
A senior Liberal senator has not confirmed if the Coalition's position on abortion could change, as the opposition rethinks its national platform in the wake of its election decimation.
Labor's landslide win on May 3 left the Liberals leaderless and exposed severe tensions within the Coalition, with the Nationals faring far better than their blue colleagues and therefore demanding more power.
The Liberal and National party leaders have been hashing out a Coalition agreement, which includes a review of policies.
Anne Ruston — who was opposition health spokeswoman under Peter Dutton — on Sunday kept tight-lipped about whether abortion was up for debate after a push from some in her party. Liberal senator Anne Ruston has not confirmed if the Coalition's position on abortion access is up for debate. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia
'As far as I'm concerned, the issue of abortion is something that's well and truly in the domain of the states and territories and should stay there,' Senator Ruston told the ABC.
'But my understanding is that there is no proposal to make any changes in relation to the small amount of responsibility that the federal parliament has for this.'
Nationals senator Matt Canavan and Liberals senator Alex Antic co-sponsored a bill last year that aimed to force doctors to save a child born alive after an abortion.
A parliamentary inquiry found no basis for the bill and Mr Dutton had ordered the Coalition senators to withdraw it — an order they refused.
The bill would be an unprecedented use of federal powers on the issue.
Abortion access is legal in all states and territories, but it is not federally or constitutionally protected. Ousted opposition leader Peter Dutton ordered Coalition senators to withdraw an abortion Bill. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia
Senior Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has described abortion as a 'moral dilemma', while Jacinta Nampijinpa Price — whose shock defection to the Liberal party room added greatly to the Coalition's internal tensions — tried to put abortion on the national agenda after a vote to wind back access narrowly failed in South Australia last year.
It also popped up in the Queensland state election.
Senator Ruston played down commentary the Liberal Party has shifted too far to the right, saying her party was a 'broad church'.
'That's where we work best, when we're tolerant of the broad range of views that we have, but our values are all the same,' she said.
'I don't think anybody in my party doesn't believe that aspiration is the most important thing we should strive to be able to enable every Australian to be able to achieve.'
Senator Ruston added she was 'very happy to be re-elected and looking forward to being part of the broader team nationally to rebuild our party in the interests of a party that reflects modern Australia'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Should staffing matters be under such unfettered prime ministerial control?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Senator Pauline Hanson criticises Liberal leader Sussan Ley for Acknowledgment of Country before National Press Club speech
Senator Pauline Hanson has said she was left "disgusted" with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley after her Acknowledgment to Country during a major speech last week. The Liberal leader spoke at the National Press Club on Wednesday, but before she kicked off her address she acknowledged the traditional owners of the land. The party's former leader Peter Dutton had a hard stance on First Nations ceremonies, including the Welcome to Country, saying they had been "overdone" after a number of people booed at a Melbourne Anzac Day dawn service in April. Senator Hanson did not hold back in her assessment of Ms Ley's act. "I was disgusted. Absolutely disgusted with it," she told Sky News' Danica and James. "Because the Liberals, they were the ones that actually opposed the Voice to Parliament. It wasn't just the Liberals that opposed it. It was a lot of people like myself, like Gary Johns, and then you had Barnaby Joyce and you had Jacinta Price." "Because once the public were informed about what it meant and changed in the Constitution, people were better informed and made their decisions about it." The firebrand politician also believes Ms Ley is not the right person to be leading the party as she was a moderate and that a "true conservative" had to replace her. "It's going to be very interesting what happens the next three years under Sussan Ley. I think she will be overthrown before the next election," Senator Hanson added. Earlier, the One Nation leader was asked about a poll from the Institute of Public Affairs which had found 56 per cent of people say Welcome to Country ceremonies are divisive. According to the survey conducted by research firm Dynata, 27 per cent of others questioned said they were unsure and 17 per cent disagreed on the remark. "Every Australian out there that's got a backbone about them and say, 'we're not going to deal with this anymore', turn your back on it as I do every time I'm in parliament and they do a Welcome to Country. I turn my back," Senator Hanon said. She also claimed to have turned her back on the ceremony during her grandson's school's anniversary, saying she is not "going to put up with this rubbish". "It's ridiculous where we're going. It's divisive. More than 56 per cent of the public out there are so over this but they are in fear of being called a bigot or racist," she said. Senator Hanson also praised the Melbourne council worker for standing up against his employer after an Acknowledgment to Country during a toolbox meeting. It was revealed on Thursday Melbourne street sweeper Shaun Turner had won his unfair dismissal case after he was dismissed by Darebin City Council in June. Mr Turner said the use of the Acknowledgment to Country is "getting out of hand". "That council worker, good on him for actually fighting back over it and questioning it. And yet he's lost his job. He's won it in the courts and I hope that they actually apologise to him and offer his job back," Senator Hanson told Sky News.
AU Financial Review
3 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
US forces make Australia a Chinese target: Hastie
Shadow Home Affairs Minister Andrew Hastie has pointedly posed a question that successive Australian governments have not dared to answer, nor even mention. Namely, just what Australia is getting itself into as the US military footprint across the country expands. Will it involve us in a war with China? Hastie's remarks represent the frankest statement on the US alliance by a serving member of parliament since Prime Minister Julia Gillard's 2011 announcement that US marines would rotate through Darwin. Yet at no point in the intervening period has any government or indeed think tank spelt out the implications of this deepening alliance.
