Strewth: Pauline’s cluck bait

Pauline Hanson uttered a sentence that will be accessible for billions of years until our Sun expands and consumes the planet.

In an almost welcome break from the other stuff going on in Parliament House yesterday, Australian Conservatives senator Cory Bernardi gave notice of a motion that was, quite frankly, a multilayered trove of troubling treasure. Among them this: “Tom Raue, recently preselected as the NSW Greens candidate for the inner Sydney seat of Summer Hill, once wrote in a student newspaper column, ‘Why is consensual sex with animals considered so heinous that it must be illegal? Why is it taboo to even talk about it? Yes, most Australians find it disgusting, but that is not a good enough reason to legislate against it. Consensual sex with an animal should not be illegal, no matter how distasteful it may seem.’ ” Bernardi took a dim view of all this, of course, but it was Pauline Hanson who zeroed in on one of the less immediately obvious problems. “Mr President,” she began, “can I seek clarification from Senator Bernardi on an element of this notice of motion?” Senate President Scott Ryan began his faltering, reticent journey towards granting permission with an “um …”. Thus released, Hanson got under way and uttered a sentence that will now be accessible in Hansard until that day billions of years down the track when our sun expands in its death throes and consumes the planet. And that sentence is this: “I need clarification on consensual sex with an animal. Is the suggestion of consent for an animal one cluck for yes, or two clucks for no?” It was delivered perfectly deadpan, which is a whole lot harder than it looks. As the actress said to the chicken.

Blessing withheld

Bill Shorten set the standard when he shared this thought about then PM Julia Gillard with Sky News host David Speers: “I haven’t seen what she said, but let me say I support what it is that she’s said.” It will never grow old. But yesterday we got to see the reverse version in the wild, as demonstrated by Labor senator Doug Cameron. Once he’d finished bucketing senator Fraser Anning’s speech and its foray into Reich-wing rhetoric (see the Sketch on page five for more), this exchange happened.

Journo: “Are you satisfied with the Prime Minister’s response?”

Cameron: “I haven’t seen exactly what the PM said but unless he has utterly and unconditionally condemned this, unless he disassociates the Liberal party from this, unless he does something to stop Liberal senators come out and do what you have just seen, that is to justify this as free speech, then as usual this weak Prime Minister would not have done enough.”

Hopefully he was satisfied with what the PM finally delivered.

Out to launch

Shorten also bucketed Anning, but part way through he alerted journalists to the next item on his schedule: “I’m heading down to the War Memorial soon.” He wasn’t. The event in question — the launch of The Last Post: A Ceremony of Love, Loss and Remembrance — was just metres away in Parliament House. He was late in the end; we trust he didn’t accidentally cross town.

No false modesty

Meanwhile in the Credit Where It’s Due department, Malcolm Turnbull took a question from Labor’s freshly re-elected Justine Keay about Tasmania’s Battery of the Nation project and removed the bushel hitherto obscuring the prime ministerial light: “I thank the honourable member for her question. As the first person … to have coined the phrase ‘Battery of the Nation’, I’m very grateful for the question. I can confirm that the origin of the Battery of the Nation proposal came from a speech I gave at the National Press Club in February 2017, where I identified the need for more storage to support the amount of intermittent renewables.” Some Labor MPs were content to merely laugh their heads off; Wayne Swan went to the trouble of a rhyming tweet: “Claiming that he coined the term ‘battery of the nation’, Malcolm Turnbull now demands the flattery of the nation.”

Perchance to dream

Finally, hats off to the woman who dozed in the public gallery during question time. She looked so comfortable, she aroused Strewth’s envy. But who knows what voices haunted her dreams? Could it have been Trade Minister Steven Ciobo informing the Opposition Leader he was “no Tom Cruise”, and an evidently not even remotely wounded Shorten informing him in return, “You’re no Al Pacino, either”? Or perhaps it was Speaker Tony Smith repeatedly trying to stem Social Services Minister Dan Tehan’s heartfelt flow with a gentle “The minister’s time has concluded” until Labor’s Rob Mitchell chimed in with a helpful explainer: “That means finished.” We can only hope she woke fully refreshed from her slumber.

[e-mail]