So, there you have it.
From transcript shenanigans to racism not existing because Queensland likes a football player to a byelection date throwing everything, including the Labor party national conference, into chaos.
And we have three more days of this next week!
A big thank you to the Guardian’s brains trust, which is still at it, typing away, and of course to Mike Bowers, who has been in the office for approximately the amount of time it takes to eat six chicken crimpy Shapes, so busy has he been today. You’ll find a lot of his day at @mikepbowers and of course, he makes his regular guest appearences on the story at @pyjamapolitics.
We’ll keep you up to date on the site, as usual, although the blog won’t be back until Tuesday, when parliament resumes.
In the meantime, stay out of trouble. And of course, thank you for reading and for following along. If I haven’t got back to you, I am sorry – it gets a little intense at times, keeping an eye on everything that is happening in this building, but I will eventually get through the messages.
I’ll see you Tuesday, and remember – take care of you.
Ax
Updated
There has been some chatter that Ken Wyatt was planning on resigning (which would spark another byelection in WA, this time in the Liberal seat of Hasluck)
Apparently not, though:
Ken Wyatt's office said to me this afternoon he's not resigning and will "absolutely" contest the next election #auspol
— Tom McIlroy (@TomMcIlroy) May 24, 2018
AEC commissioner Tom Rogers to Penny Wong: "Several members of the House have resigned, they've resigned as a result of failing to follow procedures, and now somehow the AEC is being fingered as being responsible for the outcomes of this. I'm sorry. I'm not taking it." #estimates
— Tom McIlroy (@TomMcIlroy) May 24, 2018
And from the estimates hearing, where Penny Wong has been questioning the Australian electoral commissioner Tom Rogers, Mike Bowers saw this:
Updated
In the Senate estimates hearing Labor has a few strands of its attack on the idea the new candidate disclosure process requires this lengthy preparation period for the byelection.
As Penny Wong has already demonstrated that filling in the form is voluntary, so the Australian Electoral Commission’s claim that it will guarantee that nobody ineligible will be elected doesn’t quite hold.
And as Kimberley Kitching has just said “the form is not complex” – the form just goes through each part of section 44 of the constitution asking if a candidate is – for example – an undischarged bankrupt.
For the most part it’s a series of yes/no questions.
Labor’s position is that there’s no reason the AEC couldn’t simply make this available to candidates now so they can get themselves ready, although Tony Smith told the House of Representatives it won’t get final sign off from the governor general until 29 May.
There’s nothing to stop candidates reading section 44 of the constitution now, either.
Updated
Things got a little insane there, so I am late in showing you what Mike Bowers was up to today – let me correct that:
Updated
Here’s what the byelection candidates will be asked to provide by the new regulations:
#breaking - I've got a copy of the draft regulations for the new candidate checklist. It starts with the obvious: are you an Australian citizen. #auspol pic.twitter.com/Hsr040RmJm
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 24, 2018
We then get a series of questions about parents, grandparents and spouse - similar to the citizenship disclosure register #auspol pic.twitter.com/yVM0IwrRo2
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 24, 2018
The form then asks whether people have renounced, and if not, for further details if they are unable to renounce #auspol pic.twitter.com/znXWGpLmOn
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 24, 2018
The questions are basically a series of boilerplate "are you disqualified by section 44" and going through each part. No guidance eg on what "office of profit" is or "indirect pecuniary interest" #auspol pic.twitter.com/sXSFYIcjfy
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 24, 2018
Updated
In estimates Senator Lee Rhiannon is asking Clegg if individual sheep tag numbers are used to count sheep on and off live export ships between ports. She wants to know how accurate counts of animals are.
Clegg, the agriculture department secretary, says ear tags aren’t used but she says perhaps that’s something that could be introduced to improve accuracy of counts. She admits there are discrepancies between the numbers of animals said to be loaded onto vessels and the number of animals actually discharged at ports.
Clegg says “it’s not the 1950s” and conceded maybe, with the technology now available, this lack of accuracy isn’t good enough.
“I think technology has moved on a lot and it will be something we focus on,” she said.
Updated
Estimate hearings are continuing, but the House has adjourned until Tuesday next week.
After this story in the Conversation by Michelle Grattan, that says even Barnaby Joyce doesn’t know when the investigation into his expenses is complete, I’ve received this statement from the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority:
At this time the audit remains ongoing and we are unable to provide a timeframe for completion. To comment on any particular matter that may or may not be under consideration may compromise the conduct and outcome of any audit and the privacy rights of individuals.
Updated
'We don't provide dates' – AEC
The Australian Electoral Commissioner, Tom Rogers, is arguing that Penny Wong is suggesting that the 28 July date is “solely as a result of the advice of the AEC”, which he rejects.
He says: “I’ve made clear it’s a matter for the Speaker. You’ve asked me when we first advised of the 28 July date ... I don’t provide particular dates, I provide factors [for one date or another].”
Mathias Cormann then launches a counter-attack that the byelections could have been a lot sooner if the Labor MPs had resigned when it was clear they were ineligible (October, after the Canavan decision, by the Coalition’s reckoning).
Updated
Chris Back drops out of livestock standards review
This has just dropped into my inbox from the agricultural minister:
Minister for Agriculture David Littleproud has announced the review into the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock will be brought forward.
The review was due at the end of 2019 but will now be finished by the end of this year.
The committee chair, Dr Chris Back, has notified the Department of Agriculture he is unable to continue in the role of chair, due to the shortened timeframe and competing time commitments.
Minister Littleproud thanks Mr Back for his contribution thus far.
A replacement chair will be announced in the near future.
This was the second review into the culture of the department and regulator, surrounding the live sheep export trade.
Updated
Things are getting heated in the finance committee, where Penny Wong is questioning the Australian Electoral Commission over how the byelections date was chosen.
She was just made to withdraw the term “mate”.
“Un-Australian,” she says.
Updated
A very quick list of elections, including byelections, which have been held in school holidays, has been put together:
- 2017 Bennelong byelection – NSW school holidays
- 2016 federal election – school holidays in most states
- 2001 Aston byelection – Victorian school holidays
- 1998 federal election – school holidays (and a long weekend)
The Queensland 2015 state election was also held during the January school holidays. I know, because I was there and it was basically Hades.
Updated
Barnaby Joyce was speaking to Sky just a moment ago, saying that the government has to stay the course with its company tax cut plan.
The agriculture department assistant secretary, Narelle Clegg, is being asked about the department’s investigation into the death of 2,400 sheep from heatstroke during a voyage to Qatar in August 2017. Senators Malarndirri McCarthy and Barry O’Sullivan are asking how investigations are conducted, what information is sought and what questions are asked of exporters following the deaths of animals.
Clegg says the department looks at any reports available from veterinarians aboard the ship, the original application for export, and evidence about whether the voyage was prepared for adequately.
The August 2017 voyage saw 900 sheep die in a day, Clegg says, when there was a sudden increase in temperature on day 15. Hundreds more died in the subsequent days, she said.
“The cause of death was heat stress,” she said.
She also said the vet on board euthanised as many critically unwell animals as possible, according to regulations. But she could not say how many of the dead sheep were euthanised and how many died from the heat stress.
Sullivan, the committee chair, tells Clegg surely it would be relevant to know if a vet would have euthanised more animals humanely if they had more resources or time.
McCarthy chimes in: “I think it shows the inadequacy of the department as an independent regulator.” She’s warned by the chair to avoid such commentary.
Sullivan asks if the temperatures during the voyage were foreseeable.
Clegg says, yes, you could expect high temperatures in the region where the sheep had died at the time of year the ship had taken its voyage, in August. But the days in August when those high temperatures might occur were not foreseeable, she said.
“The heat stress risk assessment model is meant to evaluate that risk and set a stocking density for that risk,” she said. “The model uses the average temperature of the month.”
Updated
At this stage I am being told that Labor is not considering postponing its national conference “indefinitely”, but that it is “very early hours”.
Updated
Tony Burke, the full response
Respecting the fact that the decision is not only made by you in terms of the advice that you have received by the Australian electoral commission and [I] ask that my comments be seen very much in that context:
There are a number of byelections which have occurred since you took the chair. In North Sydney the writs were issued within three days; in Bennelong two days; New England the same day; Batman six days. It will now be for these byelections a delay of 14 days, and instead of the people going to vote 35/36/44 days later, they will go to vote 79 days later.
... I respect [there are a lot of interjections. Mark Dreyfus is kicked out of the chamber]
... And I also respect that the decision is now made, is now made. The letters that you have tabled, you said were on the 17th of May and the 23rd of May. Had the decision been made within the time that the other byelections had been made, it would had been made before those letters were even received from the Australian electoral commission.
The Australian Electoral Commission have claimed they want all candidates to know the new rules. I think anyone running for these byelections, if they don’t know now what the high court has decided, there is nothing that will help them.
There is nothing which will help them ... the AEC normally would not recommend a date as you have said. On this occasion they have recommended a date and they have used, they have used the fact they want this new regulation as the reason. Now, they appeared before the relevant inquiry months ago. They had their involvement with the relevant inquiry through a period last year. The regulations and discussion with the opposition happened more than a week ago, and we have a situation now, where that 79-day delay, which has not applied anywhere else, is on the basis of the Australia Electoral Commission, which if the prime minister went down to Yarralumla and called an election today, they would be able to conduct it with 150 seats in 33 days’ time. For 150 seats!
Instead they say it has to be delayed all this period and it just happens to be on the day of the Labor party national conference. It is a ‘what a coincidence moment’ from the Australian Electoral Commission.
What a coincidence from the Australian Electoral Commission that is.
Christopher Pyne raises a point of order that allowing Burke to speak on indulgence is a privilege, not a right, and Burke is turning it into a debate, as well as “reflecting on the chair”.
Smith lets Burke finish:
I raise one final point, because of the way the Australian Electoral Commission have written to you and the arguments they have put and because of the initial delay waiting for their letters, it means the parliamentary representation in communities around Australia, who could have a representative on the 16th of June had the writs been issued immediately, instead will not be represented in this place.
And what was allowed to happen in the other byelections, including members on that side, now means there will be a delay in parliamentary representation, which could have been avoided and would not occur in the circumstances of a general election.
Updated
As Tanya Plibersek flagged in her response a few posts ago, the most likely eventuality is that Labor will move its national conference.
It kind of has no choice – all those delegates will be needed on the ground in the five byelections, four of them that Labor very much wants, and needs, to win.
Updated
Paul sent this post through a little earlier, and I missed it the first time (it was only a couple of minutes), but for context:
Penny Wong is in Senate estimates grilling the Australian Electoral Commission about its advice on possible byelection dates.
So far the special minister of state, Mathias Cormann, has been keen to dump Labor in it – he notes that the joint standing committee on electoral matters reported back on 17 May, and he reached out to Bill Shorten on that day seeking feedback on a proposed regulation for a candidate checklist by lunchtime on 18 May. Cormann says Labor did not give a formal reply until 22 May.
Wong is now asking about AEC’s submissions to the committee and its contact with the government after the report came out.
Updated
LiveCorp chairman Terry Enright is being questioned in estimates on the live export of animals on long-haul voyages. Enright explains to the committee that Livecorp is a research and development body that supports the farming industry. It does not advocate, lobby or export animals, he says.
“I’d like to put on the record LiveCorp board senior management and staff are all as shocked as producers, as government, as everyone was, by the 60 Minutes footage we saw a few weeks ago,” he says.
“It represented the reverse of everything we work toward ... to improve the welfare and support of animals through the whole supply chain. It also shocked us as we were not aware that something like that could actually happen on the transport side of the business.”
But Senator Malarndirri McCarthy tells Enright that LiveCorp has a vested interest in continuing live export. “How can you provide impartial advice about conditions you cannot control but choose to describe as [happening in] exceptional circumstances?,” she asks.
Enright says the first priority in LiveCorp’s strategic plan is the welfare of animals. “We continue to place over 60% of our investment into that area of research,” he says.
He says a lot of the recommendations of the McCarthy review need to be implemented by the live export industry. LiveCorp will assist, but cannot action the recommendations, he says.
Updated
Tom Rogers: “Those seats are owned by the citizens – they’re not owned by the parties. My advice to the Speaker was to give every candidate time to comply with the new requirements.”
Penny Wong: “I agree they’re owned by the citizens, but by allowing them to be vacant, the citizens are not represented in the parliament.”
Wong said the 79-day period, much longer than for byelections in Batman, Bennelong and New England, “looks partisan”. Rogers asked if Wong was “saying I am partisan” - but she went no further than “looks partisan”.
Wong has now taken the AEC to the fact that the Bennelong byelection was on the first day of the NSW school holidays. Rogers replies the AEC was ready and willing to hold these byelections during school holidays, if the Speaker chose. Wong says the letter was “carefully written” and provides “cover” for the Speaker to announce the 28 July date.
Updated
Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers has told Senate estimates he knew the government was working on a regulation to help address eligibility issues before 17 May when the committee report came out.
AEC legal officer Paul Pirani says it got a draft of the regulation from the department of finance in the week before the report. Rogers says the AEC provided feedback on it.
Penny Wong asks when the first time 28 July was suggested as a date.
Rogers said it was a “technical issue”, that there were only so many available Saturdays.
“Every Saturday for the next several months is a possible date,” he said.
Wong asks if for the Batman, Bennelong and New England elections, the AEC ever suggested a period as long as 79 days. “The Australian people might like to hear why you’ve provided such different advice.”
Rogers says the AEC is being “fingered” for the consequences of the fact that five byelections have fallen due at the same time.
Updated
Tony Smith:
This update follows further consultation with the Australian Electoral Commissioner and party leaders. Under the constitution, it is my responsibility alone to issue a writ for a byelection when a vacancy occurs and, generally, it has not been a practice to provide an explanation for the exercise of this responsibility. I have varied from the usual practice because of the quite unusual, quite uniques circumstances surrounding these byelctions. As the House of Representatives practice makes clear, there is no statutory period within which I must issue the writ.
As a matter of principle, Speakers have generally sought to issue writs as soon as electorally practical, to ensure that electors are not without a representative here in the house, for longer than necessary.
However, the timing of the calling of each byelection has varied considerably because of circumstance and this case, has been a unique set of circumstances.
While there has been much commentary around the five byelections occurring on the one day, the Australian Electoral Commission actually has to consider whether this is feasible and desirable. The advice I have received from the electoral commissioner is that, although this is the largest number of byelections to be conducted at the one time since federation, and the holding of them across four states adds complexity, the AEC believes conducting the byelections on the same day is the preferred option. I intend to follow this preferred option.
As noted in my statement on Monday, the electoral commissioner advised me the government was considering urgent changes, through regulation to the nomination process, to ensure that all candidates are aware of their obligations under section 44 of the constitution. The implementation of these changes prior to the byelections was supported by the electoral commissioner and by the joint standing committee on electoral matters, in a uniamous recommendation.
The latest advice I have from the electoral commissioner is the regulations have been signed by the special minister of state and will be submitted to the governor general soon for his consideration, expected to be 29 May.
Regardless of the date for submission to the federal executive council, the AEC has advised me it has commenced preparations to implement the regulations and will require approximately two weeks to do so.
The implementation will need to be complete prior to the issuing of the writs, prior to the writs being issued ... [there are a lot of interjections].
... Because nominations open as soon as writs are issued. At which time candidates can start nominating. This is in part to accommodate the requirements of the electoral commission, but more importantly so all candidates in the forthcoming byelection, all candidates, have sufficient time to comply with the new requirements.
Turning now to the date of the byelections, the electoral commissioner has advised me that there is a complication of the school holiday period affecting all four states subject to byelections extending across a three-week period from 30 June to 21 July.
Although, as the commissioner advises, it is possible to hold byelections in the school holiday period, it does create additional difficulties for voters and risk disenfranchisement and low turnout.
Let me say, this is particularly, particularly the case in byelections. For whilst in a general election there are significant voting opportunities outside the electorate in which the voter resides, in byelections there are not.
If there is to be single date for all byelections, and the school holidays are to be avoided, this pushes the next possible date to 28 July.
The house explodes into yelling
Although the electoral commission ... [more interjections]... although the electoral commission would not usually provide advice about a preferred date, I can advise members on this occasion the electoral commissioner has advised that 28 July is the optimal date. As the commissioner notes in his advice to me, this achieves three things.
It provides sufficient time for the AEC to implement the changes [the house once again dissolves into absolute chaos], it allows sufficient time for the AEC to implement the changes, enables prospective candidates to comply with the new requirements and ensures voters are not disenfranchised.
I consider it is prudent in the current circumstances that I follow this advice and allow time for the changes related to section 44 to be implemented and avoid the byelections taking place in the school holidays.
I therefore propose to accept the commissioner’s recommendation for the optimal date for July 28. I will consult with the AEC about the date to issue the writ and the relevant date for the byelection and will advise the house when the dates have been settled.
One very important consideration for me has been that this will not impact on the elected members’ ability to take up their seat in the house at the earliest opportunity because of the break in the sittings from 28 June until 13 August. The earliest date now that any elected members could take their seats, regardless of the date of the byelections, is the 13th of August.
He then tables his correspondence from the electoral commissioner.
Updated
Yup. Labor is extremely pissed.
Tanya Plibersek issued this statement a few seconds ago:
This is a disgraceful delay and a sneaky tactic from Malcolm Turnbull. He is just trying to buy time so he can dump his toxic $80bn tax handout to big business before the byelections.
This deliberate delay is an insult to these communities who will be unrepresented for nearly three months. It shows Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t care about them.
It would appear this has been deliberately designed to disadvantage the Labor party, given our national conference is scheduled for that weekend.
This will obviously have implications for our National Conference. Our activists will want to be out in the community campaigning for Labor, not sitting in a conference centre.
When Barnaby Joyce was forced to resign, a byelection was called the same day for the soonest possible date. When John Alexander resigned, a byelection was called within days. Communities have been waiting weeks now to know when they will have the chance to choose their representatives.
Malcolm Turnbull owes the Australian people a serious explanation for this unacceptably long wait.
Updated
The AEC is due to appear in the finance estimates hearing – and Penny Wong has just walked back in.
Updated
It is pretty safe to say that Labor is PISSED at this decision.
Tony Burke:
The AEC would normally not recommend a date, as you have said, but on this occasion they have recommended a date and they have used the fact they want this new recommendation as the reason.
Now, they appeared before the relevant inquiry months ago ... the regulations and discussions with the opposition happened more than a week ago, and we have a situation now where that 79-day delay, which is not applied anywhere else, is on the basis of the Australian Electoral Commission, which, if the prime minister went down to Yarralumla and called an election today, they would be able to conduct it with 150 seats in 33 days’ time. For 150 seats! Instead they say it has to be delayed all this period and it just happens to be on the day of the Labor party national conference ... what a coincidence on the part of the Australian Electoral Commission that is.
Updated
This is pretty extraordinary. It means we now have a defacto election campaign for another two months.
It’s also the same date as the Labor national conference.
FUN TIMES
Updated
Byelections to be held on July 28
Perth, Fremantle, Longman, Braddon and Mayo are heading to the polls in late July because of the school holidays.
He says the Electoral Commissioner had nominated the date as the “optimal date” as it allows the AEC to allow prospective candidates to comply with the new requirements and ensure voters are not disenfranchised
Speaker addresses byelection date delay
Tony Smith takes a moment after question time to talk about the five upcoming byelections
Updated
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
I miss the lead up, but the main question is: “Is the prime minister seriously abolishing the serious financial crime task force right in the middle of the Royal Commission into the banks?”
Kelly O’Dwyer takes this one:
“I’d like to point out that it is simply not correct what he has stated. The government is aware that the funding of the taskforce runs to the 30 June 2019 which is more than one year into the future. Responsible governments address funding programs in the context of budget preparations and anticipate that we would look at the funding in the next budget preparation. And can I point out, when it comes to the serious financial crimes task force, when it comes to the serious financial crimes task force, it didn’t exist under the Labor government. It was established under the Coalition government. It was established and funded under our government. Let me tell you, it has achieved some very, very good outcomes. It was established to investigate and track down serious financial crime and prosecute those people who break the law and as of February 2018, since the establishment of this task force, we have seen 740 audits and reviews, it has raised tax liabilities of more than $500m and collected more than $200m in cash and has resulted in four people who have received custodial sentences. There are currently 29 criminal, civil and intelligence operations in progress under the serious financial crimes task force that we have established and I know that those opposite like to fabricate and they like to doctor the facts but they cannot doctor this. It is funded, it will continue to be funded in the normal course of budget arrangements.”
We get another dixer about how important it is that Australia day stays on January 26 and then we are done.
Updated
Everything is going really, really well for One Nation.
Just in: One Nation Senator and Pauline Hanson loyalist Brian Burston has been dumped as the party's whip. Peter Georgiou was appointed as the whip today. @politicsabc #auspol
— Caitlyn Gribbin (@CaitlynGribbin) May 24, 2018
It might be worth pointing out that Brian Burston is known as a Pauline Hanson loyalist. He says that it was his idea that she take back the One Nation name and stood behind her, even while she was in the wilderness.
Cathy O’Toole to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Can the prime minister confirm that last night every member of the government including the member for Capricornia voted against Labor’s tax plan that would have given 60,000 people in Capricornia a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they will get from the government. Why didn’t this prime minister vote for lower taxes for 10 million Australians instead of giving an $80bn tax cut to big business?”
(Someone please help me. I am stuck in a QT time loop and I can’t get out.)
Turnbull:
I’m sure the honourable member has advised all the businesses in her electorate, if she is part of a Labour government, will be putting up taxes on them in Townsville. There are plenty of businesses which need that incentive. She is going to come after their income as well? Oh, she has, it will be very interesting, very interesting. I’m sure the [Townsville] Bulletin will be investigating to see how many people she has door knocked and said ‘hello, I am here with Bill Shorten. We are here to raid your savings. Come and have a cup of tea. We have been waiting to this joyful moment.’
“Mr Speaker, the Labor Party, the member for McMahon said they will have policies in that space, this approach to politics that their savings, their businesses, their jobs are threatened by the honourable member and their colleagues in the Labor party.”
Updated
Liberal senator James Paterson is asking finance minister Mathias Cormann about what will happen to Katy Gallagher and the MPs who resigned when the high court rejected their understanding of the “reasonable steps” defence to being dual citizens.
Paterson said there is a “qualitative difference” between those Labor MPs – who refused for months to resign after the Canavan decision in October – and the Coalition MPs who did not know they were ineligible (well, not until they discovered that citizenship by descent was a thing that exists).
Cormann responds that the issue of debt waivers will be treated in “an entirely consistent manner” – which suggests Labor MPs will get debt waivers.
Don Farrell starts interjecting because he objects to what he sees as a partisan attack from Paterson, but Cormann says he should “take some comfort” from that answer.
Updated
Ged Kearney to Malcolm Turnbull: (Fun fact - this is her first question in the house)
“Can the prime minister confirm last night every member of this government, including the member for Corangamite, voted against Labor’s personal income tax plan that would give 66,000 people in Corangamite a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut given from the government, why didn’t the prime minister vote for lower taxes for 10 million Australians instead of giving an $80bn handout to big business?”
(That’s Sarah Henderson, by the way)
Turnbull:
“... The honourable member referred to the member for Corangamite and her constituents. In Corangamite, Mr Speaker, there are thousands of businesses getting on and getting ahead because of the incentive the government has given them and the member for Corangamite knows very well that the future of her community depends on a stronger economy and a government that backs that enterprise, and she knows that, that is what is driving the record jobs growth in Australia. But the member for Batman, on the other hand, I don’t think when she was recently campaigning went around and told some of the retirees in her seat how much of their savings they were going to raid.
“... Oh yes they will! All of those hard-working people in Batman who have worked hard and saved and invested, the Labor party is going to cut their income by 20%, 30%, a massive cut out of the income of Australians that are too old to go and get another job or start a business, going after the most vulnerable, and, for the same reason, they denied the ineligibility of their dual citizen members, for the same reason they doctored the transcript of the member for Barton because they thought they could get away with it.
“The leader of the opposition will try anything on, any duplicity, because he thinks he can get away with it and the Australian people are too smart for him and they are too smart for Labor.”
Tony Smith asks if the PM made an unparliamentary remark, as the interjections rise, and then we move on. (If he did say something, I didn’t hear it.)
Updated
BREAKING: Christopher Pyne still hates unions. #deathtodixers
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull:
“They claim they support lower taxes but why did they all vote against Labor’s plan for lower income taxes to 10 million Australians, a tax cut of up to $928 a year last night. That’s what they did. How can the Australian people believe anything this prime minister says when last night, he voted against bigger tax cuts.”
Turnbull:
“Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the only tax reform that was voted for last night was the government’s reform for personal income tax.
“The Labor Party voted for it. The reality is that the Labor party is threatening Australians with over $200bn of new taxes and most shamefully of all, $5bn a year raised by raiding the savings of older Australians, raised by raiding the savings of grandparents, self-funded retirees, going after their tax refunds from franking credits, to which they are entitled.
“Both in law and injustice and what they’re doing is yet again discriminating against hard-working Australians who have saved for their retirement and want to have the dignity of some independence in retirement.
“As much as they hate the enterprise of hard-working Australian businesses encouraged by our tax cuts, and are already in operation, and seeing record jobs growth across Australia. Labor is the party of higher taxes, less investment and fewer jobs.”
Peter Dutton has some fun with the Linda Burney transcript issue. Burney continues reading her papers and then Chris Bowen wants to know whether Malcolm Turnbull remembered walking back into the chamber to vote against Labor’s amendments on the income tax bill.
He punts it to Scott Morrison, and Tony Burke objects:
Unless the treasurer has the authority to say he was equally unaware, only the prime minister can answer that question. But the standing orders say the PM can get anyone he wants to answer the question and we are all gifted another few minutes of the best of Scott Morrison.
Updated
Just a small break to remind you that Ian Macdonald is proving once again, why he is the greatest gift to the Senate estimates process, since the iPad timer:
Ian MacDonald was quizzing Justice SC Derrington about why she is a "Senior Counsel" instead of a "Queen's Counsel". Justice Derrington: "those are my initials" #auspol #estimates
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 24, 2018
For the record, the justice’s name is Sarah Catherine.
The culture wars, as Paul just joked, are now coming for your initials. NOTHING IS SAFE,
Updated
Julie Bishop says Australia is working with Indonesia following the terror attacks recently, which saw children used as suicide bombers.
“The Australian government stands in absolute solidarity with the Indonesian government. We sent messages of support and condolence. The Indonesian government and the Indonesian people are our most important partners when it comes to combating terrorism in our region and we are working closely with Indonesia, noting as they have that Australia has also suffered attempted terrorist attacks and we are working together to locate foreign terrorist fighters returning from Iraq and Syria. We are seeking to track terrorists and their associates and equipment and resources,” she said.
“... I am sure I am joined with all members of this house as I confirm that the Australian government will dedicate the resources and the energy and political will to keeping Australians as safe as possible at home and abroad.”
Bill Shorten gives the government Labor’s support:
“I just seek to associate the opposition with the foreign minister’s remarks,” he says.
“Surabaya is a marvellous city, Indonesia’s second-largest, it’s a remarkable cosmopolitan city, it does not deserve this evil and the government can count on the opposition standing with their remarks.”
What we just saw was a dixer used for good - updating the house on an actual issue.
Updated
I miss the beginning of Bill Shorten’s next question to Malcolm Turnbull, but it is essentially asking why did the government vote against Labor’s tax plan.
I think we already know the answer, but here it is anyway:
“The leader of the opposition has really lost the plot. Last night, the house debated and voted on the tax legislation. That’s what’s heading up to the Senate now. You know what, Mr Speaker? And we want to thank them, thank them from their support. They had the opportunity to vote against them. The personal income ... tax reform now is going to encourage the investment. It is going to encourage aspiration of work. It’s getting to make it fairer ... simpler and as progressive as it is today in terms of those on the highest incomes paying the highest share.
“And we were pleased to see that the treasurer and my colleagues were able to persuade the Labor Party to vote with it but it seems their enthusiasm was short-lived. They went home, went to bed and turned up here today now they have regrets.
“It’s too late, and I say to the leader of the opposition, it’s been passed through the house. The reality is, you cannot rewrite the history of last night’s debate. It’s not like a transcript from the member for Barton. It isn’t. You can’t edit the votes and proceedings. It’s not like the way the leader of the opposition’s office edited, and when I say edited, doctored and falsified the transcript of the member for Barton’s interview, 1800 words it was. 1800 words. And apparently, she said, an unintentional error resulted in 800 words vanishing. That is quite a slip. That really is quite a slip. Mr Speaker, it’s no mistake that the falsification of the transcript was designed to do one thing and one thing only, cover up the fact that inside the Labor party, there is the deepest opposition to the government’s border protection policies.
“And what is designed to obscure the fact that the honourable member and so many of those colleagues want to roll out the welcome mat to the people smugglers and make all of those mistakes that Kevin Rudd made years ago, make them all again, so there will be more drownings at sea, more unauthorised arrivals and more children in detention. That is what Labor will be seeking to do if they were ever to occupy the [government] bench.”
Updated
Anthony Albanese to Michael McCormack:
“Is the deputy prime minister considering abandoning his support for the government’s $80bn handout to big business so that he can actually allocate funds for the construction of the Western Sydney rail project, which the government failed to fund in the budget?”
McCormack:
“One thing I’ll say about the Nationals is when we say something we put our names to it and I get ... We put our names to it. We’re backing the tax plan of the government. The Liberal and National Party, the Turnbull-McCormack government is backing the tax plan of the government.
“I’ll tell you why, Mr Speaker, I’ll tell you why, because it’s a blueprint for our economic future. It’s a10-year enterprise tax plan, just like we’ve got a 10-year infrastructure investment pipeline. $75bn, $75bn investing in the infrastructure that this country needs, that Australians want, demand, expect and deserve.
“That’s what we’re doing. I’ll just go back to his little point about the newspaper article today and I’ll say again that at least when National Party members make a comment to the press, they put their name to it, because I tell you what ... we often hear shadow ministers, Labor source, left source, making comments about the leadership of the man opposite, leadership of the member for Maribyrnong, and I tell you why, because he is on borrowed time.
“The member who asked the question knows it because he’s going to be the biggest beneficiary when the member for Maribyrnong falls over, he’s going to be ... But I say again that the Nationals and the Liberals are in lockstep with the tax plan, are in lockstep with ...”
He gives up, because lines are not his greatest strength, before giving it another go, but it’s pretty much what we just heard.
He gets a second time to trip over his words when another Queensland backbencher’s constituency is suddenly unable to go another second without knowing about the government’s 10-year infrastructure plan.
Updated
Adam Bandt has the crossbench question for today:
On Tuesday morning, Salim, a Rohingya refugee on Manus Island died on your watch and by Tuesday afternoon the government leaked information to the press about this man and negative stories appeared.
“By late Wednesday afternoon you hadn’t notified his wife about his death and when someone from the asylum seeker resource centre called to comfort her, it turned out she was unaware of it.
“Minister, is it government policy to leak to the media about the death of someone in your care and not notify next of kin? And does this fundamental lack of human decency show there’s no line you will not cross?”
Peter Dutton:
“I’m not going to take a morals lecture from the Greens when it comes to border protection policy.
“We can only look to his track record when he was in coalition with the Labor Party. The fact is, Mr Speaker ... Tragically, 1200 people drowned at sea when Labor and the Greens unwound John Howard’s policies, and that was a tragedy, and, in the current debate going on with the civil war in the Labor party, it seems they want to tragically return to those days. Mr Speaker, there were 8000 children put into detention and we’ve got those children out of detention. Under the plan, Mr Speaker, proposed by Labor and the Greens, there was no plan ...
“This government, not the government you were in coalition with, the Rudd and Gillard governments, this government has brokered a deal to get 1200 people off Manus and Nauru, Mr Speaker, so if you don’t mind I’m not going to take a moral lesson from you.
“You are responsible for the deaths of more than you realise, that’s the reality for the Greens, they can moralise all they want but I find it unacceptable, Mr Speaker.”
Wayne Swan then says something, which the microphone for the broadcast does not pick up and Dutton asks for it to be withdrawn. He admits he said something unparliamentary and does.
Scott Morrison is back, because every coalition’s backbencher constituency is just desperate to hear about the government’s economic plan and whether there is any alternative plan.
Updated
Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull:
“What is the point of this prime minister and his government, given his signature tax policy, to give $80bn to big business, appears doomed. Is the prime minister’s big business tax cut as doomed as his colleagues are claiming?”
Turnbull punts the question to Scott Morrison, because there is no such thing as too much Scott Morrison:
“Our side of the house, the government believes lower, simpler, fairer and more competitive taxes are good for the economy and a reward for effort and grow the economy. As I said yesterday, when the member for Fenner, who gave us the benefit of his behavioural impacts on the tax treatment of mammals in his own references to these matters, Mr Speaker, I was mistaken to think the Labor Party supported low and further fairer taxes, but I found the reason for the apparent contradiction in their view is because it seems the member for Fenner is familiar with the work of Ross Gittens. This was brought to our attention in 2005 when a book was written, Happiness, lessons from new science, and drawing on studies of monkeys, Mr Speaker, he concludes we need to keep the tax rates high to discourage people from working to make them happier.
Eureka! The Member for Fenner must have said ‘I’ve finally seen the light, higher taxes are good for people and they’ve decided to go down that path.’
“I’ve got some advice for the Member for Fenner, stop listening to monkeys when you set tax policies.”
Updated
Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull:
“A decade ago, the prime minister said he was not willing to lead a party that was not as committed to action on climate change as he was so now, is the prime minister willing to lead a government that is not as committed to big business tax cuts as he is?”
Turnbull (his glasses are off and in his hand, so you know he’s serious):
“I thank the honourable member for Watson to his question. I just remind him that he, like the member for McMahon, who are studied imitators of the great Paul Keating, would know very well that their master, their great mentor, PJK, he was the one who stood here like the leader of the opposition did in government and said cutting company tax delivers more investment, more jobs and better paid jobs and underlined the need to be competitive so Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the only Labor leader that has abandoned that economic common sense in just another one of his numerous backflips to make Australians realise he cannot be trusted, is the leader of the opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, the unbelieva-Bill leader of the opposition.”
Before Tony Burke can even open his mouth, Tony Smith pulls Turnbull up on the “unbelieva-Bill” line:
This started with the treasurer. I’ve had cause to read today the origin of it but it’s not coming in here. I’m making it very clear. I’d like the prime minister just to withdraw.”
The prime minister does, making Scott Morrison use his “I have now read my order out to you five times, OMG, how can you not get that I don’t want onions” voice in a dixer.
Updated
Another Queensland MP is given the first dixer. This week IS a time loop.
Question time begins
We open with company tax.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Now it is reported The Nationals have lost faith in the prime minister’s ability to deliver his economic plans. Will the prime minister tell the entire parliament including The Nationals that he won’t give up on his core belief and signature tax policy, to give $80bn to big business?”
Turnbull:
“I assume the honourable member is referring to the government’s enterprise tax plan which involves reducing company tax to 25%. That of course was described by the member for McMahon as a Labor thing and a great objective it was. It was described by the leader of the opposition’s [predecessor that] cutting company tax, increasing investment and productivity, resulting in more jobs and better paid jobs and Labour leaders before him has supported reducing company tax because they know it delivers more jobs and greater investment and Mr Speaker, that is what we have been seeing.
“We have, in the last calendar year, the largest jobs growth in our history, the largest jobs growth in our history and since the Coalition was elected under the leadership of the member for Warringah in 2013, 13,600 jobs created. So the Labor Party say that the government’s economic plan is not delivering but it’s delivering record jobs growth. I remember when Labor leaders going right back to Neville Wran, great leaders in the Labor arty, used to stand up and say it was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. Not any more.
“What a clown, Mr Speaker. Seriously. What an embarrassing clown. What an embarrassing clown. Here we are with record jobs growth, record jobs growth and all he wants to do is catcall, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, he has got as much chance of getting away with his jobs destroying, against business, against job creating policies as he does of doctoring transcripts.
Updated
Bob Katter is campaigning with Rebekha Sharkie, his former crossbench colleague currently fighting for the seat of Mayo after being made to stand down because of section 44 issues.
He was asked about the Liberal candidate Georgina Downer - and said he found her too right wing.
Yes, you read that correctly - Bob Katter thinks Georgina Downer is too right wing.
Let a thousand blossoms bloom.
Updated
Oh - and just a reminder, it is Reconciliation Day on Monday, so there is no parliament sitting.
And no blog. But we will be back as normal, on Tuesday.
Updated
We are sliding towards question time ... hit us up with your predictions.
Updated
'Give the economy a life-saving transplant and support company tax cuts – One Nation to Derryn Hinch
Derryn Hinch says he will support all three parts of the government’s income tax plan, and if someone wants to negate the stage three later, they can.
“I think I am going to support the government, all three, send me a plan and we’ll go for it,” he told Sky.
“Put it through and if another government comes through next year, and it will be next year, Labor comes through next year, they can negate it.”
He also opened up about One Nation’s lobbying of him two weekends ago, to get his support for the government’s company tax cut.
Two weeks ago, One Nation was heavying me in extraordinary long texts to tell me that I must support the government 100% on the government tax cuts.
One of them even said, ‘you had a transplant to extend your life and save your life, the government and Australia needs a transplant to save the economy. That’s how hard they were going.”
Updated
Labor has been probing whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has enough funding to prosecute financial crimes.
The Commonwealth DPP, Sarah McNaughton, tells Senate estimates it has $3.7m for the 2018-19 financial year from the serious financial crimes taskforce funding, a commitment of $127.6m over four years that the Coalition made in the 2015 budget.
Asked by Labor’s Murray Watt if it’s due to expire, McNaughton confirms, “that’s as I understand it”. She says the DPP has had discussions amongst itself about asking for an extension of funding, but hasn’t requested it from the Attorney General’s Department or the attorney.
Watt asks whether the DPP will need extra funding to prosecute wrongdoing uncovered by the banking royal commission.
McNaughton: “It’s so theoretical at this point, we don’t have any need to have the discussion [of extra funding]. There’s no request to make.”
Michaelia Cash says the government will consider the need for extra funding when the royal commission hands down its report.
Labor leaps on this as evidence of a funding cliff:
The Commonwealth Public Prosecutor has just revealed that the government is cutting funding for the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce in June next year. In the middle of the #BankingRC. Astonishing. #Estimates
— Mark Dreyfus (@markdreyfusQCMP) May 24, 2018
Updated
The Australian Kitsch account, which is well worth a follow if you haven’t already, has dug up this gem from the Sydney Morning Herald in 1972, of ABC bosses dealing with accusations of being “biased”.
ABC bosses to journalists: it's not your job to interpret the news
— Australian Kitsch (@OzKitsch) May 24, 2018
Pic: @smh 1972#auspol #estimates #thisdaytonight #tdt @MikeCarlton01 pic.twitter.com/skLEnz9WtL
Updated
I wasn’t called to #Estimates today but had I been there I would have reassured senators that you can have a Race Discrimination Commissioner AND Johnathan Thurston https://t.co/lWj0AVmJ17 pic.twitter.com/9vGMLuDXkh
— Tim Soutphommasane (@timsout) May 24, 2018
The debate on the National Redress Scheme is seeing quite a few members break down.
Ann Sudmalis also got emotional, as she said she believed we were still failing children.
As police fear to follow up, charge the offenders and pursue their own action because they believe the court system will not record a charge or it may not be successful, I fear we are opening a Pandora’s box of bad behaviour which is totally unacceptable.
Surely it is not too much trouble to set the dignity and safety of a child above the inconvenience of bringing the issue of the attention to the court. I know exactly of such an incident and I am greatly concerned of the consequences that could evolve from the lack of action, or action that is non-protective or action which pushes the decision making responsibility back onto the child.
How can this be? Rape of a 12-year-old child is rape. Whether inflicted by a physical instrument or biologically inflicted, it is wrong.
And inside I weep that in this day and age we still don’t fully understand the term child sexual abuse.
Updated
Mike Bowers has been out and about this morning. Here is some of what he saw:
Grandmothers against removal is a group working to stop what they say is the mass removal of children from their families by child protection agencies and the authorities - including police and detention centres.
Craig Kelly, who is facing a very strong preselection challenge for Hughes, seems to be enjoying himself this morning.
Updated
Over in the Federation Chamber (where overflow speeches go, and where, you may note Andrew Hastie made his speech on Tuesday night) Andrew Leigh was talking about the need for Australia to do more to combat discrimination of the LGBTI community around the world.
From his speech:
During my lifetime we in Australia have decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults. We have removed many forms of institutionalised discrimination against LGBT+ Australians. And we have belatedly legislated same-sex marriage.
There is more to be done in Australia, but there is much more to be done around the world. According to the ILGA’s 2017 report, as of May 2017, 72 states continue to criminalise same-sex consensual activity — that is, more than one-third of the world’s nations. There are currently eight nations in which the death penalty is imposed as a punishment for same-sex consensual sexual acts.
Let me go to some examples. This month in Malaysia we saw the release of Anwar Ibrahim, but it is a reminder that Malaysia continues to make sodomy illegal under section 377 of the Penal Code, which prohibits ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. In Bangladesh in the capital Dhaka, Xulhaz Mannan, the founder of Bangladesh’s first and only LGBT magazine, was brutally hacked to death as punishment for his activism on behalf of same-sex-attracted Bangladeshis. In Tunisia, Bouhdid Belhedi, a campaigner for LGBT rights, was assaulted by Islamic extremists and beaten by a mob outside his house in Tunis as a policeman watched.
In Ecuador, gay people are forced to undergo conversion therapy in secret clinics, where they are raped and beaten even though homosexuality is legal. Since the 2013 military intervention in Egypt, at least 250 LGBT+ people have been arrested. In Aceh, the Indonesian police recently arrested 12 transgender people. In Iran, gay men are sometimes hanged. In Russia, homophobic violence is on the rise. In Syria, there are media reports of LGBT individuals being thrown from tall buildings head first and then stoned by bystanders. And although homosexuality is legal in Turkey, it has one of the worst records of human rights violations against LGBT+ people in Europe.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Being transgender is not a lifestyle. Equality is indivisible. Human rights are universal. It doesn’t matter whether you approach politics from the standpoint of freedom or from the standpoint of equality. As individuals, as civil society, as government, Australians must do more to stand up for LGBT+ rights around the globe.
Updated
Can we ever trust transcripts again?
(To be clear, most of us in the press gallery take our own recordings and transcribe from there, or double check the transcript with our recording.)
Transcripts came up in the February estimates hearings, after Jenny McAllister wanted to know from Mathias Cormann why the official PMO transcript showed Malcolm Turnbull thanking Donald Trump during their meeting just once, while the White House official transcript included a much more generous four thank-yous. THE SCANDAL.
From that estimates’ Hansard transcript (page 134 of the February 26 hearing):
Senator McAllister: In the transcript issued by the prime minister, Mr Turnbull thanks President Trump twice, but in the version of the transcript issued by the White House Mr Turnbull’s very effusive. He says, ‘Thank you,’ and, ‘I just say thank you to you and Melania for your hospitality and your friendship,’ and then he goes on to say thank you again. I think we get ‘thank you’, ‘thank you so much’, ‘thank you’ and ‘thank you’. So he was very effusive.
Chair: Senator McAllister, you’ve uncovered thankyou-gate.
Senator Cormann: I’m really pleased that we are dealing with a major issue.
Senator McAllister: I’m just curious: how does it come about that it gets edited down, that the thank-yous are so much less prominent in the one issued by the prime minister?
I think he’s just being a very thankful guest in the United States.
Chair: You might be too, Senator McAllister, if you were in the Oval Office.
Senator McAllister: But is the PMO’s office in some way trying to downplay how effusive Mr Turnbull has been on this occasion?
Senator Cormann: Sorry, what are you suggesting?
Senator McAllister: I’m asking: is this deliberate or is this just an accident of transcription? Are they trying to downplay how effusive Mr Turnbull was?
Senator Cormann: I haven’t had a conversation with the prime minister about the transcripts of his relevant remarks, but now that you’ve asked the question I will undertake an investigation as to how the transcript that you’ve referenced has been so edited. It’s not unusual—in the context of Hansard transcription, for example — to remove any repetition of things that are said in the verbal communication that don’t necessarily add anything when you read a written transcript. I think that that is precisely the way Hansard does it. You’ve got Hansard people at the back here, and I think you’ll find that those of us in politics from time to time, for effect — particularly, a non-partisan statement, when you’re in opposition; I may have done the same when I was in opposition — repeat a particular sentence. You’ll find that Hansard will remove any such repetition and only provide what looks like a very eloquent, concise presentation of the point that you wanted to make.
Updated
Jenny Macklin is speaking in the House on the commonwealth redress scheme for survivors of institutional child abuse.
She is crying as she reads the history of the scheme, and what led to this point, and urges the states and territories who haven’t signed up to the commonwealth scheme (Tasmania and WA are yet to sign up).
As the royal commission said, many of the injuries were severe and long-lasting. Many people have been and continue to be impacted by injuries for the rest of their lives. It is the case that many, many survivors have still not had the opportunity to seek compensation for their injuries. The royal commission acknowledged that, and I quote: ‘it can not be feasible for many of those who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse to seek commonwealth damages. There is a clear need to provide avenues for survivors to take effective redress for this past abuse’. The establishment of a national redress scheme will acknowledge the abuse which occurred.
Labor understands, and I think everyone understands, that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced. However, redress is a vital step along the path to healing. A vital step that we all have an obligation to put in place.
Macklin says Labor will be supporting the bill, but wants guarantees that all survivors will be able to access the scheme and older survivors are not left out.
Updated
When we get to question time, the Andrew Hastie matter is bound to come up again.
Here was some of what Mark Dreyfus had to say this morning to Radio National:
“It’s been reported today that Mr Hastie did not seek any permission from US agencies or warned them, give them advance notice of the proposed use of information that he gained from US agencies. And that’s a real concern. It’s not something that I can recall ever having occurred from any previous chair of the Intelligence Committee. I’ve been on trips as a member of the Intelligence Committee and as attorney general and obtained information from briefings from the FBI, the CIA, the NSA in the United States or their like agencies in the United Kingdom. It’s always in confidence, and speaking for myself I wouldn’t have dreamed ever of using information that I’d obtained in that manner,” he said.
“... The question that arises is one of trust. And I have to say that the prime minister is more in possession of information, obviously, than me as a member of the committee. But the committee have received highly classified information from Australian agencies, sometimes … when it visits US agencies, and members of the committee go, as has just occurred – or sometimes to the UK – equally highly confidential information and sometimes classified information is given. And it assists us in our work. There’s got to be a question of trust there about knowing that those confidences will be respected. But it is a matter for the prime minister.”
Paul Karp has written more on that here
Updated
Linda Burney has issued ANOTHER statement (this one official, sent from Bill Shorten’s office, while one was in response to questions and the second was a doorstop).
My comments on Sky News yesterday are public.
This was an error in my office and was unintentional – the staff member involved has been counselled about the mistake.
No other office had any role – it was solely my office’s responsibility for transcribing the interview and checking its accuracy.
Updated
There was also the time Michaelia Cash’s department (not her office, and there is a BIG difference) cut out questions from Paul Karp from one of Cash’s doorstops. The department at the time said it removed things which are not part of the minister’s portfolio. Cash’s office blamed an “overzealous” departmental staffer. From the story published earlier this year:
Media coverage of the embattled employment minister, Michaelia Cash, hasn’t been as bad as last week, but all things are relative. Earlier this week her department released a transcript of a “doorstop” interview – a huddle with reporters.
The Q&A had been redacted to remove questions and answers – including several on the raid on the Australian Workers’ Union – which the department said didn’t relate to the senator’s portfolio of jobs and innovation. Strange, because those questions are evidently official business. Leigh Sales, presenter of 7.30, said the questions had been “censored”.
Cash’s office quickly blamed an “overzealous staffer” in the department and not her office for tampering with the record.
Jane Hume, who said on the Bad Show (Q&A) on Monday that women and people of colour should just work harder to get into parliament, is on Sky saying preselection challenges are “not a gendered issue”.
Jane Prentice’s dumping as candidate for her seat of Ryan, despite being an assistant member, and being replaced with a man, has set off another round of debate about what the Liberal party is doing about getting women into the party.
Hume, who is under pressure to hold her number one Senate spot in Victoria after openly supporting marriage equality, has given another message direct to party preselectors in the wake of Malcolm Turnbull stepping in to save Ann Sudmalis from a preselection challenge:
“It’s still a democratic process ... [but what about the intervention] ... sometimes it can be defied and that is the beaut thing about the Liberal party is that it is a democratic party no matter what.
“If the grassroots are cross at Malcolm Turnbull or Scott Morrison for doing that, then they can let him know. “
Labor’s Clare O’Neil says it is “completely outrageous”.
“Jane is saying it is grassroots decisions, well there is a hell of a lot of grassroots decisions being made here, where we are seeing women who are of high caliber in the Liberal party getting replaced by the same kind of people – they are young, they are male and they all seem to have worked for the Institute of Public Affairs at one stage or another.”
O’Neil said she doesn’t understand why Prentice wasn’t saved but a “backbencher who no one has ever heard of” has been saved.
Updated
Given it’s Thursday, which is the day on social media for throwbacks (#TBT), let’s head back to the last big “doctored document” conspiracy, when Barnaby Joyce was forced to admit his office changed the Hansard to correct the word “over” to “nearly”.
The agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, has admitted his staff changed Hansard records without his knowledge after Labor accused him of deliberately misleading parliament.
The Hansard record had been changed to correct an error Joyce made on Monday 20 October regarding the government’s drought assistance package. In the speech, Joyce referred to “over” 4,000 people applying for drought assistance. His office changed that to read “nearly” 4,000. They also added a qualifier line that wasn’t originally in the speech, saying that “recipient[s] of the Interim Farm Household Allowance” would also receive the assistance.
Joyce set the record straight in parliament after question time on Monday, saying the “minor edits were made to Hansard by my staff without my knowledge. My staff have been counselled. Consistent with standing orders, I have asked that the changes requested by my office be removed from Hansard before Hansard is finalised.”
Ahhh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
(And in the end, Paul Grimes, the head of the agriculture department, was sacked)
Updated
Asked about it directly, Linda Burney acknowledged it was her office that made the “mistake”.
“It was a genuine mistake by a person in my office and I think we have been very clear about that,” she said.
“My comments are on record and there was a mistake in my office and we made it very clear that there is a mistake.
Updated
Labor maintains that this was a mistake made by one of Linda Burney’s staffers, and that the leader’s office only distributes the transcripts.
“We don’t have time to watch or listen to every interview,” one staffer says.
Peter Dutton sees more.
Come on. [A Labor] staffer has issued a fraudulent document. Linda Burney has presided over a fraudulent document going out, purporting to be something that it is not. Bill Shorten’s office had knowledge of it and distributed the document. He needs to answer the question why his office was involved in the publication and distribution of this fraudulent document. How can Mr Shorten trust … his frontbench – who has deliberately lied in relation to what she said? And this is not a clarification, not an improvement on grammar. It is a fabrication, pure and simple.”
I think that sound you hear are opposition staffers looking for examples of when the PMO’s transcripts differ from the interview.
Updated
Peter Dutton on Andrew Hastie:
He has an outlook on national security that very few of us could bring to the table. He is a patriot of this country, he is a personal fine character, and in relation to the statements he has made, I won’t have knowledge of the state nor documents. That was an issue to him … and that is a very separate matter, I might say, to what we are dealing with in relation to Linda Burney.
Linda Burney has deliberately put out a statement with Bill Shorten’s office knowledge, and with authorisation from a senior figures within the Labor party. It is not just a word or two that might have been brushed out or tidied up. It is a complete fabrication. And it needs to be answered by Mr Shorten today.”
Updated
And for anyone who wants to see Ian Macdonald’s take on racism and how it doesn’t exist, because an indigenous footballer is basically the ruler of Queensland, Paul Karp has cut that up for you:
Here's LNP senator Ian MacDonald's thoughts on RACISM - IS IT EVEN A THING #auspol #estimates pic.twitter.com/qwzKKEjFpQ
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 24, 2018
Updated
Peter Dutton has taken issue with the missing quote from the Linda Burney transcript:
This has gone through Bill Shorten’s office, it has been cleared by senior people and authorised by senior people, which is written down the bottom of the transcript they have released by senior people within the Labor party. This is not some mistake by somebody transcribing and can’t understand garbled words within a tape recording. This is a deliberate act of fabrication, and Mr Shorten needs to explain who in his office knew about it, who in his office authorised this document to be released, why was this transcript sent out by one of Mr Shorten’s staffers. These are questions that Mr Shorten needs to answer today.
I’d want to fob you off, but the reality is this is a serious issue to the Labor party to contemplate. The Labor party has completely discredited itself in relation to border protection policy. Under Bill Shorten, caucus now is much worse than anything … under Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard. It is clear to us now that the Labor party vote policy has completely unravelled. It is essentially open warfare within the Labor party on … boats. You will see some stitched together flashy statement out of conference that the Labor party has a policy that reflects the Operation Sovereign Borders policy, which has resulted in boat stopping. It is a complete and utter dodgy deal and nobody should believe it. The Labor party has lost any credibility when it comes to border protection. Mr Shorten needs to come out today quite beyond what their position is on border protection, and explain why somebody on his frontbench has fabricated a document.”
Updated
Kelly O’Dwyer has introduced legislation to introduce a “one-off, twelve month amnesty for historical underpayment of superannuation”
From the statement:
The Bill incentivises employers to come forward and do the right thing by their employees by paying any unpaid superannuation in full.
Employers will not be off the hook – to use the amnesty they must pay all that is owing to their employees, including the high rate of nominal interest. However, the amnesty will make it easier to secure outstanding employee entitlements, by setting aside the penalties for late payment that are normally paid to the government by employers.
Employers that do not take advantage of the one-off amnesty will face higher penalties when they are subsequently caught – in general, a minimum 50% on top of the SG charge they owe. In addition, throughout the amnesty period the ATO will still continue its usual enforcement activity against employers for those historical obligations they don’t own up to voluntarily.
The ATO estimates that in 2014‑15, around $2.85bn in SG payments went unpaid.
While this represents a 95% compliance rate, any level of non‑compliance is unacceptable, which is why the Turnbull government is giving the ATO the tools it needs to enforce compliance going forward.
We are introducing this one‑off amnesty to allow employers to wipe the slate clean and pay their workers what they’re owed. All Australians workers should be paid the entitlements they are owed.
The amnesty will run for 12 months from today.
O’Dwyer said the move would build on reforms to protect workers’ superannuation entitlements by:
- Giving the ATO the ability to seek court-ordered penalties in cases where employers defy directions to pay their superannuation guarantee liabilities, including up to 12 months jail in the most egregious cases of non-payment;
- Requiring superannuation funds to report contributions received more frequently, at least monthly, to the ATO. This will enable the ATO to identify non-compliance and take prompt action;
- Bringing payroll reporting into the 21st century through the rollout of Single Touch Payroll (STP). Employers with 20 or more employees will transition to STP from 1 July 2018 with smaller employers coming on board from 1 July 2019. This will reduce the regulatory burden on business and transform compliance by aligning payroll functions with regular reporting of taxation and superannuation obligations;
- Improving the effectiveness of the ATO’s recovery powers, including strengthening director penalty notices and use of security bonds for high-risk employers, to ensure that unpaid superannuation is better collected by the ATO and paid to employees’ super accounts.
Updated
We don't need a race discrimination commissioner - we have Jonathan Thurston
Senator Ian MacDonald is asking in Senate estimates whether racism is really a thing, and whether we even NEED a race discrimination commissioner.
MacDonald:
I might live in a bubble perhaps but I find it very difficult to find any but very rare cases of racism in Australia. In this building we have two ministers that don’t – are clearly not white Australian male sort of thing. In my own society … the greatest hero, in fact the king of Queensland, is Jonathan Thurston. If only I could get him to run for a political party he’d walk it in. I just don’t know - there are obviously isolated aspects of racism in Australia but I would think across the board they’re very isolated.
Standing in for the attorney general, Michaelia Cash confirms that the government’s position is to hire a new race discrimination commissioner when Tim Soutphommasane’s term ends.
The Australian Human Rights Commissioner president, Rosalind Croucher, replies that the race discrimination commissioner used to be a commissioner for “community relations” and she might like to “shift the titles” back to that positive aspect.
She said the commissioner has a role beyond just dealing with discrimination complaints, to promoting racial harmony and tackling prejudice.
Updated
Just a note - the government’s $140bn over 10 years tax plan is now $144bn.
The back third of the plan (getting rid of the 37% tax bracket, which will see people on $41,000 to $200,000 pay the same rate of tax from 2024-25) will cost $40bn.
Labor had been after that figure since the budget was announced.
But we still have no idea where the extra $4bn came from overnight.
Updated
US embassy responds to Hastie disclosure
The US Embassy has responded to the Andrew Hastie issue – it says relations are as “strong as ever” but ultimately it’s up to the Australian government how it handles his use of parliamentary privilege.
The reason this is becoming an issue is because Hastie used information he had received as part of leading a delegation to the US in his role as head of the parliamentary intelligence committee, which is seen as a pretty big no-no.
Still, he did it under parliamentary privilege, so he’s protected there. It’s just a question of any wider ramifications, which Malcolm Turnbull was checking on, through his admission he had been in contact with our allies, and Labor is pursuing.
The US Embassy has released a statement on Liberal MP Andrew Hastie's speech about businessman and political donor Chau Chak Wing #auspol @politicsabc pic.twitter.com/1awrzIawNY
— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) May 23, 2018
Updated
The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has put out a statement, after nine Australians were recognised in the Gender Equality Top 100:
Workplace Gender Equality Agency Director Libby Lyons is one of nine Australians recognised for their contribution to improving gender equality on a new list of top influencers from around the world.
Apolitical, a global network for governments and public sectors, has announced its inaugural Gender Equality Top 100 list of the most influential people in gender equality policy.
The nine Australians named in the list are:
· Libby Lyons, Director Workplace Gender Equality Agency
· Kelly O’Dwyer, Federal Minister for Women
· Julia Gillard, former Prime Minister and chair of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership
· Professor Marian Baird, Sydney University’s distinguished researcher into women, work and care
· Susan Harris-Rimmer, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow in the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University
· Rosie Batty, domestic violence campaigner and 2015 Australian of the Year
· Tracey Spicer, journalist, advocate and founder of Now Australia
· Liz Broderick, former Sex Discrimination Commissioner and UN special rapporteur on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice
· Natasha Stott-Despoja, chair of Our Watch and former ambassador for women and girls.
“The Agency is receiving unprecedented interest in Australia’s gender reporting scheme as governments worldwide grapple with the economic challenge of removing barriers to women’s workforce participation and career progression.
“That nine Australians made the top 100 list, with Professor Marion Baird and Julia Gillard in the top 20, demonstrates the leading role that the Australian government and Australian employers are taking in driving change towards gender equality,” said Ms Lyons.
***end statement***
In regional estimates, the live sheep trade issue is scheduled to come up in the hearing just before 4pm.
And we have just got the official response from Linda Burney:
My comments on Sky News yesterday are public.
This was an error in my office and was unintentional.”
After every on-air interview, or doorstop, Labor provides transcripts of the interviews as a matter of course (the prime minister’s office also does this). It’s a fairly longstanding convention, with each office responsible for transcribing its member’s interview (which is then sent out by the leader’s office).
But Labor this morning is being questioned over the transcript it provided for Linda Burney’s interview on Sky News yesterday afternoon. She was asked about the party’s asylum seeker policy, which is about to become a fairly major issue at the national conference in July, where Labor will lock down its official policy direction.
There is growing support within the Labor party for a shut down of Manus and Nauru and over how long asylum seekers should be held in detention.
Here is what Labor sent out:
SPEERS: Labor will be discussing asylum seekers at its conference in a couple of months. What’s your own view?
BURNEY: It will be an issue at the national conference. Indefinite detention is what we’re arguing against. Look at what has happened on Manus in the last 24 hours –
SPEERS: So they shouldn’t be there indefinitely?
BURNEY: That’s being worked on by the appropriate people in my party. It’s not my portfolio –
SPEERS: Well how long does Labor think those people should be stuck there?
BURNEY: That will become clear over the course of the next –
SPEERS: But Labor will put a time frame on it?
BURNEY: I’m not responsible for the area, but I do believe that they shouldn’t be held indefinitely, and logically that means there’d be a time line.
It’s missing the quote
There needs to be a time frame and I’m sure there are people who are working towards that ... I think there needs to be a time limit”.
.@Kieran_Gilbert: @AustralianLabor is facing accusations someone within its ranks has doctored a transcript of @LindaBurneyMP's comments on asylum policy during her interview with @David_Speers.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) May 23, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/9qTiXts1Bq #FirstEdition pic.twitter.com/dJDKBhgCNt
We are being told it’s more cock-up then conspiracy and that it is a “genuine fuckup”. We’ve been in touch with Labor and Burney’s office and will get you that response when it comes through.
Updated
Good morning and welcome to day 26
While the blog was sleeping, the government’s income tax package passed the lower house – with Labor’s support.
Labor says that’s because it supports income tax cuts for lower and middle-class earners and plans on working to separate the third tranche – the flat tax for $41,000 to $200,000 earners in the never-never of budget forwards – in the Senate.
It also dulls the government’s attacks that Labor doesn’t support income tax cuts. On the flip side, the government can argue that Labor has supported its whole package (Labor attempted to amend the legislation in the House to separate the bill and were defeated). So watch that space.
There is still no byelections date, but that is expected to come very soon. 30 June or 7 July are shaping up as the dates to watch but at this stage, everyone just wants to know if the campaign is actually on.
Meanwhile, Mark Dreyfus has picked up on Labor’s three questions in QT yesterday about Andrew Hastie’s actions, telling Radio National that the whole Labor frontbench believed there were questions to answer over whether or not Hastie’s revelations have damaged Australia’s relationship with its intelligence agencies.
Malcolm Turnbull admitted yesterday he had been in contact with the spooks about the matter.
Dreyfus had to say Labor frontbench, because Michael Danby and Anthony Byrne have both indicated support for Hastie’s actions.
And estimates continues! ABC is up again this morning, with Michelle Guthrie due to appear, as well as the Human Rights Commission. Basically it’s Eric Abetz’s favourite day. And Pauline Hanson has been spotted walking around the halls, after somehow magically choosing the chair right in front of the cameras at the royal banking commission for a spell yesterday. Anyone would think she was attempting to reset her image and achieve some sort of relevance again, ahead of the Longman byelection and a general election.
Mike Bowers is wandering around here somewhere. Stay up to date with him at @mikepbowers and of course, you can see him annoying me as part of the instagram story on @pyjamapolitics.
Everyone ready? Let’s get going.
Updated
