And on that note, we will leave you for the day.
But don’t despair – or maybe do, depending on your vibe. We have one more day of this. Isn’t that grand?
Tomorrow is the last day until parliament resumes on 18 June 18, where the Senate will be back – and so, apparently, will Barnaby Joyce.
For anyone who missed his tweets today, it doesn’t look like he is overly happy with the government’s attempt to shuffle him off until August and felt the need to let the world know he would be back on 15 June.
A big thank you to the Guardian’s brain trust for all that they do. And to Mike Bowers, who may throw balloons at my head but is still the best damn partner to ride this crazy train with.
For everyone who read and followed along today, in the comments and out, thank you very much. If I didn’t get back to you, I am working on it. I’ll be back here early tomorrow morning but in the meantime ... take care of you.
Updated
Just some context on the Ann Sudmalis challenge: if Malcolm Turnbull’s and Scott Morrison’s intervention was enough for the numbers people – the power brokers who were looking to shift her in favour of Milton businessman Grant Shultz – then she will more than likely be OK.
Liberals are saying that is the case, that while Shultz is still giving it a red hot go, the numbers are no longer there.
But you never know how these things will play out.
Updated
Did someone lose a bet?
Updated
I meant to come back to this a bit earlier but was sidetracked by the Michaelia Cash circus.
Never mind, better late than never.
Emma Husar, a member of parliament who has actually been through the family court system, had a little to say to Sky about the government’s proposed changes.
What we need is for this government to take responsibility that on their watch backlogs and the blowouts of waiting times has significantly increased. First of all they need to own up to that. Secondly, this is a slap to Pauline Hanson.
She came in here all bluff and bluster at how she wanted to reform this system. This is right up her alley. This is exactly what she wanted, which is a step to demolishing and abolishing the family law court itself, which she has called for numerous times. The issue around merging the two courts together, simply changing the letterhead, stationery and name of something, does not actually reduce any backlogs that are currently being experienced.
We have a situation with this government that we had a report. I spoke to you, I think last year about, which was DV and family law and the intersection of both. It was 33 recommendations handed down out of that report. Not one of them has been adopted. I actually think to this day that the government hasn’t even responded to that report. It’s sitting on a shelf somewhere – thanks very much for your hard work, guys – and they’ve put it to the side.
They announced at the end of last year that they would have a full review into the family law system which is due to report in March 2019.
Now, why they’ve called this now and why they’re trying to do this now was beyond any reasonable person in this building to try and make sense of and not waiting for the fullness of that inquiry and that report to come down by March of next year.
Which would have included, and does include, extensive consultation. So what we’ve seen now, they’re making these changes based on one report, which we haven’t actually seen.
They are going to, you know, potentially ignore what happens in March of 2019 anyway and say we’ve done something and something’s better than nothing. Simply rebranding, rebadging and changing the stationery is actually not a way to clear a backlog.”
Updated
Here is what Tony Abbott had to say about Craig Kelly being under preselection threat:
“I think it would be a disaster for our party if Craig Kelly were to lose preselection. An absolute disaster. He has been a very good local member, he has been a very strong participant in all of our policy discussions, he has been a very good and vocal advocate for our position. He is a liberal in the Menzies/Howard tradition and we have to keep him there.
“The idea he should be knocked off, at this point in time, for someone who is the beneficiary of factional deals and has been branch stacking, I just think that is the worst possible look.
“The only way we can win the election is if we have harmony inside our party and we sure ain’t going to have harmony if Craig Kelly gets rolled.”
And on Barnaby Joyce:
“Barnaby is a friend of mine. Yes, I have spoken on numerous occasions to Barnaby in recent months, because he is going through a very difficult time, and he deserves the support of his friends.
“... I reckon that the last thing we should be doing is going over and over the entrails of someone’s private life. I would like to celebrate the contribution that Barnaby has made to our public life. He saved the government at the last election. If the National party hadn’t won seats, held on to its own and even won a seat, we wouldn’t be in government.
“Barnaby has been a wonderful advocate for farmers; he has been a great voice for common sense in public policy. He is about the only person who has barnstormed the country saying we have to develop northern Australia, we have got to have dams, because water is wealth, and without dams we are sacrificing one of our great natural resources, so I would really rather focus on that in that time, and it would certainly cheer Barnaby up to have people focus on that.
“... Why should he [leave politics]? Barnaby is somebody who has devoted the last 15 years of his life to public service. He’s been very, very good at it. We should be encouraging good people to be in the public service. We shouldn’t be hounding them out by a focus on their private life.
“Now, I am not saying that everyone’s private life isn’t interesting in a prurient way, and I am not saying that everyone’s private life is in every sense, blameless – but hey, when we are talking about public figures, let’s focus on what they are doing for us and Barnaby has done for a us in the past and I hope he can do a lot for us in the future.”
Updated
Ann Sudmalis to face preselection challenge
Ann Sudmalis is being challenged for preselection despite the prime minister’s intervention.
Milton real estate agent Grant Schulz has defied the PM's wishes, challenging Ann Sudmalis for the seat of Gilmore. I'm told this is the email he sent to branch members. #auspol @politicsabc pic.twitter.com/QdmuXJA0Th
— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) May 30, 2018
Updated
Labor has also welcomed the Catholic church’s announcement. From its statement:
Labor welcomes the announcement today that the Catholic church will join the national redress scheme for institutional survivors of child sexual abuse.
This is an important milestone on the path to redress and justice for survivors, and it means we are one step closer to survivors getting the redress they deserve.
Today is a particularly significant day for the thousands of people who have fought so long and so hard for redress and justice.
We particularly acknowledge Leonie Sheedy and everyone at the Care Leavers Australasia Network (Clan), Chrissie Foster and her late husband Anthony Foster, and the many Australians who fought against the Catholic church for so many years for the truth to be revealed.
The royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse found that the scale and severity of abuse in the Catholic church was appalling.
Between 1980 and 2015, there were more than 4,000 people who reported allegations of child sexual abuse to Catholic authorities.
In total, the royal commission estimated that about 7% of Catholic priests in Australia between 1950 and 2010 were accused of child sexual abuse.
The royal commission referred at least 300 matters relating to abuse in the Catholic institutions to the police.
The Catholic church bears a huge responsibility, and it is welcome it has made the decision to be the first non-government institution to join the redress scheme.
There is no excuse for any state government, church, institution or non-government organisation not to join the national redress scheme where sexual abuse has occurred.
We urge all remaining states and institutions to sign up to the scheme as soon as possible.
The Gillard Labor government established the royal commission ... in 2013.
We understand that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced by survivors.
However, redress is an important step along the road to healing for survivors.”
Updated
Department staff have faced questioning about how the private health insurance reforms are playing out. Measures introduced by the government include allowing insurers to discount hospital insurance premiums for 18- to 29-year-olds by up to 10%, labelling policies in gold, silver and bronze categories to help consumers identify policies that offer less value for money, and reducing the minimum benefits payable by private health insurers for devices on the prostheses list.
Questioning from the Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, revealed that in March there were 11.3 million Australians with hospital cover, an increase of more than 10,000 since December, and the number of people with cover for general treatment increased by 13.5% since December.
Di Natale asked the department how this increase could be explained given there had been an overall downward trend in recent years in the number of people taking out insurance. The department’s Penny Shakespeare said she hoped the increase was because some of the government’s reforms had been looked at favourably by consumers.
The department’s Charles Maskell-Knight says “it’s the most significant upwards movement for a year”.
Except – If you look at the figures for the year to March, 37,000 fewer people had cover compared with the previous year. Most of those who took out cover were the over-55 group (so older, sicker, people), and 98,000 younger people dropped out. Also, people tend to sign up for insurance early in the year before premium rises take effect in April. So the rise in insured people in the March quarter isn’t anything for the government to be excited about.
Meanwhile senator Murray Watt wants to know how much the government’s reforms will keep premiums in check by next year. He asks if the department can guarantee premium rises of less than 4% next year.
The reply is that the government can’t predict the future.
“I’m not sure it’s the role of the department to offer guarantees,” said Shakespeare. So Watt turns his attention to the rural health minister, Bridget McKenzie. Labor, Watt says, if elected would introduce a policy of capping premium rises at 2% for two years. Why won’t the government commit to the same?
“We’re not North Korea, senator Watt. We can’t stipulate exactly what everybody has to pay for the one product that we’ll offer,” said McKenzie.
Updated
OK, unpacking what Tony Abbott just had to say to 2GB.
On Russia:
“We’ve got to make it crystal clear that no one can kill Australians with impunity. Now I accept that the Russians thought they were shooting down an Ukrainian military transport, they didn’t know they were shooting down a civilian jet liner. But the fact is, they acted with reckless indifference to human life.
“This is an atrocity. Russia has to admit responsibility. It has to at the very least apologise and offer some kind of compensation to the families of the dead, and if they don’t they have to suffer some consequences.
“I think expelling the ambassador is a very appropriate gesture, but I would like to think that there could be something quite serious and material, because as I said, we are a serious country, we take the wellbeing of our citizens seriously and when our citizens are violated in the most dreadful way as those 38 Australians were, our country has to take some action.
“... When two people were victims of chemical warfare in Britain, Australia expelled two Russian intelligence agents. Now these are our people – not just two, but 38 of them that were murdered. They weren’t just attacked, they were murdered, so our action in respect of our own people has got to be even more serious than the action we took in conjunction with Britain over their people.”
But he doesn’t think the Socceroos should boycott the World Cup.
On energy:
“I’m very worried that what’s going to happen here is we will go into that Coag meeting and in the end, to get a deal that the Labor states will agree to, we will do things that we would rather not do, we will agree to things that we would rather not agree to, and then it will all be presented to the party room as a done deal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
“I don’t think that is good enough, frankly. I think there needs to be a proper internal process if people are going to wholeheartedly support any policy that we take forward, because, let’s face it, this is going to be critical to the next election. The prime minister says, quite rightly, that we want to be the party of low power prices and we want to let Labor be the party of high power prices, but we have to have a real policy that will deliver lower power prices and this isn’t in the end about coal as such ... It is ultimately about lower prices for power, so that our cost of living pressures are less and we have more jobs, not fewer jobs, because we stop destroying our own industries.
“Let’s face it, the only comparable advantage we have ever had in manufacturing is cheap power and we are destroying it and it is an act of national insanity.”
Updated
“The only way we are going to win the election is if we have harmony in our party room, and we are not going to have harmony if Craig [Kelly] gets rolled,” Tony Abbott tells 2GB.
Just adding to the Fair Work Ombudsman cost of $180,000, the ROC chief has said how much his organisation has spent on the AWU case:
Registered Organisations Commission chief Mark Bielecki says it's spent $434,646 including GST on the Australian Workers Union matter #auspol #ausunions #estimates
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 30, 2018
That’s now over half a million dollars.
Because there is so much interest – here is the transcript from Michaelia Cash’s press conference, as put out by her office just moments ago:
MINISTER CASH: I would like to address the issue of Labor and the unions’ stunt today. The subpoena was issued at the request of the Australian Workers’ Union, Bill Shorten’s former union. The subpoena itself makes this clear. This is, in fact, the third subpoena at the AWU’s request. It does not surprise me that the AWU is trying this tactic again.
Can I confirm, for the record, because there does seem to be some confusion, I am not a party to these proceedings. The proceedings themselves are actually between the Australian Workers’ Union and the Registered Organisations Commission. Again, I am not a party to these proceedings.
Of course, at the heart of these proceedings, a fact that Labor and the AWU want you to forget: the person who has questions to answer is the former head of the AWU, Bill Shorten. The AWU has refused to provide evidence that donations made when Bill Shorten was the national secretary were properly authorised. The fundamental question is: when Mr Shorten was secretary of the AWU, did he donate $100,000 of union members’ money to GetUp, of which he was a director at the time, without proper approval of the unions’ executive?
Today is just another effort by the union movement to protect Bill Shorten. The Government will always stand up to protect workers and ensure that the members’ dues, hard-working money handed over by members, are not used inappropriately. Questions?
QUESTION: [Inaudible questions]
MINISTER CASH: I cannot …
QUESTION: Minister, would you accept the [indistinct] unanimous decision today to front up again and answer more questions?
MINISTER CASH: You would be aware that I have answered numerous questions in estimates over many, many days and weeks now. I will not be bullied by the Australian Labor Party. I am not the relevant minister. Craig Laundy is the relevant minister. I will attend estimates when I am the responsible minister.
QUESTION: [Inaudible questions]
MINISTER CASH: Phil, Phil. Hold on, Phil. So I – Phil.
QUESTION: Does this mean you do not intend [indistinct] …
MINISTER CASH: I will comply with the legal process, and Phil, as part of that process, I have issued instructions to the lawyers to have the subpoena set aside.
QUESTION: On what basis do you think it should be set aside? And are you confident that will happen, given that the court refused that application in December?
MINISTER CASH: As I said, they did not refuse that application in December. The majority of that subpoena was actually set aside and the documents that were provided, we were very happy to provide. There was some misreporting, actually, in relation to that. Again, I have issued instructions for the subpoena to be set aside, and I do not intend to now play the court process out publicly.
QUESTION: Minister, could I just clarify? You are saying that you have been bullied by Labor on this, but my question is, this is the first time we have seen you at a major press conference in some months. You haven’t been out in the public all that much until the last month. This is constraining your capacity to do your job and to sell the government’s message on jobs, isn’t it?
MINISTER CASH: I completely disagree. During budget week I think I was out three times a day. I am out there every other day talking to the Australian people about jobs. And I tell you, the feedback is incredibly positive. When you talk to people about what the government said they would do in 2013 – we would create 1m jobs within five years. When you go and sit down with them and say, can I now give you the actual statistics? This is not Michaelia Cash talking, this is not Malcolm Turnbull talking, let me give you the statistics. The economy has created 1m jobs in less than five years. That is what Australians outside of, you know, Canberra, are actually excited about. And what they want the government to do is now say: great, you created 1m jobs, or you put in place the right economic conditions to create 1m jobs, what is the next challenge? And the next challenge for us is to ensure the economy continues to create jobs.
QUESTION: You were hiding behind a whiteboard …
MINISTER CASH: Oh, can I just – we have got to very clear. OK, I had nothing to do with the whiteboard. Can I tell you, you think you were surprised? You should have seen the look on my face. I was the one who was surprised. I believe it is parliamentary security have taken full responsibility for what occurred. We advised many journalists of that on the night. Reports, unfortunately, were not changed, but they have answered questions on notice and they had been very, very clear. I had nothing to do with it. My office had nothing to do with it. That was something that the Department of Parliamentary Services took upon themselves.
QUESTION: [Indistinct] federal court judge has issued this subpoena. On what grounds should it be set aside?
MINISTER CASH: Again, I am not a party to the proceedings, but also, David, I think you have to respect the fact that this is part of a court process. I am not going to play the court process out publicly. Andrew.
QUESTION: That being said, correct me if I am wrong, but I think there are two subpoenas in reference to you. One is about attendance and the other one is production of documents.
MINISTER CASH: I think it is the same subpoena.
QUESTION: Are there documents that you have seen that show you were part of an email exchange, for example, that showed the media had been tipped off about the raid?
MINISTER CASH: Not to my knowledge, absolutely not. And I have complied with all subpoenas. I complied with the order to produce the documents back in January.
QUESTION: Wouldn’t you be better just to front up to estimates this week, answer the questions, than have this impression created that you are covering up?
MINISTER CASH: Michelle, with all due respect, I am absolutely not covering up. I am standing here at this point in time, how many journos are here – 15, 20 of you? I am on national television as we speak. I am absolutely making myself available. I made myself available, Michelle, as you know, several times last year. I front question time every single day. What I find very interesting, though, is this is a protection racket to protect Bill Shorten. Way back last year, if the AWU had produced the evidence that those donations were properly authorised, the matter would have ended there and then.
QUESTION: [Indistinct] the AWU did actually release the documents last year, you might remember, in October. There were some documents that had both Bill Shorten’s signature and that of Cesar Melhem.
MINISTER CASH: And they did not confirm what was required.
QUESTION: Minister, you say it is a cover-up, but you won’t answer, despite being asked more than 10 times yesterday, if you have been interviewed by the AFP, if you’ve had any contact with the AFP, have you given a statement to the AFP? Can you answer that once and for all?
MINISTER CASH: Alice, unfortunately, I think you and I both know that, yet again, this is subject to an AFP investigation. And can I again confirm …
QUESTION: How is it subject to an investigation to say if you have spoken to the police though?
MINISTER CASH: … For the record, it is not an AFP investigation into me, it is not an investigation into my office. The police commissioner himself made clear at estimates last year it would not be appropriate to comment. But as I have consistently said, and I again said in Senate Estimates yesterday, the absolute extent of my knowledge is as set out in the days after, on Hansard record. That is the extent of my knowledge. Thank you very much.
Updated
Labor's alternative is looking at changing criteria FWC uses to set the minimum wage so they're more worker friendly. O'Connor says "we're the alternative govt" (and hence Greens plan is pie in sky).
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 30, 2018
Some Mike Bowers QT magic for you:
deputy PM Michael McCormack talks to the member for Capricornia Michelle Landry. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Updated
Dan Tehan has welcomed the Catholic Church’s decision – and is confident WA will soon come on board:
Obviously we still have more work to do, but today’s development is incredibly welcome and I think now goes a long way to making sure that we will have a National Redress Scheme which is comprehensive and will reach as many survivors as we possibly can.
... There were three issues we needed to finalise with the Western Australian State Government. All those issues have been finalised. Now all the Western Australian State government needs to do is go through their all-party processes. Once that is done, my expectation is we will have an announcement from the Western Australia State government in the very near future.”
Updated
Australia is handing back tribal skulls to Indonesia.
Good.
From the statement:
The Australian government has returned four culturally significant tribal skulls to the Indonesian Government at an event this afternoon in Canberra.
The valuable artefacts were handed over by Australian minister for the arts, senator the hon Mitch Fifield, to the ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia to Australia, his excellency Mr Yohanes Kristiarto Soeryo Legowo, at the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia.
The traditionally decorated skulls were each presented in a special box crafted by expert conservators from the National Museum of Australia to ensure the safe transport of the historic artefacts.
Minister Mitch Fifield acknowledged the importance of the return of the cultural treasures.
“Australia and Indonesia have a deep understanding and mutual respect for the culture and heritage of our two countries, and a shared commitment to protect and preserve it,” Minister Fifield said.
“The Australian government is pleased to return these culturally significant decorated skulls from the Dayak and Asmat people to Indonesia, as part of our ongoing efforts to combat the international illegal trade in cultural property.”
Ambassador Legowo said the return was testament to the close law enforcement and cultural ties between Indonesia and Australia.
“The return of cultural property is not only a vivid example of our best practice, but it also signifies that Indonesia and Australia indeed always attach great importance to the protection of cultural heritages,” Ambassador Legowo said.
“Hence, having noticed the growing global trends of illicit trafficking and selling of cultural property with many new forms in recent years, the return ceremony should also serve as an impetus for us to strengthen our cooperation to safeguard cultural treasures and to curb illicit activities of this kind.”
In many societies human remains were carefully preserved and displayed in cult houses or at sacred sites and used in elaborate ceremonies.
The Asmat people from West Papua decorated skulls with seeds and carved seashell rings, while the Dayak people of Borneo decorated skulls with intricate engravings.
“We will return these pieces of Indonesian cultural property to their place of origin in Indonesia,” Ambassador Legowo said.
The ongoing work to prevent the illegal trade in human remains and cultural artefacts is undertaken in Australia under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986.
Updated
First we had Barry O’Sullivan asking if he identified as a woman, would he be able to use the sheila’s bathroom for his smoko, now we have David Leyonhjelm asking if having your period could be classified as a disability.
He’s asking in the context of removing the tax from tampons, for which I commend him, but as someone who has a period, COME ON
Health #estimates committee moving along swiftly now, but not before Senator @DavidLeyonhjelm asked dept if menstruation could be classified a disability to make tampons cheaper. Dept flicked q to Treasury who handle tax. Leyonhjelm says issue being ignored (not by Labor).
— Sean Parnell (@seanparnell) May 30, 2018
The Catholic Church joins the national redress scheme
The prime minister’s office has welcomed the Catholic Church’s decision to join the national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. From the PMO statement:
The National Redress Scheme will provide access to counselling, a direct personal response from the institution and a monetary payment.
Almost 2,500 survivors gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse about sexual abuse in an institution managed by the Catholic Church. According to the royal commission’s final report, 61.8 per cent of all survivors of sexual abuse in a religious institution were from a Catholic-managed institution.
Today’s announcement that the Catholic Church will support the National Redress Scheme is a significant development.
The Catholic Church will be the first non-government institution to opt in to the National Redress Scheme.
If all states and institutions across Australia opt in, the scheme could provide redress to around 60,000 people.
The royal commission put the horrific experiences of survivors on the public record and now the redress scheme will officially acknowledge them and continue the process of healing.
Every government and institution must take responsibility for the abuse that occurred on its watch, and pay the cost of providing redress.
Every state and territory has committed to joining the scheme except Western Australia. The government continues to work very constructively with the Western Australia government as well as other non-government institutions to secure their involvement.
The commonwealth legislation to establish the National Redress Scheme passed the House of Representatives yesterday.
Updated
The Women’s Legal Services Australia has responded to the plan to overhaul the family court system, with a reminder to remember some women are involved in domestic violence situations. From its statement:
Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA) cautiously welcomes some aspect of the planned amalgamation of the family court and federal circuit court and attempts to reduce court waiting times, but fears decreased specialisation may lead to unsafe outcomes for domestic and family violence (DFV) victims and for children.
Federal attorney general, Christian Porter today announced the family court of australia and federal circuit courts will be combined into a new court to be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCA) from 1 January 2019 in an effort to cut substantial waiting times.
WLSA spokesperson Angela Lynch says the organisation cautiously welcomes part of the proposal.
“WLSA welcomes the rationalisation of rules between the two courts. For our clients, the current system is complicated, confusing and expensive with two sets of rules leading to inconsistent outcomes. We’re supportive of moves to rectify this.”
However, Ms Lynch says WLSA has fears the approach may dilute specialisation of the family court needed to safely deal with its high volume of domestic and family violence matters as the proposed changes will potentially see more judges without family law expertise hearing family court matters.
“The numbers are huge. We know at least 50 per cent of family court matters involve domestic violence and child abuse,” Ms Lynch said.
“At a time when other jurisdictions across Australia are recognising the magnitude of domestic violence in the community and are responding with specialised services such as the Gold Coast DV specialist court it’s an interesting choice to say the least to move away from a specialised legal response.”
“If we have judges without the specialised knowledge and training in the complex dynamics of domestic violence and experience in family law, we will see an increase in unsafe and unfair outcomes for victims of domestic violence and their children.”
“We should be increasing judge specialisation not reducing it,”
Ms Lynch said WLSA awaits further detail on the planned changes but says there are also fears that ultimately the decision may result in less resources for family law as the new court may have to compete with the federal court for funding.
“We would like to see more detail. At present there are a lot of questions. It’s not yet clear to us how a rationalisation, without investment in resources will increase capacity.”
Updated
TFW Peter Dutton calls you by your name:
Thank you to @andrewjgiles for providing a reaction that helps sum up some of the last 48 hours in auspol pic.twitter.com/PObUHLcPqk
— Huw Parkinson (@rabbitandcoffee) May 30, 2018
The ABC has responded to Chris Jordan’s comments this morning about the Four Corners episode on the ATO, which took up most of his opening statement. I note though, that despite having a go at the ABC, he has not actually filed a complaint.
ABC statement on the tax commissioner's comments this morning about Four Corners #auspol pic.twitter.com/RYdqyQMcKi
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) May 30, 2018
And apparently we really needed to hear from Paul Fletcher, because the prime minister waits for that stirring performance to end, before calling time on QT.
Chris Bowen has a question on why the government won’t support Labor’s tax cut plan, and Malcolm Turnbull punts it to Scott Morrison.
I suppose we have only heard from the treasurer once today, so I’ll allow it.
Morrison: “I am ... sure that question was not written by Bob Carr. Not even Bob Carr is that stupid. I am sure he is nobody’s puppet, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I quote the leader of the opposition. You may think this quote was from sometime ago, you may think it was maybe back when he was advocating a three-level tax rate in Australia, when he was an advocate for that, but this was only in September of last year. This is what he said in Townsville, the leader of the Labor Party:
‘I think Australians pay enough tax at the moment,’ he said. ‘At the moment’; notice there is a qualifier.
He said, ‘I don’t believe that another tax is going to be what Australians need or want at this stage.’
That is what he said. And he ripped into retirees when he put a $10.6bn in two years tax on retirees.”
Nope, changed my mind. There are limits.
Updated
PDutty exhumes @GuardianAus today in #qt #theundead @murpharoo @AmyRemeikis #politics erymuchalive pic.twitter.com/MKpUuVK9B4
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) May 30, 2018
JUST IN: Catholic Church confirms it's joining the National Redress Scheme for victims of institutional child sex abuse. Big step forward. #auspol @politicsabc pic.twitter.com/Eg636rD1bg
— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) May 30, 2018
Bill Shorten with round three of the health funding war – this time for Tasmania’s Tasreach health service, and will the prime minister match Labor’s $4.5m funding commitment.
And Malcolm Turnbull: (in short)
Contrary to the lies that are being spread by the Labor Party, the federal government is providing increased and record funding for health right across the nation. Whether it is in hospitals, and pharmaceutical benefits, whether it is in Medicare. And we are able to provide that funding because we have the budget under control. Because we are able to bring it back into balance. We are able to put life-saving drugs on the PBS. Not like Labor who had to hold them back because they could not afford to put drugs onto the PBS. You, you know very well. You did not. You held them back. It was a disgrace. A disgrace. You should be ashamed of your record.”
And repeat ad nauseam for the rest of time. Or at least until the election. Which ever comes first.
Updated
Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull are giving us our daily dose of what the election campaign is going to look like.
Turnbull is obviously still scarred from the “Mediscare” campaign which hit a nerve with voters during the 2016 election and really rattled the PM – as anyone could see from the “victory” speech he gave on the night of the poll.
So he is now going very, very hard at calling out Labor “lies”. And in a world of alternative facts, he is being very deliberate in calling them “lies”.
He is also very, very annoyed at the truck Labor has going around Longman, about cuts to health funding. And Labor absolutely loves it when he mentions it because they can all tweet and point to the truck.
Labor: Will you match our $10m announcement to fund chemotherapy treatment at Calboolture Hospital?
— Shorten_Suite 👊 (@Shorten_Suite) May 30, 2018
PM🎩: “You have a lying truck.”#auspol pic.twitter.com/cJliUeNqUT
As for the actual facts – yes, health funding has increased and is at record levels but, yes, Labor is right in that funding has been cut because the rate in which it has increased is lower than was anticipated.
You’ll see a lot more of this in the election campaign – which is effectively now, with five byelections running. It’s going to come down to who voters believe.
Updated
While Christian Porter reads a dixer answer, which is essentially a rehash of all the statements and interviews he has given today, we had a chance to peruse some emails, and it looks like Tony Abbott is about to have some fun.
He’s speaking at an Australian Environment Foundation event:
On Tuesday evening, 3 July 2018, the Hon Tony Abbott – the former PM and current MHR for Warringah in NSW – will speak on ‘Climate change and restraining greenhouse gas emissions’.
This event will be the second in a series of lectures that AEF has established to commemorate the life and work of Prof Robert (Bob) Carter, a former director and scientific adviser. The AEF Bob Carter memorial fund is financing the lectures.
Mr Abbott’s address will conclude with a question and answer session.
Dr Peter Ridd will move the vote of thanks. Peter was a former colleague of Bob Carter at James Cook University and was recently sacked for criticising colleagues’ research on climate change, something for which Bob Carter had previously been sanctioned.”
The Australian Environment Foundation describes itself as:
a non-profit, membership-based organisation that seeks to protect the environment, while preserving the rule of law, property rights, and the freedom of the individual. We take an evidence-based, solution-focused approach to environmental issues.’’
And I am pretty sure it is linked to the IPA*
*A spokesman for the IPA has just contacted me to say there are no “has no financial or organisational links” between it and the AEF. There may have been staff crossover at some point, [as in staff may have worked at both organisations] but the spokesman said that is at a private, not organisational level. So there you have it.
Updated
Peter Dutton dropped the “shady figure” line in relation to Bill Shorten, and Tony Burke interrupted with a point of order about reflecting on the member. Tony Smith:
I was listening carefully. I heard the minister use a phrase that has been used many times without a point of order before. I don’t want to repeat the phrase, but I just make that point.”
Dutton does not withdraw, and instead reads from this article, where he appears to conflate Andrew Giles’s Facebook comments with a source who spoke to the Guardian about the CFMEU Victorian conference voting decision.
Updated
It seems as though even Peter Dutton is bored of dixers. He is basically just repeating what he said yesterday: “You are really safe under this government ... We stopped the boats ... The CFMEU is bad ... ’’
Updated
Brendan O’Connor to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Can the prime minister confirm that minister Cash misled the Senate on five separate occasions, hid behind a whiteboard at her last appearance at Senate estimates, and despite being in the building right now, hasn’t even bothered showing up at Senate estimates? Prime minister, if minister Cash cannot do her job, why does she still have one?”
Turnbull:
“If the leader of the opposition can’t prove he had authority to pay $100,000 of his members’ money to GetUp, why should we believe he did?’
I think that is the equivalent of a “Yeah, nah.”
Updated
Clare O’Neil to Malcolm Turnbull:
“When did the prime minister or his office become aware minister Cash had been ordered by the federal court to give evidence over her and her officers’ involvement over an AFP raid?”
Turnbull:
“If the honourable member’s question is when did I become aware that a subpoena had been issued today, that was this morning.
“I heard about it this morning. And the fact is ... this is the third time a subpoena has been issued. There was one before ... There is a court order setting aside one of the previous subpoenas.
“While the member might be interested in the outcome of the proceedings, she is not a party of it. The document sought might be of assistance to the AWU’s case. The minister has said that her lawyers will apply to set aside this subpoena, as they have the previous ones.
“And the court will make a decision. But the honourable member should recognise that the issue in the proceedings does not relate, does not relate to senator Cash. The issue here is about an attempt to stop the Registered Organisations Commission from finding out whether $100,000 of AWU members’ money was lawfully paid or not.
“That is a legitimate inquiry. Do our honourable members opposite seriously believe, seriously believe, does the member for Hotham, distinguished trade unionist herself, does she seriously believe that the payment of union members’ money to an activist group should be done with authority or not?
“That is the question. She may think that paying tax is a privilege, but I don’t think that union members believe paying their dues is a privilege. They believe it is paid to the union to represent them. To represent them. And handing it out to GetUp, without authority, that should [intelligible] honour and the decency of every trade unionist opposite, but they all seem, Mr Speaker, to be determined to do everything they can to stop the Registered Organisations Commission finding out whether $100,000 of AWU members’ hard-earned cash was paid to GetUp without authority. Surely the truth should out and the leader of the opposition and the union should say whether it was paid with authority or not and stop trying to obstruct this investigation.”
Updated
Is Barnaby Joyce coming back earlier than expected?
While the dixers are going on, I have just been looking over the day, and noticed this:
Michelle Landry, as the Nationals whip, put out this statement regarding Barnaby Joyce’s leave:
The member for New England came to me yesterday and requested personal leave – effective immediately, running to the end of June.
Given his circumstances, and in consultation with the deputy prime minister and the chief government whip, I approved his leave request.”
And yet, Joyce’s tweet says this:
Contrary to reports, I’m taking leave until June 15 following a routine check up. The medical certificate provided allowed for a month. 1/2
— Barnaby Joyce (@Barnaby_Joyce) May 30, 2018
If Joyce comes back on 15 June that puts him back at work in time for the June session of parliament, which begins on 18 June.
Soooooo, is Barnaby coming back before the government wants him to?
Updated
Malcolm Turnbull has continued to target the Australian Workers Union over whether its donations to GetUp were properly made.
Here is more detail on the controversy from our story on 25 October:
The AWU donated $100,000 to GetUp in 2005 and a total of $130,500 in donations to Labor campaigns at the 2007 election, including $25,000 for then national secretary Bill Shorten’s election in Maribyrnong.
The $100,000 donation to GetUp was made up of $50,000 from the AWU national office and $50,000 from the Victorian branch.
On 25 October the AWU national secretary, Daniel Walton, said: “The AWU national executive met to determine and approve the donations to GetUp and the ALP … Those donations were made to further the interests of AWU members. We stood by them then and stand by them today.”
In November 2006 the AWU national executive passed a resolution that requests for donations from Labor candidates in the 2007 election “be left in the hands of the national secretary”.
Walton said that resolution was sufficient to meet the AWU’s requirement for authorisation of donations and was “in keeping with previous practices”.
The Victorian secretary, Ben Davis, said he believed the GetUp donation was “made in accordance with rules and objectives of the AWU”.
Walton said the donations were disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission, producing statements showing the GetUp donations signed by Shorten on 19 January 2007 and then-Victorian secretary Cesar Melhem on in December 2006.
Davis said the AWU had “bragged in [its] journal” about supporting GetUp at the time.
“It’s a matter of public record,” he said. “The fact that we’d give a donation is hardly a shock, especially to Labor candidates including our [then] national secretary [Bill Shorten].”
Andrew Wilkie gets the crossbench question for the second day in a row, and it is on GST:
“Tasmanians are anxious right now about the GST and whether or not the formula will be changed to our disadvantage. This is a separate matter from your Braddon byelection promise that Tasmania will not see its dollar amount of GST reduced. So, prime minister, when will the government respond to the final report of the Productivity Commission inquiries into the GST, and in particular, make clear the government’s intention regarding the formula, and prime minister, most importantly, will you now commit to not changing the GST formula to Tasmania’s disadvantage?”
Malcolm Turnbull:
“The government has been given the Productivity Commission’s final report on horizontal fiscal equalisation, which examined our system for determining how GST revenue is distributed among states and territories.
“This will be released within weeks, not months. But we obviously have to go through it and read it carefully. The government is committed to releasing the report in June. As the treasurer has committed both cabinet and the state and territory treasurers will have the opportunity to be briefed on the report before it is published. There will still be an exhaustive process which follows the Productivity Commission’s report release. We will consider its recommendations and work with the states and territories to come up with a package of reforms. It is important that we take the time to fully examine any proposed changes to our system of horizontal fiscal equalisation and to understand state and territory views and perspectives.
“It is also important that any new arrangements are seen as being fair everywhere. It has to pass the pub test in Burnie, as it does in Bunbury, Ballarat and Bendigo, right around the country.
“Mr Speaker, I can say to the honourable member, whatever changes are made to the GST to make it fairer or more transparent, the payments that Tasmania receives will not be reduced by 1 cent. Tasmania will not lose 1 cent, we will ensure that.”
That Burnie to Bunbury line has been trotted out a few times by the prime minister – he is quite the fan of alliteration.
Updated
Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Does the prime minister have confidence that each statement minister Cash has made to the parliament in relation to the circumstances surrounding the Australian Federal Police raids was truthful.”
Turnbull: “I have complete faith in the minister, Senator Cash.
“A return to the central fact. The AWU has issued a subpoena to Senator Cash. The court has at the request of the AWU.
“... On the application of the union the court issued the subpoena. This is the third subpoena. One was substantially set aside. The other was completely set aside. Senator Cash is entitled to seek to set aside a subpoena if it is judged not relevant. That is a legal matter for the court. Again, the rule of law must prevail. Registered Organisations Commission is seeking to determine whether the leader of the opposition paid $100,000 of his members’ money to GetUp without authority. I think all honourable members would agree if the leader of the opposition was paying $100,000 of his members’ money to GetUp without authority that would be a very, very serious wrong. A very serious act of misconduct, misappropriating other people’s money. Now the union has taken action to stop the Registered Organisations Commission investigating this. And the question is why? Because it would be very easy to prove. Plenty of lawyers on that side. All they would need is the minutes of the meeting, duly attested and approved and that would demonstrate that the payment was made with authority. Why hasn’t it been produced? And no wonder people increasingly believe they cannot trust the leader of the opposition with other people’s money, let alone with the management of our economy.”
Updated
In exciting news, dixers have moved from “alternative approaches” to “different courses of action”.
George Orwell would be so proud.
Anyways, John Alexander reads the question without notice that his constituents very much care about the treasurer and we get our first dose of the human pointing finger emoji.
That finger will be up and pointing next Wednesday when Queensland once again dominates state of origin, I can tell you that.
Updated
Speaking of other people’s money...
Fair Work Ombudsman reveals it has spent $180,000 in taxpayer funded external legal costs contesting the AWU subpoena. #estinates
— Ewin Hannan (@EwinHannan) May 30, 2018
Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull:
“I refer to the previous answer. As Senator Cash has nothing to hide from the federal court, why does she not show up?”
I’m going to save my fingers and refer you to the previous answer on this.
Updated
First dixer and nooooooooppppppppppppe. #deathtodixers
Question time begins
Mark Dreyfus to Malcolm Turnbull:
[It’s on Michaelia Cash, but I missed the first part because I was stuffing my face] Why is the minister refusing to give evidence under oath? Why is it that the minister will say it to a media conference or even to the parliament, but not under oath?
Turnbull: “Mr Speaker, the unions, the AWU, the AWU, supported by the honourable member, is doing everything it can to stop the registered organisations commission from finding out whether the leader of the opposition paid $100,000 of AWU members dues money to GetUp without authorisation. That is what it is about. So the issue is this.
“[There are interjections]... No doubt the member believes in the rule of law. He is. He is a QC. He is. He is a lawyer. Anyone can go to jail if they get the right lawyer. It is important to have the right one. Mr Speaker, the member for Isaacs knows well it would be a very, very serious matter if a union paid $100,000 of its members funds to GetUp without authorisation.
“Senator Cash is not a party to the proceedings. The wrongdoings, suspected wrongdoing that is being investigated is the payment of$100,000 by the leader of the opposition to it GetUp. Now, if he did that, with authority, all we need to see is the minutes of the executive committee meeting proving its with an affidavit from the secretary saying it is a true and correct record. That is all the leader of the opposition needs to provide. And armed with such a great legal advisor as the member for Isaacs, the leader of the opposition would know this. So a reasonable person, observing the failure of the leader of the opposition to prove the payment was authorised, and the determination of the union to stop the payment being investigated, can only assume that the payment was not authorised. And that is the cover-up, that is the shameful act that the Labor Party and the member for Isaacs are trying to obfuscate.”
Updated
Mike Bowers was in the Blue Room
Updated
I just looked at the time and realised we were in the downhill slide into question time.
I am ready to go hide under my desk, so I can’t imagine how you are all feeling.
Meanwhile, back in the employment estimates hearing:
FWO Natalie James: the situation remains as last we spoke at #estimates, the AFP continues to investigate [the AWU raid leak], the public interest immunity claim still applies, "I'm not prepared to traverse that area" #auspol #ausunions
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) May 30, 2018
As for the bullying allegations, Mark Dreyfus wanted to know how asking questions was now considered ‘bullying’:
“Where is the bullying here? This is a minister, a cabinet minister, who has misled the chamber she is a member of, five times, and she is still not saying - she was discovered, she was found out, because she sacked her media advisor, David de Garis, who was the person who apparently, tipped off the media about the raid, but she is not answering questions, despite her misleading of the Senate, that is why she needs go back to Senate estimates and answer the questions.
“She needs to be the minister she has been appointed to be, otherwise, the prime minister should be considering her position and so should she, because she is not prepared to do her job, she is not prepared to be accountable, she is not prepared to answer the hard questions.
“It is a really disgraceful performance, but really, she has topped it off with the angry and defensive press conference she has just given.”
Barnaby Joyce has popped up again today - on Twitter this time:
Contrary to reports, I’m taking leave until June 15 following a routine check up. The medical certificate provided allowed for a month. 1/2
— Barnaby Joyce (@Barnaby_Joyce) May 30, 2018
I look forward to resuming parliamentary duties. The electorate office will continue normal operations in this fortnight. 2/2
— Barnaby Joyce (@Barnaby_Joyce) May 30, 2018
Mark Dreyfus was on Sky immediately after the Michaelia Cash press conference:
“What we’ve seen is an angry and defensive press conference from Senator Cash. What a crisis-ridden government which is just lurching from one crisis to the next.
“As Senator Cash knows, it is an order of the federal court of Australia that she appear. She can say whatever she likes. She seems quite willing to comment when she thinks she can wound Labor or wound the union movement, but when any hard question is asked of her, she says ‘oh no, that’s a court proceeding’, or ‘oh no, that’s an AFP investigation’. She needs to answer critical questions. She should do her job and go into Senate estimates and answer questions there.
“This ducking – what is she the minister for? She is apparently not the minister for very much, she wants to say Craig Laundy is the minister – he is not in the Senate.
“She is and she should be fronting Senate estimates right now.”
Updated
So, not going to estimates, will be fighting the court summons, it’s actually Bill Shorten who has the questions to answer, and the whiteboard was nothing to do with her.
“You should have seen my face,” she says.
We couldn’t though. Because it was behind a whiteboard.
Updated
Why won’t she even answer the question of whether she has been interviewed by the AFP?
Unfortunately, I think you and I both know that this is subject to an AFP investigation. Can I again, confirm, for the record, it is not an AFP investigation into me, it is not an investigation into my office.
The police commissioner himself made clear in estimates last year it would not be appropriate to comment.
But as I have consistently said again and again in Senate estimates yesterday, the absolute extent of my knowledge is as set out in the days after on Hansard record. That is the extent of my knowledge. Thank you very much.”
It is still Labor’s fault:
I am absolutely not covering up. I am standing here at this point in time, how many journalists are here? Fifteen [to] 20 of you? I am on national television as we speak. I am absolutely making myself available.
I made myself available, as you know, several times last year. I front question time every single day. What I find very interesting though is this is a protection racket to protect Bill Shorten. Way back last year, if the AWU had produced the evidence that those donations were properly authorised, the matter would have ended there and then.
Updated
This may be the first and only time you hear this from a minister: I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WHITEBOARD
Can I be very clear, I had nothing to do with the whiteboard. Can I tell you? Do you think you were surprised? You should have seen the look on my face. I was the one who surprised. I believe it is parliamentary security who had taken full responsibility for what occurred. We advised many journalists of that on the night.
“Reports, unfortunately, were not changed. But they have answered questions on notice and they had been very, very clear. I had nothing to do with it. My office had nothing to do with it. That was something that the Department of Parliamentary services took upon themselves.
Updated
Will the minister re-appear back in estimates?
You would be aware that I have answered numerous questions in estimates over many, many days and weeks now.
I will not be bullied by the Australian Labor Party. I am not the relevant minister. Craig Laundy is the relevant minister. I will attend estimates when I am the responsible minister.
Michaelia Cash:
The AWU has refused to provide evidence that donations made, when Bill Shorten was the national secretary, were properly authorised. The fundamental question is, when Mr Shorten was secretary of the AWU, did he donate $100,000 of union members money to GetUp, of which he was a director at the time, without proper approval of the unions’ executive.
Today is just another effort by the union movement to protect Bill Shorten. The government will always stand up to protect workers and ensure that the members’ dues, hard-working money handed over by members, are not used inappropriately.
Updated
'Bill Shorten has questions to answer' – Michaelia Cash
Michaelia Cash is calling this a “Labor/union stunt” and says this is the third subpoena she has been issued.
It does not surprise me that the AWU is trying this tactic again. Can I confirm, for the record, because there does seem to be some confusion. I am not a party to these proceedings. The proceedings themselves are actually between the Australian Workers’ Union and the registered organisations commission. Again, I am not a party to these proceedings. Of course, at the heart of these proceedings, the fact that Labor and the AWU want you to forget. The person who has questions to answer is the former head of the AWU, Bill Shorten.”
Updated
Michaelia Cash will hold a press conference at 1pm.
Stay tuned.
Michaelia Cash to apply to set subpoena aside
The federal court has reissued a subpoena at the behest of the Australian Workers Union for Michaelia Cash to give evidence in its challenge against the legality of the Australian Federal Police raid.
Unless the subpoena is torn up this will mean on 1 August Cash has to tell her side of the story about the leak to the media about the AFP raid.
Guardian Australia can confirm that Cash will apply to have the subpoena set aside before an 8 June case management hearing. So we have a subpoena but no final answer about whether Cash will have to front court, pending that challenge.
Updated
Christopher Pyne spoke about Barnaby Joyce’s personal leave this morning, as part of his regular 5AA radio slot with Anthony Albanese:
Well, it would depend on the circumstances of the individual worker. So parliament sits until, I think, 28 June. He is not on leave from turning up to work if he chooses to do so after that, but he is just on leave from parliament and parliament doesn’t sit again until mid-August and that’s the time frame you’re looking at from parliament. Whether Barnaby is well enough to return to work in his electorate office in New England is really a matter for him and his medical practitioner, not a matter for me to cast judgement on.”
Updated
Asked if Michaelia Cash’s position is now “untenable”, Julie Bishop says:
Absolutely not. There have been a number of ministers over the years required to attend proceedings and they comply with that requirement.”
Meanwhile, there is a bit of chatter around here that Cash is considering potentially challenging the subpoena, but nothing firmed up as yet.
Darren Chester turned up on Sky, after his very brief appearance in the Mural Hall, where he accused the AWU of “bullying” Michaelia Cash .
Asked if he believed it to be sexism, Chester said “absolutely”.
“I think they are bullies, they are trying to bully this minister, I think it is to create a smoke screen trying to divert attention away from the good work she is doing.”
Topics being tackled in community affairs estimates today are private health insurance, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and Medicare.
Senator David Leyonhjelm has asked health department staff about whether doctors who are authorised to prescribe RU486 for medical terminations could have their details listed online to make it easier for women to find them.
The department responds that doing so might breach privacy laws and be a criminal offence, and that there is nothing stopping doctors advertising that they are qualified to provide the medicine themselves. There are 1476 doctors registered to prescribe RU486 in Australia.
Leyonhjelm is told that even if a government-managed list of prescribing doctors was made available, the department would have to consider the cost to the community of continuously updating it.
Updated
The Greens are also considering their position on the family court changes:
Delays in the family court system should be addressed by more funding for the courts, legal aid and community legal centres, Greens Justice spokesperson Nick McKim says.
“Families should have their cases resolved quickly and compassionately,” Senator McKim said.
“Unfortunately that is not happening because of overstretched courts, community legal centres and legal aid.”
“The Liberals urgently need to invest in these areas to help families in crisis move on and resolve their cases.”
“We are also yet to see the government reinvest the savings from merging the back office functions of the family court and federal circuit court.”
Updated
Network Seven have released the promo for the Barnaby Joyce and Vikki Campion interview.
This is how they are promoting it:
She’s the woman at the centre of the biggest political scandal in decades, yet nobody has heard her side of the story … until now.
In an exclusive Sunday Night interview, Vikki Campion opens up for the first time about her illicit affair with Barnaby Joyce, their newborn son, and the pressure that almost drove her to do the unthinkable.
Raw, unfiltered and brutally honest.
Nothing is off limits as Vikki addresses the endless speculation about the affair and their working relationship, the showdown with Barnaby’s wife, the cruel and relentless attacks and the question of the child’s paternity.
And Barnaby Joyce takes aim at his colleagues over his treatment in the wake of the scandal that would ultimately cost him his job as deputy prime minister.
But, as Alex Cullen reports, this is also a very human story – at the heart of it, the couple’s gorgeous son, Sebastian, who became the most talked about baby in Australia.”
That’s on Sunday night, for anyone who is interested.
Updated
Darren Chester held a very, very brief press conference where he was asked about Michaelia Cash:
They are the issues of the minister to discuss at the appropriate time.”
After which he ended it.
I have had ice cubes last longer on a 40 degree day.
Updated
Meanwhile, in Queensland, Bob Katter is still working on getting north Queensland seceded:
“Boot Brisbane,” some are saying in the north... @abcnews #qldpol pic.twitter.com/E7CEgBVo9J
— Chris O'Brien (@COBrienBris) May 30, 2018
Labor is considering its response to the proposed family court changes. Here is Mark Dreyfus’s statement on the issue:
Labor welcomes the government’s acknowledgement of the crisis in the family court system, and the pain it is causing families caught up in it.
This situation has been going for far too long, and has worsened on the government’s watch.
Any change aimed at improving the experience of families when they are going through their toughest time must be given worthy consideration, and Labor will examine closely the government’s legislation when it is presented.
However, the government has some explaining to do as to why it believes the effective abolition of the family court is the solution to the current crisis. It claims 8,000 more family law matters will be cleared every year – nearly 40 per cent of the current backlog. On what basis does it make this claim?
There is little detail as to how the “single point of entry” to the merged federal circuit court and family court will work. Serious concerns have also been raised at the removal of the appeals division of the family court – which means that the toughest and most complex family law cases will no longer be heard by specialists.
Moreover, the government has not acknowledged several other factors that have contributed to the current backlogs in the court system – including judicial vacancies not filled for months, a funding crisis in legal assistance services and an increase in unrepresented litigants. Any solution to this crisis will not be complete if these factors are not addressed.
The government’s proposal also does not address recommendations made by former chief justice of the family court Diana Bryant for a funding injection to provide for an increased number of registrars and family consultants, so that families can avoid having to go to court in the first place.
Finally, there has been some suggestion in recent media reporting, in the form of unattributed statements, that the current backlog is partly caused by judges not working hard enough, or allowing appeal judgments to be coloured by personal opinion. This is offensive to the hard-working judges of the family court, who do a very difficult job. It is time for such statements to stop.
Updated
.@BOConnorMP: For seven months now, Minister @SenatorCash has refused to make account of the conduct of her office.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) May 30, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/DiVf8PcIa1#SkyLiveNow pic.twitter.com/8EtIrI6LXc
The committee is back and has “unanimously resolved” to invite Michaelia Cash to return to give evidence.
Labor calls on Cash to 'consider her position'
Brendan O’Connor is holding a press conference, where he is calling for Michaelia Cash to consider her future as a minister:
This is not just about a crime, it is also about ministerial responsibility and the fact that the minister is hiding behind public interest immunity and on one occasion, tragically and comically, hid behind a moving whiteboard to avoid scrutiny, says everything about this government,” he said. [Although in fairness, the whiteboard was apparently the work of ‘overzealous’ security officers.]
“It is about not being accountable to the parliament and indeed, for those reasons, the prime minister needs to consider the position of the minister.
“The minister herself won’t make a decision to resign, the prime minister should consider that position because quite frankly, it is untenable for this to continue.
“It has gone on for seven months and I do believe it was incumbent on the minister originally to answer these questions and today, she has been unable to account for her conduct or the conduct of her office and now, she is not even in a position to do her day job, not turning up to estimates today, and leaving estimates early yesterday, instead of representing the minister that she’s supposed to be representing in budget estimates.
Updated
Penny Wong has entered the employment estimates hearing. It is now on a short break while the committee (the non-government members at least) attempt to force Michaelia Cash to appear.
Updated
Doug Cameron and Murray Watt can not believe the gift they have been given in this estimates.
Zed Seselja looks like he wishes he was anywhere else.
Cameron: Minister, why are we engaging in this cover up. Why can’t we just get the minister here? I mean, you shouldn’t engage in this.
Seselja: I completely reject your assertion.
Cameron: Well, it seems like a cover up to me.
Seselja: Well, you allege all sorts of things in this place, Senator Cameron and much of it is not true, so.
Cameron: Well, I am just asking you, why you are engaging in the cover up, you should be assisting the estimates committee to get the information.
Seselja: That is exactly what I have been [doing] and the officials are here ready, and they have been answering your questions. If you have further questions for them, I am sure you will continue to answer them.
Cameron: So can you ask, on notice, when the prime minister became aware of this subpoena?
Seselja: I’ll take it on notice
Cameron: Has the ... have any other ministers been advised to your notice? Mr [Craig] Laundy?
Seselja: I am not aware of that ... I am happy to take it on notice.
Watt: When were you asked to appear today instead of minister [Michaelia] Cash?
Seselja: I think sometime in the last couple of weeks when things, when arrangements were being put in place.
Watt: When things were ...
Seselja: [sighs] When we work out who’s going to be sitting in the chair.
Watt: So you were asked a couple of weeks ago ...
Seselja: It was sometime ago, it was put in my diary.
Watt: It wasn’t this week?
Seselja: No, I don’t believe so.
Watt: And what reason was given to you at the time about why you needed to, rather than the minister who represents minister Laundy in the Senate?
Seselja: No reason is given, as you may be aware, and as Senator Cameron would have been aware when he was in a similar role, assistant ministers ministers come along when they are asked.
Watt: Over the last few weeks, what we have learned is that a number of minister Cash’s appointees have hit trouble with the law. We have had Mr [Nigel] Hadgkiss, who was found to break the law, we have had Mr [John] Lloyd who is under investigation for breaking the law, we’ve got at least one staffer of minister Cash who is under police investigation – what does it say about minister Cash, that all around her is this trail of lawbreaking?
Seselja: I reject that completely.
Watt: But you can’t deny – almost every person ... numerous senior people around her, in many cases handpicked by her, are now facing police investigation or other investigation for breaking the law. What does that say about minister Cash?
Seselja: You’ve got to be kidding, I mean you know ... I reject your assertion. For you and your colleagues to come here, when you come in this place, consistently to defend the law-breaking CFMEU and some of the worst offenders there, I completely reject your assertions.
Updated
The federal court has reissued subpoenas against jobs and innovation minister Michaelia Cash in the Australian Workers Union raid leak matter.
Subpoenas were issued last year and in December Cash failed in a legal bid to avoid handing over documents, but the AWU’s federal court case was interrupted by the Australian Federal Police investigation into the leak.
Those subpoenas have now been reissued, meaning:
- By 20 June Cash, former Fair Work Ombudsman employee Mark Lee and former Cash staffer David De Garis must produce any documents they might have, such as correspondence discussing the raid of the AWU headquarters
- By 1 August Cash, Lee, De Garis and ROC official Chris Enright will give oral evidence
Doug Cameron is now asking if Cash can return to Senate estimates to answer questions about the subpoenas.
Updated
Doug Cameron is now asking whether or not Michaelia Cash can be brought before the committee.
She is going to be approached, but no promises.
Michaelia Cash subpoenaed in AWU raids case
Michaelia Cash may have skipped estimates (although her social media shows she is in the building, making social media videos with backbenchers) but there has been movement in the AWU case
#BREAKING The Federal Court has issued a subpoena, requiring Jobs Minister Michaelia Cash to give evidence in the Australian Workers Union raids case. More to come. #auspol
— Matthew Doran (@MattDoran91) May 30, 2018
On energy, Josh Frydenberg was a little more forthcoming on the “discussion” that occurred in the joint-party room yesterday, where Tony Abbott asked whether the Neg was coming back to the party room before the energy minister’s Coag meeting, and was told NO.
“There was a discussion about the process going forward to the meeting in August with the states and the territories.
“I made it very clear that what will be discussed with the states and territories is consistent with what has been discussed and approved with the party room previously, but there will be legislation required at a federal level as well as the state level, should there be an agreement in August on the National Energy Guarantee.
“It is at that time that the party room can discuss the matter further.”
Updated
"It is what it is"
Government MPs are hoping Barnaby Joyce’s leave will draw a line under the saga.
Here was Josh Frydenberg talking to Sky a little bit earlier:
“It is not for me or others to make a moral judgement on Barnaby Joyce. I would rather just leave it there and obviously our thoughts are with him and his family right now.
“... It is what it is. And he is has now taken leave, which is something that obviously he sought, and if it is right for him, it is right for us.
“... I have said it is not for me to be lecturing Barnaby Joyce on this matter. Personally, I wouldn’t have done it [the interview] but that is his personal choice that he has made and it is what it is.”
Updated
The Labor senator Kristina Keneally is pressing Chris Jordan about why he’s complaining about the ABC without lodging a complaint.
Keneally refers back to a flourish in Jordan’s opening statement about the ATO not being inclined to boil people to death.
Keneally: Did anyone at the ABC suggest the ATO wanted to boil people to death?
Jordan said a comment to that effect was put to air. One of the participants in the program said words to that effect.
Keneally: A person who was being interviewed said that?
Jordan says the comment wasn’t appropriate.
Updated
Side note for a moment to give a MASSIVE congratulations to my brilliant colleagues Gareth Hutchens and Greg Jericho for their Walkley nomination for their investigation into Australia’s low wage growth.
If you haven’t checked it out, I recommend you do. You’ll find the whole project here.
Updated
Despite Chris Jordan’s passive aggressive opening statement to ATO estimates (see a few posts down), he hasn’t actually DONE anything about his complaints:
The ATO confirms it has not lodged a formal complaint with the ABC about the Fairfax/Four Corners report on the Tax Office. "I haven't ruled it out in the future," says Commissioner Chris Jordan. #auspol
— Eryk Bagshaw (@ErykBagshaw) May 29, 2018
So, it’s like me when I get served a crap coffee – I’ll whinge about it, probably on my insta, but not actually do anything about it.
Updated
Nationals party whip, Michelle Landry, has made it official, official:
The member for New England came to me yesterday and requested personal leave – effective immediately, running to the end of June.
Given his circumstances, and in consultation with the deputy prime minister and the chief government whip, I approved his leave request.
The Labor Party has granted the member for New England a pair for this period.
Leave of this nature is routinely approved.
We all look forward to the member for New England re-joining us after his period of leave.
Updated
The Greens have announced a policy to peg the minimum wage to 60% of the median wage.
The policy replicates the Australian Council of Trade Unions call for the minimum wage to become a “living wage” and comes after the Greens endorsed the unions’ Change the Rules campaign.
The policy will create some product differentiation from Labor, which promised a more aggressive approach on the minimum wage but is looking at other options like changing the criteria the Fair Work Commission uses to set it, rather than pegging the minimum wage.
Greens employment spokesman Adam Bandt said “inequality is growing, wages are flat-lining and many full-time workers live in poverty”.
“The best way to make Australia more egalitarian is to lift the minimum wage, raise Newstart and invest in universal services like health and education,” he said.
ACTU secretary Sally McManus welcomed the Greens policy:
We welcome the announcement by @Greens supporting the living wage. No full-time worker should earn poverty wages @AdamBandt
— Sally McManus (@sallymcmanus) May 29, 2018
Updated
We are not mongrel bastards
The tax commissioner Chris Jordan is fronting the economics committee in estimates this morning. He’s cranky with the ABC and Four Corners for a program that went to air earlier this year detailing dealings between the Australian Taxation Office and small businesses.
Jordan says the program wasn’t an investigation, it was a series of “ridiculous allegations”. He says there was “no real investigation by Four Corners” and there is no systemic abuse of small business by the ATO.
Then a comment, offered in the spirit of the eternal why.
Chris Jordan:
Why did the ABC think it was OK to call the staff of the ATO mongrel bastards?
Updated
Simon Birmingham and Michael Keenan both started the morning at a childcare centre this morning.
Mike Bowers was there.
Updated
The shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus said that Labor agrees there’s “a need for reform” because “real problems in the family court system ... [are] causing families pain”.
But Dreyfus told ABC Radio “we need to see the evidence for this proposed near abolition of the family court”. Labor is concerned that failure to make appointments to the family court division of the new court will phase out family law specialists.
Dreyfus said the government was blaming a lack of efficiency, when failure to fill judicial vacancies and funding that has not increased in line with inflation since Tony Abbott was elected were to blame.
Dreyfus noted that Pauline Hanson supports abolition of the family court and called on the government to explain if the changes were part of a deal.
Updated
Like clockwork
It looks like there are going to be huge changes to the Australian Family Law system. I took this to the last election & I am very proud of the role @OneNationAus has played in getting this result. There is still a lot to be done but it looks like we are on the right track! -PH
— Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺 (@PaulineHansonOz) May 29, 2018
National security legislation review ordered
It’s been a busy morning for the attorney general. Christian Porter has not only announced a family court revamp, he is also looking at national security.
Here’s the statement his office sent out on that:
The Turnbull government will undertake the most significant review of intelligence legislation in more than 40 years.
Former director general of security, the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Dennis Richardson AO, will head the review, which will examine the legal framework underpinning Australia’s intelligence community and capability.
This will be the most comprehensive review of intelligence legislation in Australia since the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in the 1970s.
The review was a key recommendation of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review conducted by Michael L’Estrange AO and Stephen Merchant PSM.
The legislative framework governing our intelligence agencies has evolved considerably since the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 were first introduced.
The Coalition government has so far passed 10 tranches of legislative reforms to properly equip our security agencies with the legal framework they need to respond to current and emerging security challenges. The 11th tranche of legislation to modernise espionage offences and establish new foreign interference offences is currently before the parliament.
The national security environment is constantly changing and it is essential that we ensure our agencies have the tools and framework they need to be effective and meet their core function – keeping Australians safe.
The review will consider options for harmonising and modernising the legislative framework that governs the activities of our intelligence agencies to ensure they operate with clear, coherent and consistent powers, protections and oversight.
Mr Richardson is ideally-placed to undertake this important review, having an extensive career in the Australian public service, particularly in the national security, defence and foreign affairs environment. He was secretary of the Department of Defence from 2012 to 2017; director general of Asio from 1996 to 2005; secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 2010-2012 prior to which he was Australia’s ambassador to the United States.
In addition to intelligence agencies, the review will consider the legislative frameworks for the intelligence functions of the Department of Home Affairs, Australian Federal Police, Australian Transactional Report Analysis Centre and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. This is consistent with the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review’s recommendation to consolidate and expand linkages between members of the national intelligence community.
Terms of reference for the review will be announced in the near future. It is expected the review will be completed within 18 months.
Updated
It was a very, very foggy morning in the capital – and Mike Bowers was out and among it.
Updated
Before Barnaby Joyce went on leave on Tuesday, he popped with a bright idea to introduce a new tort – the right to sue for – invasions of privacy.
The idea has been kicking around legal circles for decades because Australia has very poor protection of the right to privacy, and several recent inquiries have recommended creating the right to sue for serious breaches of privacy.
The attorney general, Christian Porter, was asked about Joyce’s plan on ABC AM and responded bluntly:
“Can I say that is not a primary focus of government, we’re about to talk about one of the primary focuses of the government [family law reform], but that ain’t one.
Regardless of Porter slapping down the idea, it’s not even clear such a right to privacy would extend to preventing the Daily Telegraph snapping a pregnant Vikki Campion walking across the street.
The Australian Law Reform Commission has suggested the tort should only apply where “a person in the position of the plaintiff would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy”. I’m not sure you can expect not to have a photograph taken when you’re in a public place.
The ALRC proposal is that invasions of privacy would only be actionable where there is:
- intrusion upon seclusion, such as by physically intruding into the plaintiff’s private space or by watching, listening to or recording the plaintiff’s private activities or private affairs; or
- misuse of private information, such as by collecting or disclosing private information about the plaintiff.
Updated
Good morning and welcome to day 28
Once again, the political action spilled into the night, with the prime minister’s office announcing Barnaby Joyce had requested, and had been approved, paid personal leave, late on Tuesday.
Joyce won’t be back until August. In the meantime, his interview with partner Vikki Campion will have aired – the promos for that were released last night.
.@Barnaby_Joyce takes personal leave after criticism over selling his story in tell-all interview. https://t.co/BwQeCVbP1i @Riley7News #auspol #7News pic.twitter.com/6vF1BxqKiH
— 7 News Brisbane (@7NewsBrisbane) May 29, 2018
Meanwhile, Christian Porter has announced a massive overhaul of the family court system, proposing merging it with the federal court circuit from 2019, with the aim of hearing 8,000 more cases every year.
As Paul Karp reports:
The attorney general, Christian Porter, also announced a new family law appeal division in the federal court of Australia to hear all appeals from the new federal circuit and family court of Australia.
Porter said the single entry point for family law matters “will help Australian families resolve their disputes faster by improving the efficiency of the existing split family law system, reducing the backlog of matters before the family law courts, and driving faster, cheaper and more consistent dispute resolution”.
George Brandis, who started the process, said not seeing through the court reforms was one of his regrets, as he headed into retirement, as our man in London, and you can absolutely guarantee Pauline Hanson is going to take some credit for this, given it is one of her platforms.
Estimates is still rolling on, which includes jobs and small business, which Michaelia Cash has sent her apologies for, sending Zed Seselja along instead. We’ll cover all of that, as well as the chamber shenanigans. Mike Bowers has been out and about since before the sun was up, so I’ll bring you his work, and you can follow along with him on Instagram at @mikepbowers and as part of the behind-the-scenes story on @pyjamapolitics
You’ll find me in the comments, or, more immediately, on Twitter at @amyremeikis.
I’ve started the day with Smarties, if that gives you any idea of where my head is at.
Are you ready?
Let’s get started!
Updated
