Good night and good luck
Well, that’s it my friends – all I can manage for Tuesday. Thank you dear readers, hate readers, neutral readers, curious readers – take a bow.
Let’s try and work out what happened today.
Pensions:
- The Greens said yes to the government’s pension reforms, which was fortunate for the government, because Labor said no. The Greens said they wanted an inquiry into retirement incomes in return for saying yes, but they didn’t really get that. They got a couple of weeks extra consultation in the tax review.
Boats:
- We still have no idea whether Australian officials paid people smugglers to take asylum seekers back to Indonesia. The debate rolls on in the absence of known knowns – although Labor decided to back off from the inquisition after it became the story. Labor said it had not paid people smugglers to turn back boats while in office, but it couldn’t say what other payments might have been authorised on its watch. Discretion became the better part of valour.
Citizenship:
- The government still hasn’t produced legislation on citizenship revocations. The prime minister suggested today it was simply following Bret Walker’s advice – the former national security legislation monitor had told the government to create a power for a minister to strip citizenship on security grounds. Unfortunately for the government, Walker has made it clear he made no such recommendation. Furthermore, Walker has told the government to stop misrepresenting his advice.
There was more, but there’s your main points.
Enjoy the Killing Season if that’s your pleasure. See you in the morning.
To be fair to the Greens, given the government has ridiculously ruled out any changes to super tax concessions (despite clear arguments in the tax review and elsewhere for change) – it would have been impossible to budge the government anyway.
Interesting that was nailed down so quickly. The government is making it clear it doesn’t intend to give any ground on retirement incomes – apart from a few more weeks consulting. The Greens must have wanted to do this to agree to changing the assets test with such limited scope to achieve anything substantial on retirement incomes.
Hockey’s statement tonight:
The government’s objectives for our retirement income system are to ensure stability and certainty, while optimising retirement incomes, ensuring fiscal sustainability and equity and encouraging self-provision for retirement.
This is why the government has given clear commitments that there will be no unexpected, adverse changes to superannuation in this term of government nor do we have any plans for such changes beyond the next election.
Specifically, the government will not increase taxes on superannuation and will not remove any current flexibility in accessing superannuation in retirement.
Ah yes, here's the deal. Pension peace in our time
A statement from the Greens leader Richard Di Natale, confirming his party has said yes to changes to the pension assets test.
When I took on the leadership of the Greens I said I was here to get positive outcomes for the community wherever I could, so I’m pleased to be able to deliver on this. The government has agreed to give special consideration to retirement incomes in its Tax White Paper, which means we can finally look at superannuation as part of the equation.
Let's talk about retirement incomes provided we don't have to do anything
Interesting statement just issued by the treasurer, Joe Hockey, about extending the consultation period for the tax white paper.
As a result of the strong public response to the tax white paper, stakeholder interest in the retirement incomes component of this review and discussions with the Senate, the government has decided to extend the submission period by six weeks and initiate an additional stakeholder engagement process.
The extension allows more time for interested parties to put their views into the tax white paper process in relation to key interactions between the age pension, superannuation, taxation and employment, consistent with the government’s objective of ensuring stability and the commitments we have made to the Australian people.
This will facilitate more detailed consideration of the interactions between the tax system and the transfer system, including the sustainability of Australia’s retirement income arrangements.
This sounds a whole lot like a large olive branch to the Greens. Labor today said it would vote against pension changes outlined in the budget. The Greens have expressed an interest but want a review of retirement incomes, including super concessions. Hockey’s statement makes it clear consulting about this issue doesn’t mean doing anything – but it’s a gesture nonetheless.
Updated
I thought I’d share the trust in professions list because there’s a fury typhoon down in the thread about Labor stepping back from scrutiny of the boats issue, and about the failure of journalism. All journalism. Ever.
In terms of Labor, I’ve argued yesterday and today that the opposition should pursue this story, in the parliament, because that’s the forum where misleading can’t happen (as opposed to stonewalling and evasion, which happens routinely, sadly). There is no reason not to pursue this story if their account today was true: if no Labor government authorised payments to people smugglers (criminals) to transport asylum seekers (an unlawful activity). This alleged activity is quite different to other forms of disruption by law enforcement or spooks – paying for intelligence, or preventing a crime.
As for journalism, well, it can only keep pursuing the issue. We can keep asking questions. That’s what we do.
Because it’s mildly fun, back to Essential. Journalists – less trustworthy than bankers – more trustworthy than real estate agents. Politicians – less trustworthy than all of the above.
Q. In general, how much trust do you have in the following professions?
- Doctors 81%
- Engineers 68%
- Accountants 49%
- Lawyers 34%
- Bankers 29%
- Journalists 27%
- Real estate agents 12%
- Politicians 11%
Apart from the new video that has emerged this afternoon, Fairfax Media’s Indonesia correspondent Jewel Topsfield, who is doing an outstanding job on the ground with this payments for people smugglers story, has been shown the money. Yes, that’s a saying in our business, but in this case, it’s a literal statement.
Take it away, Jewel.
Photographs of thousands of US dollars handed to six people smugglers have been provided to Fairfax Media, which Indonesian police say is proof of bribery by Australian officials.
“We have given you the evidence,” says General Endang Sunjaya, the police chief of Nusa Tenggara Timur province.
“It’s now up to you and other organisations to demand an answer from the Australian government.”
Updated
The Essential poll is out and about this evening. The Essential two party preferred number is much like everyone else’s – Labor 52%, Coalition 48%.
There are a couple of questions on housing affordability. Basically we are all worried about whether we can afford to buy a house.
- 33% of the survey think that housing in their area is affordable for someone on an average income – and 60% think it is unaffordable.
- Those most likely to think housing was unaffordable were aged 18-34 (69%), people living in capital cities (69%) and those living in NSW (67%). 48% of those aged 55+ and 45% of those living in regional areas thought housing was affordable.
- 75% think that housing in their area has become less affordable over the last few years – including 42% who though it was a lot less affordable.
- 83% of residents of NSW and 80% of Victorians think housing has become less affordable.
Reverse the trouser.
Happy to withdraw trouser comment in QT today re @billshortenmp - was genuinely oblivious to alt meanings - but he will trouser your super
— Scott Morrison (@ScottMorrisonMP) June 16, 2015
I wasn’t game to raise the full scope of trouser bandit meanings with the social services minister, Scott Morrison. Others obviously have.
More Senate business.
The red room has also agreed to conduct an inquiry into the handling of the Man Monis letter. (This is the one the Sydney siege gunman sent to the attorney-general George Brandis – which the government said initially was passed on to the joint NSW/federal inquiry, then later clarified was not passed on to the joint NSW/federal inquiry.)
Senate business.
The red room has passed the Greens order to produce documents (we flagged this yesterday) – which in theory compels the government to reveal whether taxpayer funds were used to pay people smugglers to transport asylum seekers to Indonesia. The government has 24 hours to comply.
The government won’t comply. The Senate will then have to think about its response.
More on boats and payments. This video from Reuters includes an on camera account from an asylum seeker about the reported payments.
To say I am not amused would be an understatement
My colleague Lenore Taylor has been speaking to Bret Walker after the eyebrow raising question time effort that I’ve covered in the last few posts.
Take it away Bret:
I am impatient with and I condemn those who persist in reading pages of my report as if they say the government can exercise ministerial discretion after dispensing with a criminal trial. I said the minister should have discretion over the revocation of citizenship after a criminal trial ... and it reflects very poorly that those quoting me can’t read beyond the few lines they are citing.
I assume they have been given speaking notes to that effect, but my report does not provide a justification for what they intend to do … it is not what I said, nor what I think now, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. In fact I am saying the opposite. I doubt many of those citing my report have read beyond the one paragraph they refer to and that does not bode well for mature consideration or lawmaking.
To say I am not amused would be an understatement.
Updated
Just because he’s not finished, Malcolm Turnbull notes in the interview he’s still interested in media reform – reform of media ownership. He’d like to see Sky News on free to air television.
Where everyone can see it.
What time is it in New York? Probably doesn’t matter. New York never sleeps.
Access to the courts an important principle? Of course it is.
The communications minister Malcolm Turnbull, meanwhile, is helping out again on Sky News. Turnbull at the moment is explaining the separation of powers to Sky political editor David Speers. It’s quite useful to reflect on these principles when we are celebrating the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, Turnbull notes.
He says it is very important to protect the national security of Australia. Very important. He also notes we all have to comply with the constitution. He notes that the government is still drafting the citizenship legislation, still taking legal advice.
Is access to the courts an important principle, Speers wonders?
Turnbull:
Access to the courts – of course it is.
Boats, Bret and trousers
Because it’s been scrappy, I think we should take stock briefly before adjusting the dials for the early evening.
A few observations.
- Despite vowing to pursue the issue of payments to people smugglers and not give ground to the government on national security, Bill Shorten and Labor asked the government zero questions on this subject in question time. Let me repeat that. Zero. From the government’s perspective, to borrow a Harry Potterism, they’d call that mischief managed. The government is busy telling Labor how much it loves questions on boat arrivals – any questions, bring all your questions – but let’s be clear about this, despite all the bravado on background, the government did not love yesterday. The government today set out to make yesterday yesterday. Labor saw the risks of persisting, and folded.
- Labor attempted to clothe itself in some respectability after electing to ditch boats and payments on the high seas by pursuing the government’s citizenship revocation proposal instead. See everyone? Security. We are pursuing security! The government’s response to quite reasonable questions from Labor was to hide resolutely behind Bret Walker – the eminent lawyer and former national security legislation monitor. So let’s entice the government out from hiding with a quick history of the government and Bret Walker. First point to make is the government ignored Bret Walker’s report for ages. Months. Then they abolished his position in a red tape offensive. (They later rethought this rash move.) Then today, the government pretended there was no greater honour in following Walker’s instructions to the letter, pronto, with feeling. Problem is Walker has made it very clear that the government’s interpretation of his instructions is incorrect. He’s apologised for not spelling out in simple words that revocations should happen after someone is convicted of an offence. Walker has said it never occurred to him that the Australian government would contemplate assuming an unfettered power for itself when it came to a key right – citizenship. Silly Bret.
- Speaking of silly. The other key development of the day was trousers. Everyone was taking something from your trousers. Tony Abbott was trousering pensions. Bill Shorten was trousering ... well, pretty much everything. That’s how it rolls in Canberra these days. Swapping trousers.
Also delightful.
Rise, oh Messiah.
Mikearoo had some transmission issues in question time. Pictures flowing in now, including this lovely frame of the foreign minister. I’ll share more shortly.
A small debate about impartiality
Question time has ended. Former speaker Anna Burke has a question for Madam Speaker. Burke wants to know how it is that Madam Speaker can speak of issues in the media that will come before her in the Speaker’s chair. I’m not sure precisely what Burke means, but perhaps she means Madam Speaker’s comments last night on Q&A on the government’s citizenship revocation proposal.
Madam Speaker is both resigned to this insurrection, and not amused. She tells Burke in Australia’s Ausminster system (our version of Westminster), the speaker is politically affiliated but impartial in the chair.
There is much laughter at that proposition. Haw haw haw.
Madam Speaker, crisply:
Being impartial in the chair doesn’t mean you give into the noisiest lot.
Bishop says she understands it is the job of oppositions to make life difficult for the government. She said when she was in opposition, she took to the calling with alacrity. But she’s displeased at this question from Burke, a former speaker. Not cool Anna.
Quite a satisfying little exchange, this. (Albeit inconclusive.)
Updated
Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek.
Q: Given The Australian Financial Review reports a first home buyer on their own would need to earn about $152,000 a year to afford an average house or unit in Sydney, how can teachers and firefighters expect to buy their first home in Sydney?
Joe Hockey:
Well, for any individual, it is hard in Sydney. It is hard. I know – I understand that.
But what’s interesting is, the Labor party actually wants to make it harder. And why does the Labor party want to make it harder? Because the Labor party has now indicated that they are looking at abolishing negative gearing.
Hockey is going through the stats on low and middle income folks who use negative gearing concessions.
The treasurer:
There are 383,000 Australians earning less than $37,000 a year that have negatively geared properties. And they are using that in a number of cases to try and get into the market to get those investment loans when they may not be able to get a home loan for a particular market.
Updated
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen would like the treasurer Joe Hockey to outline some of the good jobs that he suggested last week were necessary for good folks to get into the housing market in Sydney.
Hockey seems all out of examples. Fortunately Peter Dutton has turned up to declare Labor weak on border protection.
Exhibit A, Bill Shorten’s trousers – an uncomfortable yet everpresent fixation.
Social services minister, Scott Morrison:
The trouser bandit sits over there.
Manager of government business Christopher Pyne says the government wants to help Bill Shorten clear his name at the royal commission into trade unions. He wants Shorten to tell all to clear the air.
Pyne:
The leader of the opposition needs to explain what he knew and when of these emails to Douglas Site Services.
Bishop to Shorten: I think you are being set up
The foreign minister Julie Bishop has the ‘Labor are hypocrites on payments to people smugglers’ Dorothy Dixer.
The foreign minister:
Yesterday, in a fit of confected outrage, the opposition demanded that the government reveal security or intelligence or operational details of Operation Sovereign Borders. Indeed, the manager of opposition business was literally shouting across the dispatch box: ‘A one-word answer will settle this,’ he foamed. ‘A one-word answer that Australian taxpayers have a right to know!’
Yet later, this very same minister, who’s now deeply engaged in conversation that he wasn’t a minute ago, was asked to provide clarification about such matters under the previous Labor government. What’d he say?
The shadow minister for immigration and border protection came up with one word: unlawful. He said, it’s unlawful for the government or the opposition - unlawful for the government or the opposition to divulge security or intelligence information.
Oh is that right? So that was the word, was it? Unlawful.
Now, I don’t know that members of this House saw the excruciating performance of the leader of the opposition about an hour ago, but when he was asked to provide the very same information that had been demanded of the government – he refused.
So it’s ok for the leader of the opposition to refuse to reveal operational details, but not for the government?
And I have some advice for the leader of the opposition. I would be very careful to rule in anything or rule out anything under Labor’s watch.
Don’t rely on the advice of your frontbench on ruling in or ruling out security and intelligence matters on Labor’s watch.
I think you’re being set up.
(A wag might observe Julie Bishop knows a little of being set up, having last week denied any payments to people smugglers, only to have that denial contradicted by a non-denial from the prime minister. Perhaps Shorten should listen up.)
Over in the Senate, the attorney-general, George Brandis also read from the same clause in Bret Walker’s report as Peter Dutton did in the House – pg 57 where it talks about the minister’s power for revocation.
After reading out the passage, attorney-general Brandis said:
We are following that advice to the letter.
Labor’s families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin.
Q: My question is to the prime minister. Why is the prime minister trousering money from part pensioners while at the same time failing to address unsustainable superannuation tax concessions for high income earners?
(Lest you conclude Jenny Macklin has just developed a trouser fixation, she’s quoting Abbott to Abbott. The prime minister likes Bill Shorten trousering various things.)
Tony Abbott:
They’re very sensitive over there, aren’t they? Very, very sensitive. Very sensitive.
How lost is the modern Labor party? I’ve got to say, I never thought I would say that the Greens are showing more sense on this issue than the Labor party. But I believe they are. I believe they are.
I think even the Greens are more interested in sensible pension reform than members opposite.
Today, the opposition decided to deny to 170,000 people with relatively low assets a pension increase of $30 a fortnight.
This is the prime minister, on Labor’s decision today to knock back the government’s pension proposal.
They don’t want poorer pensioners to get more money. What they do want is millionaire pensioners to keep their part pensions. That’s what this opposition wants. They want millionaires who also own their family home, so they want people who have more than a million dollars in assets, plus their family home, to stay as part pensioners.
Well, Madam Speaker, this is a strange position for the Labor party and it shows absolutely comprehensively, this is the welfare party, it’s not the workers’ party any more.
The Messiah rises on punch and shear machines
He’d been thinking for some time about a more efficient punch and shear machine for his metal business.
The small business minister Bruce Billson. A little ray of ‘small business 100% tax deductibility’ sunshine.
Messianic – the prime minister noted in the party room today, of Billson’s approach to his portfolio. Forgot to tell you that. Sorry.
Independent, Andrew Wilkie, to the prime minister.
Q: Prime Minister, seeing as we helped to start the (Iraq) war and create the Islamic State threat, will you acknowledge the Howard government got it very wrong and agree to a proper war inquiry?
Tony Abbott:
I appreciate that this is a matter which is very important to the member for Denison. I appreciate that he had deeply held views on that particular conflict and I would probably be prepared to concede that he was right to feel a little bruised by some of the treatment that he was given at that time.
But I don’t want to dwell on the past. I would rather deal with today’s problems than yesterday’s problems. I would rather prosecute the conflict against the Daesh death cult than try to re prosecute a fight that’s finished against Saddam Hussein.
That’s my honest response to the member for Denison.
After some lyricism about Tony’s tradies, Marles is back.
Q: My question is to the minister for immigration and border protection. I refer to the minister’s previous answer. Why did the minister, in referring to the former independent national security legislation monitor, fail to refer to his comments yesterday that it was “constitutionally unthinkable” to revoke a person’s citizenship without a conviction and that he “never dreamed it would be possible”?
Peter Dutton:
Thank you very much, and I thank the member for his question. Now, I don’t know how you could read into this recommendation those words. Because I can read directly from the report. I can read the honourable Mr Walker’s own words to you. He says “For the minister for immigration to revoke the citizenship of Australians where they’re not rendered stateless, where the minister is satisfied that the person has engaged in acts prejudicial to Australia’s security, and it is not in Australia’s interests for the person ...”
Labor interjects, what about Walker’s comments?
Dutton:
In the end people will make their own judgments because in black and white here, we have the records of Mr Walker SC. We have no issue with Mr Walker. Our issue is with the Labor party because the Labor party tries to sit on both sides of this debate. That’s the problem for Bill Shorten, that’s the problem for this leader of the opposition.
Shadow immigration minister, Richard Marles, to Peter Dutton.
Q: I refer to government’s blatantly political confidential briefing note on the revocation of Australian citizenship in which it states, “A law requiring a terrorist conviction would be toothless.” Can the minister confirm, under his citizenship proposal, he, as minister, will make the decision to revoke Australian citizenship from a dual citizen suspected of fighting against Australia?
Immigration minister Peter Dutton emulates the prime minister. We are just following advice from Bret Walker. That’s what we are doing. (This would be the advice that Walker says he didn’t intend to give.)
Peter Dutton:
I welcome any question whatsoever from the opposition in relation to this very important matter because this government will stare down the threat that is posed to the Australian public as best we can.
We’ve demonstrated that in securing our borders. When Labor was in government, they had completely and utterly lost control of our borders and if you can’t control your borders, you can’t control national security.
Question time
It being 2pm, Madam Speaker calls time on a fascinating tale being recounted by the Liberal MP Dennis Jensen about app-trepreneurs.
A pity I know.
Bill Shorten opens on citizenship. Why haven’t we see legislation, and why is the prime minister trying to destroy bipartisanship on national security?
The prime minister says the legislation is coming. A briefing is coming. Abbott says he’s following a recommendation by Bret Walker – the outgoing national security legislation monitor.
Bret Walker SC said “Consideration should be given to the introduction of a power for the minister for immigration to revoke the citizenship of Australians where the minister is satisfied that the person has engaged in acts prejudicial to Australia’s security and it is not in Australia’s interests for the person to remain in Australia.”
So that’s exactly what we’re doing. That’s exactly what we are doing. We are acting upon the recommendation of Bret Walker SC. That’s what we’re doing, because we will never rest, until we are confident that the Australian people are as safe as we can make them.
Just for the record. Walker has made it very clear over the past few days that was not the intent of his recommendation. He’s said it never occurred to him that any government would consider moving against a citizen in the absence of a conviction by a court. He didn’t think he’d need to spell that out.
Well what on earth do we make of the last five hours?
I’d best attempt a lunchtime summary before we slam face first into the hour of glower.
Tuesday morning, in Canberra (where my blustery forecast first up didn’t accurately capture the powerful northerly gale of .. everything):
- The prime minister said the government will do everything it can (within the law) to stop the boats, and by the by, all is well with Indonesia – mouthy media outlets should stop stirring pots when it comes to the Canberra-Jakarta relationship.
- We remain none the wiser about whether any payments were made to people smugglers, whether the payments were legal, who authorised them – yes, we remain fully fact free.
- Labor is today wearing the consequences of pursuing the government yesterday over the reported payments to people smugglers. Labor’s own record about payments in Indonesia is surfacing in several publications.
- The opposition is attempting to tiptoe through the venus flytraps and stagger through its own mangling of the English language by asserting it did not, like the government, pay for boats to be turned back to Indonesia. Beyond that, these are intelligence matters, and responsible people don’t talk about intelligence matters.
- Labor is also unable to say whether it will support boat turnbacks in the future. That would be a work in progress.
- Labor is, however, able to say it won’t support some of the pension changes unveiled by the Coalition in the May budget.
- This means the government will have to rustle up numbers on the crossbench or with the Greens. But sadly, the Greens want a retirement incomes inquiry the government says it doesn’t want or need.
- The agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, unveiled a wild dogs management strategy and added he’d continue to express his feelings about foreign investment by state-owned enterprises, even if those feelings didn’t exactly line up with government policy. That’s what being a National was all about, he said.
Power to dissidents.
Power to question time – 2pm.
Good viewing.
Updated
Don Randall. It don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that zinG.
My colleague Shalailah Medhora is back from the Coaliton party room debrief. One notable intervention: the Liberal MP Don Randall told colleagues if they wanted to support gay marriage, they could create a roster to do so on the ABC.
Shorten wound up that press conference by stepping around a question on what Labor would do with the citizenship proposal.
Updated
Q: Is Labor going to change its position on turning back the boats?
Bill Shorten:
The terms of our refugee resettlement approach, we are fundamentally commited to the resettlement of refugees. We are working on all of our policies. We will have a full suite of policies at the next election which I’m sure you will like a lot.
Shorten is asked about allegations before the royal commission into trade unions. He says he’ll cooperate fully with the commission but won’t respond to baseless allegations when there is nothing in them.
He’s asked about Labor and disruption of people smuggling operations. Shorten, like Marles, won’t get into the general, but he’ll answer a specific.
I am saying Labor has never paid people smugglers to turn back boats as it appears the government has done.
Q: Labor didn’t condone any payments to people smugglers in Indonesia during your time in government?
I’m certainly not aware of that but what I would say to you is: when it comes to national security matters ... we don’t talk about that. No serious leader does.
(Shorten is trying to say he won’t talk about the general because that might touch on Asis operations, and he won’t do that, but he will rule out specific payments to transmit asylum seekers.)
Q: You told the party room this morning that Labor had made mistakes in the past in respect to boats. What are those mistakes?
Clearly we introduced – there were policies which saw the people smugglers try and take advantage of Australia’s generosity. We are working through these issues. But what I would say is that Labor will not cede the issue of border security to the Liberal party. Labor is determined to make sure we have a strong policy which is humane towards refugees but also safe and make sure the people smugglers can never get back into business.
And I do think this current debate about boats has come about because either the government is incompetent and is saying things that aren’t true or is incompetent and saying things they oughtn’t be talking about.
You and I both know Tony Abbott can clear these matters up very simply with a yes or no just as I’ve done.
Updated
Q: You have repeatedly attacked last year’s budget on the basis of unfairness. Is it not the case this pension proposal is calibrated that people on more modest means get an increase and those at the upper end get a decrease.
How can this not be fairer than the indexation proposal from last year?
Bill Shorten:
When you make it out it is a binary competition, in one corner some pensioners and in the other corner other pensioners. The group you missed is people who have multiple millions of dollars in superannuation.
Let me unpack that a little bit more. What the Abbott government is saying, they want to keep tax-free income for people who have say $5m in super. Say they get 5% return, $250,000 per year. We’ve said that the tax concession, that shouldn’t all be tax-free. That’s what we have said.
Yet what Mr Abbott wants to do is have a fight between different groups of pensioners about fighting over their portion when Mr Abbott is giving a leave pass to people who don’t need – you or I or the taxpayers of Australia to give them tax-free income from massive millions of dollars.
Bill Shorten confirms Labor will reject the budget pension changes
The Labor leader and families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin are having a press conference to back in their pension announcement.
Macklin:
People in their 50s and 60s who are contemplating and planning their retirement right now have to know that these cuts will hurt them. These cuts will hurt those people who are planning their retirement now.
There is around 700,000 people in that category and they are very much in our minds as we make this decision.
Van Onselen also pursues Richard Marles about boat turnbacks. What is his position on turning asylum boats back to Indonesia?
The shadow immigration minister tries very hard to straddle a barbed wire fence. He says Labor will debate turnbacks at the national conference due in July and that will be a good thing – it will be a debate founded on strong values.
Marles says Labor has concerns about turnbacks. This week underscores the concerns. Labor has asked questions about specifics and can’t get answers.
But he also says that noone has any interest in reopening the ocean journey between Java and Christmas Island.
What does that mean? It means watch this space.
On Sky News, the shadow immigration minister Richard Marles is declaring the government has thrown ASIS under the bus in order to distract attention from an incompetent minister. This is about payments to people smugglers.
Marles:
We are not going to answer questions in respect of the conduct of ASIS. Of course we are not going to talk about it because it would be unlawful to do so.
This has nothing to do with ASIS.
Host Peter Van Onselen wants to know whether Labor has ever given money to people smugglers. He doesn’t answer the general question, he answers more specifically.
We’ve never paid money to turn around boats.
I’m now battling the Tuesday acceleration.
My colleague Daniel Hurst is just back from the Labor caucus debrief. Given we are about to hit a press conference on pensions, I’ll keep this briefish. Shorten told colleagues Labor was correct yesterday to pursue the government over the reported payments to people smugglers to take asylum seekers to Indonesia.
The Labor leader said in government the party had made mistakes (these weren’t specified) .. but ..
Because of the chaos of this government the prime minister must rule out paying people smugglers to keep people on unsafe boats. We made mistakes in this area and we have learned the difficult lessons of the past and we remember when the Liberals got together with the Greens to block the Malaysia agreement.
We have every right to ask questions about this and to expect answers. I will not cede this issue to the Liberals. They are not above reproach.
Shorten also faced a couple of questions on citizenship. In the context of the Magna Carta anniversary, he was asked whether Labor was really going to “put our trust in Peter Dutton” when it came to revocation? Daniel tells me Shorten said what he generally says on this issue (We haven’t seen the proposal yet) but he added:
We need to jealously guard the separation of powers.
There was another citizenship-related question on standing up for multicultural Australians.
I haven’t had time to get to it yet but there is a news story around this morning in which Barnaby Joyce departs from the government’s official position on foreign investment by arguing state owned entreprises shouldn’t own Australian farm land. Tony Abbott tried to clean this up at his early press conference this morning. The prime minister said Joyce was merely making the point when it comes to foreign governments, as opposed to private businesses from overseas, different rules apply. They always have and as far as I’m concerned they always will.
The agriculture minister is asked at this press conference why he went off script at a recent National party conference to argue that state owned enterprises shouldn’t own Australian farm land. Joyce makes it clear this is his personal view, and he says he’s entitled to articulate it:
As a member of the National party, at any of these conferences, you have the capacity to speak your mind.
It is why I joined the National party. We believe in the liberty of the individual and the freedom of expression and your capacity to go to the floor, stand behind a microphone and present your view.
Might I say it stands to reason that the preference for the Australian people is that the Australian family owns the Australian farm.
In another little corner of politics, the agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is speaking about dogs. Not the Depp dogs. Wild dogs.
(Mind the signage.) Joyce reflects on the character of the wild dog.
They kill because they enjoy killing.
Updated
Speaking as we were of the Greens, Greens leader Richard Di Natale is holding a press conference just now in the Mural Hall.
Q: What do you make of comments that the prime minister made this morning that Australia’s relationship with Indonesia is growing stronger every day and criticising the media for essentially dividing or creating division between the countries?
This nonsense that this is somehow some invention from the press gallery here in Canberra. We have what is a worrying international incident caused by this prime minister who is simply incapable of recognising that his actions are harming us.
We have got to a point where we have a prime minister who says black is white and white is black. It is not good enough. It is not good enough to continue to engage in this cloak of secrecy that surrounds this debate.
You know why they do it? For one reason. They know that if the press, that if doctors and teachers, people who have been inside our detention centres and know what is going on there, if the Australian community became aware of what is happening in those places, and connected with the stories of these individual human beings who are doing nothing other than coming to us for protection, they know that the Australian community would not tolerate it.
Updated
Labor’s decision on the pensions will mean the government will either have to go to the Senate crossbench, or seek a deal with the Greens. The Greens have made some overtures on the pensions front. But if it’s to be a deal with the Greens, the government will have to cop a comprehensive review of all retirement incomes, including those generous super tax breaks. The government has been hosing down the need for any such review.
If you want to have a look at the explanatory memorandum for the specific budget bill we are talking about, you can find it here.
Cutting to the fiscal chase, Labor’s decision this morning will see it oppose $2.9bn worth of proposed savings, but support $1.5bn worth of proposed savings.
Referenced against the specific measures outlined in the explanatory memorandum, Labor is opposing the assets test changes; the proportional payment of pensions outside Australia; the pensioner education supplement; and the education entry payment. Labor will support defined benefit income streams and the energy supplement replacing seniors supplement.
Bill Shorten and Labor’s families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin will front the media in a bit.
Updated
If you need a prompt for the budget measure Labor is opposing, or opposing in part. Direct from the budget papers:
The government will achieve savings of $2.4bn over five years by increasing the asset test thresholds and the withdrawal rate at which pensions are reduced once the threshold is exceeded.
This measure will improve the targeting of Australian government payments to those most in need by providing additional assistance for those with moderate asset holdings, while reducing assistance to those with more significant asset holdings.
Pensioners who lose pension entitlement on 1 January 2017 as a result of these changes will automatically be issued with a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card or a Health Care Card for those under Age Pension age.
In addition, the government will not proceed with the 2014-15 Budget measure Index Pension and Pension Equivalent Payments by the Consumer Price Index.
Pension and pension equivalent payment rates will continue to be indexed under current arrangements — by the higher of the increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) and benchmarked against Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE).
It being parliamentary Tuesday, the Coalition party room and the Labor caucus are meeting downstairs. It’s clear the citizenship legislation will not appear this week, because it was not put to the Coalition partyroom this morning.
James Massola from Fairfax also has a jump on a Labor development put to caucus.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has announced that Labor will oppose the government’s proposed pension changes. The decision, revealed to the caucus on Tuesday morning, finally makes clear the federal opposition’s position on one of the most contentious measures contained in the budget.
(This is the proposed assets test and taper rates.)
The art of protest.
Speaking of disruption, the constabulary is hard at work at the front of the building, taking names.
I’m not sure if this Oxfam protest person gave his name as enormous headed Tony Abbott. Perhaps he used another name.
Setting aside murderous rage in favour of clarity for the head: again, let’s be clear about boats and payments to people smugglers, or as clear as we can in the absence of help, like facts. (I’m doing this as much for me as for you at this point.)
- Was this conduct legal? This is not a partisan question, it’s a factual question – it applies to any Australian government (through its agents) who may have paid people smugglers (criminals) to transport asylum seekers to a destination.
- And an additional statement in case this point isn’t obvious. Paying people smugglers to transport people to a destination (if that’s what happened) is not the same as cops or spooks paying informants in order to disrupt a crime (if that’s what happened.)
I suspect we’ll keep having to ask these questions. I suspect Labor won’t continue to ask these questions. Let’s see if I’m wrong.
Not sure how I got from Richard Marles’ spokeswoman to murderous rage, but I think I’ll just go with it. Here’s an interview former prime minister Julia Gillard has done with BBC News Night.
Gillard says in this interview she wouldn’t presume to give Hillary Clinton advice, but here’s some advice to the woman who might be the next president of the US: hit those gendered insults hard and early. Don’t let it fester.
Updated
A spokeswoman for the shadow immigration minister Richard Marles is saying this morning of happenings to our north:
Labor didn’t pay people smugglers to turn back boats.
(The Fairfax story says payments under the previous Labor government were to informants, or to stop syndicates from launching boats.)
Another reader has pointed me to a story from Fairfax Media’s David Wroe and Sarah Whyte, which I missed in the early morning flurry.
Cash payments have been made to members of Indonesian people-smuggling rings by Australian intelligence officials for at least the past four years – including under the former Labor government, Fairfax Media has learnt. Multiple sources have said that such payments have been part of successive governments’ tactics, though not always as part of boat turnbacks, which were not used by the previous government. Instances include paying members of syndicates for information about the operations of the syndicate, or to dissuade them from launching boats.
Doesn’t matter to me who made the payments – which stripe of government I mean – the first principles question remains the same. Was the activity within the law?
Updated
On the lawfulness question, Tim Bell, via Twitter.
@murpharoo I've been told that ASIS has power to break the law under some circumstances. What would those be, and who has to authorise it?
— товарищ Tim Bell (@timpoliti) June 15, 2015
Tim is quite correct to say ASIS has wide ranging powers, including immunity if the act is done in the proper performance of a function of the agency.
But right now, I don’t know if the Australian government through its officials made a payment to people smugglers; I don’t know who made the alleged payment, whether it was ASIS or Defence or Customs; I don’t know whether it was properly authorised – lots of questions. Lots of questions.
Let's try and stick to the actual question
Back to boats, and sticking with The Australian, Cameron Stewart and Rowan Callick have a story which provides some useful context to the current controversy about the Australian government reportedly paying people smugglers to return asylum seekers to Indonesia. The story outlines in general terms operations by police and Australian intelligence agencies in Indonesia over many years to disrupt people smuggling networks. Someone let it be known to the Daily Telegraph yesterday that ASIS could have been behind the current payment to people smugglers to return the asylum seekers. The inference this morning is this is all business as usual. Both sides of politics do this sort of stuff, stop the inquisition.
Well, maybe it is business as usual, maybe it isn’t. But I’d encourage Politics Live readers to keep a clear head on this issue. The question about this specific incident – paying people smugglers to transport asylum seekers – is quite clear: was this activity lawful?
Whether you support the government’s asylum policy, or whether you don’t, or whether you don’t care either way, the accountability question remains simple. Is our government acting within the law?
Because I’m dead certain every active citizen in a liberal democracy wants to know the government acts within the law.
We are in all sorts of bother if we start to assume ends justify means.
I’ll come back to boats directly but we do need to transact this morning’s Newspoll. (Do we call this the Galaxy poll now? I’m not sure.)
The fortnightly survey published by The Australian this morning has Labor ahead of the government on the two party preferred measure 51% to the Coalition’s 49%. The satisfaction ratings suggest the public has had about a gutful of major party politics right at the moment. The Labor leader Bill Shorten has a satisfaction rating of 28% – which The Australian reports as a “record low”. Tony Abbott’s satisfaction rating also fell four points since the last survey to 34%. The Newspoll has the Greens on 14%.
As my daughter would say, that feedback to the major parties from the voters amounts to mergh.
Key formulations of the moment, ICYM (them)
I mentioned in the first post the prime minister has squeezed in an off campus visit to a business in Fyshwick. I suspect the prime minister would like more focus on the budget – the good bits anyway. But most of the questions this morning concerned payments to people smugglers to take asylum seekers back to Indonesia: did the Australian government do this? Was it legal? Why won’t the government give a straight answer to the question?
Tony Abbott just deployed his standard formulation(s) in relation to these questions, which are, variously:
- The voters could be assured it had a government intent on keeping them safe.
- The only thing that really counts is we have stopped the boats.
- The most moral thing you can do is stop the boats.
- We’ve done whatever is necessary within the law to stop the boats.
- The citizenship laws will be in the parliament this fortnight. We don’t want these terrorists coming back to Australia.
- Stop the boats. Stop the boats. Stop the boats.
- Labor is soft on boats, soft on boats, soft on boats.
The prime minister was also asked about the government’s relationship with Indonesia given the escalating war of words. (The Australian foreign minister has sent up a red flare, giving Jakarta some free advice about managing its borders. Overnight Indonesia’s vice-president has said that if Australia “bribed” people smugglers to turn back, it could be considered a party to trafficking.)
The prime minister then said something odd in response to the question. The prime minister noted there were many media outlets more interested in promoting discord than in celebrating all the constructive things that happen between our two countries.
(I thought the discord was being perpetrated by ministers in Canberra and Indonesia and reported by news outlets, rather than news outlets promoting discord. I hope the prime minister didn’t mean The Australian’s interview with the foreign minister Julie Bishop yesterday in which she advised Jakarta to close the border. That wouldn’t be friendly.)
Updated
Good morning and welcome to Tuesday in Canberra. The forecast today is rain, with rising bluster.
We have several strong news lines in politics this morning (and the prime minister has already been out to inspect a small business in Fyshwick) but we’ll start with the wash-up from last night’s Q&A program last night, where Madam Speaker Bronwyn Bishop advised the president of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, to get a (political) job.
Bronwyn Bishop, to Triggs:
You have to make the decision: are you a statutory officer, carrying out an obligation with the protection of that office, or do you wish to be a political participant?
If you do wish to be a political participant, then you have to be no longer a statutory officer and stand for office.
There have been so many right left hook combinations landed on Triggs by various government people over the past few months that being told on national television to seek alternative employment seemed more of the same than anything extraordinary, even though it was, of course, extraordinary.
The thematic territory of ‘get a job’ is always somewhat fraught for politicians, as it was for Paul Keating in 1995 ..
.. and for Joe Hockey recently when he entered the housing affordability debate.
And so it was for Madam Speaker last night on social media, where a bunch of wags lined up to note that a Speaker routinely criticised for excessive partisanship was in no position to lecture others on being partisan.
The speaker of the parliament is a statutory role too, and has a fairly politicised incumbent just at the moment. #qanda
— Michael Bachelard (@mbachelard) June 15, 2015
Perhaps the most partisan Speaker in memory lectures the Human Rights Commissioner on becoming a political figure. #auspol #qanda
— mark kenny (@markgkenny) June 15, 2015
Anyway, apart from the free advice from Madam Speaker, who at times appeared to be presiding over the program, (except, unusually, everyone managed to remain at the table rather than being booted under 94A) – or perhaps, because of the free advice, Q&A last night was what it too rarely is, a fine and informative program. If you were watching Game of Thrones, or Tiny House Hunt, or smashing your favourite box set instead, my colleague Daniel Hurst can bring you up to speed with this news story.
Much more to get across so let’s get cracking. You get cracking too. The thread is open for business, and you can find us on the Twits @murpharoo and Mikearoo’s @mpbowers
Buckle up. Here comes Tuesday.
