Night time politics: blessed are the mattress makers
- My colleague Gareth Hutchens has a wonderful story which has just surfaced. Hutchens writes: The Institute of Public Affairs has accused the Coalition of relying on the same language as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn to defend its superannuation changes. The free market thinktank also says the public is seeing the fruits of the campaign it began waging against the government’s super changes three weeks ago, as more Coalition MPs start to understand how unfair the proposed changes are.
- Today, as the remains of 33 Australian soldiers were returned home, the government’s election campaign took a dive when Scott Morrison tried to make a political mileage against Labor. He decried Labor’s war against business (by opposing corporate tax cuts) and Bill Shorten’s toxic tax cuts. There were bullets flying, in ScoMo’s mind but in the end, the head of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia Ken Foster told him to pull his head in. Inappropriate, people. God knows I love a metaphor as much as the next person but ScoMo was left looking rather rather silly.
- Better though was the enunciation of superannuation policy, putting unnamed Coalition backbenchers in their box. Malcolm Turnbull and Steve Ciobo argued giving superannuation policy a haircut was entirely reasonable. Bill Shorten still hammered the point that the retrospective nature of the $500,000 lifetime cap was unfair. Why does the tax office only make you keep receipts for five years and the Coalition want to reach back into your super contributions for nine years?
- But never mind the super. A major seniors’ lobby group has warned the Coalition there is “red hot” anger over changes that will push 100,000 people off the aged pension and said seniors would rally during the election campaign.
- Shorten announced under Labor, the government would derive 50% of its energy mix from renewable sources by 2030. He also spent a bit of time at the fish markets eating oysters. He stayed away from a rat though. Not a good picture for a leader.
- Malcolm Turnbull went to a mattress factory in Sydney to sing the praises of artisan mattress makers, namely Neville, the bearded stitcher. According to the PM, Neville is practically a celebrity in China, where the company ships many mattresses.
That’s it for us. Mel Davey will see you in the morning, followed by Katharine Murphy at 8.30am.
Good night.
Michael Kroger, Victorian president, says the issue of superannuation changes is well down the list reported to him by Liberal members
Two this week have said they have had a couple of people complain...It is a low level issue, seventh or eighth down the list.
Earlier this morning the head of the Northern Land Council let rip on the Indigenous affairs minister, Nigel Scullion.
Addressing a native title conference in Darwin, Joe Morrison said Scullion was “not up to the job” and that if the Coalition won government Malcolm Turnbull should replace him.
The speech was fiery, but not unexpected - the two have history.
This afternoon Scullion has returned fire.
In a statement to Guardian Australia the minister said he was sorry he’d missed Morrison’s speech and he hadn’t yet had a chance to read it.
But I understand he spent most of it focusing on me instead of some of the real successes we are seeing in the Indigenous Affairs space - including here in the NT.
Just today, I was at Wadeye ... what a remarkable turnaround there has been there! People are engaged through our CDP program in things such as painting houses and looking after gardens.
This is the same CDP Joe said the NLC didn’t like - although we all know Joe didn’t tell his chairman or the full council that he planned to oppose the CDP in the NLC’s submission to the Senate enquiry.
I had an obligation to tell the NLC Council at its meeting in Ngukurr that Joe had lodged that submission without letting his chairman know what was in it.
And I suppose Joe is still a little cranky about that, so I wonder if that helps to explain his motivation for today’s rant.
Joe hasn’t had the best of starts as CEO, but I have to say, I am truly hoping he gets better at his job. His council, but more importantly, his constituents deserve better and I just hope Joe has it in him to lift his performance so that the Aboriginal people living here are better served.
Updated
On to superannuation policy.
Peta Credlin has previously said the Coalition needs to defend the super policy or fix it. Credlin thinks Turnbull did a decent job today at explaining the super policy. She was not so flattering about Arthur Sinodinos.
The issue isn’t Malcolm Turnbull here, the issue is his colleagues who have been all over the place.
Sky commentator Peta Credlin is speaking with David Speers and Kristina Keneally now. (She reminds us that Tony Abbott made the decision to repatriate the remains of 33 casualties of the Vietnam war).
Asked whether the leaders should have been there, both Credlin and Keneally say yes.
Credlin says the war was a tough issue in many families.
The point Tony Abbott made...was it would be a way to unite Australia particularly ahead of the anniversary of Long Tan.
The ABC reports the president of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, Ken Foster, has taken exception to the “war” language used by Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, particularly today.
To be over there with the families and for them to go home tonight and see a comparison of the war that their family members were killed in and have just been brought home from around 50 years later for a political argument, I see that as tasteless in the extreme.
Bill Shorten has accepted an invitation to attend a Sky News people’s forum next Wednesday. We await news from the prime minister’s office as to whether he will attend. Given the people’s forum is win cahoots with the Courier Mail, we can assume it will be in Brisbane.
Salute to the sun.
Postcard from Rocky.
Lawnmower man. But why?
Behind you! A little ray of sunshine.
Labor's renewables policy: take advantage of our advantages
A pull together of Labor’s renewables policy from Paul Karp.
The policy announcement from Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek at the University of New South Wales is about the government using renewable energy.
Today I will be announcing that a Commonwealth government by 2030 will be deriving 50% of its energy mix from renewable sources. What we will do is put markers in the ground, pegs in the ground so we help create a market for investment in renewable energy.
So that’s a bit like a household picking the green option from their power provider, except on a much larger scale. Labor says that 10-15 year contracts from the Commonwealth government will give the certainty needed for long term investment in the renewable energy sector.
The research which we’ve been privileged to see this morning is going to drive a new wave of investment, advanced manufacturing, helping households have lower prices for their energy and also cutting pollution. The University of NSW should be congratulated.
We’re the sunniest continent in the world but last year the United Kingdom had four times the amount of solar roof top installation that Australia had because of uncertainty under the Liberals.”
Shorten said Australia should take advantage of its advantages - sunny climate and solar research.
Australians should have a government in Canberra who is determined to take real action on climate change by focusing on renewable energy.
Updated
And with that, I’m going to bid you a fond farewell for this evening because I need to return to podcast duties. Again, you will be in the marvellous hands of Gabrielle Chan. Thanks for your company. I’ll see you again in the morning.
Back to the Labor policy of the day, Bill Shorten was asked for a costing. Don’t you worry about that chaps, was the response.
Q: How can you say there’ll be no net cost on the policy today, we don’t know what renewables is going to cost in 10 years?
Bill Shorten:
Well, I would just submit to you history and evidence. Back in 2000 barely 100 suburban rooftops had solar panels now there’s 1.5 million. If you look at every examination at the startling and significant improvements in the scale and the cost of renewable energy, again I’m giving a shout out to the professors and researchers here, they are now getting 35% efficiency in terms of conversion of sunlight to energy. They’re not stopping at 35% or 34.7%. These guys and girls are going to deliver remarkable outcomes. I’m very confident when you watch the impact, the combination of our natural resources, sunlight, great researchers, and a Labor government, all the trendline is down in terms of the cost.
Q: So has it been costed then?
Bill Shorten:
In terms of what I said, everything. Warburton did a review which showed that renewable energy has a downward pressure in terms of household prices –
Q: But some of –
Bill Shorten:
I just want to keep unpacking this, Tommy, I’m going to keep unpacking it and then you can sort of give me your opinion. Yesterday, we were up in Brisbane. You saw those lithium batteries, the technology is practically changing in front of our eyes and we saw the range of new technologies. I have no doubt if you look at the tipping point about investment and renewable energy I could submit to you another number which shouldn’t be ignored in this debate about real action on climate change. Two million jobs have been added around the world in renewable energy jobs. One country has managed to lose nearly 3000 jobs. That’s Australia. Now Australians, we’ve got the best in the world research here and yet we’re coming towards the bottom of the world in terms of jobs, the missing link between converting our natural advantages, our scientific genius, the hard work of a lot of people, the desire by Australian families to have lower household electricity prices is a government who is going to take real action on climate change.
Today there has been a solemn repatriation ceremony where 21 Vietnam veterans, three killed in Malaysian conflicts, two spouses and six children, have been returned to Australia. The bodies had been buried at the Terendak cemetery in Malaysia, on what is still an operating military base. While prime minister, Tony Abbott pledged to allow the repatriation to occur, and it was carried out this morning.
The shadow treasurer Chris Bowen referred to that event in a media conference a little while ago, indicating that if the prime minister and the treasurer wanted to get into the war metaphors for a bit of intra-day campaigning, they might chose another day.
Chris Bowen:
The prime minister and treasurer might want to reflect on the use of that language today. Especially today. They might want to reflect on that. The Australian people have a right to be disappointed in the prime minister’s language. I don’t intend to add anything further to that. They might want to reflect about the use of that language on a day when we are considering war in another context.
There’s been some criticism around today that neither the prime minister nor the opposition leader went to the ceremony today. The governor-general presided. I’m not outraged about it, but everyone is obviously free to have their own views about it. The prime minister was asked about it during his press conference earlier, and this is what he said.
Malcolm Turnbull:
It’s a very solemn moment. It’s the largest - as you know, a very large repatriation of remains of former servicemen and their families. The governor-general is representing the Commonwealth as our head of state and the defence minister and minister for veterans’ affairs and their shadow counterparts are there as well.
That is an appropriate and very dignified and respectful representation of the nation, as we bring the remains of those who served our nation bravely, home.
Bill Shorten squared his circle via twitter.
We offer our nation’s thanks to their families & we honour their sacrifice, alongside all who served in Australia’s name. Lest we forget.
— Bill Shorten (@billshortenmp) June 2, 2016
Perhaps Labor could tax hyperbole next? Just a thought.
Labor already have a plan for $100 billion of higher taxes on the Aus economy. What will Labor tax next? #ausvotes pic.twitter.com/GRTtY3LUuv
— Scott Morrison (@ScottMorrisonMP) June 2, 2016
Some folks in the thread believe Labor’s policy announcement got short shrift today. It was flagged early and the Shorten press conference was covered in real time, but in the event you feel short changed, Labor today promised to enter into power purchase agreements (PPA) equal to bringing commonwealth energy use up to 50% renewable energy by 2030. The contracts would be entered into for 10 to 15 years.
Updated
The afternoon is orderly enough to allow me a brief dive into the thread. Happy times.
Let's take stock
Having heard about Neville’s concerted advocacy to Chinese consumers on behalf of Australian mattresses from the prime minister this morning , I thought you might like to see a picture.
Let’s wave to Neville and move on with a stocktake of Thursday.
- The prime minister and the treasurer have moved to shut down the Coalition’s internal hand-wringing about super by saying the policy change has merit, it’s considered and fair. Both men made an entirely coherent and sensible case for why it was important to make the super system sustainable and equitable, showing they can, in fact, argue policy on its merits. But that’s where the good news ended. The treasurer, Scott Morrison, thought it might be a good idea to fancy voters were idiots, and launch a pantomime-like beatdown about Bill Shorten’s war on business (complete with bullets), about toxins (whatever they were) and toxic taxes. Morrison ranted and raved at a Sydney press conference in an agenda-setting effort so patently ludicrous it induced giggles followed by a head injury when my head connected with the desk.
-
Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek toured the Sydney fish markets and inherited a rat in the process. Best you don’t ask. In the process the Labor leader attempted to keep the pressure on the government over its super brushfire. We still don’t know what Labor will do in relation to the government’s super measures.
Yo ho, on we go.
Updated
Peter Dutton says the government will 'listen to the requests people have' on super
Just before I draw the morning together it’s worth sharing this section of conversation between the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, and Ray Hadley on Sydney radio from earlier today. We join the conversation just as our protagonists have concluded that you couldn’t expect the Green senator Sarah Hanson-Young to understand superannuation.
Ray Hadley:
To be fair to her, Julie Bishop couldn’t explain to my colleague Neil Mitchell your policies either, when she was interviewed earlier this week, but that comes as no surprise because it’s revealed today that scant detail of the super changes were revealed to the parliamentary party and some of them aren’t too happy about it and all of a sudden cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos comes out on Sky News last night. For the first time someone is blinking and I hope they do blink, because I think it will harm your party unless they do blink before the election. He’s saying: look, after the election it’s going to go back to the party room and then it will be tweaked probably, minor changes, then it’s got to go to the lower house and then it’s got to go to the Senate. I can’t get through to the treasurer that it’s hurting your party, but I think it must be a realisation now that Arthur Sinodinos is starting to blink a little bit at the policy.
Peter Dutton:
But Ray if you have a look at the way in which budgets are put together. These sort of announcements are held tightly obviously by the treasurer, by the finance minister, by ERC that put the budget together.
I was assistant treasurer to Peter Costello back in the Howard days and there were announcements that we made that were held until budget night because you’ve got market sensitive information that’s released. So there’s nothing out of the ordinary in the process here.
I think what Arthur is rightly pointing out is you go through a consultation phase to have a look at unintended consequences of legislation, you listen to the requests people have – from the finance sector wherever it might be – but look in the end what do we want to do?
We want to make superannuation more sustainable. We want to make sure we’ve got integrity measures in place. We want to support people in their retirement phase and we need to do that in an environment where we’ve got a huge amount of debt and we’re trying to get back into surplus.
If we look closely at what Dutton is saying, he’s basically confirming the issue wasn’t put to the party room in any detailed way during budget week. He’s also saying the government will listen to the requests people have, which is a bit different to what the prime minister and the treasurer are saying.
Updated
I’ll draw all these threads together when I summarise the events of the morning shortly. In the interim, a bit of news, Sky News political editor David Speers is reporting the former ABC managing director Mark Scott will run the education department in NSW.
Holding the line on superannuation.
PM @TurnbullMalcolm: No changes to superannuation tax policy #ausvotes #auspol https://t.co/JuHzPNJnKd
— ABC News (@abcnews) June 2, 2016
'The substance, the import, the object of the reforms that we have set out in the budget are there and they are not going to be changed'
The prime minister is pressed on superannuation, and holds the line.
Malcolm Turnbull:
What we have set out is what we are going to do, and then obviously in terms of the drafting, there is consultation with the industry.
But the substance, the import, the object of the reforms that we have set out in the budget are there and they are not going to be changed. They are fair.
Yes, I know, I understand that some people on very high – with very large superannuation balances will have to pay a little more tax and some people on very high incomes will not get as much of a tax shelter out of super as they did. But they are still getting a very good deal. It is still, at 15%, you are paying less tax on superannuation earnings than somebody pays on their lowest income tax bracket, 19%. So you have got people on well below average full-time earnings who are paying more tax, much more tax than 15%, even on an average basis.
So we’ve got to get real about this.
Updated
A brief digression on one of the mattress artisans, Neville.
Malcolm Turnbull:
In fact Neville is one of the – Neville is – Neville, was stitching one of the beautiful mattresses there, Neville with his handsome white beard has become a household figure in China.
He’s become so well known through the publicity for the AH Beard products. Next time I go to Beijing, I will be able to say people I know Neville from AH Beard, with his own magnificent beard.
Updated
Bill Shorten: left of himself
Q: PM, briefly, this morning your treasurer said that Labor was using taxes as bullets. You have called for moderation in language from MPs before. Is it possible that people who have faced real bullets might find the treasurer’s language inappropriate?
The prime minister also ponies up Bill Shorten’s war on business.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Bill Shorten has declared war on business. He’s declared war on the family businesses of Australia. He is denying them the tax relief that in the past he himself has said they deserve, and in the past Labor governments have delivered. This is a change, this is a dramatic move to the left.
This is the most anti-business Labor leader we have seen in a very long time. He’s more anti-business than even he used to be in the past. Now the reality is that Bill Shorten has declared war on business and the first casualties are jobs.
(I’d be careful about the “first casualty” locution myself, because you sail close to truth being the answer when you invoke the phrase, and you do invite scrutiny of the truth of the statement. At least Turnbull spares us the bullets.)
'Let's get real about this'
The prime minister says he needs to be very clear about superannuation and the impact of the changes.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Now, it is true that some people, around 4%, on high incomes and with high superannuation balances will have to pay some more tax on their superannuation account in the sense they will pay the 15% tax whereas previously they were paying nothing. So if you have someone who has $10m in their superannuation account in retirement, currently they are not paying any tax at all on the earnings from that. No tax at all.
Under our changes, they will have no tax on the earnings of $1.6m and on the balance they will pay 15%, right? 15% remains avery concessional tax rate. That is less tax than a kid pays on his marginal income stacking shelves at Woolies.
Let’s get real about this. Nobody likes paying more tax. Super has been an extremely generous system. It remains a very generous tax advantage system. That hasn’t changed.
Updated
'As I've made it clear, there will be no changes to the policy'
Q: Can I just ask, on this business, has this business benefited from the China Free Trade Agreement and was there a tariff on mattresses that has been removed?
Malcolm Turnbull:
There is, it’s coming down. It’s coming down to zero by 2019. So it is – the mattress tariff is reducing and it’s reducing from the outset, it started off at 19% and is coming down to zero.
Q: Yesterday your cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos said if you win the election, there will be consultation on various changes. Will there be any changes to your superannuation policy either before or after the election?
Malcolm Turnbull:
As I’ve made it clear, there will be no changes to the policy.
It’s set out in the budget and that is the government’s policy. What Arthur was referring to was that there is always consultation about the details of the drafting and what I think Mathias Cormann called the administrative implementation.
But the policy, the substance of it, the economic substance of it, that is all settled, that’s in the budget and that’s our policy.
Updated
'Australians can do anything ..'
The prime minister is speaking to reporters in Sydney. Malcolm Turnbull just invoked the word “artisans” in relation to mattress makers at this factory.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Australian artisans, Australian technology and selling them into China into the biggest market in the world. A little while ago, a container every three months. Now there is a container every three days.
This company didn’t export before. Now, thanks to the big open markets that we have made available to Australian manufacturers, to Australian exporters of every kind, they have 3% of their sales going to China and it’s growing.
Australians can do anything including selling mattresses into the Chinese market. More jobs, more growth. That’s our national economic plan and this business is a family business.
Mattress artisans, let us rejoice.
Updated
Looking north, the head of the Northern Land Council has called for Malcolm Turnbull to find a new Indigenous affairs minister if it wins government because Nigel Scullion is “not up to the job”.
Chief executive of the NLC Joe Morrison, was addressing the Native Title Conference in Darwin this morning and launched a blistering tirade against Scullion – with whom he has historically had a fractious working relationship. “This minister is not up to the job, and I would implore Malcolm Turnbull, if his Coalition government is returned on July the second, to look among his caucus and find a new minister who has the interests of Indigenous people at heart and a commitment to work with the institutional architecture, not against it,” Morrison said.
Morrison said he believed times for Indigenous affairs had “never been bleaker than under Senator Scullion’s watch, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs were folded into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.” Morrison praised the strength of the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act and accused Scullion of holding “abiding scorn” for it against the “fragile bundle of rights” under its federal equivalent.
Morrison questioned whether Scullion intended to change the operation of the Land Rights Act, saying prior to the 2013 election Scullion had promised there would be no amendments without the consent of land councils. “There’s been no such assurance on the eve of this election, and for as long as Nigel Scullion remains Minister, I believe Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory and the important role and functions of the land councils will remain under threat,” Morrison said.
Morrison also criticised Scullion over leasing arrangements, and the controversial Indigenous Advancement Strategy.
Senator Scullion and his army of bureaucrats failed Indigenous Australians dismally, yet in the face of a damning Senate inquiry he stands up before the NLC Full Council and claims that, in his words, he’s untangled a mess of programs that had barely made an impact on Indigenous intergenerational disadvantage.
Well, that disadvantage is not diminishing. The evidence is there every year as pious Prime Ministers, year after year, stand in Parliament to deliver the Closing the Gap Report.
Minister Scullion takes my breath away.
Where’s the accountability here?
Scullion has been contacted for comment.
Updated
Right now, Malcolm Turnbull is looking at ... mattresses.
PM is inspecting the wares #ausvotes pic.twitter.com/S0PdaRnxjE
— Stephen Dziedzic (@stephendziedzic) June 2, 2016
Toxins, in a chart. Yes I did forget to share the picture before. This says it all, really.
A press conference with the prime minister is coming up very shortly.
Hello everyone, thanks to Gabi and to Paul and to the readers for managing that short period of turbulence, I’m back.
Back to superannuation, Shorten was asked about Labor’s policies. Both Labor and the Coalition are moving to rein in generous superannuation concessions, set up by Peter Costello in the last year of the Howard government.
In terms of our policies we outlined last year, we led. We said if you earn more than $250,000 that the money you have paid into your superannuation would be taxed at 30 cents rather than 15. Currently you don’t get to that 30 rents tax rate until you are at $300 ,00. So we brought that down by $50,000.
We also said in a retirement phase if you had earnings, interest, from your superannuation lump sum which was delivering you more than $75,000 dollars a year, that you would pay a 15% rate on the earnings above $75,000.
And we said this because we knew that Howard and Costello were too generous back in the ‘06, ‘07 budget because prior to then there had been a limit that superannuation was never intended to be a tool where people would minimise all their taxation. But we knew that Howard and Costello had gone too far.
So we said prospectively we need to make sure we rein that in and we put some markers down. To be fair the business community knew what we were doing and we could understand you have to make decisions which benefit the national interest not just some people.
On any fair assesment, current superannuation laws need reining in. Well known economist Saul Eslake calls them a “rort” and a “gift” to people who have the capacity to put away large lumps of cash into super to build wealth and avoid tax.
The argument between the two parties is on how to best close that door.
And just a point on the Coalition unrest. I have been calling around the Coalition backbenchers for the past two days on this. They say people are confused and concerned but once the policy is explained, they realise they are usually not effected. One MP said he had the case of someone who had sold their house to downsize and wanted to put a lump into his super. That was no longer possible so he was cranky.
I have also not found anyone worried about donations. Which is not to say there are not worries. I would like to hear someone say it out loud.
Updated
Bill Shorten has given a doorstop at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. He criticised Arthur Sinodinos’s comments the government might review superannuation changes after the election.
Shorten:
People don’t want surprises in superannuation. Furthermore, if they make changes to superannuation under pressure from their backbench after the election, which we’re not guaranteed of, what other cuts will they have to implement to make up for the hole in their expenditure which they do by reversing superannuation changes.”
He took up the fight again on whether changes in the 2016 budget were retrospective:
Now Mr Turnbull wasn’t straight on Sunday night when he said the changes aren’t retrospective. Now everyone right from the conservative thinktank, the IPA, right through to the CPA, the peak body representing accountants say these changes are retrospective.
Shorten raised a new practical problem about people accounting for what they’ve put into super from 2007:
Australians aren’t required to keep their tax records for longer than five years, nor are superannuation funds as a general rule, but Mr Turnbull’s changes mean people have to go back and calculate what they’ve done over nine years. The tax office is getting flooded. These people don’t know the superannuation system.
And clearly senator Sinodinos is picking up the jungle drums of angry conservatives and now’s saying they may change the policy. The truth of the matter is this government is saying one thing before an election, but they’re already flagging they’ll do something else after the election. If you can’t trust them on superannuation, what can we trust them on any aspect of their economic plan when it comes to keeping their promises?
Updated
I will have more from the Bill Shorten campaign in the minute. Let me return to a personal obsession.
The John Cain Foundation has released a report into political donations. The former Labor frontbencher Maxine McKew is the chairwoman of the foundation. She spoke to Fran Kelly this morning and you can hear the full interview here.
The report calls for a “comprehensive clean-up of the shambolic and inadequate” donation disclosure system in Australia.
Transparency is the key here. If we could see real-time donations through the whole political cycle it would enlighten us, no end. Imagine if you could see an industry/union donating to a political party while they are publicly advocating policy in the media. Remember the Kevin Andrews donation from Clubs NSW? Whatever the decision-making process, it improves the view for voters into the political process.
NSW opposition leader Luke Foley has pledged real-time disclosures in place for NSW Labor next year. He will be on the panel tonight at NSW parliament house discussing the Cain report.
It is worth noting Indi independent Cathy McGowan has been disclosing her donations in real time on her campaign website. It is the first I have seen but let me know if I have missed something.
Updated
Bringing some mussel to the Labor campaign.
Updated
Bill Shorten is doing a doorstop in Sydney. He goes to the superannuation changes as well. He pointed out that the tax office requires people to keep receipts for five years and the Coalition’s super changes require people to revisit contributions going back nine years.
Updated
Good morning all. I have had my head buried on superannuation and pension changes so excuse my slight discombobulation.
Updated
Now apologies but we need to execute a shift change here for an hour or so, Lenore Taylor and I need to begin the task of recording this week’s podcast.
This week, we’ll be trying to have a serious conversation about the issues at hand, and we’ll also be decanting the contents of Liberal party pollster Mark Textor’s brain about polling – is it all rubbish? I’ll be back in a hour or so, until then I’m going to leave you in the elegant and capable hands of Ms Gabrielle Chan.
What a joke
I’m sorry that was completely and utterly ludicrous. I started out this morning lamenting the inability of seriousness to stick. Perhaps that’s because people like Scott Morrison are just not taking politics seriously.
There is a big and important debate in this campaign about two models of growth, one that stimulates business and lets the benefits trickle down, and another than prioritises social capital and infrastructure. It’s an important conversation the country should have. Another perfectly legitimate line of attack about Labor in this contest involves fiscal management – is Labor sufficiently serious about budgetary management? Is it getting the balance right between investing and saving? It’s hard to get a fix on that before the opposition releases both its four year costings and ten year costings, because policy commitments are fragments of a whole – but it’s a legitimate question to ask.
Honestly, is it that bloody hard to get serious?
Scott Morrison doesn’t answer a question about whether he will negotiate in order to get his tax changes through the Senate.
Q: Have you done any modelling on what you think will be the difference in growth rates under a Coalition government or a Labor government?
Scott Morrison says something about Labor’s taxes being bullets in the war on, well, everything. It’s escalating.
Labor’s approach is to take a sledgehammer and to do it out of the politics and ideology of envy as part of their war on growth, it’s a war on capital, it’s a war on mums and dads who just want to invest in a property to ensure their betterment over into their retirement or whatever their purpose is.
(Quick, get to the bomb shelter. Book it.)
I didn’t time that but it must have been five minutes. First question is not tax toxins but superannuation. Will you change your super package?
Scott Morrison says the changes will benefit three million people, they are changes the government had the “strength” to put to voters at an election.
Scott Morrison:
They’re positive changes and of course we stand by them 100%.
Q: Arthur Sinodinos has said, though, there will be consultation after the election. Will that not happen? Is he wrong?
Scott Morrison:
That’s about an implementation of legislation but the policies that we have announced in the budget are our policies and we are pressing ahead with those policies.
Scott Morrison’s opening gambit is slightly Castro-esque but I can summarise it for you: don’t vote Labor because they have toxic taxes on mum and dad investors and other innocents.
And then of course, there is Labor’s tax on electricity …
This will run to several volumes. But hang in there.
… they are growth blockers, they’re toxins for growth … what’s he going to tax next?
Updated
Why does Labor hate exports?
The treasurer, Scott Morrison, is addressing reporters in Sydney now, wondering why Labor hates exports.
Scott Morrison:
I note that the opposition has taken us to task yesterday and sought to downplay that [positive economic growth] outcome because apparently the national accounts includes net exports. Well that may be news to the opposition that net exports are actually a contributor to growth and an important part of our economy. I’m not surprised that they don’t wish to acknowledge the export performance because frankly they opposed things like the China free-trade agreement when we first sought to introduce it and they of course did nothing on these agreements when they were in government for six years and nor have I heard anything from the opposition in the course of this election campaign or before about what they would do to continue to grow exports.
Today we have a new slide (oh goodie). Last week there was a black hole slide that contained a black hole in the alleged black hole. Today we are depicting toxins on growth. Apparently taxes can be toxic. I’ll let the treasurer take up the story.
Scott Morrison:
Bill Shorten has declared war on business and as a result he’s declared war on growth. This is a leader of the opposition who has no plan for jobs and growth and what he’s done with his agenda for $100bn of higher taxes over the next 10 years is to declare war on growth in our economy. Yesterday he didn’t want to acknowledge the growth and today and going forward he will continue to seek to attack growth with these toxic taxes that will be a toxin for our growth going forward.
Updated
Perhaps we could combine the substantive and the ridiculous in this campaign with a single slogan: no creature left behind.
He's safe at home now with some nuts, zucchini, and banana to snack on. @ursulaheger
— Tanya Plibersek (@tanya_plibersek) June 1, 2016
Perhaps the way to make the substantial stick is to somehow cross over the stunt and substance streams. That’s been Nick Xenophon’s modus operandi throughout his public life, and it seems to work for him. (God, rats, make it stop. I can deal with anything else politics dishes up in my direction: heroism, bathos, venality, banality, suffering, self interest, incomprehension, fury – just NOT RODENTS, OK?)
Updated
As I’ve been posting the questions the Acoss chief Cassandra Goldie has been on the ABC.
We’ve written to each of the leaders of the political parties, the Coalition, Labor and the Greens, where we are asking for the parties to lay out very clearly what are their specific policy, election commitments that will be about reducing the level of poverty and the level of inequality in Australia.
We think that this really needs to be the core debate that is happening in this election and at the moment. Obviously, we’ve got a lot of policies being talked about but we’re saying let us get specific here.
If we’re pursuing economic growth, for what purpose? Well it should, at its heart, be about ensuring that people on the lowest incomes, those who have the least, their living standards should be the top priority when we’re talking about the outcome of that kind of economic growth.
Lenore Taylor and I think fairness is important, and we also think economic policy is important – which is why we are hosting two panel discussions about this during the campaign: one in Sydney and the other in Melbourne. We’d love to see you there. If you’d like to book, you can find the relevant details by clicking on this link.
Updated
Fairness: let's get specific
Fairness is a key theme in this election contest, and picking up on that, the Australian Council of Social Service (Acoss) has written to our political leaders seeking answers to a bunch of policy questions. I thought I would share them with you.
Measuring social and economic progress
- Will your party develop and adopt a headline national goal to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are fairly shared, for example through a national poverty reduction target?
A balanced approach to budget repair
- Is your party committed to restoring the federal budget to surplus over time? If so:
(a) What is the precise formulation and details of any associated commitments you are making in relation to revenue and expenditure?
(b) Will you make a commitment that low-income households (the bottom 40% of the population by income) will not be disproportionately affected (as a share of their income) by measures to restore the budget?
(c) Will your party commit to restoring the budget by increasing overall revenue as well as improving the cost effectiveness of expenditure?
(d) Will tax expenditures be subject to the same degree of budget scrutiny as direct expenditures?
Improving the integrity and equity of the tax system
- Will your party commit to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of income tax? Specifically:
(a) What are your party’s policies to achieve this, including measures to tax incomes more consistently or close inefficient or unfair tax shelters and loopholes?
(b) Specifically, what action would your party take, if elected to:
reduce the anomalies in the tax treatment of capital gains and other investment income, especially where investments are financed by debt (negative gearing arrangements)?
(c) Curb the avoidance of company income tax by international and Australian companies through international profit, debt and cost shifting strategies?
Towards a fair and sustainable retirement income system
- Is your party committed to improving the fairness of superannuation and ensuring that the associated tax concessions are fit for purpose? If so:
(a) What action does your party propose to take to reduce the disproportionate share of tax concessions going to individuals with high incomes?
(b) What action does your party propose to take to curb the use of superannuation tax concessions, especially in the retirement phase, to avoid personal income tax, including capital gains tax and the tax payable on transfers of remaining superannuation balances to adult children?
(c) What other action does your party propose to take to ensure that the future cost of superannuation tax concessions is sustainable, especially in the retirement phase as the population ages?
(d) What action does your party propose to take to extend tax concessions for contributions to low-income earners who pay tax at less than 15% on their wages?
Improving support for people who are unemployed
- Is your party committed to improving the adequacy of income support for people most in need, especially those with little or no private income? If so, what are your party’s priorities in this area including action to improve the adequacy and indexation of allowance payments including Newstart Allowance for single people?
- Is your party committed to reducing unemployment, especially long term unemployment? If so, what are your party’s key policies to achieve this including:
(a) Personalised employment services with lower caseloads and appropriately skilled staff?
(b) Meaningful and effective programs, especially paid work experience in regular jobs together with relevant training, for people unemployed long term?
(c) What protections does your party propose to ensure that unemployed people participating in these programs are not exploited and existing employees are not displaced?
- What is the evidence that any of the above programs you propose are effective in improving the paid employment prospects of people disadvantaged in the labour market?
Reducing child poverty
- Is your party committed to reducing child poverty? If so, how would you express this commitment and measure your party’s progress towards reaching that goal? What specific policies does your party propose to reduce child poverty, including:
(a) improvements in the adequacy and indexation of family payments for families on low incomes, particularly single parent families?
(b) policies to ensure that children at greatest risk of poverty have access to quality early education and care and that cost and other barriers to such care are removed?
Access to basic services for all who need them
- Is your party committed to a strong role for the Commonwealth in ensuring that everyone who needs it has access to essential health care and quality schooling, regardless of their income and where they live?
- If so, is your party committed to:
(a) Adequate indexation of Commonwealth health grants to states and territories (please define and explain ‘adequate’ in this context)?
(b) An adequate Commonwealth contribution to state and territory schools budgets to ensure sufficient resources to guarantee all children access to a quality education based on their needs? Please define and explain ‘adequate’ in this context.
- What are your party’s policies to ensure access to community services in areas of high need?
Ending the housing crisis
- Is your party committed to improving the affordability of housing, especially for people with low incomes? If so, how does your party propose to measure progress towards the achievement of this goal and what policies does your party propose, including to:
(a) Stem excessive growth and instability in housing prices (mortgages and rents) during housing booms?
(b) Increase the supply of affordable rental housing including through direct investment and investment incentives?
(c) Improve the adequacy of rent assistance payment rates and indexation?
A strong, independent and diverse civil society
- Is your party committed to supporting a strong, independent and diverse civil society including by adequately funding peak representative bodies representing marginalised groups and ensuring government funding is not subject to restrictions on advocacy?
Effective action to address climate change and its impacts on people on low incomes
- What are your party’s policies to address climate change and ensure that people on low incomes and people who are vulnerable are protected, and able to adapt to the impacts?
- Specifically how will you take positive action to:
(a) Ensure people on low incomes and vulnerable can make the most of energy efficiency technologies and access affordable housing which is energy efficient?
(b) Ensure people and communities are resilient to the impacts of extreme weather events and able to adapt?
Updated
So many bridges too far, I cannot tell you.
Updated
Back in Canberra, Labor’s designated campaign spokesman this week, Tony Burke, is speaking to journalists in the parliament.
The government’s economic plan is in tatters, absolute tatters. Let’s go through the measures that on budget night were meant to be locked in and how they’ve been changing.
The first to hit the fence was the backpacker tax, on the government’s own admission it won’t be implemented in the form it was presented in the budget but they don’t know other than a 6-month delay exactly what their proposal is. Yet they’ve still banked the full revenue after that.
Secondly, Scott Morrison in the debate against Chris Bowen made clear on the basis of their track record that there would be further cuts that he was willing to make after the election that he would not tell people about before the election.
Thirdly, on the centrepiece of their economic plan, the company tax cut, not only has the prime minister stopped talking about it as a plan for 10 years and has gone all the way back to now only wanting to talk about the first three years of it, we also have the treasurer offering to re calibrate that legislation if required.
And today we see their plans to change superannuation are in a mess.
Election 2016 has immortalised the question: “How old is your rat?” – which was the question the prime minister put to a voter in a Penrith shopping centre the other day, when a pet rodent was presented for inspection.
Now I gather The Chaser has presented another rat to Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek. God help me. This campaign will kill an honest woman plagued by rodent phobias. That’s me. Plibersek looks quite chill.
Another campaign rat...at the Sydney Fish Market @billshortenmp @tanya_plibersek #ausvotes pic.twitter.com/fooxeooyrN
— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) June 1, 2016
Updated
I centred us back in the hustings this morning. It looks like there’s been an outbreak of the blame game in Adelaide.
@cpyne we estimate about 200 gone in Mayo also
— Jamie Briggs (@BriggsJamie) June 1, 2016
According to the AEC, Sturt covers an area of approximately 85 sq km. 1,700 close-ups of Christopher Pyne suggests much of the electorate is wallpapered with the face of a fixer. Obviously this is only an allegation of light fingeredness, I have no idea whether or not it’s true, but sticking squarely in theory territory, perhaps there’s an acute shortage of power poles?
Updated
Tony Abbott always loved the Sydney fish market.
clear message for @billshortenmp at Syd fish markets this AM although he is no fan of @TurnbullMalcolm #ausvotes pic.twitter.com/2WIEMTKGGK
— Andrew Tillett (@andrewtillett) June 1, 2016
ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja is on Sky News this morning and of course he’s asked about superannuation. Seselja says there is concern in the community about the changes, but the concern can be countered successfully with information.
Zed Seselja:
Yes there will always be some concerns ... but we think [the reforms] are fair and balanced, so we will take them to the people.
He’s on with the shadow superannuation minister Jim Chalmers, who says the outlook is very unclear, given Liberals are clearly concerned about elements of the package.
Jim Chalmers:
The real question is whether Malcolm Turnbull walks it back before or after the election.
Seselja says the government is sticking with the package and the concern in the party is very small scale, “just one or two” people.
Hello good people
Thanks Mel, good morning everyone and welcome to Thursday, it’s delightful to be with you. If superannuation pain persists, see your doctor. This time yesterday various Coalition folks were water-bombing a brushfire on super set by the foreign minister Julie Bishop. 24 hours, nothing much has changed, except another spot fire has been set by the Cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos who yesterday told Sky News the budget package might be adjusted post election after a period of consultation, then, in the same interview, suggested it wouldn’t.
Confused? Don’t be. This campaign has been characterised by these sorts of events. There is this strange dynamic in this contest where the big issues up for discussion in this campaign don’t seem to adhere very much, even though they are being ventilated and written about, but the stumbles and missteps do grip in the news cycle, albeit transiently. Will we all write, in our 2016 wash-ups, in deeply authoritative tones, “the campaign of 2016 was a Marx Brothers film”? That remains to be seen. For now we’ll keep it simple, keep morale high, and stick with Thursday, which looms before us like a ten-minute-update highway to sunset, mainly flat fast and straight, but with the occasional hairpin bend.
Out on the ground, out of sight of the national campaign, MPs are out and about every day, handing out flyers, shaking hands, courting the public, doing their best to win votes.
Let’s crack on. Today’s comments thread is open for your business. If the thread’s too bracing for you, Mike Bowers and I are up and about on the twits – he’s @mpbowers and I’m @murpharoo. If you only speak Facebook you can join my daily forum here. And if you want a behind-the-scenes look at the day and the campaign as a whole, give Mike a follow on Instagram. Today he’s consorting with fish. You can find him here.
Updated
Thanks for joining me for all the superannuation and backbench revolt talk this morning. Melissa Davey here handing over to deputy political editor Katharine Murphy in Canberra now, who I’m sure will make sense of the morning’s events and commentary for us.
See you tomorrow.
Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm says the government is punishing those with “aspirations to be comfortable in life” through its superannuation reforms that target the wealthy.
He says political donations and support from the conservative base of the Liberal party are rolling in as a result of the superannuation policy, which includes lowering the annual limit on contributions that are taxed at the concessional rates, and tightening of transition to retirement provisions. Leyonhjelm told ABC radio:
I’m not sure that they’re tearing up their membership cards in droves or leaving the party in droves but they’re certainly disenchanted. They’re saying, ‘What can we do to launch a protest vote’. We have some new members as a result, they’ve left the Liberal party and joined us, but more commonly they say, ‘I’ll stay with the Liberals but donate money to the Liberal Democrats’.
How many people, host Fran Kelly asks?
Ahh.. well.. it’s dozens to hundreds. I have to confess my staff don’t think the Senator needs to know that information but certainly there’s a lot of them. I can’t put a figure on it.
He said that the Liberal party members turning to the Liberal Democrats were also unhappy there had been “no serious attempt to bring spending under control”. They were frustrated, he said, that the government was doing nothing to stop middle-class welfare, while simultaneously punishing those with aspirations, including wealthy people entering retirement.
This government is not serious about aspiration. They’re addicted to spending. They won’t tackle middle class welfare. There are lots of people receiving... support and the government won’t tackle them for political reasons. As long as that’s the case the people are saying; ‘Why should you be clipping my wings and my aspirations to be comfortable in retirement?’
Updated
Good morning to photographer Mike Bowers, who has just texted to say he’s off on a walk through Sydney’s fish markets this morning with deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek.
Both the party leaders are campaigning in Sydney today.
Shorten will announce a policy that aims to drive investment in renewable energy to reduce household power costs and create jobs, while Turnbull will focus on innovation and giving start-up businesses a leg-up. He’ll specifically talk about innovation in manufacturing, and how manufacturers are transforming and exporting.
Former Labor frontbencher Maxine McKew is launching a report today called ‘Come Clean: Stopping the arms race in political donations’. She’s speaking to the ABC’s Radio National at the moment and said voters have a right to know who is funding the party they vote for.
McKew weighed into reports this morning that Liberal political donors are withholding donations in protest over the Coalition’s proposed changes to superannuation. It was an example of why donation laws needed to be cleaned up, she said.
This issue of Liberal donors potentially sitting on their hands because they don’t like the Liberal party’s changes to super, that could be called a term of vote buying. That’s why we’re saying we have to have a comprehensive clean-up of the political donation laws.
But, host Fran Kelly asks, isn’t that just human nature? Don’t voters have a right to donate however they like?
McKew says yes, but the laws need to be more strict overall and there should be caps on donations as well as transparency about where those donations come from.
In Canada they have federally some of the strictest rules around political donations. They do not allow any corporate or union donations whatsoever once the campaign starts.
I think a better way to go is to have a set of tight caps and you can perhaps have a cap on individual donations of about $1000 and you could have other donations set at about $3000 to $5000.
Donations should be disclosed, she said, and in real-time.
Minister for trade and investment Steven Ciobo is the latest MP to play down discontent over the superannuation policy this morning. The changes “affect only 4% of Australia’s superannuation account holders,” he told AM.
The government will obviously, as we do on every policy, undertake consultation on the changes we have put forward. We will of course consult on how that will be implemented. That is good governance in practice. That is all that they’ve [Sinodinos and Cormann] have outlined.
National Seniors Australia chief executive Michael O’Neill says the superannuation changes are confusing seniors. He told ABC radio:
We accept that there is a need for some reform ... but I don’t think it has been well sold and that’s really fed into this whole area of people now resisting, I suspect, the importance of reform.
Former Liberal party leader, John Hewson, has urged the government not to buckle under pressure and to stand firm on its superannuation policy.
Wealthy older Australians will be most effected by the changes, the same people who also tend to donate to the Liberal party.
Responding to reports that political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the super changes, Hewson told the ABC’s AM:
I suggest that they [the government] just tell them to keep their money and don’t expect to buy their influence with the Liberal party.
Updated
More on the backbench dissent over the Coalition’s superannuation policy. I linked to this report from the Financial Review earlier on, but it’s worth visiting again in more detail:
Simmering discontent among the Liberal Party’s conservative base has started to boil over and several MPs told The Australian Financial Review on Wednesday that should the Coalition win the July 2 election, there would be a push to amend some of the measures before they were legislated.
The issues causing the most concern include the $500,000 lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions that was backdated to 2007 and came into effect on budget night. Others that will be legislated to start on July 1, 2017, include lowering from $30,000 to $25,000 the annual limit on contributions that are taxed at the concessional rates, and the tightening of transition to retirement provisions.
All MPs agreed the election campaign was not the time to start a fight but they warned there was a strong resolve to act afterwards.
“There’s lots of anger but we can’t backflip now, that would make it worse,” said an MP.
Another said “there’s a lot of dissent”.
“It was dumb to drop something so complex on the base on the eve of an election.”
Western Australian Liberal MP Ian Goodenough said he had “received a volume of correspondence from constituents objecting to the changes”.
Updated
There are reports this morning that the government’s superannuation policy is causing unrest among Coalition backbenchers and also among some donors. The changes to super and in particular, the super-cap, may disadvantage the wealthy and therefore, some of the Coalition’s strongest supporters.
The ABC reports that as a result, some of those people who are also donors are withholding money from the Liberal Party.
The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, downplayed the claims on AM this morning, saying:
I have had various conversations of course with supporters and I’ve explained the changes that we’re making and the reasons we’re making those changes and I’m finding that as I walk people through it, there’s a very high level of acceptance of what the government is setting out to do.
Updated
The latest gross domestic product figures reinforce just how dependent we are upon our exports – especially to China – rather than through any great strength within the domestic economy, Greg Jericho writes.
In the March quarter Australia’s GDP grew by 1.1% in seasonally adjusted terms and a slightly more muted 0.9% in trend terms.
The result was rather better than the expected result of 0.8% growth and it led to an annual growth of 3.1% (seasonally adjusted) and 3.2% (trend) – the best result since September 2012.
And we can pretty much thank exports – which defied the falling prices to record strong growth in volumes.
The balance of payments figures released on Tuesday showed that while annual exports of goods fell 10% in the past year in current dollar terms, the volume of those exports grew 5%. That’s good for real GDP growth (which concerns overall output growth) but is less good for the tax revenue.
Although nominal GDP growth remains weak, it remains largely on target to meet the budget estimate of 2.25% for 2015-16. But there is little sign of improvement – because, while the figures do show very solid GDP growth, most of it comes via exports, not the domestic economy.
AAP reports that Turnbull is expected to come under pressure again today over his government’s superannuation changes:
There are questions over the fairness and retrospective nature of some parts of the changes outlined in the May budget.
Some coalition MPs say they are receiving concerns from voters and have not been properly consulted.
Cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos said the Coalition’s plan had been to get a mandate for the policy at the July 2 election, then issue an exposure draft of legislation for consultation.
He conceded “not all individual measures” were discussed in the coalition party room as part of the briefing before the budget was handed down last month.
“I’m just leaving it open,” he told Sky News when asked about the prospects of further changes being made.
Updated
Good morning and welcome to politics live, where we have almost made it through week four of the political campaign.
The government may have seized on the latest growth figures released yesterday as proof of its strong economic management - the release of the national accounts data revealed some of the strongest growth figures in four years.
But the issue of superannuation looks to remain an ongoing headache for the government, and no doubt we’ll be hearing more about that today. Changes to the Coalition’s superannuation policy could be made if the government is re-elected, a policy which senior ministers have struggled to explain this week.
The finance minister minister, Mathias Cormann, is playing down reports this morning political party donors are threatening to withhold donations over the policy.
Melissa Davey with you here taking you through all the political events of the morning, before I hand the blog over to its rightful owner, deputy political editor Katharine Murphy, at 8.30am.
The big picture
Aspects of the Coalition’s confusing superannuation policy may be changed or abolished after the election, reports this morning say.
Two senior ministers – Julie Bishop and Josh Frydenberg - this week struggled to explain the superannuation policy measures, prompting cabinet secretary, Arthur Sinodinos, to commit the government to take the superannuation policy back to the party room.
Gabrielle Chan writes that Sinodinos said the Coalition was open to changes to superannuation measures after the election, while claiming the government would have a clear mandate to implement the changes if they win:
The superannuation changes were part of the budget so they were presented to the party room before the budget was handed down to the parliament,” he said.
“The next process will be if we win the election there will be consultations on various changes and then legislation presented to the party room.”
In a Sky interview including Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon, Sinodinos said no fellow MPs had rung to urge the government to change the superannuation measures.
He confirmed the “transition to retirement” policy was not presented to the party room specifically – it was part of the whole budget package.
“If we win the election, we would have a mandate to implement our superannuation changes and that’s what we’ll put up to the parliament,” Sinodinos said.
“So you’ll have a mandate to implement the thing you are going to consult on after the election Arthur?” asked Fitzgibbon.
Sinodinos said there would be consultations on “subsidiary matters” but denied it was around the start date of the superannuation measures.
Meanwhile, Phillip Coorey writes for the Financial Review that Turnbull and Scott Morrison will face pressure from the backbench to change or even abolish elements of the superannuation overhaul should it win the election.
In a separate report, he writes that a re-elected Turnbull government would also struggle to pass a 10-year plan to cut the company tax rate to 25% through the Senate.
All those likely to hold the balance of power opposed to some or all of the package, Coorey explains:
The Greens confirmed their opposition to the entirety of the tax cuts with the release of costings by the Parliamentary Budget Office which estimated the cost of the cuts over a decade would be $51 billion.
While just $3 billion different from the $48.2 billion Treasury estimated for the government, Greens treasury spokesman Adam Bandt, who commissioned the PBO modelling, called it “a death blow to the argument that company tax cuts are affordable”.
Labor, if it loses the election, will also have the numbers to pass the tax cuts through the Senate, but will only support lowering from 28.5 per cent to 27.5 per cent rate for businesses with a turnover of up to $2 million, which is just a fraction of the package.
Nick Xenophon, who is expected to add to his Senate numbers at the election, will be critical to any negotiation when Labor and the Greens are opposed. But he said on Wednesday his support for the package was limited.
Senator Xenophon, whose home town of Adelaide will be hit hard next year by the closure of General Motors Holden, would only guarantee supporting a lower rate for companies with a turnover of up to $10 million.
Meanwhile, an electorate-by-electorate breakdown of economic growth for Fairfax Media conducted by SGS Economics & Planning shows slowing economic activity in 30 of the country’s 150 parliamentary seats. Fairfax reports:
A surge in mining exports has delivered the fastest economic growth in the life of the Coalition government, but has left much of Australia going backwards.
In parts of Queensland and Western Australia, the economy is shrinking by as much as 2 per cent per year. At the other end of the scale, in parts of Sydney and remote Western Australia, the economy is growing by 5 per cent or more per year.
Nine of the 10 fastest-growing electorates are held by the Coalition.
The results, for each of Australia’s 150 electorates, show economic activity growing at more than 5 per cent per annum in the inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne but going backwards in western and south-western Sydney seats such as Parramatta, Fowler, McMahon, Chifley and Werriwa. All are held by Labor.In outer Melbourne, Corio and Corangamite are going backwards. Corio is held by Labor and Corangamite is held by the Coalition’s Sarah Henderson even though a redistribution makes it marginally Labor.
On the campaign trail
Turnbull will continue campaigning in Sydney, with innovation a central theme.
Shorten will also be in Sydney today where he will announce Labor’s policy to drive investment in renewable energy to reduce household power costs and create jobs.
Labor wants 50% of all energy to be renewable by 2030. Shorten will announce a policy to sign 10-to-15 year power purchase agreements with energy companies, forcing the purchase of the same amount of renewable energy as half of the commonwealth’s power usage.
The campaign you should be watching
The ABC has examined the electorate of Eden-Monaro, and writes that residents along the Barton Highway are calling on both the government and opposition to commit to funding the road’s duplication in the coming federal election. It’s a marginal Liberal seat that has been held by Peter Hendy since 2013. The ABC reports:
Earlier this week federal Labor announced a funding boost of more than $6m that would go towards planning roads in the electorate of Eden-Monaro, but the Barton Highway was left off the list.
Sophie Wade, from the Barton Highway Community Action Group, said the road was a key issue for voters.
“I’m quite shocked, I can’t believe the Barton Highway doesn’t rate a mention, it’s a critical piece of infrastructure in this electorate, and the safety issues need to be addressed urgently,” she said.
And another thing(s)
Conservative South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernadi has defended using his blog to link to an article by a controversial “pick-up artist” whose views have been condemned around the world.
Calla Wahlquist writes that “Bernardi offered the article with the preface “know thyself”, to which the internet responded with variations of “know thy source”.”
Bernardi shared the article with his 17,000 Twitter followers on Wednesday, saying it was “particularly relevant to many Twitter users”.
The article was a lengthy missive against “social justice warriors” and warned the readers, assumed to be white heterosexual men, against attacks from those who find their statements offensive.
The author, Daryush Valizadeh, who uses the moniker Roosh V online, is best known for an article – which he said was “satirical” – that argued rape should be legal on private property.
He was monitored by the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, in February, after suggesting he would come to Australia to attend a series of men-only “tribal meetings” for supporters of his website, Return of Kings.
Unfortunately, Valizadeh has seized on Bernadi’s linking to him, using Twitter to boast about the outrage it has created. I’m not going to link to that tweet, because Valizadeh doesn’t deserve that.
Dear outraged, the article I linked to is interesting in light of events of last week. It doesn't mean I endorse author's other views.
— Cory Bernardi (@corybernardi) June 1, 2016
Because Bernadi deserves to be taken to task
i estimate it'll be 1 week before cory bernardi links to a deeply racist reddit comment by a guy with the username NeonGenesisEvangelion69
— j.r. hennessy (@jrhennessy) June 1, 2016
Senator Cory Bernardi tweeting Roosh Valizadeh link is worse than irresponsible, it’s dangerous #RooshIsaRapist https://t.co/XthmrMNCZT
— #TakeDownMRAs (@TakedownMRAs) June 1, 2016
Hmm, why are Cory Bernardi" and Roosh V trending local right now?
— Paul Ryan (@P_T_RYAN) June 1, 2016
OMFGhttps://t.co/bEwfDDh9zN
Updated
