The Senate is going to sit late and attempt to deal with the income tax legislation – but we are being told there is “no prospect” of a vote tonight – unless something amazing happens.
Which makes sense, because everyone is still wrangling the numbers.
We’ll leave it there for tonight. A massive thank you to the Guardian brains trust for all that they do. And to Mike Bowers, who may have forgotten I had brought him in homemade pulled pork (see more in the instagram story on @pyjamapolitics) but is still amazing and I couldn’t do it without him.
And to everyone for following along and reading – thank you.
Follow the Guardian for any updates between now and when I fire up the blog again early tomorrow morning – the team are just working on wrapping up some of the issues of the day.
And get some sleep. We have a big six days of sitting ahead of us.
As always – take care of you.
Updated
Then Fraser Anning moved a motion calling on the government to move its Australian embassy to Jerusalem, which was another Liberal party council motion passed on the weekend – here are the ayes:
Updated
Cory Bernardi just moved a motion to say the government has no plans to privatise the ABC, despite the motion at the Liberal party council, and also “congratulates Liberal Party members for continuing to draw attention to the need for structural and budgetary reform of the ABC”.
Mike Bowers caught the vote.
Updated
This is a thing which is also happening
The Future of Your ABC website has gone live today and is the home of news, information and stories about the ABC’s contribution to the community and the future of public broadcasting in Australia. https://t.co/eyUOVad3GX
— ABC Communications (@ABCMediaComms) June 19, 2018
Julie Bishop is now addressing the Australia-China business council meeting:
Julie Bishop now up at Australia China Business Council says it is a "comprehensive strategic partnership", one of the highest levels in diplomacy #auspol
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) June 19, 2018
JBish: do we agree on everything with China? No - but it's how you manage those differences that matters. Notes Australia's disagreement with US on trade the withdrawal from Paris Agreement and Iran deal #auspol
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) June 19, 2018
As easy as A-B-C
As well as the discussion in the Coalition party room about energy today, some MPs also raised the ABC.
The backdrop to today’s discussion: the Liberal council at the weekend passed a motion in support of privatising the ABC – which has kicked a minor hornet’s nest.
According to people present at Tuesday’s meeting, the Liberal Tony Pasin said the national broadcaster needed to be more transparent given it was the recipient of significant taxpayer funds.
He suggested the ABC should have to publish its ratings for programs, disclose costings per program, and salaries for high profile presenters.
The Queensland National George Christensen also wondered whether regional Australians were getting enough bang for their buck in terms of programming.
Updated
On the prime minister’s point that the media might be concentrating on the negatives, it might be timely to throwback to this article from 8 June, where Christian Porter defended the media’s reporting on China.
That came after an opinion piece by China’s Perth-based consul general, Lei Kezhong, accused the Australian media of repeatedly making up stories about Beijing’s attempts to influence Australian politics.
In the opinion piece, Lei pointed out China’s role as a trading partner with Australia, as well as its growing tourism and international student markets, and said a “healthy and stable China-Australia relationship will better serve the fundamental interests of the two countries and two peoples.”
“However, since the second half of last year, some Australian media have repeatedly fabricated news stories about so-called ‘Chinese influence and infiltration in Australia’, and some Australian politicians have also made irresponsible remarks which are not conducive to the mutual political trust between two countries, putting our bilateral relations in jeopardy,” Lei wrote.
“It is my view that China and Australia, both located in the Asia-Pacific region, are highly complementary in economic advantages and deeply intertwined common interests.
“... I hope that the Australian media and people from all walks of life here can correctly understand China and China’s development and view China-Australia relations in an objective and positive way.”
In response Porter, who took charge of the government’s foreign interference and anti-spying legislation following George Brandis’s departure, defended the media’s reporting on outside influences.
“Those statements that are made by a free and open press in Australia might be loved or not loved by governments of any particular country overseas, but the reality is that type of free inquiry, free speech and freedom of political communication is just an inherent and immutable part of our system,” he said.
“Media reporting on these issues is not anything to be unexpected, it’s totally to be expected. It’s a healthy and critical part of our democratic system.
“... It’s a simple thing to say the media is fabricating a story, but which particular story is said to be fabricated? Our media is stringent, investigative. They chase every rabbit down every hole.”
Updated
From Malcolm Turnbull’s speech:
“From time to time, there will be differences, and in terms of issues, particular issues, but the important thing is, we deal with them, as friends. With respect.
“Mutual respect is the absolute key. That is what we undertake and I know that is what characterises our relationship.
“Sometimes you will get issues at a fairly granular level. Recently there were reports of containers of wine being held up on the docks. Well, we went to work to ensure that that could be resolved and indeed, so it was.
“... So the important thing is to keep building the relationship – as I said it based on mutual respect – yes, we have different political system, but as long as we respect each other, recognise that we have so much in common to share and above all, recognise that we have a great economic relationship ... but it is a family relationship as well.
“You could not imagine modern Australia without our 1.2 million Australians of Chinese heritage and it is just part of our extraordinary story, this great Australian project, the most successful multicultural society in the world.
“So I am filled with optimism about the relationship, I think we should all be positive about it and recognise the strengths of the engagement and also note that sometimes in the media, there is always going to be, an emphasis on differences, on conflict, on problems, overwhelmingly the relationship is strong and by any measure, getting stronger.”
Updated
Despite one of the Australian businessmen making the comment that he was “disappointed” with Penny Wong and Jason Clare addressing some of the issues between the Australia and China relationship in their speeches to the council, because it is meant to be a ‘positive’ day of coming together, it is all the Chinese attendees seem to want to talk about:
Next questioner: "the relationship does not match the trade - what is your plan to improve it?". Turnbull: "it's very strong ... Important not to be distracted by media and politics that highlights and accentuates friction" #auspol
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) June 19, 2018
The tie has been cut
Today the Australian Parliament passed legislation to establish a National #Redress Scheme for the survivors of child sexual abuse. I made a promise to the indomitable Leonie Sheedie from @CLAN_AU that when this happened I would cut my tie in half and send it to her. pic.twitter.com/dhtleQusUi
— Dan Tehan (@DanTehanWannon) June 19, 2018
Malcolm Turnbull is addressing the Australia-China Business Council meeting:
Turnbull: you'll see in the media, sometimes by pollies including today by my opponents "you see more negativity than is actually the case" about Oz China relationship. Important to "reinforce the reality" #auspol
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) June 19, 2018
Updated
Julie Bishop has officially signed the contract which will see Australia build the telecommunications cable the Solomon Islands needed. From her statement:
Today I announce the Australian Government will partner with telecommunications company Vocus to manage the construction of high-speed undersea telecommunications cables to Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon Islands.
Awarding the $136.6 million contract to delivery partner Vocus is a major milestone and signals the start of the physical installation of the Coral Sea Cable System.
Australia will deliver and majority-fund the cables, with a financial co-contribution from both PNG and Solomon Islands.
Australia’s strong support for this project is a reflection of our enduring commitment to the Pacific, where we work with partners to support the region’s stability, security and prosperity.
Boosting connectivity in PNG and Solomon Islands will drive economic growth, and improve governance and security. World Bank research estimates improved internet access and connectivity could grow GDP by more than US$5 billion and create close to 300,000 new jobs in the Pacific by 2040.
The Coral Sea Cable System is scheduled for completion by the end of 2019.
Returning to the aspirational debate, the problem is, when prosecuting it, you are going to say things which come across as a bit, well, elite.
For example, among the loud noises Malcolm Turnbull made in relation to Bill Shorten’s question on this: I refer to the prime minister’s earlier answer when he said that his government rewards aspiration. So under this prime minister should a 60-year-old aged-care worker from Burnie aspire to be an investment banker from Rose Bay just so instead of their $10 a week tax cut from the prime minister, they can get the prime minister’s $7,000 a year tax cut for investment bankers?
Was this answer: The honourable member should remember that the 60-year-old aged care worker in Burnie is entitled to aspire to get a better job, is entitled to get a promotion, and earn more. Is entitled to be able to earn more money, and working in aged care is a good job, but you are entitled to seek to earn more. Everyone is entitled, everyone is entitled to ... every worker, every Australian is entitled to aspire to earn a better income.”
Because not only does it sound like, for a moment, the prime minister was suggesting that an aged-care worker could get a better job, thereby, for a moment (he did correct himself in the whole quote, and just like with Tanya Plibersek it is important to have these things in context) implying aged-care work wasn’t a good job, he also just said that a 60-year-old worker could aspire to a better job/income.
A 60 year old. This is despite government policy in the last budget to help over 50 year olds get work, because we all know how hard it is to be employed as a mature-aged worker in this world.
I aspire to be adopted by Beyoncé or Rihanna, as well as to ride a unicorn, but there are some dreams which will remain just that, no matter how much you aspire to them.
Updated
Craig Kelly is talking to David Speers about the national energy guarantee debate in the Coalition party room.
Just in case you missed it, Tony Abbott told the room that he has been, per Katharine Murphy’s sources, misled by bureaucrats during the Paris process – that being the agreement he voluntarily signed Australia up to, and since losing the leadership, has argued against.
Kelly, who once supported the Neg, now has his own concerns:
“I am concerned how it will work, how much it will cost and what it will do to the comparable advantage to the those industries, internationally.”
Updated
Updated
In Senate question time the jobs and innovation minister, Michaelia Cash, was asked about news taxpayers would be footing the bill for her legal bid to have subpoenas set aside in the Australian Workers Union challenge of the police raid on its headquarters.
Cash:
“Everything I’ve stated is on the Hansard record, I have absolutely nothing to hide. It’s politically motivated by the AWU. The case is between the AWU and Registered Organisations Commission, because the AWU does not want to produce documents that show … donations [to GetUp] were properly authorised.”
The subpoenas are seeking documents including communications between Cash and her staff about the raid, in an attempt to discover who was responsible for the leak to the media and to bolster the union’s case that the raid was politically motivated.
Cash took on notice a further question about the estimate of her legal bill to fight the subpoenas.
Labor then tried a question about “thuggery” in the Liberal party after the dust-up outside the chicken shop, but Mathias Cormann objected on the basis it was not a supplementary question.
Updated
The Senate will be sitting late tonight. Here is the motion which was just passed:
That today—
(a) the routine of business from not later than 7pm shall be government business order of the day No 3 (Treasury laws amendment (personal income tax plan) bill 2018);
(b) if a division is called for after 7pm, the matter before the Senate shall be adjourned until the next day of sitting at a time fixed by the Senate; and
(c) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has completed the second reading of the bill, or at 10.30pm, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Updated
Steve Irons with a question to Dan Tehan (included here because this is how dixers should be used)
“Will the minister update the house on the progress of the national redress bill and the significance of this important piece of legislation to survivors of child sex abuse?”
Tehan:
“... Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the member for Hughes question and can I acknowledge this is an issue which is very dear to his heart, and I know it has touched his family. I would like to thank him for the contribution he has made to this debate and the passage of this bill. Today, the Senate passed the national redress scheme. What it showed was that this Parliament,every single member of this Parliament, both here in the house and in the Senate, was able to put survivors first. And today will mean a lot to those survivors. Come July 1, we will be able to provide them with redress and our task now, and I say this very much in a bipartisan fashion, is to make sure we deliver that redress to the best of our ability. It will involve a payment of up to $150,000, access to psychological counselling services, and a personal apology by the institution.
“Not only do we have a commitment from every state and territory government to join the national redress scheme, but we also have the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church, the Uniting Church, the Scouts and others agreeing to be part of the scheme.
“That takes coverage to over 90%. I look forward to other institutions joining over the coming weeks. When we met with survivors and with the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales and their attorney generals at Kirribilli, Leone Sheedy was there, who has advocated very strongly for this. You will remember, she cut your in half. She cut Dan Andrews’s tie in half. Then she headed to cut my tie in half. I said to her I didn’t want to do that, because I wanted to see the passage of the bill through before I cut the tie in half that I wore that day.
“I will be going back to my office, I will be cutting that tie in half, and I will be sending it to Leone.”
He then calls on Jenny Macklin to add her words:
“I think the minister very much, and maybe he should wait until he sees Leone and lets her cut his tie. I’m sure she will take great pleasure in doing so. I do want to associate the opposition with the words of the minister and thank him for his commitment and his hard work, frankly, to get to today. As he said, it is an extraordinary achievement, first and foremost, for the survivors of child sexual abuse, for the care leavers from institutions. As all of us no, no amount of money will give these people who were abused as children, they won’t get their childhoods back. There will be a way in which all of us, all Australians, can acknowledge and a sum compensation for the horrific abuse that people have suffered.
“Today is a very significant day. It will be a difficult task, a very difficult task, for this redress to be delivered. A lot of people will have to remember again the abuse that they suffered, but it is something that people have worked very hard for, and I thank the government for their efforts.”
And question time ends on that bipartisan note.
Updated
Speaking of Tanya Plibesek, her time in the sin bin is over:
Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Tafe teaches students and apprentices from all around the country are gathered around today. Can the PM explain why he is cutting another $270m from skills and apprenticeships in this year’s budget, while giving $80bn to big business. Will the PM reverse his opposition to Labor’s plans to cover upfront fees for 100,000 TAFE places and train more Australians?”
Josh Frydenberg, representing Simon Birmingham, takes the question:
(After criticising Labor’s record)
“The Liberal party is supporting 300,000 aspirational apprentices. A $70bn infrastructure rollout is looking to support apprentices all the way, and of course the VET system is now getting going. At the end of the day you can look at the Labor party record, where they cut all the apprentices, cut money out of the program, and in contrast we are creating hundreds of thousands of new positions for aspirational apprentices across the country.”
Updated
Paul Fletcher takes a nice little potshot at Tanya Plibersek in his dixer answer:
“… If you are a well-paid Labor MP married to a well-paid bureaucrat, aspiration may be very puzzling to you as you sip your decaf soy latte, as you munch your kale and quinoa salad, but in Mount Gambier, the fact that there could be up to 3,270 additional jobs, because of the NBN being connected, delivering jobs and economic opportunities, because the NBN is being rolled out across the country, that is what the coalition government is doing. We are delivering for the people of Australia with the NBN rollout and in so many other ways.”
Updated
Mark Butler to Malcolm Turnbull:
How can Australians have confidence in a government that fights with itself over energy policy everywhere? In the party room, the parliament, through the media, and even in charcoal chicken shops?
Turnbull:
“As the honourable member knows full well … because of the time when he is at home in South Australia he knows what it is like to have energy policy … he knows what it is like when you combine Labor Greens ideology and idiocy, which is what happened in South Australia, where you got to the point where the wind resource in South Australia could generate more than 100% one minute and then 0% the next minute.
“There was no planning to storage or back it up. The honourable member knows that, as do all South Australia. The reality is this – our policies are working. Labor failed in allowing export of gas from the east coast without looking after the Australian domestic industry and demand.
“We have ensured there is sufficient gas available and we have seen wholesale gas prices come down over the last 18 months by around 50%.
“The honourable member is well aware of that. We have seen wholesale generation costs come down by about 30% over the last year. We are starting to see reductions in retail prices across the east coast. The markets of the national electricity market. There is a lot more to do with the national energy guarantee. We are already seeing and delivering lower energy prices. There is more work to do, Labor should support the national energy guarantee. It will deliver affordable and reliable power and the same time enable us to meet Paris commitments.”
Updated
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
Can the government confirm that it is unwilling to have a parliament vote on the legislation which only deals with the July first tax cuts even though it would pass both houses today. Lower middle income earners will get nothing now.
Turnbull:
“We have compared his personal income tax plan. A comprehensive plan for reform. The Leader of the Opposition voted for it in the House of Representatives.All of them, they all voted for it.They would vote for it again in the Senate. They are filled with confidence about their prospects at the next election, they could sweep back into government and they could amend it and repeal it. Why do they do that? It is open to them. The only people that are standing in the way of tax relief Australians on July one other members opposite.”
Greg Hunt, after all but yelling his dixer answer yesterday, today reverts back to ‘very disappointed university lecturer tone’
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull:
“How can the prime minister possibly justify spending $25bn a year on stage three of the government’s personal income tax scheme and on its big tax cut, when under this prime minister, gross debt has reached half $1tn for the first time in Australian history?”
Turnbull:
“Of course, we have seen a net debt peaking. We are turning the corner of the debt that he and his colleagues and the Labor party created. Turning the corner on debt and, Mr Speaker, I noticed the honourable member referred to a reduction in tax as spending. You can’t spend money that is not your own, you know. That is the Labor party thing. The Labor party think that every dollar every person earns and every business to the government so if you reduce tax, it is spending. It is their money, that’s the difference. And you know what? They have an aspiration keep more of it.”
Updated
Also worth noting, because I forgot yesterday, but Michael McCormack referred to the Liberal-National government yesterday, instead of the Turnbull-McCormack government, which had been his habit.
Had someone had a little chat to him about the proper terminology – or did he just give up on making “fetch” happen?
Updated
Michael McCormack is giving the impression of someone who cares about infrastructure and totally understands what he is talking about, or at least he is giving it a red hot go. #deathtodixers
Updated
Mark Dreyfus to Malcolm Turnbull:
“When the prime minister met with the prime minister of the Solomon Islands last week did they agree to provide environmental [compensation] after the logging practices on the Solomon Islands were described as amongst the worst in the world? And given the prime minister was chair of Axiom at the time, is the prime minister providing any advice about the delivery of this Australian government aid?”
Turnbull:
“The prime minister of the Solomon Islands and I talked about many matters that did not include the matters brought up by the member.”
Updated
Mark Dreyfus to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Is the PM aware that racist hate speech was hurled during a violent brawl at a Liberal party meeting last night, with a witness reporting ‘they started bashing him, they took him outside and started kicking him, I thought he was going to die’. Will these people be referred to the Human Rights Commission under the Racial Discrimination Act, notwithstanding the PM’s personal objection to that section?”
Christopher Pyne jumps in:
“There are many things within the PM’s responsibility, but this is not one of them. It is a serious matter that has been raised, it has been referred to the police and that is the appropriate place in which it should be dealt with, and it is not the responsibility of the PM.
Tony Smith:
“I am happy to hear from the deputy manager of opposition business, but I think the responsibilities of ministers and the PM are very clear. We have been over this ground many times, the PM is not responsible for party matters. Actually, the leader of the opposition is not either. I don’t think the question is in order. I am happy to hear the case from the deputy manager of opposition business, but …”
Dreyfus:
“Mr Speaker, it goes directly to the Racial Discrimination Act, section 18C, and the possibility of a referral of any Australian citizen who has used racist hate speech to the Human Rights Commission. It is something on which the PM has often spoken, and indeed supported attempts to repeal this section of the racial discrimination act. That is what the question goes to.”
Turnbull:
“The attorney just past me a note advising that only an aggrieved party can refer matters to the Australian Human Rights Commission, so that is the first point. I would say also in terms of the incident, the statement that the Liberal party of New South Wales has put says as follows – ‘The Liberal party has been made aware of an incident that allegedly occurred at a meeting this evening. The party will fully co-operate with the police, an internal investigation will also be undertaken and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. The Liberal party strongly condemns the kind of behaviour that is alleged to have occurred.’ And I entirely concur in that condemnation by the New South Wales Liberal party, and look forward to their providing full cooperation with the police in their inquiries.”
Updated
Peter Dixon takes a dixer from Craig Kelly (keeping it in the factional family, so to speak) so Dutton can give his usual Labor will allow the boats back speech.
He says this:
“I see some interesting words from the Labor candidate for Longman, where Ms Lamb was quoted as saying ‘at this point it is not Labor’s policy to resettle people in Australia’.
“Which I guess is the point though. I said this yesterday, but it bears repeating – there have been no changes to Labor’s policies, because the national conference which decides those things has not been held. So a policy idea, from Labor MPs at the moment, has as much power as, I don’t know, a Liberal national council motion vote to sell the ABC.”
“A non-binding motion from the Liberal party council has as much power as a policy change idea in the Labor party before the vote has been held – not a lot.”
Updated
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
I ... refer to the PM’s earlier answer when he said his government rewards aspiration. Under this PM, should a 60-year-old aged care worker from Burnie aspire to be an investment banker, so that with a $10 tax cut they can get the PM’s $7,000 a year tax cut for investment bankers?”
Turnbull: (after a LOT of loud noises)
The honourable member calls out sit down, that is what he’s saying to any one who wants to get ahead. That is what he is saying to every Australian who wants to get ahead. Sit down, he says. He says I am a snob. Honestly, that is what he said. This is the man who sucked up and grovelled to Dick Pratt like there was no tomorrow.
He took three trips overseas, he drank the champagne, he sucked up to the big end of town. He sold out to workers, he sold out the workers and you know what, Mr Speaker? I had seen a lot of wealthy people in my days, and I have never seen anybody more sycophantic in the presence of a billionaire than a Labor politician, and none more so than this sycophant, this groveller, this man who abandoned workers while he tucked his knees under the table and sucked up to Dick Pratt right up until it was no longer useful for him to do it. No integrity, no consistency, no loyalty.”
Updated
Christopher Pyne is asked a dixer on, I don’t know, how much he hates unions, probably, but he starts with this:
“I hate to contradict any of my colleagues on the frontbench but some of them have said today that not one member of the Labor party knows anything about aspiration of Australians. There is one, actually. There is one, Mr Speaker. There is one with quite a lot of aspiration, while I don’t like to contradict the minister for revenue,she said that not one member of the Labor party knows anything about aspiration, our friend over here [Anthony Albanese] has quite a lot of aspiration.
“A few people have been saying that the member for North Sydney might keep him at the post. But I think after this morning he has already got rid of her under the chariot wheels, he only has one more to go.
“Our friend over here, the leader of the opposition. If I was you I would be getting my suit dry cleaned, Anthony, because you might get there faster than you think. Your aspiration is well known to us all. That is the introduction to my answer. My answer is actually …
Tony Smith interrupts him to say: if he could hit his pause button for a second. “I was about to say, story time is over. You are not reading it very well now.”
Normal proceedings resume.
Updated
Jim Chalmers to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Can this arrogant and out of touch prime minister confirmed that under his government’s tax policies, an investment banker from Woollahra earning $1m per year will get a tax cut of $7,000 a year, the bank will get a company tax cuts, but a shop assistant from Caboolture will only get a tax cut of $10 per week and that is before they lose up to $77 in penalty rates?”
Turnbull: (after some very loud noises)
“No wonder Paul Keating is disgusted by the failure of the modern Labor party to connect to Australians’ aspirations. We know Australians want to get ahead. We know they are encouraged by the stronger economy to get ahead and we will constantly remind them that the greatest threat to that stronger economy is the modern Labor party apparatchiks with its denial of aspiration, denials of self advancement that workers to generations used to deliver through the efforts of labour representatives. This Labor party is a disgrace to all the labour history and labour leaders of the past.”
That’s the second time we have heard apparatchiks this question time from the PM – someone has found a new favourite word!
But seriously – it has been a while since we have had the “aspirational” debate – I think the last serious one we had was during the Howard era. The election is going to be very interesting (and very nasty) indeed.
Updated
Kelly O’Dwyer in a dixer from Trevor Evans, the Member for Brisbane, said she hopes “Big Trev” will join “Little Trev” in the chamber.
That would be Trevor Ruthernberg the LNP candidate for Longman, who the coalition have taken to calling “Big Trev” after Malcolm Turnbull pointed out he had Donald Trump-level proportions.
LNP sources tell me its also because the former Newman government MP is having a little trouble in the name recognition stakes in Longman, hence the rebrand to “Big Trev”.
Updated
Andrew Wilkie has the independent’s question (they are provided in advance to the government, so they can give an actual answer)
“A whistleblower tells me that from July 1, Centrelink is backdating payments to the intention-to-claim date.
“This is unacceptable because people needing it for a week can initially be in crisis and unable to lodge the paperwork immediately. For example, women fleeing domestic violence. And when they do, it can be convoluted, the process. This process also may appear to be illegal because section 13 of the Social Security Act 1999, clearly intends that a person is taken to have made a claim when they first contact Centrelink. Prime minister, will you stop this unfair, unlawful and sneaky attack on the most vulnerable members of our community?”
Malcolm Turnbull:
“I thank the honorable member for his question. The government is committed to ensuring more Australian people find jobs. However, for those unable to find work, we have strong social welfare safety net and the only reason we can continue to guarantee that into the future is because we had a strong economy.
“The honourable member from Tasmania understands well how much stronger the Tasmanian economy has become because of the great Liberal leadership of Will Hodgman, supported by our Coalition government in Canberra.
“The honourable member describes this change at unlawful and sneaky. The honourable member would recall that it was a policy change which was part of the social services legislative amendment welfare reform bill which was debated and passed by the parliament in March this year.
“The honourable member didn’t speak in the debate that he did vote against it. The changes made in schedule 11 of the bill so it is both lawful and very transparent and the rationale for the amendments, and I am quoting from the bill which is available to everybody, the provisions were introduced at a time when things were returned to Centrelink by mail with the progressive roll-out of online claiming and those provisions are no longer necessary. Therefore, the debate that the honourable member voted in, would have therefore paid attention to the change that was made.
Updated
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Why won’t the prime minister support Labor’s plan to give 70% of working Australians are bigger, better, fairer tax cut, compare two stages one, two and three of the government’s scheme.”
Turnbull: (who sounds like he is addressing a Donald Trump cheer rally he is straining those vocal chords so much)
“The government’s personal income tax plan rewards aspiration, it encourages Australians to get on and have a go. It gets rid of bracket creep. Ninety-four per cent of Australians won’t have to pay more than 32.5 cents in any extra dollar. I will give three additional reasons why Labor’s plan lets down hard-working Australians on middle incomes.
“A police sergeant in Queensland could be working in Longman, perhaps, would pay under Labor’s alternative $1,253 more tax.
“Or a school principal in Tasmania, it might be in Braddon, would pay an extra $3,500 more tax. Or a police inspector in South Australia would pay $4,050 more tax.
“The Labor party talks about millionaires and billionaires, paying no little attention to the reality that everything they are doing is patronising and seeking to hold back hard-working Australians who want to get ahead. Only the most arrogant and out of touch deputy leader of the opposition would say aspiration was a mystery.
“I tell you what, Mr Speaker, how out of touch or do you have to be to be mystified by aspiration?
“How smug in your big government salaries do you have to be to say you are mystified by aspiration? I tell you what, we understand aspiration drives the nation forward. It is the powerhouse, it is the ambition that we seek to support and enable and Labor’s seeks to hold back.”
Updated
Just another reminder, and I would do this for anyone, because taking people out of context is cheap, bullshit politics (which both sides are guilty of at times), here is what Tanya Plibersek actually said:
Honestly this aspiration term, it mystifies me. As if someone on $40,000 a year isn’t going to want to earn $100,000 a year because they’re going to pay a bit more tax. They’re going to get a lot more income, they’re going to pay a bit more tax. I think it’s just an excuse and a cover for a Government that is determined to give the biggest tax cuts to people like them, people that they want to look after at the big end of town. How is it fair that a surgeon on five times the income of a nurse gets a 16 times larger tax cut. Is that fair?”
Updated
Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Treasury has confirmed the entire third stage of the government’s personal income scheme goes to the top 20% of income earners at a cost of $42bn. Forty-two billion. How was it fair that under this arrogant and out of touch PM a property developer in Arncliffe earning $1m will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, while a worker in a charcoal chicken shop in the same suburb will only get a tax cut of 10 ...”
(lols to the Arncliffe chicken shop reference – grade-A trolling)
Turnbull:
“I am glad the honourable member is giving the residents of Point Piper a rest today and has decided to have a go at the property developers in Arncliffe.
“The fact ofthe matter is this. Under the current tax regime in 2015-16, for example, the taxpayers earning over $180,000 pay 30% of the total personal tax take to the government, and they represent 4% of taxpayers.
“Under our plan in 24-25, there will be 36% of the total tax receipts from personal income tax. Our plan rewards aspiration, encourages investment, encourages employment, and it is thoroughly progressive, and as is the case now, but more so those on the highest incomes pay the most tax.”
Scott Morrison, missing half of his voice because of what can only be some Little Mermaid spell shenanigans, takes the floor for the next dixer. (It’s either a sea-witch spell or a cold. I just give you the facts, you decide)
Updated
Warren Entsch gets the first dixer.
From Malcolm Turnbull’s performance so far, I think it is clear that at some point over the last couple of weeks he contacted Ursula the Sea Witch and received Scott Morrison’s voice. Which explains why the treasurer was so, for him, quiet yesterday.
Updated
Question time begins
Bill Shorten is barely out of the blocks with his first question when Tony Smith has to caution the chamber over the noise.
“Under Labor’s tax plan, anyone earning under $125,000 will get a bigger, a, fairer tax cut compared to stage one of the government’s scheme. Why won’t the PM support Labor’s plan to give 10 million Australians a tax cut of $928 per year, almost double the tax cut they will get from his government?”
Malcolm Turnbull:
“We are a government that believes in Australians’ enterprise and their aspiration. We believe Australians should be entitled to aspire to get ahead, to get a better job, to invest in their business, to make some real economic progress in their lives. Aspiration is at the very heart of everything we are doing. Seeking to support Australians to realise their dreams.
“Mr Speaker, it is in the very DNA of our parties, the Liberal party and the National party, we believe the government’s job is to enable you to do your best, to realise your dreams, to aspire and to get ahead. You would think that is pretty straight forward. You would think that every Australian would embrace that, Mr Speaker, but not the leader of the opposition.
“Today, the deputy leader of the opposition said, ‘this aspiration term, it mystifies me’.”
Tanya Plibersek stands up to table a document – and is denied on the grounds you can’t do that during an answer.
Turnbull continues – and he gets so into it that tension veins pop up on his forehead.
“Imagine how her great hero Paul Keating, would feel now. Keating said only a couple of years ago, he said the Labor party has lost the ability to speak aspirationally to people and to fashion policies to meet those aspirations.
“There is no reason – no doubt why they have lost the ability to do so, because it is all a mystery. It is all a mystery. From the hard streets of Rosebery, with a household income of just under $1m, the deputy leader of the opposition says aspiration is a mystery.
“I tell you what, we believe that every Australian is entitled to aspire to have great ambitions, and high hopes to seek to do their best, to seek to get the best job, the biggest business, to realise their dreams – that is what we stand for. It is what Labor used to stand for, but no more. This privileged elite opposite, they want to keep the workers in their place.
“I remember when the Labor party had members that had really worked. I look at this group of university-educated apparatchiks and I don’t see any Jack Fergusons, I see an educated privileged class that wants to keep the ladder out so that others can’t realise their dreams.”
Plibersek tries to table the transcript of the whole interview and is denied leave to do so.
She is then thrown out of the chamber for objecting.
For the record, here is the whole Tanya Plibersek quote:
Honestly this aspiration term, it mystifies me. As if someone on $40,000 a year isn’t going to want to earn $100,000 a year because they’re going to pay a bit more tax. They’re going to get a lot more income, they’re going to pay a bit more tax. I think it’s just an excuse and a cover for a government that is determined to give the biggest tax cuts to people like them, people that they want to look after at the big end of town. How is it fair that a surgeon on five times the income of a nurse gets a 16 times larger tax cut. Is that fair?”
Updated
It is almost question time (sad yayayayayayayayayayayay) – hit us up with your predictions in the comments
Updated
Rachel Siewart, has welcomed the passing of the national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child abuse on behalf of the Greens but said concerns remained:
“The Greens welcome with a heavy heart the passing of the national redress legislation and look forward to seeing the scheme operating from the nominated date of 1 July 2018,” Siewert said in a statement.
“We share concerns with survivors that the scheme is not the best it can be given there are some issues that remain unresolved.
“As indicated by my second reading amendment, I hold concerns about relevant prior payments being indexed under the scheme.
“The government has said that they won’t raise the cap because a $200,000 cap would result in an average payment of $65,000, whilst the current $150,000 cap will result in an average payment of $76,000. They could not explain how they came to these figures which is farcical.
“The government could not answer in the debate detailed operational questions and because there’s no funder of last resort in all circumstances there will be survivors unable to access redress.
“There is uncertainty as to whether or not counselling and psychological services will be available to survivors for the whole of their life and the government’s answers to my questions during the debate have not reassured me.
“I also have concerns around the scope for eligibility for the scheme, I don’t think certain groups should be excluded from the scheme, like those who have a criminal conviction, are in gaol or are not an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time they apply for redress.
“These are just some of the remaining concerns the Greens and others share. Following commencement, we will continue to advocate and work for subsequent reforms to make the Scheme the best it can be.”
Updated
Penny Wong has addressed the Australia China Business Council.
Here is part of that speech:
The Australia China Business Council has existed for almost as long as Australia has had diplomatic relations with China. Our oldest non-government institutional link with China, you play a key role in the bilateral relationship between our two countries. This role is perhaps even more important now, as the bilateral relationship between Australia and China weathers an unsettled period.
You would all be aware of reported tensions that have marked the Australia-China relationship over recent months. That tension has led, among other things, to Australian businesses shouldering the burden of slowdowns and administrative holdups, intimations from China’s representative here in Australia about implications for our economic ties, and some fairly direct recent remarks by China’s Foreign Minister Wang.
Instances of ill-advised and unnecessarily inflammatory statements from senior members of the government, such as ‘bridges to nowhere’ and the former deputy prime minister’s ‘China is a greater threat than terrorism’ have been unhelpful.
Further, they have distracted from some of the more complex issues that arise in the China relationship: issues and challenges that need to be articulated clearly and purposefully — to the Australian people and to China — not dealt with glibly or thoughtlessly.
The China relationship is both a complex and crucial one. Politically and culturally, China and Australia are very different countries and in such complex relationships, differences of approach, objective and opinion will inevitably arise.
These differences have become more apparent as China has become more confident in asserting its interests under President Xi.
Australia is entitled to assert our national interests, just as China asserts what it sees as its interests. But it is possible for us to assert our interests and safeguard our sovereignty without being offensive and inflammatory. A more sophisticated approach, based on both respect and a firm articulation of our convictions, will do more to ensure our national interests are maintained than will the disjointed megaphone diplomacy the government seems to have preferred of late.
Similarly, it is also incumbent upon political, business and industry leaders to ensure they handle such debates with a degree of sensitivity and sophistication.
As I remarked in my first speech to the parliament, Australia’s diversity can be an aspect of our shared identity. Or it can be the faultline around which our community fractures. We must always guard against racial faultlines from our past being allowed to resonate today.
As others have noted, the Turnbull government has fallen short in its management of this key bilateral relationship. A more considered, disciplined and consistent approach is required. It’s not in our longer-term interest for ties to be strained. Nor is it in China’s.
What the Australia-China relationship needs is stability based on mutual understanding.
If Labor forms government following the next election, we understand that some of these pressures will persist. We understand that, at times, our interests will differ. We understand that challenges in the relationship may intensify. But what government can and should avoid is making things harder than they need to be.
Updated
Michelle Guthrie is addressing the Melbourne press club, answering the question, How do you put price on the value on the ABC?
This is coming just moments after the Coalition party room had the discussion of whether there should be a “cost benefit analysis” for each of its programs.
Not sure how that would go in the rural and regional areas, where there just aren’t that many people, but those programs are considered an absolute lifeblood of the community.
Guthrie says the ABC has commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to do some research for it.
The report is still being compiled and will be released next month, but the early findings are very interesting – they show that the ABC contributed more than a billion dollars to the Australian economy in the last financial year – on a par with the public investment into the organisation.
So far from being a drain on the public purse, the audience, community and economic value stemming from the ABC activity is a real and tangible benefit.
Updated
Meanwhile, in the Coalition party room
While Labor has been revving up for a tax fight, government conservatives have been up to their favourite activity: squabbling about the national energy guarantee.
The usual suspects: Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Craig Kelly, Andrew Gee and Ian MacDonald raised their usual objections about the policy. National Scott Buchholtz fretted about high energy prices. Liberal Trent Zimmerman spoke up in support of the policy.
According to folks in the room, Abetz attempted to argue that Abbott hadn’t given hard commitments about signing up to the Paris agreement, that it was always aspirational. Abetz apparently invoked his favourite line about not “putting pensioners before Paris”. Abbott then told colleagues he’d been misled by bureaucrats during the Paris process.
The energy minister Josh Frydenberg (correctly) said Abbott had signed the government up to Paris with firm commitments, not aspirations.
Abbott also raised the impact of the national energy guarantee on the Tomago aluminium smelter. Frydenberg pointed out that the owners of Tomago are supportive of the national energy guarantee.
Updated
Brian Burston said he only decided to join Clive Palmer at 10:30am on Monday...
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) June 19, 2018
But his staffer tweeted this at 7:47am https://t.co/5xqvVHMBrZ
For those who have been blocked by Mary-Ann Oaten, a Brian Burston staffer, here is the Tweet @workmanalice was pointing to - and another, a minute before Burston stood up in the house to say he was an independent: #auspol (Burston said he didn’t make the decision until 10.30) pic.twitter.com/gJPB2wPFJg
— Amy Remeikis (@AmyRemeikis) June 19, 2018
Taxpayers to pick up Michaelia Cash's subpoena fight bill
Christian Porter has approved “assistance” in Michaelia Cash’s fight against two subpoenas in the AWU raids federal court case.
Taxpayers to pick up the bill for Michaelia Cash’s legal fight against the two subpoenas in the AWU raid leak case: #auspol pic.twitter.com/l0RzlZrmVr
— Amy Remeikis (@AmyRemeikis) June 19, 2018
Updated
Labor has released its statement on its tax cut legislation position (emphasis Labor’s):
A Shorten Labor government will deliver permanent tax relief for the Australians who need it most – ensuring tax relief goes back into the pockets of 10 million middle income and working Australians, not Turnbull’s millionaires.
Under the Liberals, working Australians are struggling with soaring cost of living expenses – with energy costs higher than ever, health costs higher than ever, and wage growth at record lows.
But Turnbull wants someone on $200,000 to pay the same tax rate as someone on $40,000.
Labor will fight to ensure that low income and working Australians get a fair share – rather than the top tax bracket being the largest beneficiary in six years’ time.
Labor’s will support tax cuts for 10 million people on the 1st of July – we are ready to vote for them today. And if we are elected, we will almost double these tax cuts and make them permanent – while asking those in the top tax bracket to pay a little more to help reduce the debt.
Labor’s bigger, better and fairer income tax cuts will see those earning up to $125,000 a year better off when compared to Malcolm Turnbull’s plan over the next four years.
Labor does not support someone on $200,000 paying the same tax rate as someone on $40,000. We don’t agree with Turnbull giving even more tax cuts for the top tax bracket – and this is after Turnbull cut their tax rate last year.
That’s why Labor will move amendments in the Senate to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 to ensure the passage of the tax cuts starting on 1 July.
We will seek to implement better, fairer tax cuts through Labor’s Tax Refund for Working Australians – which would double the tax relief to up to $928 per year.
Turnbull needs to stop standing in the way of tax relief for 10 million Australians. Tax cuts for teachers and tradies this year should not be held hostage to tax cuts for bankers in six years.
And if Turnbull doesn’t allow passage of tax relief for 10 million Australians before 1 July – a Shorten Labor government will ensure they receive it regardless. The treasurer himself has conceded that the legislation does not need to be in place by 1 July for the tax relief to be received at the end of next financial year – so we will act on Turnbull’s failure, make sure they receive this tax relief and lock in our bigger, fairer, tax cut.
The Turnbull government’s priority is for tax cuts for big business and high income earners – at a cost to the budget of a $25 billion a year in ten years’ time.
Because Labor isn’t giving millionaires another tax cut, or giving big business an $80 billion tax handout, we can put more money into the pockets of working Australians, fund better schools and hospitals, and pay down the debt quicker.
Updated
At the end of the press conference, Bill Shorten is asked if he regrets giving the obituary for Bob Ellis, after Rozanna and Kate Lilley, daughters of playwright Dorothy Hewett, said Ellis was one of the men who used to come to their family home in the 70s and have sex with them, including when they were underage.
The Australian reported on that, and the books the women have written about growing up in the Lilley house, here.
“I didn’t know then what we know now,” he said.
“I think they are shocking allegations.
“Yes. I do.”
Updated
Bill Shorten is addressing the “aspirational” debate Malcolm Turnbull and the government has raised.
“Mr Turnbull loves to talk about aspiration. But he only has one definition of aspiration. More money.
“Now that is not unreasonable. But I think there is plenty of aspiration in this country. I don’t judge a person by how much money they make. If you have an aspiration to send your kids to Tafe, that will do for me. If you have an aspiration to find decent home care, residential care, for your parent who has been diagnosed with dementia, that is aspiration. If you have an aspiration to be fair dinkum on climate change, that will do me.
“I have a view of Australia which is not defined by how much money you have in the bank.”
Updated
“We all support tax cuts for the first group – let’s do that. And as for the rest, why don’t we agree to disagree and trust the Australian people to decide at the next election”.
Updated
Bill Shorten says attempting to bind future parliaments to the second and third tax plans “doesn’t make sense”.
“I often find in life it is easier to stick to your lines when it is something you believe in,” he says, about voting for just the first tranche. As for parts two and three:
“Just put it to the people. Just put it to the people”.
Updated
Chris Bowen says Labor will make tax an election issue:
Now, as I said, the Labor party’s position is fair, responsible, some may say brave. We’ll take that criticism. But we’re prepared to stand for our values. We’re prepared to do what we think is responsible.
We’re prepared to do, as shown time and time again in the economic debate in the last five years, to lead and take risks and be the responsible parties when it comes to the budget.
We’re providing better and fairer tax relief for Australians but also providing a more responsible budget repair approach.
Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull may have thrown budget repair out the window. We have not.
We are prepared to take our plans to the people at byelections or at general election, and the Labor party’s position will be bring this debate on, in whatever form the prime minister and treasurer choose to have it. Bill and I will be there willing to have it with them.
Updated
Just to recap, Labor will only support stage 1 of the tax cuts – the $540 tax rebate for lower and middle earners.
It will work to amend the bill to split the second and third tax cuts, so the first can go through.
If Labor loses in this attempt, it will vote no against the entire bill.
If the government manages to pass the bill, Labor will repeal the legislation, if it wins government.
Both Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have mentioned the timing – that the tax rebate doesn’t kick in until July 2019, which gives the government the entire financial year to pass it. They have also pointed out that the other stages don’t kick in until another four and then seven years down the track.
Updated
Chris Bowen steps in:
When the vote comes on in the Senate, as I said we will vote for stage 1. We will vote against stage 2 and against stage 3.
If the government insists, in whatever force, we don’t know what will happen in the Senate. Nobody can accurately predict exactly how the Senate votes will go and we are not pretending that we can today, but if the Labor party is asked to vote yes or no on the total package, including stages 2 or 3, we will vote no.
We are taking the responsible approach. As, with emphasis, we are prepared to vote for the 2018 tax cuts today.
More than that, because the bulk of the 2018 tax cuts are being provided as a rebate, Australians won’t actually receive them until 1st July 2019. Accordingly, they can be passed at any time over the next financial year.
If the Turnbull government won’t pass the 2018 tax cuts an incoming Shorten Labor party government will, including the relatively small part of the tax cut that is a change to the threshold, which still can be done retrospectively and refunded to Australian workers as a rebate, tax refund, at the end of that financial year.
If stages 2 and 3 are legislated, it will be our intention to repeal them.
Updated
More Bill Shorten:
We say to the government that if you want to talk about promises in more than two election cycles’ time, take these radical proposals to the people of Australia and see what they think about them.
What we also say to the Turnbull government is that you should not hold hostage tax relief for tradies and teachers so that you can give the top end of town tax cuts in seven years’ time.
“Our commitment to the Australian people is this: we will vote for tax cuts for you right now and if Mr Turnbull insists in playing silly political games over the next two weeks, our commitment to 10 million working Australians is when we are elected we will provide tax cuts for you which will actually be nearly double what the government is offering in this fortnight
Updated
Labor to vote no to government tax plan, if amendments fail
Bill Shorten on Labor’s plan to amend the government’s income tax plan:
Australian workers, Labor will be voting for a tax cut for you and we are ready to do so today. We will support the first stage of the government’s tax cuts, not because we think they are as good as the ones we are offering, but we certainly want to see Australian workers dealing with cost of living issues and low wage stagnation.
“We want to see them get a tax cut and we are ready to do it now. But as for the rest of the Turnbull government’s 10-year tax trick, it is an irresponsible plan from an irresponsible government and no responsible opposition would vote for it
Updated
Just on Clive Palmer’s point yesterday that his local paper held a poll and 70% were in support of him – here is the actual news:
Re: the @tsv_bulletin poll Clive Palmer keeps quoting... 70% never said that HE should be the one to open it, just that the job-starved people of Townsville would really like to see it running. Local reax to his Herbert pitch speak for themselves #auspol https://t.co/OdNXoeOTpC
— Clare Armstrong (@ByClare) June 19, 2018
Derryn Hinch had a chat to Sky News a couple of minutes ago, and said he thinks Palmer, who he described as a “novelty” during his first turn at politics, returns “flawed”.
Updated
Mike Bowers was out and about when the Chinese ambassador to Australia, Cheng Jingye, left the Australia-China Business Council meeting this morning.
Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen will be holding a press conference in the next 20 minutes to talk about the decision to split the income tax bill.
The government has said it’s still all or nothing – but it is yet to cement the numbers it needs to pass it unamended.
Updated
Here is what Chris Bowen had to say to Radio National this morning (before Labor made the decision).
But we’ve taken our time to work through the issues very carefully, as the alternative government should do. I’ll be making a recommendation to caucus which reflects our values, which reflects our principles and also reflects fiscal responsibility. Now, I still believe in fiscal responsibility, the Labor party still believes in fiscal responsibility. The government thinks it can have unfunded tax cuts on the never-never and we don’t know what the economy will be like in seven years’ time. But they say we can lock these tax cuts in. I have a different approach to these matters but I will be making those recommendations to the caucus as I made them to the shadow cabinet last night.
Updated
So if Centre Alliance is on board, and so is Tim Storer, then the next step is for the group to work out where the splits are. Team amendment will also need one more vote for a majority.
And the Greens might be voting to amend the bill, but they are still voting against any tax cuts.
So, it is very complicated and has some way to play out first.
Updated
Breaking: Greens on tax cuts: the party will support the effort in the Senate to remove stage two and three of the income tax cut plan @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) June 19, 2018
It’s been so busy today, I haven’t even gotten to the most hilarious news of the day – where a Liberal branch meeting had a fight outside a chicken shop.
In a statement, a spokesman for the NSW Liberal party said the party was aware of the incident and was cooperating with police.
“The party will fully cooperate with the police in relation to their inquiries. An internal investigation will also be undertaken and disciplinary action taken against those responsible.
“The Liberal party strongly condemns the kind of behaviour that is alleged to have occurred.”
Apparently the fight happened after those hosting the meeting, which was either about changing the borders of the Arncliffe-based branch to allow more moderates in, or setting up a new branch (depending on who you talk to), wouldn’t let in people/was gatecrashed.
Gosh, government sounds like SO. MUCH. FUN.
There’s been a fight at a Liberal Party branch meeting in Arncliffe tonight. Allegations elderly women were abused and a man assaulted. Democracy at work guys. @9NewsSyd #auspol pic.twitter.com/P77ptrLCse
— Chris O'Keefe (@cokeefe9) June 18, 2018
Updated
Labor agrees to split bills
Labor has decided it will only support the first stage of the government’s income tax plan – and wants to split stage two and stage three into separate bills.
Updated
Penny Wong, who will speak at the China Australia Business Council meeting a little bit later today, and who has been critical of how the government has handled bilateral relations in recent months, describing its diplomacy as “clumsy”, put out this statement on the Julie Bishop story:
The foreign minister’s pledge to lift Australia’s aid funding in the Pacific cannot be taken seriously while her government continues to drive down Australian development assistance spending to the lowest level in history.
Despite clear evidence of Australia’s diminishing influence in our region the Turnbull government continues on its disastrous path of cuts to aid which can only further weaken Australia’s standing.
Under Minister Bishop’s watch more than $11 billion has been cut from Australia’s aid program.
Just last month the May budget cut another $140 m from our aid spending, driving Australian development assistance spending down to the lowest level in history – just 22 cents in every $100 of our national income will be spent on foreign aid in 2018-19.
Pacific island states have felt the impact of these cuts, and will increasingly turn to others to fill the gap left by Australia, further eroding our influence in the region.
The foreign minister has now acknowledged Australia does need to demonstrate greater leadership in the Pacific and play our part in ensuring a stable and prosperous region.
Yet the Turnbull government’s own budget figures forecast our international development program will fall even further to just 0.19% of GNI over the forward estimates.
Australia has a deep interest in contributing to global poverty alleviation, and our international development program supports security and stability in our region.
The foreign minister’s own DFAT White Paper, released late last year, declares “Australia’s overseas aid program aims to help developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development in line with Australia’s national interest.”
The Turnbull government’s cuts to development assistance are already a source of international embarrassment for Australia, and are at odds with the generous spirit of the Australian people.
A Shorten Labor government will contribute more to international development assistance than the current government. And we will ensure more of it gets to the people who it is meant to be assisting.
Labor has repeatedly urged the Turnbull government to return to a properly bipartisan approach to international development assistance.
Instead of continuing to prioritise massive tax cuts for big business, Julie Bishop must now put her words into action by joining Labor in committing to lifting Australia’s embarrassingly low level of international development assistance.
Updated
In an interview with Fairfax Media, Julie Bishop addresses China’s “soft diplomacy” with Pacific island nations, saying Australia wants “to ensure that they retain their sovereignty, that they have sustainable economies and that they are not trapped into unsustainable debt incomes”.
Beijing has stepped in to build infrastructure in Pacific regions, through concessional loans, as Australia’s foreign aid budget, and its ability to help traditional allies, lessens.
Connie Fierravanti-Wells kicked off a diplomatic storm at the beginning of the year, when she raised concerns over Beijing’s spending and what that could potentially mean in the future, if China called in its loans.
Bishop walked a diplomatic tightrope then. But now, as relations continue to be strained, she tells Fairfax:
“We’re concerned that the consequences of entering into some of these financing arrangements will be detrimental to their longterm sovereignty”, while also mentioning it would be the same “for any country ... Russia comes and plays in the Pacific now and again”.
“We want to be the natural partner of choice”.
Steve Ciobo tries walking some of that back on Sky News this morning:
.@JulieBishopMP says Australia needs to ensure nations are not forced into opaque development offers. @StevenCiobo: Our focus is on being a sustainable long-term partner for our friends in the Pacific.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) June 18, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/ykweMevBOK #amagenda pic.twitter.com/hOG3e1FWoL
Updated
Australia-China relations
The Australia China Business Council is meeting today and John Brumby, the ACBC president, says this year the meeting is occurring in slightly more challenging times than some of its previous meetings.
That’s a subtle nod to the strained relationship between Australia and China since the foreign interference legislation hit the agenda.
China’s ambassador to Australia, Cheng Jingye, says China is continuing to grow its economy and is maturing as a market, including strengthening intellectual property laws, to better encourage investment.
But Cheng also doesn’t shy away from the issues between the two nations:
Everyone present here supports and cares about the future of the China-Australian relationship.
... Trading services requires a deep relationship and mutual understanding, which I believe is very relevant in the current state of affairs of our relations.
It is right to say that since we established diplomatic times in 1972, especially since the beginning of the new century, huge progress has been made in exchanges and cooperation in various areas between the two countries, against the expectations of many people.
These progresses have not only robustly spurred economic growth in both countries, but also delivered real benefits and tangible benefits to its two peoples.
Of course the development of our bilateral relations has not always been smooth. Sometimes, there be clouds, even rain and wind.
China and Australia are in the same region. Both of our economies are highly complementary. We have many shared interests and the potential for future cooperation is huge, including trading services. And we both stand for free trade and an open economy.
So there is no reason for us not to develop a better relationship with each other based on mutual benefit and mutual trust.
Nowadays, countries are becoming increasingly interdependent. But populism and protectionism are on the rise.
... Staying open and inclusive, enhancing communication and mutual learning are in the train of human development.
And Cheng finishes with this.
Recently, in his meeting with minister [Julie] Bishop, the Chinese state councillor and foreign minister Wang Yi outlined China’s development path and its visions with developing relations with other countries. He pointed out that China’s development path is completely different to that of traditional major powers.
China never interferes in the internal affairs of other countries, let alone carry out infiltration of other countries. China’s idea is to carry out equal cooperation with all countries, including Australia, to achieve mutual benefit and win-win outcomes.
He also expressed China’s willingness to communicate with Australia on how to practically improve bilateral relations.
It is my belief that in order to disperse the clouds and achieve sustained and sound development in our bilateral relations, the two countries need to have more interaction and inclusiveness, with less bias and bigotry.
We need to see each other’s development and positive intentions from a more positive perspective with less cold war mentality.
We need to build more mutual trust, with less misunderstanding. We need to develop more connections between our two countries and two peoples with less barriers. And we need to respect each other’s core interests and major concerns while managing the differences in a constructive manner.
Updated
Tanya Plibersek said the outpouring of grief for Eurydice Dixon – and all the other women before her – transcended politics.
This is a shocking, it is a terrible, terrible story and it is right that people should be shocked by it,” she told Sky News this morning.
It is a beautiful thing that Eurydice Dixon’s family have asked that people also remember that this week there is a young woman missing, presumed dead, in New South Wales – Qi Yu; there was an attempted, an actual, abduction and assault on an 11-year-old girl in NSW; a two-year-old girl in Tennant Creek. And I remember, in 1988, the abduction of Janine Balding. I remember before that, 1986, the abduction and murder of Anita Cobby.
These women stay with us. And they stay in our hearts because,they change the behaviour of every woman and we need to get their right as a society.
... There is no question that every decent person feels disgusted by this crime, feels desperately sad for the friends and family, for all of the women who have lost their lives to mens’ violence, and there is no question that every decent Australian wants this to change. To stop.
To really understand how much this means though, you really need to hear her say it.
.@tanya_plibersek on Eurydice Dixon: These women stay with us and they stay in our hearts, and we need to get this right as a society...every decent person feels disgusted by this crime.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) June 18, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/HDGkrEKLOp #FirstEdition pic.twitter.com/MTg95MnCiu
Updated
Before we get to the mess of the day though, I wanted to show you some of the scenes from last night, when the parliament held a vigil for Eurydice Dixon.
Good morning
And welcome to another day in the thunder dome.
Things got quite heated on the bad show last night, with Linda Reynolds adding some fuel to the fire the government is desperately trying to hose down, by saying it was “valid” to have the debate on how the ABC spends it money.
“I was there at the conference over the weekend and I heard the debate on the motion and, from my perspective, I think it’s not so much about privatising the ABC, which is not going to happen, but $1.2 bn of your taxpayers’ money goes into the ABC every year.
“I think it’s valid for us in parliament and for all of you to actually question whether that money is being best spent.
“So, for example, I’m from the state of Western Australia and I hear frequently from people in rural and regional areas in Western Australia that they don’t feel that they get enough service from the ABC.”
Tony Jones hit back that the show couldn’t afford to go to WA when Reynolds asked why it hadn’t appeared in the west. She then told Jones that “probably 40% of your salary comes from Western Australia”.
So. Good times.
Labor will caucus today and work out whether or not it will move to split the tax bill – and how – with talk that part two, which will cost $80bn from July 2022 by moving the upper thresholds of the marginal tax rate around, will also be on the chopping board.
The Greens need to support that for it to have any hope of succeeding. Tim Storer is on board with splitting stage one. Centre Alliance is also on board with potentially splitting. Which means they need one more to have any potential amendments passed.
Over in the Coalition joint party room, energy will be the big debate, as Josh Frydenberg attempts, once again, to corral his party into agreeing on the Neg and Tony Abbott tries just as hard to put coal back on the agenda. I doubt anyone will be looking forward to that.
Mike Bowers has been out since early this morning – I’ll bring you some of his work very soon. You can follow along with him at @mikepbowers or @mpbowers. You’ll also find him on the behind the scenes story on @pyjamapolitics.
You can catch me on @amyremeikis or lurking in the comments.
Got your coffee? Let’s go.
Updated
