I think that will do us for now
Well delightful people, given it’s now all quiet at the #auspol ranch (famous last words) I reckon that will do us for today. I’m not quite sure when I’ll be back with Politics Live, certainly budget week, if not before.
Until then, let’s review Wednesday.
So straightforward, we can do it in two points.
- The government announced a banking package restoring $127m in funding to the corporate regulator via a levy on the banks – a move calculated to neutralise Labor’s call for a royal commission into the banking sector.
- Labor said not good enough, only a royal commission can fix this problem.
That was really the long and short of things today.
Thank you to my colleagues and thank you to the readers for your company throughout this special sitting of the parliament. It’s been tops. See you again soon.
I’m going to have to wrap this up soon, but time for a few more.
From @SEdwards0108: The gov’t says the banks will fund ASIC to the tune of $120m- will the banks raise fees/interest rate and pass cost to customers?
KM: Let’s see what they say, but I can’t see how they won’t. Other costs of doing business are passed on. Can’t see how this one wouldn’t be.
From @Jansant: Why did media mostly fail to report the astroturfing of #rsrt repeal? #qt
KM: I don’t know what the media did, was flat out myself reporting what was going on over the last few days, so I haven’t done a meta analysis. Sorry.
From @preciouspress: Why hasn’t media presented facts re. effect on owner/drivers of RSR Tribunal, rather than just report Govt/Oppn positions.
KM: At the risk of contradicting the answer I gave just a moment ago, I do know what we did at Guardian Australia, because I showcased it on Politics Live. My colleague Paul Karp did at least two pieces of news/analysis working through the expert evidence which were pieces designed to cut through the political rhetoric. As for what others did, I can’t tell you with total accuracy because I was focussed on our effort.
Now last one, from @reddishraven: Grand Strategy or Random Tactics? Is there an LNP brains trust or just everyone firing madly from the hip?
KM: Hello Ben – a bit of both I think. There’s certainly a brains trust. Planning for the budget and the campaign is on in earnest, and some experienced hands sidelined during the Abbott period are back in the mix – but there’s certainly a bit of firing from the hip, and cross current and contention, which does give the appearance of chaos.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Thanks for playing folks. You rock.
From OnceWasAus in the thread: Katharine, here’s a question. Do the boards, senior editors or parliamentarians such as the PM calling the ABC or PMs having dinner with media moguls influence how a story is reported, the tone of the story, what has to be left out, the type of rhetoric the story contains and how much each sides version gets written?
KM: There is no blanket answer to this question, and, obviously, not being privy to such exalted dinners myself as a lowly journalist, I can’t tell you from close observation. I can share my own lived experience of twenty years though, which might help answer the question. I’ve worked at Fairfax, at News Corp, and for Guardian Australia. I’ve never been directed by an editor to write a story in a certain way. I might have been helped by news editors to find the most significant point in the story, but that’s part of a process of learning as a journalist, that’s not editorial slant. I’ve had headlines on my stories which I haven’t appreciated over the years, but I think that’s a common experience among journalists. Different publications have different intrinsic interests. The Australian Financial Review has a different audience to Guardian Australia, so the two publications are interested in different issues. But again, that’s not editorial slant – it’s understanding the interests of the different audiences, a business audience wants different content to a broadsheet audience. That said the editorial tone of the two publications are obviously different. Like I said, I can only share my own experience.
From Aaron Murphy (no relation): Hey Murph (nice surname), you must be relieved that the extraordinary sitting finished up after two days? Or are you depressed that it just added an extra two weeks of unofficial campaigning?
KM: No Aaron, not depressed. I’m very hopeful that the opportunity of stepping out of Politics Live mode for a bit can allow me to complete some things I really need to get done before the election. *Happy dance*.
From @Gwillaumau on Twitter. Is Jon Snow really dead?
KM: Love never dies.
From Erin Quinn: Didn’t the government already have a DD trigger? Why the big whoop about the ABCC when they could have just used one of their other triggers for the same purpose?
KM: Thanks for this question Erin. Yes there were other options but the government wanted this one, not from the point of view of voters, who I suspect don’t know or care very much about the building industry inspectorate, but to rally the base. Think about an election campaign like armies massing for battle. This week we’ve seen everyone massing for battle. Getting the senate to vote down the ABCC allows for some fighting words about trade union power and influence, which is one of the things that gets the Liberal party faithful doing little fist pumps. It makes them feel good, having an enemy to fight. It inspires people to go to quiz nights and hand out how-to-vote cards and sell raffle tickets. It’s particularly important for a Liberal party leader like Malcolm Turnbull to speak to the base. He’s under internal pressure to speak to the base. Turnbull is, I suspect, more interested in speaking to the political centre than the conservative base of the Liberal party but it’s the price of admission if you are the leader of the Liberal party. Hope that sheds some light.
From Blair Barker. Campaign orthodoxy holds that the issues funnel down over an election, from broad narrative on many topics to the one or two points at the finish line…do you agree? And has this been flipped by MT by putting out there … “who do you trust with the economy” so early – could be an interesting election if he gets innovative?
KM: Hi Blair. Campaign orthodoxy always holds until it gets turned on its head. The thing about this campaign that’s notable compared to recent political history is its length. We haven’t had such a long campaign since the 1980s, and that environment is more unpredictable. More time to fill means more time for things to go wrong when the voters are watching. In terms of your substantive point – flipping to the economy, the Coalition would always open with its strongest suit (economy or security, looking at Turnbull you’d think economy), and Labor always lags the Coalition on economic management. The government also has to build from the special parliamentary session to the budget week, which I reckon is even more critical than usual. If the government sticks budget week, that’s a good springboard for the campaign, if its an omnishambles that’s a problem. I think it will be an interesting campaign. Genuinely. So much of the policy agenda is unresolved, we are going to learn things. That’s always a good position to be in.
I’ll start with the questions from Facebook.
From Grant Nowell. Do you think the right of the Coalition will stop causing problems for Turnbull during the lead up to the July 2nd election?
KM: Hmmm. It’s a bit hard to say just at the moment. Before 2010 I would have said of course they will all calm down during an election campaign, but sadly we are all post-2010 now. We’ve seen political parties lose their sense of reason in the middle of a civil war. Once seen, never forgotten. My instinct says the government is less likely to go fully nuclear than Labor did, however the prime minister is still facing leaks and acts of destabilisation, including a budget leak this week. Doesn’t bode well.
From Steve Pye. At 9.12 this morning, you wrote: “There are big, serious, important debates at the global level that aren’t really penetrating in this country at all. We are still locked in sound bites, signifying very little.” My question to you is, why are we still there? I don’t subscribe to the view that the media is simply rolling over and giving one side or the other (or apparently, based on comments, both sides, somehow) an easy ride. But, if you and other colleagues recognise this is part of the problem, how do you think you can draw the more serious, important debates out of the news cycle?
(Did I mention I LOVE readers question time.)
KM: Thanks, Steve. This is a very difficult question to answer for the simple reason is the answer isn’t straightforward. The news cycle now runs like a waterfall. Its fuel is the new, and sometimes the ‘new’ can crowd out the important. Sounds strange, but it is true. Nothing sticks in the modern news cycle, everything just washes through – big and important things, and trivial, completely inconsequential things. It all flutters away. The environment makes it hard for politicians to govern, and hard for journalists to persist and plough away without having to peel off and deal with the next thing. There really are no simple answers to this question. From the journalism perspective, I can only do the best I can, and try, particularly in projects like Politics Live, to inject some weight as well as chasing the breaking cycle. And politicians would help themselves by keeping it simple: say what you mean and do what you say, and hope the voters notice that you are trying to serve the public and be a force for good.
Readers question time
As the House of Representatives speaker Tony Smith would say, it being 2pm ..
I will deal with a bunch of questions from you. Stay tuned.
I’ve called for submissions on the twits and Facebook but I’ve forgotten to do it here. Given there’s no question time today I’ll hold a special readers edition of #qt on the blog today. If you have a question about politics, sing out. I’ll take questions from folks in the thread until 2pm.
Q: Is $126m enough?
Greg Medcraft
Yes.
In Sydney, the Asic chairman Greg Medcraft is having a media conference in the wake of the banking announcement. He says the Turnbull government has shown confidence in him by extending his term, and the organisation accepts the findings of the capability review.
Medcraft is asked whether he’s nervous about having to go cap in hand to the banks for funding.
Er, no. I’ve been pushing for this user pays funding model for years.
Medcraft says there should be a price signal, which acts as an incentive for businesses to behave properly. If they have to pay for their regulation, then they will be less inclined to act improperly.
We want to have an incentive for them to do the right thing. Why should taxpayers be funding a market regulator?
(I’d say for the same reason as taxpayers pay for police forces, and defence forces, and even journalists through ‘market failure’ broadcasters, like the ABC. To keep various bastards honest. That’s why.)
Medcraft says there are user pays models for regulators overseas.
A risky swerve into heteronormativity a moment ago from the sex discrimination commissioner. That won’t go down well at the next senate estimates.
Kate Jenkins
We still live in a community that has a dominant narrative of a white, heteronormative role for men and women in what they do at home and at work.
Yet that doesn’t reflect our lived experiences and it’s certainly not meeting our national expectations.
While I’ve been thundering about regulators Australia’s new sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, has been speaking to journalists at the National Press Club. She’s referred in passing to a famous anti-discrimination case in the 1970s – Deborah Jane Wardley versus Ansett.
Reg Ansett. A true marvel.
Kate Jenkins
In short, Mr Ansett argued that he wasn’t prepared to risk the safety of his passengers with an emotional, unpredictable woman in the cockpit. The High Court listened to that argument and recognised it was time for change.
Deborah Wardley won and even as an11-year-old that I was then, I knew that news story marked an important milestone and like many kids around me, I saw a future in which discriminatory attitudes about women as the weaker sex were being replaced by the recognition that men and women were equal.
I suppose I have an in-principle view about funding regulators: it’s an investment that’s worth making in any civil society and functioning democracy. I’m a pro-market person. I think markets work more then they don’t work, which is a deeply unfashionable view at this juncture. But I’d add an important caveat to that principle. I think markets work best when consumers have good information and when they are policed by well funded, independent, courageous regulators. Australia got through the global financial crisis in part because our regulatory system delivered for consumers. You can’t say the same of the regulatory system in other countries. Regulation is worth investing in, it’s not an inconvenience that needs to be outsourced to someone else.
Bernard Keane at Crikey has just posted a piece which also raises similar concerns on my theme of regulatory capture, and the failure to confront systemic problems. Bernard raises an issue I didn’t think of: the problem associated with walking around public service hiring regulations (which was one part of today’s response).
Another area of concern is that Asic will be freed up from restrictions relating to public service secondment employees from industry, pitched by Morrison and O’Dwyer as better enabling Asic to go after banks.
In fact, such secondments raise very serious concerns about industry capture of the regulator and were the subject of recommendations by the committee in light of the evidence of James Wheeldon – a former ASIC employee.
You can read Bernard’s analysis here.
Some thoughts on the banking package
I mentioned earlier today something about precedents. The government is concerned about the precedent of a senate inquiry calling a cabinet minister (Arthur Sinodinos) before it, concerns that would sound a lot more valid had the government not itself opened the door by setting up royal commissions that required two former Labor prime ministers, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, to turn up and answer questions.
It’s a bit the same with this sortie on the banks. Scott Morrison over the past few days has been intent on making an argument that royal commissions deliver nothing concrete, an argument which rather exposes the government’s past practice in relation to the royal commissions Tony Abbott established essentially to settle score with his political opponents. Royal commissions are terrible unless they are our royal commissions.
Bit silly, that argument, isn’t it? Can lead you into all sorts of internal contradictions. Perhaps the major parties could try and draw up some armistice on royal commissions if they are now deemed to be inconvenient.
Now is Labor being populist? Of course it is. Is Labor trying to wrong foot the government on the eve of an election? Of course it is. Is Labor leaving itself open to questions about why it’s only just clicked into gear on the royal commission into the banking industry? Of course. These are all solid rebuttal points.
But they mean very little if the voters don’t buy your alternative. Let’s look at that for a minute. The government is getting the banks to pay $127m, a tax if you like, to pay for the cost of the regulator. That looks like stirring stuff, bastard banks, that’ll learn them, serves them right – until you start to think about it.
Shouldn’t there be a strict line between a regulator and the businesses being regulated? Isn’t there an intrinsic problem with blurring that line? I think there is. And I think the problem is pretty obvious when you think about it for more than five minutes. There is also the problem that restoring this funding isn’t actually an increase in funding if you consider that the government withdrew the same amount of funding from Asic. It’s just undoing a silly decision at someone else’s expense.
Then there’s the pass through problem. Passing off responsibility for funding the regulator to the banks will see the banks pass through the costs of that to their customers. In what universe won’t that happen? How can the government stop it happening? Finger waggling from the treasurer isn’t much of an enforcement mechanism, let’s be frank. But that’s the enforcement mechanism we were pointed to today: the treasurer’s fury. Not particularly terrifying.
Then there are the cultural problems. All the evidence to date suggests there’s a systemic problem in the banks. How will that be addressed by blurring the line between them and the regulator?
So I don’t think the government has fixed its political problem today or the practical problem – which is banks being insufficiently attentive and responsive to the needs of their customers.
Sorry Scott, but no banana.
Updated
A conversation that has just happened between myself and Magic Mike.
KM: “You’ve gone all moody.”
MB: “I was so over the Blue Room I cannot tell you.”
KM: “Entirely understandable.”
PS: Aren’t we lucky Bowers is completely over the Blue Room? Now we have this.
While I’m posting dark and stormy press conferences, Donald Trump has just won the Republican primary in New York.
Treasury to review the Kidman sale
Readers with me earlier today know the prime minister got a question about the Kidman sale on Adelaide radio this morning. Morrison told reporters just before he’s made an interim order to prevent it from proceeding for a period of 90 days from the date it was gazetted.
This is what he said about that decision this morning.
This provides time for me to consider the national interest implications of this complex and sensitive acquisition. I intend to do this on the Kidman matter as I did on the previous consideration of the transaction.
National interest considerations of proposed transactions should not and will not be rushed on an important matter such as this.
I have today instructed treasury to put in place an independent and external review of the sale and tender process in relation to Kidman because I want to be absolutely confident when I finally consider this matter that Australians have had every opportunity to be participating in that process and so we’ll continue to work through that process.
I will not be rushed into this. I will make a careful consideration on these matters. Many of you know this is what I do and it is a very big transaction and it is important we do the right thing by the national interest and that’s what I intend to do.
(I’m sure it is a very complex decision that shouldn’t be rushed. I know the Nationals will have very strong views about it. I can also note that 90 days will also put the decision on the other side of the election.)
Bill Shorten says Labor is not going to let go of this royal commission issue. A royal commission can get to the heart of the matter in terms of the facts, it can get to the bottom of a culture of arrogance, it can get to the bottom of whether banks put people or profits first.
Now, I’ll go back and clean up on Kidman and Co before I pick apart the implications of today’s developments on the banks.
Shorten is asked why he did nothing about the banks when he was an assistant treasurer in a Labor government. He says the government always wants to talk about the past. He wants to talk about the future.
(Except when he wants to talk about the past, but let’s not digress).
Bill Shorten
Mr Turnbull has to explain to the victims of financial frauds, to the victims of poor banking culture, why he is so desperate not to expose the truth in banking.
Now, banks are very powerful institutions and they play a very important role and we want to have the best possible banking sector – but when an individual consumer has a complaint or concern it’s a David and Goliath battle.
What levels the playing field is the truth, and nothing less than the truth will suffice, and the best way to get to the truth about the extent of widespread problems in the banking industry to have a royal commission.
"Mr Turnbull today has sold out Australians in favour of the big banks"
Morrison then works through the government’s position on the Kidman and Co sale, which is interesting, and I’ll come back to it, but I need to press on just for a moment.
The Labor leader Bill Shorten and his deputy Tanya Plibersek are outside a legal centre in inner city Sydney that deals with a lot of clients with claims in financial services. they are speaking to reporters.
Bill Shorten
Mr Turnbull today has sold out Australians in favour of the big banks. He’s just restoring the funding they cut.
Updated
Q: Do you regret in retrospect trying to undo the consumer protection laws that Labor put in?
Kelly O’Dwyer
That’s simply - with the greatest of respect ... that’s simply not correct. We haven’t tried to undo consumer protections. What we are doing today is we are strengthening consumer protections.
Q: There’s lot of people out there who hate the banks because of what has happened to them with scandals, they’ve been ripped off on insurance and so forth. What do you say to those people that - can you give a guarantee that these changes will put an end to this sort of practice? How sure can you be?
Scott Morrison
For those people who have been affected by dodgy dealings, by fraudulent conduct, by malpractice and misconduct in the financial services industry, we are puttingy ou front and centre in our response.
We are making sure that the consumer is front and centre, that you will be dealt with compassionately and you will be dealt with effectively so that you will be able to move on with your lives.
But to be brutally honest, we want to make sure people are not put in that position.
Morrison is asked whether this user pays applies in perpetuity. It does.
That would be user-paid, yes. That’s the whole point of this transition. This puts Asic on a much more sustainable footing.
Morrison again draws a contrast between the government’s response and Labor’s response. Full beat down follows.
The financial systems inquiry report today shows is a government that is focused on the practical issues that are addressing the real concerns of people who are being affected by what has been happening in particular cases in our banking and financial system. Now the alternative to that is a leader of the opposition who is cynically exploiting the concerns and fears of Australians when it comes to how that’s been impacting on their daily lives.
He’s politicising their pain and I think this is a reckless way for a leader of the opposition to behave who pretends to think that he can be responsible for a $1.6 trillion economy.
The motive of Bill Shorten is clear here. His focus is not about getting outcomes for people affected by what’s happening in the banking and financial industry, his motive is about getting a political outcome for one person: Bill Shorten.
(I’ll pick this apart after the announcement.)
Q: Treasurer, have you consulted the banks on these changes and are they supportive?
Morrison gives a very long answer which I’ll cut short to the relevant word. Yes, is the answer.
Q: Did you phone the CEOs of the banks this week or your office? And on the idea of the tribunal, one of the problems is currently that many dissatisfied customers say the banks string their complaints out too long, that they effectively hope they run out of money or, quite frankly, die before they solve things. Would you look at giving this tribunal (stronger powers)?
Morrison says it’s everyone’s job to engage with all the stakeholders in the sector and you can be assured I am regularly put things to the banks in terms of they need to do.
I’m doing my job when it comes to doing those things.
On the tribunal, Kelly O’Dwyer says:
We want to make sure that the consumer is at the heart of that and that is exactly why we are taking the time to work through exactly what powers will be needed and make sure that the entire financial services industry is covered and that there are no people who are falling through the cracks.
The deeply obvious question that arises from outsourcing the funding of the regulator to the banks.
Q: Treasurer, you say the banks will pay but won’t the banks just pass this on in higher fees and charges so it ends up being the customers, the people you’re trying to protect, who end up paying?
Morrison says he doesn’t believe that will be the case.
I would be furious if I thought this was being passed on by the banks and you can be absolutely assured they will be .. they’re getting that message from me, and in fact would already have got that message from me.
(Fingers have been waggled at the banks. So noted. I’d have a question about capture too if the banks are paying for the regulator, but sadly I’m not there, I’m talking to you good people.)
Q: Doesn’t this suite of measures amount to an admission that Asic hasn’t been up to the task?
Scott Morrison
What it amounts to is we have always been conscious of the need to strengthen and improve what is happening in Asic.
Morrison is asked when he got the recommendations he’s acting on today – before or after the debate Labor sparked about the royal commission? He doesn’t answer that directly.
Next question is why is the current Asic chairman not being appointed for a full term. He’s got an 18 month extension. Morrison says Greg Medcraft is the one right now best placed to go and implement these reforms and we don’t want to waste time with any transition or otherwise.
To questions now. Why are there more reviews being announced today? How long will they take?
Scott Morrison
The work of improving your cop on the beat never stops and you’re always working on it and always seeking to improve it.
As the son of a police officer, I know that to be the case in normal law enforcement areas.
In case we all missed it, Morrison thumps his own populist theme. The banks pay. repeat, the banks pay.
Scott Morrison
We have announced a series of actions today and funded them and the banks will be funding them. Bill Shorten wants to spend your money to fund his political exercise which won’t get outcomes for people, it will just get a political outcome for Bill Shorten.
Assistant treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer says the resourcing outlined today will give Asic the capability to intervene before serious harm is done rather than simply cleaning up the mess after the event.
The treasurer rounds out thusly.
This is what practical, effective targeted government looks like and that’s how we are responding to these issues of real concern to Australians.
But there’s no point talking about the concerns of Australians unless you’re prepared to put in place the actions that will address their concerns which is what we’ve done today.
Scott Morrison
We will be exempting Asic from the public service act when it comes to their employment practices. This is important to ensure that Asic, like other regulatory authorities has the ability to recruit from the market: people who have the experience and knowledge of practices in that sector to make them an even more effective regulator.
We will be recommending that the financial services ombudsman changes its thresholds to provide greater access for treatment of claims – and compliance and this is something that needs to be taken up by the financial services ombudsman and that would require legislation from the government which they will receive – and we will await their advice on how they seek to change those thresholds.
"We want an Asic that leans forward .."
Morrison says the government will require the banks will pay an additional $121m to increase the resources of Asic, to be a stronger cop on the beat. (This is the money the government took out of Asic, so it’s restoring that funding with the banks picking up the tab.)
The treasurer says there will be $61m for enhanced data analytics and surveillance capabilities and $57m for increased surveillance and investigation and prosecutorial capacities to pursue these matters.
The Asic boss has had his term extended and, in addition, the government will be appointing an additional commissioner to ASIC who has special expertise in prosecution.
Scott Morrison
We want an Asic that leans forward and we want an Asic that actually prosecutes and takes those matters up.
Morrison is currently brandishing a copy of the Murray review into financial systems, and the capability review into Asic, to demonstrate the government is not a Johnny-come-lately on banking regulation.
This is what a serious review of the financial system looks like.
The government unveils its package on the banks
The treasurer Scott Morrison and the assistant treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer are standing up now in the Blue Room. Morrison looks slightly out of breath.
Scott Morrison
When you address matters in your banking and financial system, you do it in a disciplined way, you do it in an orderly, way, you don’t do it in a reckless or populist way, you do it in with way that addresses the very real issues that have to be considered in these matters.
The Asic package is coming up.
Election underway in all but name. A prime minister and children inside ..
... and a demo outside.
No portent here of any kind. Complete coincidence that a child in a trouble shirt materialises in front of the prime minister.
Yes, I’m now getting a number of messages from folks whom I assume to be public servants in the ether who have been unable to watch the webcast of the prime minister’s address. I’ve directed the feedback to where it needs to go.
Ping @TurnbullMalcolm https://t.co/k7q7HdGQGo
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) April 19, 2016
Every day I’m buffering.
@murpharoo @guardian its streaming live to the APS but the buffering is so bad its unwatchable. Using the new #nbn? Net speeds are a problem
— betterrant (@betterrant) April 19, 2016
Turnbull is now taking questions from the floor.
A public servant from immigration points out that innovative policy requires risk taking, but the media cycle is all about gotcha moments. How do you navigate that?
The prime minister says you develop policy which is your best assessment in the circumstances. If it doesn’t work, dump it. If you see good things somewhere else, then plagarise them.
Malcolm Turnbull
The obligation is to do the right thing by the Australian people. This is how the real world operates, every business is constantly calibrating ... (if things don’t work) they change them. Organisms that are not changing are dead.
Next question is from a foreign affairs official who picks up on the PM’s comments about women in the executive. Is he in favour of targets?
Malcolm Turnbull
I’m certainly in favour of targets. If you have a target you have to report on it and if you are missing it people will ask why.
He says role models are very important. In his government, Julie Bishop and Marise Payne are role models. Michaelia Cash in employment is showing great leadership. He says managers need to look at road blocks to equality, and remove the barriers.
Mentoring, role models, flexibility are very very important elements. Men have to be strong champions of change.
Updated
This is quite an interesting speech from Turnbull. He says the public service has to prioritise collaboration. He urges his audience to think flexibility about policy, to have the capacity to know various policies are or aren’t working, and respond accordingly; to strike a balance between the insights of senior people and the ideas of young, tech savvy recruits. The prime minister says the APS needs to champion continuous improvement: the government has high expectations of its advisers, but also recognises respectfully the commitment of people who often dedicate a whole professional lifetime to serving the Australian public. I’m sure these words might seem a bit glib to a public servant sitting in the audience, battered by the impact of efficiency dividends and constant budget cuts, but there’s some interesting concepts in the speech.
The prime minister is currently talking to public servants in Canberra.
I can tell you that my government knows and respects the true value of the Australian public service. We know that we are fortunate to have at our disposal the knowledge, the experience, the passion of people who’ve chosen to serve the government of the day and, in turn, the Australian community who put them there.
With that said, Turnbull says the public service needs to prioritise developing leadership skills and it also needs to do more to ensure gender equality at the executive level. Part of that is creating a culture that allows employees to work flexibly, using technology, to ensure they achieve a reasonable work life balance.
Malcolm Turnbull quotes Jack Ferguson, former deputy premier in New South Wales, father of the Labor brothers Martin and Laurie, who once told him that peace on the home front is worth 10% on the basic wage.
That gets a laugh in the room.
Another interesting story from Gareth about the outlook for global growth. In a speech in New York on Tuesday, the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, has warned that the inability of governments and central banks to lift global growth prospects is the “biggest vulnerability” facing the world’s financial system today. “He says global growth must be Australia’s focus but the country also needs to realise that central banks are running out of firepower and government policies must start carrying more of the burden.”
Stevens touched on the subject of helicopter money. If this is a new concept to you, it basically means central banks providing stimulus direct to people’s bank accounts in an effort to tempt them to spend. This idea is gaining currency in countries where growth is low and there’s no room to move with interest rates. But Stevens doesn’t sound like a fan of the concept. “Stevens said he did not believe economic conditions were that desperate, yet, and governments should still be focusing on funding growth-enhancing infrastructure projects while borrowing costs were so low.”
Just an aside. If you listen to what passes for an economic debate in Australia at the political level in Australia, you do notice a certain disconnect in content. There are big, serious, important debates at the global level that aren’t really penetrating in this country at all. We are still locked in sound bites, signifying very little.
To other stories in the news cycle, an interesting story from my colleague Gareth Hutchens, who reports that new research has revealed 76 of Australia’s biggest multinationals pay an average effective tax rate of just 16.2% – half the corporate tax rate. “It has also discovered the commonwealth government lost $5.4bn in potential tax revenue in 2013 and 2014 from those same companies, as they shifted billions of dollars in profits offshore. Corporate tax experts from the University of Technology, Sydney, have worked with the activist group GetUp! to examine the financial records of the top 100 multinational corporations with operations in Australia. They say large pharmaceutical corporations are paying the lowest effective tax rate at just 5.7%, compared with 7.5% for hi-tech corporations and 20% for energy corporations. Australia’s official corporate tax rate is 30%.”
Updated
The ABC has been playing these new ads this morning, and they certainly hit home.
Porter is accompanied at this press conference by Michaelia Cash, minister for women.
In terms of the campaign itself, it’s very much targeted at those people who are influences, whether they are parents, whether they’re teachers, whether they’re friends.
The research shows that coaches are real influences when it comes to setting an example. And what the research also confirms, as minister Porter has said, we need to stop accepting or excusing disrespectful behaviour towards women and girls.
When you see the ads, you will see the scenarios put together. For example, when a woman or girl has been hurt, often the first response is: “what did she do that was wrong?” We go straight to the woman must have done something wrong or the girl must have done something wrong, without questioning why the perpetrator did what he did.
When a woman or girl has been hurt, we’ve got to stop saying: “it’s just boys being boys”. Again, it’s all about changing those attitudes at a young age that can ultimately lead towards disrespect to women, which can then lead, of course, to violence against women and their children.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to stop the excuses, it’s time to start the conversation.
Down in the Blue Room, the social services minister, Christian Porter, is unveiling a new $30m campaign to tackle family violence.
Christian Porter
The point of the ads is to break habitual behaviour and responses, particularly those that we end up teaching to young men and boys, which all of the research tells us are a foundation stone for later behaviour which results in violence being occasioned against women.
So the notion is, in essence, this: if you have a situation where one in six women experience physical or sexual violence and the research tells us we have a concurrent situation where one in four young people who don’t think it’s serious if a guy, who is a normally quiet fellow, hits his partner when he is drunk, then those two outcomes must be linked.
We are trying to hit directly at that attitudinal and habitual behaviour that hits in the mind of particularly young men and boys.
Updated
Readers on the blog yesterday know lots of motions passed the Senate late on Tuesday. Here’s another one that Murph didn’t get to last night.
The Senate ordered the government to produce all the documents it held in relation to its contractors running the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres.
The motion, ordered the government to produce, by 9:30am Thursday, “any contracts between Broadspectrum (formerly known as Transfield Services) and its subcontractor Wilson Security in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea... (and) any sub-contracts engaged in by Wilson Security and other entities in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea”.
The Panama Papers - released by The Guardian and more than 100 news organisations globally - showed Hong Kong brothers Raymond and Thomas Kwok, charged with bribing a government official in 2012, were covert directors of the company that ultimately controls Wilson’s operations in Australia.
Thomas Kwok was jailed for five years. Raymond Kwok was acquitted.
The motion, moved by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, orders the government to produced any documents it holds in relation to the Kwok family.
Outside the chamber, Hanson-Young said there was “a major shadow hanging over the government’s dealings with Wilson Security”.
Under the Senate order, the government must produce the documents before the Senate by 9.30am Thursday or provide a response as to why the documents cannot be tabled under a “public interest immunity”. The motion was supported by Labor, the Greens, and cross-benchers, and opposed by government senators.
Updated
Just in case the Kidman sale was out of the blue for some readers – I don’t think I had the chance to stretch to it yesterday – Australia’s largest landholder, S Kidman & Co, has agreed to sell the company to China’s Dakang Australia Holdings and the locally listed Australian Rural Capital Ltd for $370.7m. Under the deal, Dakang Australia plans to acquire 80% of Kidman while ARC is looking to take the remaining 20% stake – subject to approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board.
The bottom line on submarines was a decision shortly, but no clarity about whether it’s pre-election or post-election.
Are we going to see good news on submarines, the prime minister is asked? Turnbull says an announcement on submarines will be made shortly. I’m not going to be drawn on dates.
Q: Can we reasonably anticipate good news as South Australians?
It’s kind of you to inquire.
“Real Julia” is the next question. Where is the old Malcolm, the prime minister is asked. Will we see more of the old Malcolm after the coming election?
The prime minister says he’s not going to run a commentary on himself. But he’s still in favour of same sex marriage and he’ll vote yes at a plebiscite. He’s still a republican.
But he says Australians are predominantly interested in growth and jobs. In Adelaide they are interested in surface vessels being built in Adelaide starting in 2018, and having a strong indigenous defence industry.
Next question is on the Kidman sale. Does it give you any concern philosophically, the prime minister is asked, selling a major agricultural asset to foreigners?
The prime minister says the government looks at these transactions very very carefully. He says foreign investment is important and where it’s not contrary to the national interest it should proceed.
Remember we do benefit from foreign investment.
(One Nationals MP, John Williams, has already been on radio this morning suggesting the treasurer should impose conditions on the sale.)
The prime minister is asked about today’s banking announcement. Is this the result of backbench concern about Labor’s proposal for a royal commission?
Malcolm Turnbull says he’s already talked tough to the banks.
The customer has to be at the centre of everything they do. They are a business that is built on trust. My focus has been on getting action here. This is not a response to anything that’s happened recently – this is an issue we’ve been addressing very methodically.
Malcolm Turnbull opens his Adelaide radio interview by noting how glad he is to be on radio, where he can talk to owner drivers who are back at work courtesy of the government abolishing that wicked tribunal in the special parliamentary sitting. Heellllooooo owner drivers! (That last bit is me, not the prime minister).
The prime minister is coming up on radio in Adelaide. The Labor leader Bill Shorten has done breakfast television this morning.
Shorten was asked about Labor’s chances at the election.
We are the underdog. To use the horse racing analogy, we are coming into the home stretch. We have policies, passion and we are determined to provide a competition for the Australian people and it will be choices about policies which affect people, not just the usual political games.
We believe we can win ... we have a real chance. It is about having policies. I think people want to see more than ... the superficial personality politics.
And on the story of the day – strengthening Asic’s powers – not good enough. “Nothing less than a royal commission ..”
Bill Shorten
We think regulators, the exciting cop on the beat regulators of the bank should be properly funded. The truth of the matter is nothing less than a royal commission will be satisfactory. The banks don’t want a royal commission and Mr Turnbull doesn’t want a royal commission but there are tens and thousands of customers who have been ripped off.
We hoped things would get better but they haven’t so I do believe that a royal commission with its widespread powers will get to the bottom of it.
The regulators try to do the best they can but after every banking scandal don’t we always hear a contrite banking executive saying “we have learned our lesson” and then they seem to go out and do it all again.
Good morning good people and welcome to Wednesday in Canberra. As I made my way into the parliament early this morning, I was almost mown down by senators heading out of the building to the airport. Yes, the special sitting of parliament is over. We’ve now entered the pre-budget/election-without-an-election period that will characterise the next couple of weeks.
Despite the departure of our elected representatives I’m powering on with Politics Live today for two reasons: the government will unveil its riposte to Labor’s campaign for a banking royal commission mid-morning and we need to wash up the sum of the past few days. I’m glad to have your company.
The news cycle this morning is very ‘morning after the night before’. Readers with me yesterday know that Labor over the course of the evening used the opportunity of the special sitting to foist a couple of nasties on the Turnbull government – most particularly a new inquiry into donations in New South Wales. The cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos will be directed to attend this inquiry and answer questions about party fundraising.
The government is thundering about precedents, and reasonably so, because this is a highly unusual turn of events. I suspect, however, the government’s complaint would have more credibility if it had not taken the decision to convene royal commissions that called a couple of former Labor prime ministers before them to explain their conduct. The lesson to learn from winner-take-all politics is it’s definitely contagious.
And quite apart from the politics, the problems with Australia’s donations disclosure regime are serious, and our political system seems incapable of responding to them. The culture of political fundraising in Australia needs a good dose of sunlight, and anything that delivers that is worth doing.
Moving on.
As well as the various previews of today’s banking announcement, there are some interesting stories around, including a budget story from Fairfax Media’s Peter Martin which suggests the government is planning to launch a tougher crackdown on generous superannuation concessions than Labor’s proposal.
As Martin notes, Labor has promised to cut the income threshold for more heavily taxing contributions from $300,000 to $250,000. “The Coalition now plans to cut it to $180,000. The change, to be unveiled on budget night, will tax more highly the super contributions of an extra 244,000 Australians and will net $2bn a year, compared with Labor’s $500m a year.”
With policies like this, you’d almost think we had a revenue problem that needed fixing, but of course that’s impossible.
Yes, it is too early for sick burns. Let’s canter on. The Politics Live comments thread is now open for your business, so come on, get happy. Magic Mike and I are also at your disposal on the twits (consistent with the requirement to gather news and file constantly for ten hours at a stretch): he’s @mpbowers and I’m @murpharoo Feel free also to stop by my forum on Facebook and join the conversation there.
But for now, boil the kettle and butter your crumpets. Here comes Wednesday.
Updated
