Night time politics
- Malcolm Turnbull, immigration minister Peter Dutton and justice minister Michael Keenan all contradicted their former PM’s statement that there was no deal with David Leyonhjelm to trade a sunset clause on the Adler shotgun in return for his vote on a migration bill.
- Tony Abbott then rose and claimed to have been misrepresented by Labor questioning, but repeated his assertion there was no deal and that his ban was acting on security advice that the Adler shotguns were flooding the country. While he aimed the barbs at Labor, it was obviously really aimed at his former cabinet colleagues.
- During Abbott’s statement, Turnbull and four of his senior ministers stayed to hear the answer.
- The day marks a new low for the split in the Coalition MPs from Abbott, since he started freelancing on the issue of gun control.
- His actions will now set him apart from many conservative colleagues such as National party MPs who were hoping for a less emotive debate on the Adler, not to mention many of his Liberal colleagues, who will not thank him for throwing guns on the table in a week when the unions and the CFMEU were supposed to be the issue.
- Also today, we learned that the government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and trade knew of plans by former Liberal MP Wyatt Roy in Iraq because they were told he was interested in any “meetings” while he was there. Dfat told him there was a no travel order on the country but it contradicts a statement from Julie Bishop that the government knew nothing of it.
- The government’s plebiscite bill passed the lower house but is expected to be blocked in the senate by Labor, the Greens, the Xenophons and Derryn Hinch.
That’s enough for tonight. Here is a string of magnificence from Michael Bowers to give you a flavour of the day. Thanks to Paul Karp, Gareth Hutchens, Ben Doherty and Katharine Murphy for their input.
See you in two weeks time when parliament resumes on 7 November.
Go well.
Scenes from a personal explanation #DealOrNoDeal @gabriellechan @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/BFAtVHTAtT
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) October 20, 2016
Updated
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Most egregiously Mr Speaker.
Julie Bishop trains her death stare at Tony Abbott.
Turnbull insists the Justice Minister acted with the full knowledge of PMO when brokering deal on Alder shotguns. https://t.co/7Ioso12b2p
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) October 20, 2016
Abbott says claims he 'connived' to broker a deal on shotgun imports are 'utterly false'. https://t.co/5gJ6jS6PkH
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) October 20, 2016
So to recap, Labor asked a series of detailed questions of the prime minister, immigration minister and justice minister relating to the Adler gun.
In the process of answering, Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Dutton and Michael Keenan confirmed that Leyonhjelm was offered a sunset clause on an import ban on Adler shotgun in return for supporting a migration bill.
Tony Abbott then rose to make a personal explanation, which is a process that allows members to claim they were misrepresented.
Malcolm Turnbull, Kelly O’Dwyer, foreign minister Julie Bishop, treasurer Scott Morrison and environment energy minister Josh Frydenberg – who had been walking out – stopped to listen to the answer.
PM Turnbull halts on his way out as Tony Abbott makes a personal explanation about the Adler shotgun @gabriellechan pic.twitter.com/yzyDVuwGfT
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) October 20, 2016
Abbott said there was no deal and quotes security advice which said the Adler should be banned.
This leaves us at a stalemate. They said-he said.
If you have Sky, it might be worth tuning into Peta Credlin tonight.
Updated
The point to make about Abbott’s note is that just because there were security grounds for Abbott’s import ban, this does not mean a deal was not done between Keenan-Dutton and Leyonhjelm. The two factors are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, if there were such strong grounds for stopping the Adler imports, then it made no sense to put a sunset clause on it.
Updated
Tony Abbott quotes his advisor’s note on security. It said of the Adler shotgun:
- 7,000 Adlers preordered
- 20,000 Adlers ordered
- 10,500 Adlers already in the country.
Abbott said had order gone ahead it would have more than doubled the number of Adlers.
An old shotgun had been used in the Lindt seige and shut down the city, he says.
The advisor’s note relates to the security reasons for keeping the guns off the streets.
The note said the Adler would have gone into the same category as an air rifle.
Updated
He says any Leyonhjelm deal for a vote is false.
Essentially calling his former ministers liars.
OMG Tony Abbott is giving a personal explanation.
Of course the government shut down the Labor motion below. The government gets one more question. Turnbull delivers a firm and fairly defiant answer on his economic plan, looking at the opposition but directed at his backbench.
Updated
In no mood to trifle....
Malcolm Turnbull throws Tony Abbott...
Under a bus...Or a train perhaps.
Exciting times.
Labor has moved this motion:
That the House:
1. Notes that today the prime minister has openly contradicted the claims of the former prime minister on the guns for votes scandal;
2. Notes that in the first 15 sitting days of the 45th Parliament:
a) The government became the first majority government in more than 50 years to lose control of the House of Representatives;
b) The treasurer introduced legislation containing a $107 million black hole;
c) The Senate ran out of legislation to debate;
d) For the first time in federation, a government voted to condemn itself;
e) The former prime minister outflanked the current prime minister on his left and his right;
f) The prime minister was rolled by his extreme right-wing on issue after issue;
g) The prime minister condoned an attorney general who had misled the parliament;
h) The Health Department refused to endorse the prime minister’s absolute guarantee on the cost of seeing a doctor; and
i) The government considered trading guns for votes; and
3. Therefore, censures the prime minister for 15 sitting days of unprecedented chaos from a government in disarray.
Updated
Another vote now.
I’m told Albanese is offering Peter Dutton “lollies for votes” during the divisions.
Albo yells to Dutton:
You give guns for votes, how about lollies, we’ve got lollies over here.
The government wins the gag on Burke 74-67.
Anthony Albanese gets up to second the suspension motion.
At least Tony Abbott stands for something...
until the speaker turns off his microphone because Christopher Pyne moves the member no longer be heard.
A second gag vote.
Updated
Updated
I missed this one while my attention was on the Abbott Turnbull thing.
It is not avocados, it is bikies causing house affordability problem.
Peter Dutton just told #qt young people can't afford to buy an apartment because of "unions and the bikies" #auspol pic.twitter.com/DsYLoGJMXP
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) October 20, 2016
Speaking to his motion, Labor’s Tony Burke says of the government:
You’ve got to hand it to them, they can fit a lot in 15 days.
The government moves to gag the debate. The vote is called.
Labor moves to suspend the standing orders to debate guns for votes.
Turnbull confirms Tony Abbott was wrong on guns-for-votes
Shorten to Turnbull: Can the prime minister confirm that in a previous answer today he stated that the member for Warringah was wrong when he told the 7.30 report that the prime minister’s office was not informed by ministers Dutton or Keenan or their staff about the guns for votes deal?
I refer the honourable member to my previous answer which I think was perfectly clear.
That means yes.
Tony Abbott was wrong.
Updated
Shorten to Turnbull: Today it’s reported that the deputy prime minister supports the NSW deputy premier taking a proposal to the NSW cabinet to allow the importation of the Adler shotgun. Is the position of the deputy prime minister the position of the government and is that position consistent with the advice or recommendations of the Australian federal police?
Turnbull refers to Troy Grant’s statement to “tighten” the categorisation of lever action shotguns.
Turnbull says the states regulate the categorisation and licensing of guns.
He is encouraging the states to tighten the reclassification of those guns.
We are encouraging the states to come to a consensus to see a reclassification with an appropriately tighter classification on those lever action weapons, and of course once that consensus is reached and their classification is fully implemented, then consistent with the arrangements described on several occasions now, as this ban has gone through now, three iterations, the ban would be lifted and so guns, the import arrangements would be consistent with their classification. That’s our commitment.
Keeping Australians safe, ensuring we hold the ring, keep the guns out of the country, until the appropriate reclassification by the state and territory police ministers is agreed to.
Updated
Malcolm Turnbull: Tony Abbott's office knew about the Leyonhjelm guns-for-votes deal
Onto CFMEU for a government question.
Shorten to Turnbull: According to former prime minister Abbott, the minister for immigration and the minister for justice made a deal to trade guns for votes without the authority of the then prime minister. What steps has the prime minister taken to determine whether what the former prime minister said was true, or whether the minister for immigration or minister for justice are telling the truth, instead that the prime minister’s office was in fact advised?
Turnbull is on to the government’s plan for mandatory sentencing for illegal firearm crimes ... until:
Now, turning to the specific question, I have made inquiries of my ministers and can say to the house as a result of those inquiries I’m satisfied that the minister for justice acted in the full knowledge of the prime minister’s office at that time, says Turnbull.
Updated
NXT MP Rebekha Sharkie asks Turnbull: earlier today representatives from the 100% Australian-owned consortium, BBHO, attended Parliament House. They are here in the gallery. Do you agree, as a matter of principle and for the national interests, that if there is a credible, commercially-competitive 100% Australian bid for the iconic Australian asset such as S Kidman and Co cattle empire, that should take precedence over overseas bids?
Turnbull applauds her patriotism and flicks the question to Scott Morrison who as treasurer is in charge of bids.
Morrison says Kidman is in charge of the bids and the government will only get involved if approval is required because of foreign buyer participation.
Labor to justice minister Keenan: My question is again to the Minister for Justice, referring to his previous statement that there was no deal with Senator Leyonhjelm. Can the minister explain why the email from his office refers to a sunset clause of 12 months and I quote “in return for Senator Leyonhjelm’s vote”.
Keenan says lever action shotguns were in category A under the Labor government. (The easiest category to access.)
He expected the categorisation to be done in less than 12 months.
Justice minister Michael Keenan ALSO contradicts Abbott on guns-for-votes issue.
Labor asks Keenan, justice minister: Last night on 7. 30, the former PrimeMinister, the Member for Warringah, said a deal to trade guns for votes by the Minister for Justice was not authorised. Is that accurate? Was the Minister acting without the authority of the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah?
Keenan refuses to answer thus far. He goes over the same old processes, entirely avoiding the question until:
On the question about my interaction with the Prime Minister’s Office (Abbott) in relation to this, we interacted in the usual way as we would with the Prime Minister’s...of keeping them appraised of what was going on.
Bang. Keenan also contradicts Abbott’s story there was no deal.
Updated
Immigration minister Peter Dutton contradicts Abbott on guns-for-votes issue.
Plibersek to immigration minister Dutton: Last night on the 7.30 report, the former prime minister, the member for Warringah, said a deal on trade – to trade guns for votes by the minister for immigration was not authorised. Is that accurate? Was the minister acting without the authority of the then prime minister, the member for Warringah?
Dutton confirms:
- Keenan and Dutton had discussions about the gun bill in return for the migration bill.
- Dutton wanted Leyonhjelm and Day to support the immigration bill.
- Dutton had a meeting with Leyonhjelm and Day in Day’s office.
- Dutton checked this morning and there is no correspondence between Dutton’s office and the prime minister (Abbott’s) office.
- But he contradicts Abbott to say the PM’s office would have known via advisors.
But there’s no question that at an advisor’s level, there would have been discussions around this issue.
Updated
On to question time....
Cathy McGowan explains her position.
It is so disappointing that this is still dragging on. Like many others I was looking forward to seeing a resolution on 11 February 2017.
My first preference has always been for a conscience vote by the parliament on marriage equality. In the absence of a conscience vote I agreed to support the plebiscite but this option is now gone.
I call on all parties to come together in good faith to respectfully discuss the process from here. I look forward to working with the government and the opposition to resolve the issue as quickly as we can.
Updated
Cathy McGowan votes for free marriage vote in parliament, then for plebiscite
The government has won two key votes in the lower house on the plebiscite bill: one voting down a Labor amendment to immediately consider a free vote; and another approving the plebiscite bill. It now passes to the Senate.
Independent Cathy McGowan voted with Labor for a free vote but when that failed she voted with the Coalition in favour of the plebiscite.
“Now we need to find a Plan C,” she tells Guardian Australia - in reference to the fact the Senate is expected to reject the plebiscite because it is opposed by Labor, the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team, Derryn Hinch and the Coalition’s own Dean Smith.
Updated
Penny Wong wants to talk about the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Asis) in the senate estimates.
Dfat secretary Frances Adamson says she doesn’t believe it is appropriate to talk about Asis at all.
It relates to a story in The Australian about Asis operations. Foreign minister Julie Bishop commented on details of Asis operations. Wong asks why it is not appropriate to talk about Asis in estimates but it is appropriate to talk to a newspaper.
Adamson refuses to answer. Wong tries again. Adamson firmly says no.
Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells takes the question on notice asking why it is appropriate for Bishop to discuss Asis operations in public.
Then Wong moves to former treasurer and now US ambassador Joe Hockey accepting a luxury cruise from trucking magnate Lindsay Fox was declared. Here is part of the original story in the Oz in July this year:
Australia’s Ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, has taken time out from his busy schedule to celebrate the 80th birthday of businessman Lindsay Fox.
Mr Hockey was snapped in the Mediterranean with mining billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, and actress Deborra Lee-Furness.
The former Treasurer is friends with Mr Fox’s daughter Lisa, who is based in New York.
Mr Fox, who turns 80 in April next year, is sailing a collection of friends from Athens to Venice to celebrate. Other high-profile guests include Eddie McGuire, Jeff Kennett and Greg Norman.
They are passengers on a luxury liner called Seabourn Odyssey, which has been chartered at a reported cost of about $200,000 per day for the seven-day cruise.
More than 450 guests are believed to be on deck for the birthday bash.
Dfat takes it on notice.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (Dfat) has confirmed the Guardian’s story from this morning, that Australia will vote against a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly to begin negotiations on outlawing nuclear weapons.
The UNGA will vote on the resolution later this month, but Australia has been a prominent agitator to defeat the push for a total global prohibition of nuclear weapons.
Under questioning from Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, Dfat first assistant secretary Richard Sadlier confirmed Australia would maintain its opposition.
Consistent with the position to that we took to the open-ended working group [into nuclear disarmament] report, we will be voting no with respect to that resolution.
Sadlier told estimates Australia’s position of nuclear disarmament was “consistent and clear”.
We do not support a ban treaty. A ban treaty that does not include the nuclear weapons states, those states which possess nuclear weapons, and is disconnected from the rest of the security environment, would be counterproductive and not lead to reductions in nuclear arsenals.
Sadlier said a ban treaty would “deepen divisions” between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.
The push for a global prohibition is gathering momentum – a “humanitarian pledge” supporting the abolition of nuclear weapons has 127 nation signatories – but a ban treaty remains contentious without any support from the countries that actually have the weapons.
Australia relies on the “extended nuclear deterrence” of the US’s nuclear arsenal, but its prominent role in seeking to stymie ban treaty negotiations – including lobbying other countries to vote ‘no’ – has raised significant international attention.
Read more detail here.
Updated
Here’s an interesting update to the story about Australia’s corporate registry.
As we speak, the Turnbull government is considering privatising the corporate registry owned by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic).
The registry is a critical database of information on more than 2m companies in Australia, most of which aren’t listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.
Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson asked Treasury officials what the privatisation would mean for competition, given it would create a private monopoly.
Treasury officials say bidders for the registry will have to “consult” Australia’s competition regulator - the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - before any sale is approved.
It’s another hurdle for the government.
Plebiscite bill clears the lower house. Now for the Senate.
Government wins the lower house votes on the bill to establish the marriage plebiscite.
In the process, the government gagged debate on the plebiscite.
Labor is not happy.
Weak PM's shameful party room fix gagged in the house - he is too scared to debate his unnecessary, harmful #plebiscite #auspol
— Andrew Giles MP (@andrewjgiles) October 20, 2016
Updated
Andrew Leigh has literally run into the House of Reps for the plebiscite vote - wearing bright orange tshirt, skins and trainers #auspol
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) October 20, 2016
The Coalition wins the vote 68-75.
So Labor’s attempt to throw out the plebiscite bill fails.
Now proceeding to the substantive vote in the lower house on the bill to establish a plebscite.
The government wins the gag vote.
Now the lower house votes on a Labor amendment which says - basically - chuck out the plebiscite bill and have a free vote.
The first vote will be on the gag. Labor wants to put up more speakers. The Coalition wants to close it and vote.
The parliament votes on the plebiscite bill.
Rock star reception for Katter, Xenophon & cattle owner Stirling Buntine in Canberra #Kidman pic.twitter.com/A72RqkgiCP
— Primrose Riordan (@primroseriordan) October 20, 2016
Lunchtime politics
-
Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have contradicted claims by foreign minister Julie Bishop that former Liberal MP Wyatt Roy did not contact the Australian government prior to his trip to Iraq which saw him caught in crossfire.
-
Crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm has described as “inconceivable” that Tony Abbott’s office did not know of a deal to put a sunset clause on the import ban on the Adler gun in return for Leyonhjelm’s vote on a migration bill.
-
Then leader of the government in the Senate, Eric Abetz, described the Leyonhjelm deal as “neither here nor there”. He can’t remember it.
-
The social services minister Christian Porter has introduced a bill to stop mothers claiming both government and employer maternity leave.
-
The Audit Office has criticised both the Coalition and Labor governments for political advertising campaigns in the lead-up to the last two elections.
-
The slight decline in the unemployment rate to 5.6% masks a switch from full-time to part-time jobs and underemployment.
Updated
Unemployment = 5.6%
The Bureau of Statistics has just released its employment data for September.
It shows the trend unemployment rate decreased slightly, from 5.7% to 5.6%, between August and September.
That looks like good news, on the face of it.
When Reserve Bank governor Phil Lowe gave a speech in Sydney this week, he said the unemployment rate seemed like it was about 0.5 percentage points, or a bit more, above full employment.
But there are huge changes occurring in the labour market which are concealed by that unemployment figure.
Have a look at these numbers.
Since December 2015, full-time employment has fallen by 54,100 persons.
In comparison, part-time employment has increased by 130,000 persons.
It means part-time’s share of total employment has increased from 31.1% to 32% in the last nine months.
We can see that switch occurring between August and September, where 7,900 full-time jobs were lost and 11,800 part-time jobs were gained.
It coincides with a rise in the underemployment ratio (a proportion of employed persons) since November 2015, from 8.9% to 9.2%.
Fans of the Betoota Advocate, satirical news site, will appreciate this - a Betoota book!
Media training required.
#Estimates can be tough. Brandis takes a moment amid questions. via @deaf_soundo pic.twitter.com/7mCTfkJ93d
— Henry Belot (@Henry_Belot) October 20, 2016
Dfat contradicts foreign minister Julie Bishop on Wyatt Roy Iraq sortie
Penny Wong is re-prosecuting the Wyatt Roy case. She goes over it for the slow ones. (Like me)
On September 15, Israel ambassador is told of Wyatt’s plans.
On September 20, Dfat was contacted.
The story broke on September 29.
Here is what foreign minister Julie Bishop said when the story broke:
It is irresponsible of Wyatt Roy to travel to the front line of the conflict between ISIL and Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, in a region regarded as very high risk.
He has placed himself at risk of physical harm and capture, and acted in defiance of government advice. Mr Roy did not seek nor did he receive assistance from the Australian government for his travel to Iraq.
Updated
Wyatt Roy to Iraq mission: Any meetings around here mate?
In estimates, we discover two Dfat heads of mission outside Australia knew of Wyatt Roy’s trip to Iraq. Roy is a former MP and Turnbull ally.
Why did they not tell Dfat Canberra before it hit the media, asks Wong.
Dfat underlines Roy was told it was dangerous and he should not travel.
The government’s official travel advice also says DO NOT TRAVEL TO IRAQ.
It would appear on 20 September “one of Mr Roy’s associates in Iraq” contacted the deputy head of mission in Iraq, Jonathan Gilbert, and told him Roy was in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish regional government area of Iraq.
[Roy’s associate] asked if there were any meetings the embassy would suggest. The embassy didn’t suggest any meetings or offer any support for Mr Roy’s program. In that conversation there was no suggestion that Mr Roy would travel outside Erbil.
How far is Erbil from the Mosul declared area?
As the crow flies, it could be about a 100 miles.
Was it in a do-not-travel zone?
All of Iraq is in a do-not-travel zone.
#youknowitmakessense
Updated
We are hearing there might be a vote on the plebiscite bill before question time.
Tony Abbott’s overseas travel this year has been listed in estimates.
Trips included:
- US 26 January to 2 February.
- Japan 26-28 February.
- Ukraine 18-20 March.
- UK 20-24 March.
- US 28-30 September.
Brandis comes in prepared to talk about former prime ministers travel. Just checking whether this was also in one year.
- Rudd 15
- Gillard 16
- Howard 2
- Hawke 1
- Keating 0
Updated
The NSW deputy premier Troy Grant has changed his position slightly on the Adler.
Previously he supported categorising the Adler seven plus one shot into B category. This was backed by a number of National party members including Mark Coulton. A is the most accessible category with D the most restricted category.
Grant says now he supports putting the Adler into a “tighter one”.
He also supports the ban on importing lever action shotguns with a capacity of more than five rounds until the gun is reclassified.
Our position represents a strengthening of the current A classification of the Adler, but the ultimate decision is a matter for national consensus, Grant says.
This is purely speculation only but it sounds like there might be some behind the scenes movements to put the Adler into a higher even more restrictive category.
Updated
Labor senators including Murray Watt are using Senate Estimates to undermine social services minister Christian Porter’s case for another round of welfare cuts.
Watt has made the point that quoting the absolute number of people on the dole is misleading, as it doesn’t account for population growth.
Social Services Department deputy secretary Serena Wilson gives him a win on this point, revealing that since 1996 there has been a decrease in those aged 16-64 receiving income support, from 24.7% to 16.6%.
Labor senators are now trying to push the point home by getting department officials to say the welfare budget is sustainable, but no dice so far.
Earlier, Watt probed figures provided to Guardian Australia by the government, including the fact that 75% of Newstart recipients receive the energy supplement and two other payments.
Wilson conceded that “most of the supplements relate to particular cost or activity” (and not just getting by day to day on income support).
She said some, including the energy supplement and pharmaceutical allowance, can be very small but added the Family Tax Benefit payments “can be considerable”.
Updated
The plebiscite bill is now being debated in the house again.
Just regarding Paul Karp’s earlier post, Barnaby Joyce obviously opened the possibility of anyone in the Nats in favour of marriage equality crossing the floor.
As he says, the National party MPs do have the right to cross the floor. That is why Barnaby has crossed the floor 28 times in the early part of the career.
It was obviously not a career limiting move in Barnaby’s case but it would be a big call for Darren Chester or any other supporters of marriage equality to cross the floor on a crossbench marriage bill.
DFAT says most of their contracts have expired except for the one with Clinton Health Access Initiative,CHAI told DFAT they are doing review
— Primrose Riordan (@primroseriordan) October 19, 2016
Tony Abbott has updated his register to interests to say he is now a patron of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy.
— Stephanie Peatling (@srpeatling) October 19, 2016
I’ve had a look back at Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce’s, contribution in the same-sex marriage plebiscite bill debate last night in the lower house.
He said:
It is no secret that in the Nationals the majority view, but not the exclusive view, is that we believe in the current definition of marriage.
Those of a contrary view, like Darren Chester, “are to be totally respected and given the space to express their views, which we do”.
There is no one held out as an example, and everyone is allowed that space. And there are other people as well, and that is completely and utterly their right. Within the National party, more than any other party, we say, ‘If you really wish to cross the floor, you can; if you really wish to express a different view, you can; you just have to put some cogency into your reasons as to why.”
It’s unclear whether Nationals (or Liberals) will get the ability to cross the floor, given the current marriage equality bills are private members bills which the government does not have to allow a vote on. What did Joyce mean? Are Nationals free to cross the floor and force a vote?
Updated
Penny Wong has questioned Dfat on the Vietnamese government’s decision to cancel a 50th anniversary ceremony of the battle of Long Tân.
It happened in August this year, as we reported at the time:
The Vietnam government’s refusal to allow the veterans day commemoration at the Long Tân cross site a day before it was to take place prompted official complaints by Australia, including by its ambassador, Craig Chittick.
The Vietnamese have cited “deep sensitivities” over the battle as the reason for the last-minute cancellation, according to Dan Tehan, Australia’s minister for veterans affairs. It comes despite 18 months of collaboration about the event between the two governments.
A joint statement by Tehan and Julie Bishop, the minister for foreign affairs, said the government was “deeply disappointed at this decision, and the manner in which it was taken, so close to the commemoration taking place”.
Wong has established that coordination was going on between Australia’s posts in Vietnam and the Vietnamese government.
Australian posts were organising for the ceremony about 18 months ahead of the anniversary.
A Vietnamese minister phoned the Australian consul general in Ho Chi Minh city on 16 August to give an “unofficial message” that the Vietnamese government was cancelling the ceremony.
Aaaaand morning tea break in estimates.
Updated
Political advertising and the pre-election splurge:
Every voter has seen dodgy advertising in the lead-up to elections by incumbent governments. The Audit Office has belled the cat on a few campaigns.
Special awards go to the controversial “By Boat, No Visa” campaign Labor ran before the 2013 election.
And the Abbott government’s higher education reform advertising campaign.
Katharine Murphy reported this morning:
The Australian National Audit Office has said incumbent governments splurge on taxpayer-funded advertising in the lead-up to elections, with a clear trend established over the past five federal campaigns.
A new report into government advertising between March 2013 and June 2015 has also determined that the federal government’s campaign advertising framework was “weaker than it could be” because of changes in the government’s internal third-party advisory processes.
The latest audit has clearly established the trend of the pre-election splurge. “Increased expenditure has been observed prior to the last five elections,” the audit office says.
“In 2013 and 2016 around $100m and $95m respectively, was spent on media placement alone in the three months leading up to the caretaker period.”
In a non-election year, the average annual spend is $186m.
Updated
Double dippers beware: paid parental leave bill in da house
Social services minister Christian Porter is introducing the Fairer Paid Parental Leave bill. This is the so-called “double-dipping bill” that removes the right to claim government both a government scheme and an employer scheme.
The bill has been blocked previously but in April the minister said the government would press on. Paul Karp reported:
The social services minister has admitted it is unrealistic to expect parliament will pass a bill banning access to so-called paid parental leave “double-dipping” by 1 July, but confirmed it remains the government’s intention to do so.
Christian Porter also promised to address potential confusion created by a government website, which warns the changes will take effect from 1 July.
At the moment, parents are able to access 18 weeks’ of paid leave at the minimum wage from the federal government, worth about $11,500, and also access separate paid leave provided by their employer.
In the 2015-16 budget the government announced plans to ban the practice of “double-dipping” from 1 July, 2016. But legislation which would prevent accessing both schemes, or limit federal government payments to a top-up of the employer’s scheme to the value of $11,500, failed to pass the Senate.
The bill has been amended and combines a few different measures. The bill’s explainer says:
In the revised package, government-funded parental leave pay will be targeted at individuals who have no employer-provided paid primary carer leave, or whose employer-provided paid primary carer leave is for a period less than 18 weeks or is paid at a rate below the full-time National Minimum Wage.
Under the new measure, parents’ access to government-funded parental leave pay will be limited according to the number of weeks of employer-provided paid primary carer leave they receive, if any.
This means that, where a person is entitled to employer-provided leave of less than 18 weeks, the government scheme will provide the residual number of weeks of government-funded parental leave pay up to the maximum period of 18 weeks.
The other interesting points to note are:
- the bill removes the requirement for employers to administer government-funded parental leave pay to their eligible long-term employees.
- there is a four-week backdating rule to apply to parents who complete their claim process more than four weeks after the birth of their child.
- work test would take into account situations where womens’ jobs are dangerous and there is no safe job alternative available
- work test will also be extended to allow parents to have a gap of up to 12 weeks between two working days for women in irregular work.
Updated
Cap executive pay? Not between consenting adults
The heads of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Apra) are facing Senate estimates this morning.
The Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson just asked them if they would consider capping executive pay, to change the culture within Australia’s banks.
Whish-Wilson is big on this.
He’s an economist who worked years on Wall Street, before moving his family to Tasmania.
He believes culture comes from the top in big organisations.
He’s been working up a policy for the Greens that will cap executive pay by anchoring it to the average employee’s wages in a company. He says that would be a simple way of getting rid of the bonus culture, and the sales culture, in vertically integrated businesses.
But Apra boss Wayne Byres wasn’t enthused by the idea.
He said he tries not to intervene “in the affairs of consenting adults”.
Updated
Frances Adamson jumps in. The world is divided into six regions and the regions hold these conferences regularly to train staff, around matters like security, passports etc. For this conference the chief security officer addressed the conference.
It is important to train the officers in a range of issues, given a lot of the posts are small posts and they don’t have much support.
These events have been happening for 30 years, she says.
Wong asks whether it was necessary to send Australian-based staff to attend the conference. Adamson said the staff were appropriate.
Chair and Liberal senator Chris Back suggests:
Paris is not necessarily the desired location that it was in the past ... I can assure you the hotels are empty.
Updated
Dfat says the corporate conference is a regular 18-month affair.
The total cost is not possible immediately because it comes from the budgets of many different training buckets from different departments of Dfat.
Canberra-based staff flew business class.
There were 46 Dfat employees in total.
Of those, 40 were based in the European region and six were from from contingent regions – such as south Asia and the Middle East.
Penny Wong:
So you flew people to Paris to talk about how to save money?
John Fisher, chief people officer of Dfat:
We flew people to Paris to talk about how to do things better.
Updated
Labor senator Penny Wong moves to Heath Aston’s cracker story in Fairfax this morning:
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spent an estimated $215,000 or more sending nearly two dozen senior bureaucrats from Canberra to Paris to attend an inhouse talkfest about ways to save money.
Fairfax Media can reveal the two day junket in September included business class return travel for all 23 Dfat officers ...
Wong asks for the costs in total as well as a breakdown but Dfat can’t provide that but may have to take it on notice.
Aston has done a bit of a cost breakdown:
According to the Qantas website, the cheapest business class “saver” ticket to Paris costs $3,800 one way, indicating the group of 23 cost at least $175,000 in airfares alone for the 48-hour jaunt.
The group stayed at the four-star Mercure Paris Centre Eiffel Tower hotel where standard rooms for mid-week business travellers start at $530 a night, according to booking websites.
Dfat would not comment on the total cost of flights, hotels and meals but using the scenario of the cheapest business class fares on offer, three nights at the Mercure and a $150 daily meal allowance, a conservative estimate of the trip’s cost would be $215,000. That figure does not include the as yet unknown cost of getting more than two dozen Europe-based diplomatic staff to Paris.
Adamson says Paris was chosen because it was a “regional hub”.
Updated
I'm confused: is there a foreign white paper or not?
Penny Wong has started questions to Dfat secretary Frances Adamson.
Wong is questioning on the Coalition announcement of a new white paper on foreign policy. Adamson keeps referencing a “strategy” rather than a white paper. Bishop seemed quite clear in her announcement.
From James Massola’s story on 19 August this year:
Ms Bishop told Fairfax Media that, in fact, a formal white paper would be produced and that it “will look at how to maximise our influence through our policies, but also shape the thinking of other nations. Its about strategy – our global focus and our global interests”.
Adamson says she has established a foreign policy strategy taskforce because:
We have been asked to produce a foreign policy strategy.
Updated
Scott Morrison warns on AAA rating
The Treasurer Scott Morrison has spoken to Radio National to discuss the AAA credit rating after reports the midyear budget update could be the catalyst for Australia losing the rating.
He said all three credit ratings agencies had affirmed the AAA rating since the election, although S&P had put Australia on negative watch.
Morrison said he met John Chambers, the head of the sovereign risk at S&P, in New York.
Morrison said:
He reaffirmed the point that we have a trajectory to budget balance, we have measures to achieve that – and there were no additional measures or alternative measures that were suggested to us, it’s a matter of implementing and legislating the plan that we have.
The treasurer asks why Labor is “refusing to help bring expenditure under control”.
So basically, now that Labor has supported the omnibus savings bill, Morrison is ramping up pressure to pass the rest of the government’s more contentious savings that the opposition did not agree to before the election.
Updated
The department of foreign affairs (Dfat) is up before estimates committees. We might see an appearance of Penny the Conqueror in that committee.
We have three bills before the house this morning which starts at 9.30am. Here are the government titles:
- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Assistance Alignment and Other Measures)
- Fairer Paid Parental Leave
- Customs Tariff Amendment (Expanded Information Technology Agreement Implementation and Other Measures)
Updated
Matt Hatter has flushed us out with recommendations to improve our flagging bodies and brains.
Good morning @mpbowers. Might I also recommend these fine products, although the adhesive could be a bit uncomfortable. @gabriellechan pic.twitter.com/ihNpmIaN40
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) October 19, 2016
Leyonhjelm deal? "Neither here nor there", says Eric Abetz
Eric Abetz, who was leader of the government in the senate when the alleged Leyonhjelm deal was done, has said the Leyonhjelm deal was not much of an offer or compromise given the states had to decide.
He has appeared on Sky with Kieran Gilbert.
If I might say Kieran the offer of a sunset clause was not much of an offer at all or compromise from the government perspective because at all times the government did not want to fix this courtesy of a regulation but through the Coag National Firearms Agreement between the states and territories. This was a short term solution and so for somebody to say put a 12 month sunset clause on it, was neither here nor there in our thinking because we thought it was going to be resolved within 12 months.
Abetz said he can’t remember the deal but if he had of known about it he would have thought it was of “no great moment”.
He says a regulation usually would not go to cabinet.
Abetz said it was “unfortunate” if Leyonhjelm thought said deal was a great coup.
And he delivers the ol’ conspiracy versus stuff up line. Must be a stuff up, he figures.
Abbott didn’t know? Inconceivable.
Census shutdown cost $30m
Estimates continue for a final day. Last night we learned of the cost of the census clusterduck.
The chaos surrounding the first online census which resulted in the website being shut down and thousands of people unable to access it on the night will cost taxpayers about $30m.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics told a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday night the 40-hour outage meant the expected $100m saving from moving the census online was now more likely to be about $70m.
“We have to date probably incurred additional costs of around $20m ... and we anticipate possibly spending another $10m,” chief statistician David Kalisch said.
Updated
"I certainly want Malcolm Turnbull to be the best possible PM throughout this term," says @TonyAbbottMHR #abc730 #auspol pic.twitter.com/9SXZhr7evX
— abc730 (@abc730) October 19, 2016
Good morning blogans,
Here we go, down the hill, one ski, no poles, as Paul Keating would say.
Today is Thursday all day, which means it is the last sitting day.
Tony Abbott was on 7.30 last night. Katharine Murphy did a wrap, reporting Abbott’s view that a mass casualty event had been avoided due to the gun laws.
Abbott also said there was no deal – as far as he was concerned – with David Leyonhjelm, even though the senator has released all the emails that suggests there was a deal. Must have been a ministerial staffer, Abbott said, but no deals from me or my office.
There were no deals, no deals.
In case you missed it last night, here is the snippet from 7.30.
Tony Abbott on whether there was a deal with Senator David Leyonhjelm over the Adler gun ban. #abc730 #auspol pic.twitter.com/WQE4OlR3oo
— abc730 (@abc730) October 19, 2016
After Abbott’s interview, Leyonhjelm is out this morning disputing Abbott’s version of events.
Leyonhjelm makes the entirely logical point that a government regulation would not have been introduced on the say so of staffers.
He told Michael Brissenden on ABC AM:
If all of that occurred without the prime minister’s personal knowledge, that would be understandable. There is an awful lot of regulations that are done but it is inconceivable that his office wouldn’t have known about it.
Brissenden:
Q: Abbott also said that this sort of sunset clause is common in such regulations and you were just being told how these things work. Did you misunderstand what was being offered?
Leyonhjelm:
He is wrong about that. There are no sunset clauses in most regulations. We look at regulations all the time. I moved to disallow a few of them. There is no such thing as an automatic sunset clause in regulations. That is just false. In order to implement the deal that I had with the minister that we negotiated, they had to actually bring in a specific regulation, which they did.
Q: You looked at it and thought this was a deal, yes?
Yes, they wanted my vote on a particular amendment to a bill, an unrelated bill. In exchange for that, we agreed that they would implement a sunset clause on the ban on the import of the seven shot lever-action shotgun.
Q: What did you say when that deal never materialised that you thought you had?
That happened in August this year. I had a phone call from Michael Keenan, the justice minister who said, “We are reimposing the import ban on the seven shot lever action.”
I said, “You can’t do that. The sunset clause is about to kick in. “It was a week before the 12 months was up and it was about to kick in so the ban would be lifted. We did a deal. You are renegotiating on the deal. His answer was, “We never intended to allow it in anyway.” In other words, they were intending to do me over.
Q: Has it hardened since what happened this week?
Well, it has made it a bit more awkward. I am still 50/50. I am prepared to vote against the ABCC. I make no bones about that. I am prepared to vote against it. There are some bad aspects about that bill. Its purpose is admirable.
OK that’s it. Let’s crack on. I am @gabriellechan and @mpbowers is just basting himself liberally with a can of Start Ya Bastard. I will explain.
Updated
