We made it! Well, almost. We made it through the second last day, meaning we have one more day of crazy to go until the winter recess.
I am not game to make any predictions of what tomorrow can bring. That’s like predicting how many more positions Pauline Hanson will have on company tax before that issue is truly put to bed.
A massive thank you to the Guardian’s brains trust – who do more than you know, in keeping this train on its tracks. And to Mike Bowers, who just doesn’t stop.
And as always, to you, for keeping me company throughout the day. Let’s do it all again tomorrow – but remember – take care of you.
Updated
Updated
The matter of public importance, put forward by Labor, was on the government’s proposed corporate tax cuts.
This is what Bill Shorten had to say:
This is a matter of real public importance.
A matter of what choices parliament makes, what priorities it adopts, what values it implements.
Today I want to talk past the government, to the Australian people.
The fact of the matter is that wherever I travel in this great country, the two biggest priorities for all of us and for the people I talk to, is their family and their health.
It’s the questions about: can you pay the bills, do you have enough for a holiday, are you able to make sure your kids can get a good education, do an apprenticeship if they want, or go to university if that’s their inclination.
They talk about whether their kids will ever be able to buy their first home.
They talk about their aging parents and will they be in a position to care for them, and what can be done.
They always talk about their health.
I was talking to a former member of mine, an underground miner in northern Tassie. He was going to work, doing his shift at the mine but he had just taken his daughter to local hospital, she’s battling cancer.
These are the issues which affect the Australian people.
And this is what matters to me.
And this is what matters to the Australian people and this is what matters to the Labor party. This is what Labor values are about, a fair go all around.
The Australian people do not talk to me about the urgency or the importance of an $80bn corporate tax handout.
I’m privileged to do a lot of town hall meetings around Australia.
I’ve literally spoken and listened to tens of thousands of our fellow Australians, in every location.
The issues that I get asked about, and this is what I want to say to the Australian people, the issues I understand and Labor understand are important is: how are the people on the pension going, how are they making ends meet?
Will there be an affordable place for childcare, does the childcare worker get paid appropriately?
What to do about the waiting lists in hospitals. The challenge that Tasmanians have that they have to go to the mainland to get medical services that other people take for granted.
The parents raise the issue about lack of resources in the schools, especially when their kids are getting bullied.
We talk about energy prices in these meetings, they go up and up and up.
We talk about the poor administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the lack of putting people with disabilities at the centre of these services.
We talk about the frustrating search for adequate and dignified aged care.
The parents talk about apprenticeships for their kids, like they once had the chance to do.
And certainly people do raise with me, talk about the boats – but they don’t say that the answer to stopping the boats is indefinite detention on Manus and Nauru.
People do raise the low level of Newstart and whether or not an older Australian has a fair go when it comes to discrimination and whether or not they keep being sent for interviews manifestly inappropriate and soul destroying for the job-seeker.
The workers in the audiences talk about labour hire and how it’s used to undermine existing conditions at work. And the people on insecure work talk about the inability to get regular rosters.
And then we talk about housing and people complain, they feel the deck is stacked against them. Some people do complain about foreign investors buying residential housing.
And others complain that whenever their kids save up for the deposit, they find the price of the house just leaps the next $200,000 and they’ve got to go back to the start again and there are plenty of people who talk to me about the inability, not ever to even own a house but the cost of rent and secure housing and public housing and social housing.
And people talk to me about the job losses, every part of Australia we hear the government boast about job creation but they never seem to worry about the people who lose their jobs.
Of course, I hear about the NBN failures. The fact that people have to wait for countless unmet installation turn-ups and missed appointments, the fact that the service drops out. They talk to me about the fact that as small businesses they get ignored, not just by NBN Co, but by the government who delivered this policy.
They do complain to me about the treatment of banks on small business.
They do complain about if you receive a government payment, being made to feel second-class, because of the cut-backs at Centrelink.
They certainly say to me: why don’t politicians listen to them more.
But what I don’t get asked about by the vast bulk of the Australian people, the people making ends meet, working hard.
The people who, as the Small Business Minister said when he was taunting me, he said: “Oh, you’ve only ever signed a mortgage.”
Well whether or not that’s true, which it’s not, what a patronising statement, that people who might have signed mortgages and haven’t inherited a lot of money, somehow they’re not as smart as other people.
But I never get asked about how do we do income-splitting in discretionary trusts for adult members of the family.
And I do not get asked about the importance of wedging Labor on national security.
And I don’t get a lot of complaints about the ABC.
And I do not get asked about buying the Liddell power station, although it is fair to say, some people do challenge the role of privatisation in energy prices.
And I never get asked, ‘Why aren’t we giving the banks a $17bn tax cut?’
I am interested in what is real in the lives of Australians and I know that on the 1 July, those two important priorities of families and health will take another setback. Another stagnation of the standard of living in this country.
On the 1 of July there are new cuts to childcare which hurts families.
New cuts to family payments, which hurts families.
New cuts to Sunday penalty rates, which hurts families.
And this is on top of the Medicare freeze, which hurts families.
This is on top of the rising private health insurance premiums, which hurts families.
And this is about the power bills that keep increasing, that hurts families.
And this is on top of the longest period of wage stagnation in the nation’s recorded economic data, that hurts families.
So today I say to the Australian people, Labor is listening to you and we know what are the real issues.
We understand that when your family is OK and your health is okay then you’re in a fighting chance to really start thinking about having quality of life and a decent standard of life.
That is why our party will not be deterred by the cat-calling and the shouting and the buffoonery of a government who desperately want to pretend that somehow if we don’t back the tawdry, meaningless, shallow nature of their tax-cut agenda that somehow that this is not the right thing to do.
Because we will offer Australian workers better tax cuts – and we do.
But we will also offer a plan to lift the living standards of families.
We will invest in schools, we will invest in hospitals and we will invest in the safety net.
We will make sure we pay down this ballooning national debt. But we will not do it at the price of cuts to schools and hospitals and the standard of living.
We can make all of these promises because we’ve made a choice.
We’ve made a choice not to go with $80bn of corporate tax give away and $143bn of unfunded personal income tax cuts on the never-never.
We understand and our economic values are very straightforward.
When there is a fair go for all, when this country becomes more equal, then we really make progress as a nation.
I did say that politics is about choices and values, it’s about making hard decisions.
I must talk about this Senator in the other place, Senator Hanson.
She actually understand it’s about choices. She actually clearly enjoys it.
She wants to take her time to savour the experience of making choices.
Indeed, she started out in favour, she made a choice to back the $17bn for big banks.
Then she was against it.
Then she was for it.
Now she’s against it again.
Then she said: ‘I haven’t tried undecided yet, I’ll give that a go’.
People have said she’s a flip-flopper. But flip-flop implies changing your mind once, not every few hours.
Now people might say this is an unfair interpretation of Senator Hanson’s positions, so let’s put it in her own words.
Last night, as she reproved those pesky Labor senators to put them back in their box, she said, and I quote:
“I said no originally. Then I said yes. Then I said no – and I’ve stuck to it.”
She stuck to it for nearly 12 hours.
Post-it notes have a longer stickiness than Pauline Hanson to her decisions.
This morning, she said on the Today show:
“I’ll change my mind as many times as I want to ensure that I come up with the right decision.”
Let me be clear, Senator Hanson: the right decision is not to simply vote with the LNP 90% of the time.
The right decision is to back battlers, not to back the big end of town.
The Liberal party homing pigeon has got one destination in mind and that is to give the banks a $17bn tax cut.
It’s a decision which the people of Australia will understand: if Australians vote for our Labor team, what we can say and what we can promise is the early years of your child’s education will be properly funded.
We will invest $17bn in schools and teachers, based upon need.
We will renovate the TAFEs instead of closing them.
We will train Australian apprentices instead of importing skills.
We’ll make sure that kids from every postcode in Australia don’t have to rely on having rich parents to get a university education, to get a good job or to buy a house.
We will make choices because we know our values and we know to stick to them.
The fundamental choice, in this matter of public importance for the Australian people, is the Australian people have got priorities.
Long after people here have moved on to other things, long after the debates are finished, the priorities of the Australian people remain the same. It’s their families and their health.
And the Labor party will make sure that you can raise your family with financial security and dignity and that we will protect and support your health.
That is what the people expect.”
Updated
So, on the assisted suicide motion, David Leyonhjelm brought on a motion to bring on the debate.
This bit was not the conscience motion.
So, Labor and the Greens and every crossbencher except Cory Bernardi and Fraser Anning voted yes on that.
The government and Bernardi and Anning, voted no.
What it means is that when parliament resumes in mid-August, it has to be dealt with – no other government business can bump it down the agenda.
And that is where we will see the conscience vote kick in.
Updated
David Smith, who replaced Katy Gallagher, is delivering his first speech to the Senate.
Updated
Tony Abbott complains of 'lack of due process'
Here is what Tony Abbott had to say about the Liberals being offered a free vote (when the bill comes up for debate in August, when parliament resumes) and David Leyonhjelm being offered assurances of that conscience vote on the bill, during the ABCC negotiations:
I am a little worried about secret deals and I am a little worried that undertakings might have been made which weren’t brought to the party room and the prime minister likes to talk about due process – I am very concerned about lack of due process.
I am very concerned, as I said on this program last week, the party room doesn’t get an adequate chance to discuss controversial policies because we are distracted by long and sometimes only marginally relevant debates about the minutiae about particular bits of legislation, instead of having the chance of political discussion right up front in every party room, as was the practice under John Howard, under Brendan Nelson, under Malcolm Turnbull, the first time round, and then under me.
So, look this is a due process issue, should our negotiators be able to make secret deals with Senate crossbenchers, when frankly, on something vital for the future for our country and our government, they are not prepared to take their own backbench into their confidence.
This week, I said to Josh Frydenberg, and to the prime minister – ‘Why can’t the arrangements that you proposed to take to the Council of Australian Government be taken to the party room first? Why can’t the party room be trusted with all of this? Why do we have to accept, as a done deal, what the state Labor premiers want, rather than being able to tell the state Labor premiers this is what the party room wants?”
Updated
On the euthanasia bill, Tony Abbott says he is “a little worried about undertakings which might have been made” by Malcolm Turnbull on allowing a conscience vote, “without taking it to the party room”.
David Leyonhjelm has said he opened discussions with the government about allowing a free vote back when negotiations on the ABCC bills were going through the Senate, and received assurance Liberal MPs would have a free vote.
Updated
Another tin has been rattled – this time for One Nation.
From a reader who just received this email:
They say only death and taxes are inevitable. For One Nation supporters, however, you can take some sting out of the tax bit.
Last week One Nation voted for income tax cuts in federal parliament. This week, you can take another tax break while helping One Nation at the same time.
You can deduct up to $1,500 a year in membership and donations from your tax.*
Sign up as a member and/or make a donation now before financial year ends and [sic] you miss out on your deduction.
Our end of financial year donation drive is our biggest fundraising drive. With your support, we can afford the campaign materials we need to get members elected to parliament and fix the mess these gutless politicians are leaving us with!
As soon as you make your donation, you’ll receive an email from us with your tax receipt attached. Happy EOFY!
* This email should not be considered tax advice and may not apply to your personal circumstances. Always refer to and seek advice from an accountant or tax specialist for advice relevant to your personal circumstances.
Updated
Tony Abbott on 2GB repeats if we have “Snowy 2.0, there is no reason we can’t have Hazlewood 2.0” line.
The rest we have heard before – he is still not happy with the Neg, and is not ruling out crossing the floor.
Updated
David Leyonhjelm – who is leading a push co-sponsored by Brian Burston, Derryn Hinch, Pauline Hanson, Richard Di Natale, Jenny McAllister, Anne Urquhart, Glenn Sterle and Malarndirri McCarthy to return the rights of the territories to pass assisted suicide laws – has just stood and announced the debate.
Fraser Anning, the (now) Katter’s Australian party senator, tried to shut down any debate (he is very firmly against it) but was defeated.
Labor and the Liberals have a conscience vote on the issue.
Updated
One Nation just had a motion – “that the Senate calls on the government to facilitate the building of new coal-fired power stations and the retrofitting of existing base-load power stations” – defeated 34-32.
The government voted with One Nation.
Updated
From Mike Bowers to you:
Updated
Looks like the Liberals are rattling the can for the byelections - an email has just gone out to supporters:
Next month, our party faces byelections in Braddon, Mayo and Longman.
Our candidates, Brett Whiteley, Georgina Downer and Trevor Ruthenberg are campaigning with passion and energy.
By contrast, Bill Shorten is telling lies, launching personal attack ads and doubling down on the politics of envy.
Last week, Labor voted against income tax relief. This week, Bill Shorten announced Labor will reverse tax relief for thousands of businesses that employ millions of Australians.
He is putting his job ahead of the jobs of everyday Australians.
A government has not won a seat from an opposition in a byelection since 1920.
Can you help Brett, Georgina and “Big Trev” buck the odds and stand up to Shorten?
Updated
Here’s something for tomorrow.
The Turnbull government will be introducing a modern slavery bill to the House of Representatives.
The legislation will require businesses with turnover of $100m or more to publish an annual statement on the steps they’re taking to address modern slavery in their supply chains.
The bill will affect roughly 3,000 companies, including multinationals.
The companies’ slavery statements will have to be signed off at board level, and be published within six months of the publication of their annual reports.
The federal government has also pledged to start publishing an annual statement on possible modern slavery risks in commonwealth procurement. The department of home affairs will produce the annual statement on behalf of the government.
The legislation will be reviewed after three years, to see if it’s working.
New South Wales Liberal MP Alex Hawke has been driving the project. He will introduce the draft bill tomorrow morning.
He expects it will then be sent to a parliamentary committee for review, where Labor and the Greens may suggest amendments.
It comes after the government released a discussion paper on modern slavery in August 2017, and held 12 roundtables with businesses and civil society partners.
The government has already committed $3.6m to establish a “modern slavery business engagement unit”, to be housed within the department of home affairs. The unit will advise Australian businesses on the best way to address slavery in their supply chains and operations.
The government estimates there are roughly 4,000 people working in slave-like conditions in Australia.
The industries affected include: agriculture, fishing, sex work, mining, construction, farming, and cleaning services (including in diplomatic residences).
Hawke says the bill will enable large businesses, consumers, civil society and government to work together to eliminate modern slavery in supply chains.
“Importantly, we are asking businesses to report on both what has and what has not worked in their efforts to stamp out modern slavery,” he said.
“Over time, we believe this bill will foster a ‘race to the top’ culture that will ensure Australia is a regional and world leader in tackling modern slavery in supply chains.”
Groups like Stop the Traffik have worked with the government to bring the draft legislation to fruition. It’s also calling on the government to create an anti-slavery commissioner, but the government hasn’t done so.
Updated
Aspiration count - 2
Captain’s call - 7
Ross Hart - 12
Envy - 0
Malcolm Turnbull calls time on question time and we all breathe a sigh of relief that we made it through another one.
Julie Owens to Malcolm Turnbull:
In May, Optus sacked 400 workers but this week the prime minister is doing everything he can to do a deal with One Nation to give big business, including Optus, an $80bn handout, when Optus is sacking 400 workers. Why is this prime minister working with One Nation to reward them through his $80bn handout?
Turnbull:
I thank the honorable member for her question. I think she’s referred to a large multinational company, a matter of tax and it gives me the opportunity to inform the House that as at 31 May this year, $2.7bn in light liabilities has been raised in additional revenue against multinationals and public groups. Of this $1.2bn is attributed to the tax avoidance taskforce – a government commitment.
This is based on legislation Labor voted against – $1.6bn in additional [taxes], raised against associated groups, including trust planning, and $1bn over has been committed to the tax avoidance commitments. I would add that in addition to this fine work that’s brought $7bn of additional revenue into the tax net, one of the reasons the treasurer has announced some improved numbers in terms of government revenues today, but Mr Speaker, we’ve also seen a significant impact on additional GST pay. Approximately $460m in 2017-18 year to date as a result ...
(A point of order is made and overruled)
Turnbull:
I was just addressing income tax there, personal income tax and company tax and I’d moved on to GST. Mr Speaker, over the forward estimates, a total of $6.5bn of additional GST revenues will be raised to pay for schools and hospitals and roads and all of the states and territories will have that, as a result of the government’s integrity measures. We believe in lower taxes.
We know that because it encourages investment, employment, it encourages more jobs and higher wages. All the arguments the leader of the opposition used to address before he abandoned common sense. We’re ensuring that everyone pays their tax. We cracked down on multinationals and tax [avoiders] in a more resolute and comprehensive fashion than any previous government and are seeing substantial revenues accruing to the federal budget and to the GST directly to the states and territories.
Updated
Steve Ciobo tried to link tourism and investment with the South Australian Labor battle over who gets what seat now that Mark Butler’s has been abolished, but the speaker stops him:
It’s too long a bow. Though the question has come from his side, amazingly, it’s not relevant.
Updated
Julie Collins to Malcolm Turnbull:
Why does this prime minister support cutting the penalty rates of over 7,000 working Australians in Braddon by up to $77 a week, while he’s giving an $80bn handout to big business, or is the prime minister telling hardworking Australians in Braddon who are having their penalty rates cut to get a better job, too?”
Turnbull:
I thank the honourable member for her question. I think it’s a shame that the member for Bass isn’t getting an opportunity to ask a question. I know his leader is probably, has probably hauled him in and said, oh, Mr Hart what a mess!”
(Rob Harris from the Herald Sun made that joke on Twitter hours ago FYI.)
“OH MR HART, WHAT A MESS” https://t.co/EcVwu70P6m pic.twitter.com/EUHL32zFEQ
— rob harris (@rharris334) June 27, 2018
Turnbull:
We say he spoke for all Australians when he revealed captain’s call that the leader of the opposition made a job-destroying call. The honourable, the two honourable members I referred to, both from Tasmania, a state that’s enjoying stronger economic performance, and it has many family-owned businesses. I talked about one yesterday. There are so many in Australia.
Many generations of businesses have been run by the same family and they’ve been investing in them out of retained earnings. They are given confidence by by the government’s support. As the member for Bass pointed out, as he understands, he said he understood how important it is for businesses to make profits. In his maiden speech, the member for Bass said he understood the importance of small business and he feels that and so you can imagine how distressed he was to see those businesses which are at the heart, a city benefiting from one of our city deals I might add, getting strong support and how betrayed did he feel?
How betrayed did he feel? How much, Mr Speaker, did he yearn for a leader of the Labor Party that understood business, a leader that wanted to evoke the great traditions of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who cared about business, who recognised when they are doing well, workers are doing well.
He’s calling that interview with Brian Carlton, it reads like a cry of pain, it does. The member for Bass being pressed by the dogged interviewer 13 times he was asked to support the leader of the opposition. Finally he mumbled some sort of response. It was a shocking interview, shocking, cruel, in fact, I think Brian Carlton, I’ve got a lot of admiration, but he should have let the member go when he begged to.
He asked to be let out. He asked to be let out but he heard the click on the studio door. He was trapped. He couldn’t get out. But he knew in his heart that this leader of the opposition was undermining every family business in his electorate. He knows when he goes back to Launceston they will say, ‘you need a new leader’. That’s what they will say to the member for Bass.
Updated
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull:
Under this prime minister household debt is at a record high and gross debt reached half a trillion dollars for the first time in Australian history. The governor of the Reserve Bank has said, I quote, ‘We have very high levels of debt and very high asset prices. That is our number one domestic risk. Prime minister, given that warning, isn’t this the worst possible time to lock in an $80bn big business tax cut?”
A nod of the head sees Scott Morrison take the question:
I thank the member for his question. Under this government we took gross debt growing at 30% under the Labor party, under the current budget and forward estimates to 2%. 30% to 2%.
We have wrestled Labor’s guerrilla debt to the ground, net debt this year turns around and we pay it down by $30bn over four years and $230bn over the next 10 years. I’m asked about what is happening in terms of the economy and what the impact of that is on revenues.
We know how many times the member for Lilley took a swing when it came to estimating revenue. It never stopped them from spending the money. He was out by 5% every year, a swing and a miss. Every single time. But what I can inform the House of today, as the minister for finance has, is that this year, this year, our company tax revenues as of end of May were up by $1bn.
That is what is happening. Increasingly also of importance is the fact that our expenditure at that time is down $3bn. This is a government living within its means. This is a government living within its means. This is a government that has taken the debt and the deficit of the Labor party and has worked tirelessly year after year since we were elected to turn it all around and in 2019-20 we will come back...we will come back one year of what it was forecast because we are a government that knows how to live within its means.
He repeats his attacks from this morning, saying Labor needs to “come clean” on what it plans to do with the $2m to $10m tax cut plan, but I have heard that at least five times today, and if you follow this blog you have too.
Updated
Oh goody.
It’s time for your daily Peter Dutton.
Strong borders are good
Labor is bad
Bikies are also bad
Ed Husic gets another question - two days in a row - and its on Paul Karp’s story.
A recent FOI reveals serious problems with the government’s PaTH intern program, including allegations of sexual harassment, women being criticised about their appearance, no consideration of people with a disability and other unacceptable working conditions. Why is the prime minister doing nothing to protect young job-seekers but everything to give big business an $80bn handout?
It’s to Malcolm Turnbull who defends the program as being great, and then hands over to Craig Laundy:
I thank the member for his question, though his information is wrong. In the Freedom of Information request he mentioned, there were 33 complaints made, that is less than 1% of the people that are – of the 31 of those, two of the companies involved in the program have been investigated by the Job Active Network and have been barred from participating in the program.
Updated
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
My question is to the Prime Minister. Should AMP receive a tax cut?”
The PM inclines his head and Scott Morrison jumps up to answer the question.
Mr Speaker, it’s our policy ... that all citizens in this country should be competitive, all have competitive tax rates.
Australians work for all of those businesses. They all deserve to work for businesses that have a competitive rate of tax, so their jobs are more secure, Mr Speaker. What is very clear is under the leader of the Labor party, Australians’ jobs would not be secure, they would not be secure because it is his policy to jack up the taxes on small businesses, on medium-sized businesses and large businesses. And yesterday we had a small shard of truth from the leader of the opposition as he fessed up to the fact that the Labor party would increase taxes again for businesses of more than ...
Tony Burke has a point of order – the question only asked about AMP – Tony Smith says yup, the preamble is over, and he needs to stick to the question he was asked:
I’m asked about a particular company and I have said that all companies, of which all companies are included – all companies. I’m referring to all companies in the economy. Mr Speaker, that means all of them. That means all of them.”
He goes on to attack Labor’s policy, but Smith says he has already been warned to stick to the question and he is once again straying off topic.
Morrison stands back up and finishes his sentence. Which is still off-topic, but it’s done.
Christopher Pyne gets the next dixer.
Updated
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
I refer to revelations about misconduct by AMP at the banking royal commission. Is the prime minister telling victims of that company that AMP deserves a big business tax cut?
Turnbull:
The leader of the opposition has declared war on businesses of every size in Australia. He stands here and ... wants to portray himself as the enemy of big banks and insurance companies. The businesses he’s taking on are to be found in every town and every suburb, in every electorate represented here. More than half the private sector workforce work for businesses with a turnover of $50m or less. Whether it is Stubbs Con or Universal Trusses in Hume, or a business like Kennedy’s Timber in Brisbane, on the border between Petrie and Longman, in fact, these are businesses that have many employees – 50, 60, 70 – all of them depending on the owners of the business investing in the business. Buying the best in technology.
Shorten stands on a point of order, saying he only asked about AMP. Tony Smith says the question asked about AMP and tax. The prime minister continues.
Turnbull:
The leader of the opposition wants to talk about AMP today. But the businesses he’s going after are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. They are right around Australia and as the member for Bass understands very well – very well – there are dozens of them in Launceston and he knows that those businesses are going to be threatened and the jobs of their workers threatened and in that interview, as Carlton pressed him, he refused to endorse the reckless agenda of the leader of the opposition. We well understand why he would not tie himself to that catastrophic captain’s call.”
I think we can all agree that Turnbull had been looking for an opportunity to drop “catastrophic captain’s call”.
We are also halfway through question time and we have had no aspiration or snake of envy reference ... nope, wait, we have a new one – Kelly O’Dwyer drops the latest in her dixer:
He had the audacity in a prepared speech to say that he was going to back small business. So he was in there in his prepared speech, he said he would hug small and medium-sized enterprises. He walks out the door and then he mugs them. It is the hug and mug that the leader of the opposition is so famous for. You only need to ask the workers he represented – the hug and the mug.”
O’Dwyer goes on to call Shorten “shifty” and Tony Smith shuts it – and her answer – down.
Updated
Ged Kearney to Malcolm Turnbull:
Today Senator Hanson said the price of One Nation supporting the prime minister’s $80bn big business handout was a new coal-fired power station. Will the prime minister rule out building a new coal-fired power station or is nothing off limits when it comes to teeming up with One Nation?
Josh Frydenberg takes this one. I learned yesterday that when the energy minister stands to speak, Labor calls out “there’s a stat” because he is so fond of them in his answers. Apparently some from his own side have started to join in.
This is how little enjoyment there is to be had in QT. Calling out “there’s a stat” counts as amusing.
Anyways, Frydenberg:
Mr Speaker, well, the Labor party should know that when in Victoria they crippled the coal royalties, the people of Victoria saw wholesale prices increase by 80%, Mr Speaker. The Labor party should know that when Jay Weatherill oversaw the closure of the Northern power station, that people of South Australia saw wholesale prices go up by another 80%.
They told him what they thought of it at the state election. So when it comes to coal under the national energy guarantee, it will continue to stay an important part of the energy mix.
I say to the member for Batman, don’t believe the leader of the opposition when he comes down and tells the baristas in Australia, that coal has no future. When he goes to the miners he says that coal has a future.
Now, we all know that the Labor party is not upfront with the workers, they have abandoned the blue-collar workers. When will they go down to the seat of Gippsland and tell those workers, the 300-plus workers at the power stations, that they won’t have a job under Labor’s policy? When will they go to the electorate of Flynn and tell the 2,030 workers at the Gladstone power station that under Labor’s policy they won’t have a job? When will they go to the member for Shortland’s electorate and tell those workers there – 300 workers – that under the Labor party policy they will not have a job?
Mr Speaker, when it comes to the Labor party’s policy, we know they won’t listen to business. We know the leader of the opposition no longer listens to BHP, no longer listens to BluScope, to the Business Council of Australia. Now he doesn’t even listen to the unions, because his former union, the AWU, the Victorian secretary, Ben Davis, said, I quote the following, listen to this, the leader of the opposition should listen carefully, “The rush away from coal is unseemly in its haste because we are potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers”. That is the leader of the opposition’s own union. Then the CFMEU president, Tony Maher, said, “a renewable energy target of 50% ...”
Kearney jumps up with a point of order. I think it may be her first one:
He hasn’t mentioned One Nation once. Relevance, sorry.
Tony Smith points out that the inclusion of the $80bn tax cuts bit “opens it up to the world”.
Frydenberg:
Mr Speaker the final word goes to the CFMEU president, passing judgement on Labor’s 50% renewable energy target. He says, and I quote, “the 50% target will increase the cost of electricity for manufacturing and ordinary households”, Mr Speaker. Only the coalition can be trusted to deliver more affordable and reliable power.
Updated
Michael McCormack had another go of working out what his question time personality is.
His cadence was just described to me as a car bunny hopping down the road.
“There’s ... no ... Labor ... confidence ... in business ... to back themselves.
“We have ... some byelections coming up. People can get behind ... the ... candidates that this government is putting ...up or they can be anti-business as usual.”
Updated
Bob Katter has the crossbench question and it is to the treasurer.
Just a reminder that the crossbench had the time allotted for asking questions bumped up from 30 seconds to 45 seconds because of how Katter asks questions.
He gets this one in on time and a cheer goes up from the chamber.
The removal of collective bargaining in all tariff subsidies, put Australians farmers up for butchering by the banks. Can you ensure the House that the royal commission will ensure the receivers address the issue of the reconstruction bank enabling farmers to ride the rollercoaster of supply and demand. It won’t remove the truncating by taxes, but it will stop the banks from elongating the downs with a continuous imposition of discretionary, punitive charges?
Scott Morrison:
I thank the member for his question. He has this passionate interest in these topics. Can I assure him that the terms of reference would catch liquidators to the extent they operate on behalf of a financial services entity, for example, a receiver, as defined in the laters patent.
The constitution has an insolvency head of power which would likely enable the commission to use coercive powers to obtain evidence from liquidators. In looking at the conduct of them the commission may seek to investigate other appointments, such as forensic investigators, accountants or valuers which are often part of the receivership process, as the member would be aware.
Referring to registered liquidators or receivers would single them out from the wide category of services, for example, accounts and audits similarly captured and may be inferred by some that other similar services are not included.
Mr Speaker, rural debt is around $71.6bn, as at 30 June of 2017. Ninety-six per cent of that debt is held by the banks. Our agriculture sector – some $51.6bn of exports – 70% of Australian farm businesses in grain, in beef and in sheep, Mr Speaker. It’s important to know, as the member will be keenly aware, these farm businesses have a turnover of less than $10m.
Mr Speaker, what the royal commission has been tasked to do is look at all of these matters that I’ve referred to. I won’t prejudge. I’m sure the member wouldn’t expect me to. I won’t prejudge the findings and the recommendations of the royal commission. It’s unconstrained in that matter. In relation to the specific issues he raised, and the proposals here and I understand he’s looked at the commission himself and he will have the opportunity to make recommendations as appropriate. It’s important as we look at the recommendations, we go there through this important process that we want our banks to keep lending to businesses and farms.
... We don’t want a restriction of capital flow, in the farming sector or to the manufacturing sector or the services sector. We don’t want a constriction, but we want to see more effective, efficient and free-flowing practice from banks to ensure they can support the growth in the economy, which they were doing in the global financial crisis. One of the reasons we survived that crisis was particularly because the banks continued to lend.
Now, we do have to have a consciousness, as the member says, of the cycle that occurs in the sector and that’s why we have the form management deposit scheme from the government’s point of view but are open to recommendations from the royal commission.
Updated
“Where’s Tony!” Labor backbenchers shout. The Member for Warringah isn’t (yet) in question time #auspol
— Brett Mason (@BrettMasonNews) June 27, 2018
Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull:
Is the prime minister aware that the member for Warringah and member for New England both threatened to cross the floor against the prime minister and his energy policies? Is the reason the prime minister is promising coal forever? He’s doing everything he can to stop the former prime minister and the former deputy prime minister from undermining his government forever?
Turnbull says he will repeat his earlier answer, so everyone, if you could just cast your eyes down, we can all save some time.
Updated
Scott Morrison takes the next dixer.
Every dixer just serves to remind me that time is all relative - how else to explain how three minutes can feel like six years?
Mark Butler to Malcolm Turnbull:
Yesterday the prime minister said coal-fired power will be around forever. But the head of the Energy Security Board said there would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant. Why is the prime minister promising coal forever when his own Energy Security Board says coal is more expensive, more polluting and not more reliable? Is it because the Prime Minister doesn’t actually determine his government’s energy policy, but ... the member for Warringah [Tony Abbott] and Senator Hanson do?”
Turnbull:
The honourable member reveals in his question the central problem Labor has on energy policy. They want to turn a policy area that should be about engineering and economics into one that is all about ideology and politics. We need to ensure that Australians have the most affordable, cheapest energy possible. That is – that should be the goal of policy. It must be reliable and we must meet our international commitments.
The national energy guarantee achieved all three, which is why it has such wide support. How retailers meet their obligations, what mix of generation they buy from, is up to them. It is to up them and the market and as technologies develop different approach also be taken. The important thing is to maintain a laser-like focus on price and ensure that Australians stop paying too much for energy and electricity.
You never hear the Labor party talking about the cost of electricity – it’s all politics, all ideology. The objective is lower energy prices. We are starting to see that, we’re turning the corner on that, we’re making up for the shocking mistakes Labor made with gas and about in South Australia. For all of their virtue, the Labor government there can say, we can generate all of our state’s power with wind power. They were so proud of it. Then the wind dropped and there was no power, just a long extension cord to the Latrobe Valley.
The total failure of planning and absence of engineering and economics is Labor’s way. We are committed – determined – to ensure Australians pay less for energy, that energy is reliable. We’re turning the corner on that. We’re seeing the results in household and business bills. Labor failed on energy, we’re getting it right for Australian families.
Updated
Question time begins
Wow this day is just powering on. I still feel like I am sitting somewhere back at 9am.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
Yesterday the prime minister said that coal-fired power will be around forever, but Snowy Hydro said that new coal doesn’t stack up and it would mean that Snowy 2 is not viable. Isn’t it the case that the government’s plan to prop up coal-fired power with taxpayer funds will affect the viability of Snowy 2.0?
Turnbull:
The short answer is absolutely not.
And for a moment, my heart leaps – because is this where we will leave it?
No. Of course not.
Turnbull:
The whole premise of the leader of the opposition’s question is, as with so much of what he says here, completely bogus. The reality is that Labor has imposed higher and higher energy prices on Australian families. That is what Labor did. We are seeing now, thanks to our policies, retail prices coming down for the first time in a long time. We’re starting to see – we are seeing, in fact – a halving of wholesale gas prices over 18 months and we’ve seen wholesale generation prices coming down by 30%. Our policies are working.
Labor wants to engage in an ideological war about one form of energy rather than another. If that is how they created the problem in the first place, the focus must be on clearly lower energy prices. People have been paying too much for electricity. So you focus on getting prices down, ensuring power is reliable, the lights stay on, ensuring you have dispatchable power and coal is always going to be a big part of that, making sure you have got lower prices but let the market, let technology, determine what is the best, most cost-effective solution.
So our policy, the national energy guarantee, is technology-agnostic, designed to ensure you have dispatchable power, reliable power, affordable power and you meet your Paris emissions targets. That can be done with a variety of technologies – coal is a big part of it now. I believe it will be a big part of it for a very long time. Let the market and the competing technologies work it out. Mr Speaker, the reality is that Labor has declared a war on jobs a war on business – oh, it has.
The member there, [Mark Dreyfus] he’s complaining about my remarks, Mr Speaker. He knows just like the member for Bass [Ross Hart] that the leader of the opposition has given up on Australian jobs and given up on Australian business. Mr Speaker, that excruciating interview – the member for Bass and Brian Carlton – 13 times ... he was asked.
Tony Burke jumps in with a point on relevance and Tony Smith agrees it is off topic and we move on to the first dixer, where Turnbull gets to talk about holding tools at a Canberra business today.
Updated
Tanya Plibersek just referred to Pauline Hanson as the “Vicky Pollard” of the Senate:
“Yeah, but nah, but yeah, but nah, but yeah, but nah.”
If you don’t get the reference, I can’t help you.
Updated
Jordon Steele-John has set up an inquiry into Australia’s voting age. The joint standing committee on electoral matters has been asked to look into whether Australia should lower its voting age to 16, as it examines the Greens-sponsored bill:
The Bill proposes to introduce voluntary voting for 16 to 17 year olds and to allow people to enrol or update their enrolment details on polling day.
Submissions can be made through the Committee’s website by 10 August 2018.
The Committee has been asked to report by 18 October 2018.”
Updated
Scott Morrison was also asked earlier today about Huawei. He was asked while appearing on AM and he was asked again at his doorstop later:
Apart from obviously economic management, I know that Australians can always have great confidence in the way that Coalition governments – Liberal-National Governments – address issues of national security. Australians trust the Liberal and National parties to keep our economy strong, manage our national security. As a government, we will always act in accordance with the advice of our national security agencies in relation to any issues that may arise from time to time. That’s what we’ll continue to do, that’s why we fund those agencies correctly, that’s why we give them the support so they can give us the best possible advice. And that’s what they do and we act in accordance with that and Australians can trust that.”
Updated
I am ashamed to admit I had no idea it was Territory Day. (update: it is July 1)
Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, (chose to acknowledge it a little earlier)
He donned a safari suit and sang Meatloaf in the chamber, in honour of the occasion:
Updated
Ed Husic was asked about Ross Hart’s radio interview:
Well, OK. A number of feelings. So you’re telling me that a first-term backbencher has had not a smooth ride in a radio interview. Having been there, done that myself as a first-term backbencher you learn quite quickly. I haven’t heard the interview with Ross. Obviously I’ve heard that it has taken place and he will put that down as a learning experience, no doubt. I think the bigger thing to take out is this: a lot of people getting very excited about the company tax news over the last 24 hours. No one is surprised by the fact that Labor has been saying for some time that in a context where you’re seeing all these budget cuts being born by ordinary Australians, a government saying you have to cop those cuts because of what’s called a debt and deficit disaster, and then coming out of the blue and saying we’ll hand $80 billion in corporate tax cuts …
“... So we’ve been talking about this for a while: affordability. You know, there’s a place in time for these types of cuts to be contemplated. It ain’t now. So no one should be surprised that Labor has been saying we need to have moderation applied and we need to make this call when the time is right. No one should be surprised. But I know you had some other questions.
JOURNALIST: Was yesterday the right time?
HUSIC: Sorry. Was there somewhere on the diaries that said there was a particular day that was the right time? It was always going to be a decision and we’ve still got to go through the internal processes by the way. So there will always be people that will be upset when you potentially deny them the benefit of a tax cut. You are always going to have that, it will be a little bit itchy. But the reality is no one can say Labor has not been arguing for some time that we need to make sure that the stuff that is being proposed is affordable given that ordinary Australians are feeling the pinch of two things: budget cuts and a flat wages environment.
JOURNALIST: So you back your leader’s decision, Ed?
HUSIC: Absolutely. Well look …
JOURNALIST: Well why was it so hard for Ross to say that?
HUSIC: Let me say this. We’ve still got to go through the internal processes. We don’t always find out at caucus, so we’ll find out through co-workers, committees, the decisions will be known by the caucus and the caucus will make decisions accordingly. But you know there will not be a lot of surprise in the minds of many given what we’ve been saying about company tax cuts. Ultimately when the Shadow Cabinet makes its decision and that’s communicated at Caucus and the decision’s held at Caucus. That’ll work its way out. As to whether or not people should have their heart palpitations send them into a frenzy. Well that’s up to them, but it ain’t working with me.”
Updated
John Lord says Huawei is open to debate – but doesn’t like “throwaway lines” becoming fact in Australia, without, well, facts:
“So it’s this information, these throwaway lines, like ‘don’t use a Huawei phone because [of the security risk]’. Proof, why? I don’t know.
“But, you know, it’s these throwaway lines that are coming in being repeated, particularly in the media, ladies and gentlemen, without proof, without any substantiation, that worries me more that. Is the type of mud that is sticking and people saying, “Oh”, but there’s nothing there behind it.
“I don’t mind people put up facts that we can have a discussion and talk about. But not throwaway lines that tend to be passed across and often come into Australia.”
Updated
Ross Hart has tweeted, after his interview with LA FM made it on to the mainland (see a few posts back). Everything is cool, he says.
1/2 In case there’s any doubt, I absolutely support our position on company tax.
— RossHartMP (@RossHartMP) June 27, 2018
I’ve always backed tax cuts for small business – and big business should not get tax cuts that are funded by cuts to schools & hospitals.
2/2 Tasmania & Australia need a Labor Govt with Bill Shorten as PM, because only Bill has a plan for better schools, better hospitals and better income tax cuts.#auspol
— RossHartMP (@RossHartMP) June 27, 2018
Updated
Michelle Grattan wants to know what John Lord thinks of Australia’s intelligence agencies – given their warnings against involving Huawei in telecommunications frameworks:
It is a matter of supposition they are saying that. I don’t know they are saying that. I have not been told by one minister. I have not been told by one person in the what I call real authority that they are actually saying that.
I was debriefed over the NBN decision many years ago. And as far as I’m concerned the interactions I’ve had with government bodies since then have not indicated that the intelligence community is actually briefing heavily against Huawei.
OK, there is a lot of information fed to the media and one assumes that there is some people in organisations that do that. Yes, I have every faith in our intelligence community and every faith in our institutions. I always have.
Our point as Huawei is that when all this information comes up to the surface, it is looked at openly, looked at in a broad framework. I am concerned they have a lot of information coming to Australia from overseas and it’s not proven.
I’d hate for that to taint any decision in Australia. The decisions made in Australia must be made in the national interest. As I said, they must be based on fact and I hope it’s an open discussion where there are concerns, we can explain our position and others can keep raising questions. At the moment that is still happening.
He later clarifies in another question that he wasn’t briefed on what the intelligence agencies said about Huawei’s involvement in the NBN:
I will be open and honest and say we were told that we would no longer be allowed to bid for NBN contracts and it was based on not that we have done anything wrong, quote unquote, and it was just based that we were a Chinese company and they could not guarantee our equipment at that time.
Updated
Primrose Riordan from the Australian, who has written some excellent articles on China and the challenges its emergence on the global market is creating, asked Lord whether or not he senses a mood change against Chinese tech firms.
Lord says:
I have seen it written in the media that Huawei will be banned from 5G. We are having long, involved discussions with government at all levels. We will continue to do so. There is an openness to learn more about 5G. 5G is still a learning experience for – even for companies like Huawei and our two main competitors, Ericsson and Nokia, who are driving the global standards in Europe.
That is what we’re talking a lot to the Australian government about – what the standards are saying, who’s happening, the trends, how 5G is split up from core and non-core.
So, there’s a lot of those discussions to go on. As far as we’re concerned, Huawei can still be part of 5G in Australia. Nothing has been said to me that would change my belief.
You have then gone into the international arena. What is happening in the US is for the US. Huawei has a very small business in the US now. It is probably of less interest. You were indicating that Chinese goods and that are shrinking or the sales are.
Huawei has continued to grow at quite considerable amounts. We’re not seeing a drop-off. There is less in the mobile market – that’s true. That is more competitive. But in the telecom infrastructure sector, with the move to 5G technologies coming along, we see a large growth in this sector. That is what we’re preparing ourselves for.
Updated
Huawei boss makes pitch for involvement in 5G
Over at the Press Club, John Lord has addressed Huawei’s likely ban in developing Australia’s 5G telecommunications network as he finishes his speech:
Huawei or no Huawei – much of the 5G equipment that we will use in Australia will be manufactured in China. Now, most of the 170 countries around the where we operate will see the next generation of Huawei equipment rapidly deployed into one or more of their national networks.
Adopting 5G will not be that difficult. Carriers with a reliable 4G foundation will be able to easily move to 5G. Having said that, it won’t be quick. Telecoms have still got to find profitable business models. We are working with the major global operators for their 5G trials. With Vodafone, we undertook the world’s first 5G call.
... We lead the global patents for 5G technology and will spend about US$700m on 5G development this year alone. Australia shouldn’t miss out on this world-leading technology being part of its global mix and competition.
Australia cannot sit back and isolate itself from the technology rise happening in Asia. To do so would impact on us economically and remove ourselves from world-leading technologies, while our trading competitors take full advantage of better technology, cheaper costs for that technology and benefit from the productivity gains that will flow.
Decisions taken today will shape the environment of tomorrow. As we enter the 2020s Australia’s economic and social fabric will be determined by its telecommunications capabilities.
In an increasingly digital and connected world, every country is turbo-charging its communications to meet the insatiable demand for data, which will increase even more in the future.
With a vast continent like Australia, we need the best telecommunications to keep us on that road of digital prosperity.
The suggestions that Huawei, the largest provider of 4G technology in Australia today, should be banned from building 5G networks here should be a concern for everyone and particularly Australian businesses.
The implications about limiting access to technology competition could be high and it’s a short-term small-mind choice, rather than seeking to incorporate the technologies from these new companies in a solution that also secures our critical trucks.
Our allies are finding ways to embrace the new world. The time is now for we in Australia to do the same. We respect the open debate. As long as that debate is based on facts and is fully informed.
We respect the right of any government, and every government, to consider national risk and national security. Huawei is always open to discuss the best options to enable Australia to have access to the best technology that is safe and secure for its citizens.
In saying no to one of the leading 5G suppliers in the world, what are we really doing? This is not just a tough political decision. This is a long-term technology decision that could impact our growth and our productivity for generations to come. We believe Huawei has the capability, the openness, transparency and a track record globally to be part of this future for Australia.
Updated
And on Mark Latham (who is a member of the Liberal Democrats), David Leyonhjelm said he hasn’t spoken to him in a few weeks, and there is no update on whether he will run for the party.
“There is a discussion going on within the party about whether we run him as a candidate,” Leyonhjelm said.
“If we do, do we run him in state or federal? In either case, do we run him in the upper house or lower house, in a winnable spot, or a non-winnable spot? That debate is still going on and we haven’t reached any final position at all.
“And, to be quite honest, I am not sure Mark himself has reached a final position on it all.”
Leyonhjelm said it was “fairly unlikely” that Latham, if he did decide to run, would replace him on the Lib Dem Senate ticket.
“There is also a question about whether Mark is the right person to replace us, when he may well be the only person representing the Liberal Democrats in parliament – that is another big threshold issue.”
Is that, as host Tom Connell asked, because Latham supports about 90% of Liberal Democrat policies, but isn’t entirely on board with all of the party’s platform?
“Correct,” Leyonhjelm said.
Updated
David Leyonhjelm wants to overturn the legislation that stops the ACT and NT from being able to make their own laws on assisted suicide.
He told Sky News that the most important thing in any euthanasia legislation is “informed consent” – so he doesn’t think you can assume consent for someone with dementia or mental health issues.
“We are talking about assisted suicide,” he said. “We are not talking about putting people out of their misery, it is not like putting a dog down, and I have done thousands of them when I was a vet.
“And it’s not that at all. This is helping people to die who would die by their own means, if they were able to, if they weren’t physically infirm.”
Updated
Labor frontbencher Mark Butler, speaking on Sky a little earlier, said he was entirely comfortable with Labor’s corporate tax plan:
I’m not going to go into the premise of your introduction, Ashleigh, about discussions within shadow cabinet. Obviously they are always confidential, always have been both in opposition and government of both political persuasions. But I’m entirely comfortable with the announcement that Bill Shorten made yesterday.
I think people understood our position about company tax cuts essentially for two reasons. The first is that we see other priorities in the budget. For example, not making Australian workers work till age 70 to qualify for the aged pension, not cutting the energy supplement of hundreds of thousands of pensioners, and not making the cuts to schools and hospitals that Malcolm Turnbull is making.
We also think there is a better way to support businesses that want to engage in actual investment. That is why Chris Bowen’s announcement of the Australian investment guarantee will provide a direct incentive to businesses that actually invest rather than an across-the-board company tax cut that goes to businesses regardless of what they do with the money.
Updated
Over at the National Press Club, John Lord is speaking on how Huawei’s presence in the Australian market has driven competition and reduced costs:
I’ll bring you something from the Q&A session when it starts.
Updated
While we are on morning radio interviews, Tasmanian Labor MP Ross Hart didn’t have a great one with Brian Carlton on LA FM this morning.
David Crowe over at Fairfax caught that one.
From Crowe’s report:
The leader has announced that he would support a reduction in, I’m sorry, a repeal of the tax rate. It has not been discussed, as I understand, by shadow cabinet,” Mr Hart said.
When Carlton interrupted to point out the “equivocation” in this answer and to ask again if the Labor MP backed his leader, Mr Hart dodged the question again.
“I would support businesses in northern Tasmania, and Tasmania generally, being profitable and making a profit so that they can pay tax, irrespective of whether there’s going to be a tax cut at a particular tax rate or not.”
Carlton interrupted to ask again: “Do you back the leader?”
Mr Hart: “That’s a matter that’s been announced by Mr Shorten.”
Carlton: “So you don’t Ross … you don’t support what your leader’s done?”
Mr Hart: “I’m not saying that, Brian, I’m not saying that.”
Carlton: “But you’re not saying you agree with him, either.”
Mr Hart: “Let’s have a conversation about that another time.”
LA FM have put the interview up
Updated
Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne both appeared for their weekly scheduled chat with Adelaide radio 5AA.
Labor has released the transcript. This is the first time we’ve heard from Albo (in detail) since the Whitlam address last Friday:
HOST: We will kick off with you if we can, thanks Albo. Now last Friday, in a very widely reported speech, and a pretty well received speech, you talked about how it is important for Labor to maintain a strong working relationship with the business community. Fast forward five days and we have seen Bill Shorten unilaterally embrace a tax position which reportedly does not have the support or the endorsement of caucus or indeed even shadow cabinet, which could see businesses – very small businesses – with a turnover as low as $2m – being stripped of tax relief. Is Bill Shorten’s position an example of exactly what you were warning against?
ALBANESE: No. Labor is engaged with business, including small business. One of the things that we did when we were last in government of course was do the instant asset write-off that was opposed by the Coalition at the time and, indeed, when they came to government they abolished it. Then they brought it back and pretended it was their policy, having said it was a bad idea. It was good policy and it is good that it is there now and one of [the] things that we have also said for businesses of whatever size is the investment guarantee for investment of a 20% discount for investment above $20,000, excluding only passenger vehicles, so it would apply for utes and capital equipment and that sort of investment to encourage that support.
HOST: What about current policy? What about this policy and particularly what about the way it has been handled by Bill Shorten?
ALBANESE: Well, we opposed of course these changes in the House of Representatives and in the Senate when they were debated and dealt with on the floor of both of those chambers over the last year and a bit.
HOST: But are you surprised and troubled, as other shadow ministers reportedly are, that Bill Shorten could be advocating a threshold as low as $2m for taking tax cuts away from very small businesses?
ALBANESE: Well, what Bill said yesterday is that shadow cabinet will consider the issue of businesses with a turnover between $2m and $10m and that will be a decision that we’ll make at an appropriate time and announce.
HOST: No one has yet, as far as I understand, given you the opportunity to have your say about what you think about the tax cuts being wound back for businesses between $10m and $50m. Bill Shorten came out and made the announcement yesterday without consulting. What would you have said if he asked?
ALBANESE: Well I think that Bill Shorten has got a right to announce Labor policy. He did that. He did that consistent with the way that Labor had voted in the House of Representatives and the Senate when these changes were considered.
HOST: So if he asked you, you would have said yes?
ALBANESE: Well, it is a matter of priorities. It’s a matter of whether the priority is for education or for health and or for infrastructure for that matter and Labor has clearly said that our priority is education, is health, is infrastructure, is paying down the debt, is making sure that we’ve been fiscally responsible so we have had a number of policy announcements, indeed more than oppositions in the past have done, and that is a good thing – the fact that we have so much policy out there.
HOST: Albo, your speech last Friday was widely reported as you putting yourself out there in the leadership context and saying I am available for the top job. Is that a valid analysis of your speech?
ALBANESE: No it is not. If you look at speeches I have given for similar occasions in the past few years, be it the Light on the Hill function that is held in Bathurst, the Earle Page lecture that is done in Armidale at the University of New England, the Eddie Graham lecture, which is done in Wagga Wagga in rural New South Wales – on each of these occasions I always give considered speeches - not about what happened in question time that day. I mean for goodness sake, the Whitlam Oration, and I make no …
HOST: They key criticism of Bill Shorten right now is that he is too anti-business. The key point you made in your speech is that Labor needs to be more pro-business.
ALBANESE: Well that wasn’t the key point. That was one of a range of points that I made, was that Labor has to appeal to not just members of trade unions, but we have to appeal to small businesses, to people who are contractors, to people who are professionals and aren’t in any union and that’s just common sense. And that’s what Labor governments do. That’s what I did and Bill did and others all did as members of the Rudd and Gillard governments. That’s what Hawke and Keating did. That’s what Whitlam did. That’s what modern Labor is about.
HOST: Or should be about?
ALBANESE: No. That is what modern Labor is about and Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen, we all have extensive relationships with the business community. We are sitting in Canberra this week, I have a business lunch on Friday which is all about that engagement that we have with the community and indeed the NSW state conference of the Labor party is being held on the weekend. There will be business observers there and I have a range of meetings with them on Friday and indeed on Saturday.
HOST: So Albo, if you are comfortable with the manner in which Bill Shorten, as you are saying, he is well within his right to make an announcement repealing those tax cuts, make the case to small business owners listening right now about why they should pay more tax and will pay more tax under Labor.
ALBANESE: Well the fact is that a number of – you’ve got to look at the policy as a whole and I think the support for the investment guarantee that we are putting forward will be worth more than the tax changes, which come in over a period of time, of course, for businesses between $10m and $50m and that will be of significantly more benefit for them. And that is something that the current government opposes and all businesses know that we need a strong economy and that having a strong economy means making difficult decisions in terms of investment in education and training and skills for example, something that businesses say to me they are suffering from as they can’t get a skilled workforce.
HOST: Chris Pyne, you’ve been very polite and very patient. I’m going to bring you in now.
ALBANESE: I thought he wasn’t here. I thought he hadn’t turned up.
PYNE: I thought you were doing a lovely job trying to dig yourself out of a hole there. So I thought I would let you keep doing it.
HOST: Now Chris, you’ve been an MP since the early 1990s.
PYNE: Since the early 1890s.
ALBANESE: He’s a very old man.
HOST: You’ve seen a lot of leadership dramas in that time. Does what’s happening in the Labor party now look to you like a leadership battle?
PYNE: Look there’s absolutely no doubt that Bill Shorten has said he’s going to have a war on business. He wants the unions front and centre of Labor party policy-making. He wants the CFMEU to be involved in every forum. And he’s repudiated the aspiration of Australians, that the Hawke-Keating government understood, that Keating’s actually criticised modern Labor for, because Hawke and Keating got that Australians are aspirational. It’s why they were a successful Labor party. And Bill Shorten says he’s not going to do that. He wants to increase personal income taxes at the next election by $70bn. And yesterday he’s about to kick small businesses in the teeth and South Australia is a small and medium-enterprise state.
And yet Anthony Albanese on Friday last week said that they had to remember that the unions are small part now of the workforce. It’s not 1950 anymore, he said. He said that Labor needed to be close to business and co-operate with business and that they should remember the Hawke-Keating legacy and that Australians are aspirational. So, Anthony stated a very, very clear contradiction to Bill Shorten. And that’s why the speech has had such a great run over the last few days, because everyone can see that Bill Shorten is now a man on borrowed time.
And yesterday he reacted under pressure, announced without consultation with his party room or his frontbench, that Labor would roll back the company tax cuts for small businesses. So now 94,000 small businesses across Australia have a motivation to campaign against Labor because if Labor gets elected they’ll have their company taxes increased. If Labor gets elected people’s personal income tax will increase.
And Bill Shorten’s saying people on $95,000 a year are the top end of town. He’s now saying that small businesses with a turnover of more than $2m are the top end of town. He’s boxed himself in because he lives day to day. And what Anthony said last Friday was that Labor should stop living day to day and look at their history and have a vision for the future and that’s why we’re talking about Labor party leadership.
HOST: There will be more to come on this over the coming days, we’re sure. Chris Pyne and Anthony Albanese, thanks so much for joining us this morning for Two Tribes.
PYNE: It was a great pleasure this morning.
ALBANESE: Good to be with you. I’m glad Christopher got a crack.
PYNE: It was a good crack.
Updated
Labor’s Doug Cameron stopped by doors this morning:
It’s just nonsense. Yesterday we see this $80bn tax cut to the big end of town being pushed by Mathias Cormann, just machine gun mouth, on he goes, on and on about rubbish.
He can’t answer any of the questions, didn’t deal with the issue that Marco Rubio in the United States, a Republican candidate for the presidency said, that business had not increased wages, that business was not growing, that the money was simply going to the salaries of the executives and to buybacks of shares.
This is a nonsense what this government is doing and the sooner we get a change of government, the sooner we get a government that can look after ordinary people, a government that understands the issues of the economy and we stop having a government that is led by the nose by the Australian newspaper and Rupert Murdoch the better.
It looks like Pauline Hanson might be doing another flip flop. Pauline Hanson is the most unstable senator I have ever seen in my decade in parliament.
This is a woman who is prepared to do anything to kowtow to the Liberal party and it wouldn’t surprise me if she ends up backing these tax cuts in.
She has got absolutely no idea about economic policy. She’s got absolutely no idea what drives the economy in this country, and to have her in a position where she could end up handing $80bn to the big end of town, $17bn to the banks is just outrageous.
She is totally unstable when it comes to economic policy; she is totally unstable in her voting position. No one knows what she will do and if she backs this in, then she can never ever claim to understand what battlers in this country need.
Updated
While reading through the Senate debate last night on the higher education legislation (which will see students repaying their debt earlier, and at higher levels) Pauline Hanson had this to say about someone earning $45,000 a year:
So, yes, repayment of the student loan will start earlier, and so it should – as soon as income allows for it. I challenge anyone to say that $8 a week will be a hardship for someone who is on a taxable income of $45,000 a year. I’m sure they could go without a couple of coffees a week to pay back their obligation to the Australian taxpayer.
Updated
And here is an idea of where the government will be taking today’s tax debate. Scott Morrison was on Sky this morning and had this to say about Bill Shorten’s company tax position:
He was counting the money but wasn’t being clear about the fact that he was actually going to rip back, roll back, take back legislated tax cuts from the Australian parliament.
So my question to him today is: “Come clean on $2m to $10m. Come clean on $2m to $10m, tell the Australian people, will you roll back the small business tax cuts?”
It’s not about hitting the top end of town, he’s hitting small and medium-sized businesses. The only top end of the town he’s helping is the top seven towns overseas – in New York, in Singapore, in London and Paris. They’ll have lower rates of tax than Australia will. Our businesses will be at a disadvantage, our jobs will go offshore.
Updated
The Greens are also attempting to have the Lord’s prayer removed from the start of Senate proceedings. From Paul Karp’s report:
The Lord’s prayer would be abolished from the start of Senate sittings and replaced by a statement that includes religious and non-religious beliefs, under a push instigated by the Greens.
On Wednesday the Greens senator Lee Rhiannon will move a motion for a Senate inquiry into the proposed alternative: “Senators, let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to all people of Australia and to future generations.”
The move is supported in a letter signed by progressive religious leaders, including Fr Rod Bower, of the Anglican parish of Gosford, the reverend Margaret Mayman, of Pitt St Uniting church, and rabbi Jeffrey Kamins of the Temple Emanuel at Woollahra.
Updated
Thank you to a reader for sharing this with me: the OECD has released its latest international migration outlook report, (which you will find, here)
This is of particular interest, given the debates we have been having on migration:
Relative to other OECD countries, there is basically no gap in unemployment between people born in Australia and those born overseas. This is probably a large source of perceived social cohesion. pic.twitter.com/B12XBCbvDP
— Henry Sherrell (@HenrySherrell) June 27, 2018
Updated
Peter Dutton’s office announced Australia will be providing more money to Care Australia for humanitarian assistance for Syrian refugees who have fled to Jordan:
The US$3m funding will provide critical support to people affected by the Syrian and Iraq conflicts and help them rebuild their lives.
Australia has provided and committed more than $613m to the humanitarian response since 2011.
The minister for home affairs, Peter Dutton, said he was pleased the Australian government would once again partner with Care Australia and expand on the $2m worth of services delivered to the region in 2016-17.
“The funding will provide more than 100,000 people with support and information to gain access to essential services, as well as providing 800 households with emergency cash assistance to meet urgent protection needs,” Mr Dutton said.
“More than 2,000 individuals will receive additional services, including vocational training and mental health support.”
New activities such as incentives for children’s enrolment in school and an expansion of education-related activities through the Jordan River Foundation will be provided in the provinces of Irbid, Mafraq, Zarqa, Azraq and Amman.
This funding will be provided in addition to the Australian government’s three-year $220m assistance package to support those affected by the crisis in Syria and neighbouring countries hosting large numbers of refugees.
Since 1 July 2015, the Australian government has granted more than 30,000 visas for those displaced by the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.
Updated
The Greens pre-emptively move to block Trump visit
Donald Trump is due to visit the region in November, which has raised the question of whether the US president will come through Australia.
The Greens are being proactive – and have put a motion up in the Senate calling on the government not to issue an invitation, or officially, calls on the government to rule out:
- extending an official invitation to President Trump to visit Australia; and
- conferring him the honour of an address to a joint meeting of parliament.
On that, they quote the UK House of Commons speaker, John Bercow, who said: “An address to both houses of parliament is not an automatic right; it is an earned honour ... My view is that he has not earned that honour.”
The Greens motion says a visit by Trump, and his addressing parliament, would “represent the normalisation of racism, bigotry and misogyny”.
Updated
But in case you missed it at the bottom of that other post, Pauline Hanson, who this morning said she was still talking to the government, now says it is definitely a no, until after the election.
“Let them take it to the next election, let’s see what the people say,” she told 3AW
“We’re standing firm on it, we’re not supporting corporate tax cuts.”
Pauline Hanson also had a chat on 3AW about what she really thinks about Bill Shorten:
If you ask a lot of women ... and a lot of men, actually, take note of what their wives think when you meet someone. You just have this feeling about someone and I have that feeling about Bill. And I have sat down with him, I have had a couple of meetings with him and I just don’t warm to him and that is just my feeling. And actually, when you look at the numbers coming in, people don’t warm to Bill Shorten to be the next prime minister of this country and that is evident in the polls that he gets.
I have heard from a lot of men as well, a lot of men feel the same way, they don’t like the way he comes across, the way he speaks, they just, I just don’t trust him, I really don’t trust him. Forget about the politics, I am talking about on personal basis. Should I be saying this? Who knows. But a lot of people feel the same way about me, so be it.
Asked if she was describing him as “sleazy”, she said:
Would I put it that way? Look, we are talking about someone who is going to be possibly the next prime minister of this country. I think we need a person who we feel comfortable with, that we can trust, that is there for the right reasons, that has the best interests of this country at heart and the people, and I am sorry, I don’t pick it up with Bill Shorten.
Would she vote with Labor if it formed government after the next election?
I am talking about the individual. There are some issues of policy with Labor that I would support them on, but, look, they are not government. Let’s see what legislation they put up, because I will be in the parliament. If they do happen to be [in] government after the next election, I will look at legislation based on merit for the people and for Queensland and for the people and for the country. And I will not knock it back just because Bill Shorten happens to be the prime minister.
If that be the case, I hope I can have a good working relationship with him, because it needs to happen, but I am just saying at this point in time, I have had meetings with him, I have walked out of them, those meetings, and I felt, I don’t feel comfortable, I don’t warm to him, I don’t trust him and I just feel this is all about a man who doesn’t connect with me.
Does she have the same thoughts on Anthony Albanese?
I got to know Albo, Anthony Albanese, when I went on the delegation to India last year. We had a lot better, I like Albanese, as a person, I warm to him a lot better, we had a laugh, we had a joke, I think it was reciprocal, but do I think he will make a great prime minister? Again, I don’t think so.
Does she believe a leadership challenge will happen in Labor?
I think that is on the cards, because they know that Bill Shorten is not liked by the people and they may not vote for Labor purely based on Bill Shorten, but Anthony Albanese worries me greatly, because I think that there will be a breakdown in border security. His attitude, that he said, is just [to] let the boats come in and that will be detrimental to Australia.
Updated
Wayne Swan braved the cold Canberra morning for a short press conference this morning, where he addressed the decision to repeal the company tax cuts already passed for businesses with a turnover of between $10m and $50m – as well as Pauline Hanson:
Well, Labor has never supported tax cuts for big business. They come with a huge cost: $80bn. And that money will inevitably be ripped out of health and education. But I see this morning, Pauline Hanson has said that she’s going to jump into bed with the Coalition on the big company tax cuts.
Well, Pauline Hanson might as well go and join the Liberal party. Here’s the membership form. She can take out a bronze, silver, gold or platinum membership. Well, the truth is she votes with them 90% of the time so she might as well get platinum membership of the Liberal party.
This question of tax cuts for big business is incredibly serious for the future of our country. What it means is less money available for health and education. They will not bring the benefit in terms of jobs and growth that is promised by the Coalition. They are effectively a con job and now we see Pauline Hanson getting into bed with the government.
She might as well go and join the Liberal party of Australia. In my home state of Queensland, this will mean dramatic cuts to health and education, particularly hospitals like the Caboolture hospital.
Hanson was just on 3AW, where she said the government could take the policy to the next election, and she was sticking to her position.
Updated
The government accounts are in:
Company tax revenue in 17/18 increases by another $1.1bn to $87.8bn. It’s now up by $9.2bn just this year since the 17-18 forecast in 16-17 MYEFO. Stronger growth & stronger anti-avoidance measures = more tax even after 1st phase of tax cuts: https://t.co/brGhsoDhUV #auspol
— Mathias Cormann (@MathiasCormann) June 27, 2018
For just the data, head here.
Updated
More wheeling and dealing goes on in the Senate, during a sitting, than almost anywhere else, Mike Bowers caught the morning chats:
Updated
Amnesty calls for Australia to suspend military co-operation with Myanmar
In a heartbreaking and detailed report, Amnesty International has named 13 officials in the Myanmar military it says have had a “key role in murder, rape and deportation” of the Rohingya population in the northern Rakhine state.
It is pretty unusual for Amnesty to name people in its reports, but in “We Will Destroy Everything”: Military Responsibility for Crimes against Humanity in Rakhine State, Myanmar, the human rights watchdog calls for the situation in Myanmar to be referred to the international criminal court for investigation and prosecution.
But it also calls for the international community to start taking the situation seriously – including Australia. The organisation’s crisis campaigns co-ordinator, Diana Sayed, said “Australia must suspend all military co-operation and assistance with the Myanmar military”.
Australia has announced a further $18.4m in assistance for the 900,000 Rohingya living in Cox’s Bazar, with more than 700,000 people believed to have fled Myanmar since August 2017. That brings Australia’s contribution to $70m since September 2017.
The monsoon season is about to begin, which is about to cause conditions in the camps to deteriorate even further.
Updated
Changing the government not enough - Greens
Speaking of the Greens, the party has released its industrial relations policy.
The party has put together a list of things it would like to see changed:
- Labour laws must reduce inequality in society.
- Workers should be paid and treated equally for the same kind of work.
- Everyone should have the right to decent work.
- People should have greater control over their working lives, which means no more shifting of risk and insecurity on to workers and everyday people.
- Workers should be able to bargain at the level they want.
- Migration laws and free trade deals should not be able to undercut local labour laws.
- The composition of the workforce must be reflective of the population.
- The government must not use the law to attack working people and their unions.
- Union rights should be enshrined in law.
- There must be an independent workplace commission and an easy way of enforcing labour laws.
Adam Bandt said the policy extends beyond just changing the government:
The Greens want laws that reduce inequality, tackle job insecurity and restore some basic rights.
Kicking out Malcolm Turnbull is necessary but not sufficient. Without a progressive Senate, you can’t change the rules. It’s as simple as that.
If we can kick Malcolm Turnbull out, these will be our guiding principles when negotiating and passing Labor’s IR bills through the Senate.
Just like we did on penalty rates, the Greens will stand up for workers and hold Labor to account.
Updated
As we said yesterday, the Liberals and Labor will have a conscience vote on the euthanasia motion due to be debated in the Senate (they mostly always do on these things now), but Lyle Shelton, who is hoping for a Senate spot in Queensland and is battling for the same voters as Malcolm Roberts, had a few things to say about One Nations’ position.
He is now linking One Nation to the Greens:
Conservatives will be disappointed today to learn that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party is understood to be backing doctor-assisted suicide, a pet policy of the Greens.
Conservatives party spokesman Lyle Shelton said many social conservatives had been attracted to the anti-establishment party but it was becoming clear it lacked clear principles.
“Whether it is an inconsistent view on lower taxes or support for allowing doctors to kill their patients, One Nation does not present a principled platform for social and economic conservatives.
“It’s one thing to be able to articulate the legitimate grievances people have with our broken political system, it is another to put forward a coherent and principled policy approach.
“The Senate crossbench needs stable and clear-minded parliamentarians to take the fight up to the Greens and to stop the Coalition’s continued drift to the left.”
The Australian has reported that it understands One Nation has given backing to a private senator’s bill put forward by libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm, with the support of the Greens, to overturn the ban on the territories legalising euthanasia.
“Greens and extreme libertarians have always had similar policies on legalising drugs, abortion and euthanasia. Many social conservatives will be disappointed to see One Nation aligning itself with this unholy alliance’s euthansia agenda.”
Updated
The Senate has got straight into the foreign interference laws - which will be passed, because Labor is supporting them.
Malcolm Turnbull has done a doorstop where he had a lot to say about how wicked Bill Shorten is being for denying small and medium businesses a tax cut, and not much to say on Huawei.
Turnbull:
What Shorten is going to do, he’s going to hit them with higher taxes. This is an assault on jobs, it’s an assault on enterprise, it’s an assault on innovation and small and medium family businesses – that is the Labor way. That’s what Shorten is threatening and that’s why it’s vital to continue to back our national economic plan that is already delivering record jobs growth.
Significantly, Turnbull did not rule out splitting the company tax cut package to give a tax cut to companies earning up to $500m:
I’m not going to comment on negotiations with the Senate. We’ve found over the years the best way to approach them is privately, constructively and respectfully.
On Huawei, the prime minister said the government “carefully considers national security when it come to telecommunications” but he would “not have a public discussion” about national security advice on Huawei.
Asked if Huawei will have any role in the 5G network, Turnbull waxed lyrical about 5G as a big evolution of telecommunications, “a much more powerful, more pervasive technology” that enables the Internet of Everything. But on Huawei, he would say only “all of those matters are under very careful consideration”.
Updated
Just on those tax cuts – they apply to businesses with a turnover between $10m and $50m, however the tax only applies to the profit, not the income.
So this is a slightly odd comment from Pauline Hanson:
No, I have nothing to do with Bill Shorten about the corporate tax cuts. Remember, he wants to wind back the corporate tax cuts up to $50m back to $10m. He is speaking about the seat of Longman. I have a bus company up there that goes under if he winds back the corporate tax cuts back to $10m. He says he is for the battlers. It is all puff and wind. Do I like him? Do I trust him? No, I don’t trust him at all.
Updated
Pauline Hanson says she is sticking by her (latest) decision on company tax cuts, but I think we all know she and the government are just waiting for the Longman byelection to tick over.
The One Nation leader was on Nine’s Today show this morning, denying her decision has anything to do with the Longman:
Parliament finishes tomorrow, tomorrow night. Let’s see what the debate, where that leads and the discussions that are had and hopefully – and I promise the Australian people this is always about them and I am hoping to make the right decision for them and their future and the future generations.
Is it not easy to get it right. I don’t have, you know, the resources that the major political parties have and I have to take it on my gut feeling and I also have to take it on advice and listening to what I am hearing and also what I am trying to get for the people.
I am really fighting for people to – and is it not all about me, it has nothing to do about me, it has nothing to do about the seat of Longman, about the byelection, that is just absolute rubbish.
Updated
Good morning
It’s the penultimate day before the winter recess and everyone is starting to get a little antsy.
The prime minister started the day in hi-vis – picking up the tools, and his attack against Labor’s decision to repeal the company tax cuts for businesses with a turnover between $10m and $50m.
That decision didn’t go through shadow cabinet. But Labor says it has been its position for some time. It is just being explicit about it now.
Scott Morrison is now pushing for Labor to say what it will do about company tax cuts between $2m and $10m. After talking to Labor people yesterday, it looks like the party is leaning towards a no on that one, but it is not confirmed. Expect caucus to have a lot to say on it though, before the final decision is made.
Meanwhile, Pauline Hanson, who says she hasn’t flip-flopped on company tax cuts, in a speech that laid out, in her own words, out of her own mouth, all the different positions she has held – a flip flop, if you like – has resumed talks with the government on company tax.
Pauline Hanson says she hasn’t flip flopped on her support for Turnbull’s tax cuts for the banks. Watch this and decide for yourself. pic.twitter.com/AxspyavDry
— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) June 26, 2018
Yesterday it was no flip flops.
Today it is :
I can imagine down in the chamber again [Labor is saying] she is flip-flopping – that is my prerogative and I will change my mind as many times as I want to ensure that I come up with the right decision.
It’s her party and she can flip-flop if she wants to.
Oh – and the Huawei boss is at the Press Club today. Which is timely, because the government is most likely about to ban the Chinese company from having anything to do with building the 5G network. John Lord, the chief of the Australian arm of the company, says there is nothing to worry about.
We’ll bring you that, and everything else as this day rolls on. Mike Bowers has already filed his first pics – follow him at @mikepbowers and @mpbowers, and he may pop up in the story on @pyjamapolitics.
You’ll find me @amyremeikis and in the comments.
I haven’t had a coffee yet, as I wrestle with the tech demons, so this should be fun.
Ready? Let’s go!
Updated
