Nighty night
Well chaps, for some odd reason the day has passed in largely orderly fashion. I feel safe leaving you all to your evenings. Let’s wrap for tonight and regroup at first frost.
Today, Tuesday, in Canberra
- Two polls showed Labor would win an election held today – but the longer view suggests the prime minister is turning around some of the negative community sentiment about him.
- The prime minister told colleagues they could stop leaking or face the consequences. (I suspect the prime minister would face some consequences if he made colleagues face consequences because that’s how these chain reactions tend to go. Lance one boil, and another appears.) But chill out and come to Jesus, as a wise public man once said of his predicament.
- It was a busy day on the rhetoric. Tony Abbott told voters, via the live broadcast opportunity of question time, that Bill Shorten hated Sydney and wanted to depress the value of your house. This free character reference followed a question from Shorten about whether Abbott agreed with the recent assessment from the government’s top economic adviser that there was a housing bubble (not in a good way) in Sydney. Join the dots people. That King of Zing is coming for your house. It remains unclear whether the treasury secretary, John Fraser, is coming for it too. Or possibly the RBA, given today it pledged to work with other regulators to assess and contain risks that may arise from the housing market. Watch that Glenn Stephens, I implore you.
- The prime minister also told people via their question time wireless that when it came to the question of citizenship, anyone who raises a gun or a knife to Australians simply because of who we are and the values we have, has forfeited his or right to consider himself one of us. At the moment, you can have your citizenship revoked for fighting for a foreign power. Just for the record, there is still no detailed policy on the government’s next proposed iteration of citizenship revocations. More of raising various items visually shortly.
- Meanwhile, the serious issue of whether things might be getting a teensy bit out of control in the South China Sea bubbled away. A leak to The Australian suggested the Abbott government was thinking about getting the RAAF to fly past China’s now weaponised artifical islands. Two statements from the defence minister’s office failed to rule that course of action out comprehensively. Both statements suggested this fly by activity through international zones happened in the normal course of events. One statement said there had been no “formal” talks to escalate Australia’s activity in the region at the defence secretary level. Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek clearly thought this was a less desirable course of action than Labor’s defence spokesman Stephen Conroy.
Now, to that issue of taking up cudgels. Visuals.
#BrickTones has some guidelines. Can one take up a cutlass? No. Absolutely not.
Bear this in mind as you go about your business in orderly fashion.
Bless Mike Bowers for his #Bricks, because God knows, we can all use a laugh. Bless the readers for their #BrickBats. See you on the morrows.
Readers who have hung in with me since lunchtime (you treasures) will remember that at the end of question time there was contention about whether the Liberal MP Brett Whiteley, took an authorised photograph in the chamber.
Whitely said he did not, and made a crack about the manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, not knowing a flash if he saw one.
Burke isn’t evidently inclined to let it go. The Burke office has spliced together some footage to let you decide whether this was a selfie or not.
Have a look.
My ruling? Either Whiteley is shading his eyes from sudden dazzling sunlight (possible), or he’s holding up a smart phone at a distinctly selfie-looking angle.
Madam Speaker is investigating.
Updated
A bit more on the attributes of the two leaders, Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten, which Essential ascertains via a bunch of questions.
- Tony Abbott’s key attributes were out of touch with ordinary people (65%), narrow-minded (63%), arrogant (62%) and hard working (59%).
- Since February, the largest shifts have been for out of touch with ordinary people (-7), erratic (-6) and a capable leader (+6).
- Overall, Tony Abbott’s ratings have recovered from the lows of February to be at similar levels to December last year.
- Bill Shorten’s key attributes were intelligent (61%), hard working (60%), understands the problems facing Australia (49%), superficial (44%) and a capable leader (43%).
- Overall, there has been little change in Bill Shorten’s ratings since February.
- Compared to Bill Shorten, Tony Abbott is much more likely to be considered narrow-minded (+29), intolerant (+24), out of touch with ordinary people (+23) and arrogant (+23).
- Bill Shorten is regarded by more respondents to be someone who understands the problems facing Australia (-11) and intelligent (-10).
- The gap on “a capable leader has reduced from 13 points to 3 points – Tony Abbott is up 6% and Bill Shorten down 4%.
So what can we take from that? If we look at the major published polling data from the first six months of this year we can see a modest improvement for Tony Abbott since his real low point, which was the Prince Phillip knighthood and the leadership spill motion. Shorten has been out in front in the sentiment stakes. Abbott is beginning to close the gap, gradually.
Oh and Essential’s two party preferred number? Labor 52, Coalition 48. Same as Newspoll.
Let’s take a look at the Essential poll now, which is mildly interesting.
Marriage equality first. Essential’s positive number is lower than Crosby Textor’s positive number from July 2014, but it’s still a clear majority. 59% of the sample agreed that people of the same sex should be allowed to marry and 30% think they should not. This is apparently the same result as a survey taken in February.
Breaking down the metrics. Support for same sex marriage is 54% among men and 64% among women. 69% of under 35’s support same sex marriage – while those aged 65+ are split 43% in favour/43% against.
On Sky News now, Liberal Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who is coordinating a consultation process on the citizenship proposal, was asked several times – five or six – whether the government might withdraw from an international treaty which prevents Australian rendering people stateless.
She did not rule that out. Which could mean something, or nothing. These days, with all things liable to change without notice, it’s hard to tell.
You can see it, but you can't talk about it for four years
Terrific story from my colleague Lenore Taylor, about the TPP, which is about to land with a thud.
Australian politicians have been told they can view the current confidential negotiating text for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, but only if they agree not to divulge anything they see for four years, despite expectations the deal could be finalised within months.
MPs were briefed on the broad outlines of the TOP SECRET proposed agreement in Canberra last night. Still lots of unanswered questions. The degree of secrecy surrounding the negotiations has been seriously counterproductive to the effort to build a solid political consensus for the agreement. Opponents of free trade in general, and the TPP specifically, have been way out in front on this issue. Even before a text has been sighted, this deal has been given a major thumbs down in the court of public opinion. Lots of sensible economic amd political analysts in the US are also deeply unconvinced that this will be a good agreement.
The meme is the message
There may not be legislation, or clarity, or even a detailed policy, but there is a meme.
Aust citizenship is an extraordinary privilege, & comes with many privileges which must not be abused. RT to support pic.twitter.com/oedDy9VzQU
— Peter Dutton (@PeterDutton_MP) June 2, 2015
Updated
Wheels within wheels. Tanya now toning down Tanya, Stephen Conroy toning down nothing
Now we are through the abomination of question time, let’s work out where various things are up to. I want to walk back to the South China Sea story, one because it’s very important, and two, because there’s an angle I haven’t explored yet.
I did mention earlier in the day that Labor’s foreign affiars spokewoman, Tanya Plibersek, has been trying for the past few days to walk a line where she’s behind the government, but also suggesting the government tone down the public lectures to China.
Today, Plibersek has toned down her toning down a fraction.
Here’s what she said today.
Of course, we take no position on the territorial disputes in question, but we do say that it is important to have freedom of navigation and freedom of flight through an area that is an extremely busy trading route, an area that Australian vessels have been traveling through for many years. We urge the parties of course to use international laws and norms to settle any disagreements about sovereignty and of course, it is important that this area remains open to trading.
But it’s interesting that Labor’s defence spokesman, Stephen Conroy, is toning down nothing. He backed the legitimacy of Australia’s program to sail and fly through the region.
His view today was basically, go for it.
Conroy:
This is nothing new. Let’s be clear. Australia will continue to travel through internationally recognised waters and we call on all countries that have been constructing artificial islands and reclaiming land to settle this matter through the normal international processes.
Best take a collection.
Treasurer Hockey whips out a money box for the PM #QT #NoProps @murpharoo @GuardianAus http://t.co/rS1hWDhoqD pic.twitter.com/rYrfUAwyM6
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) June 2, 2015
Why does Bill Shorten want to punish the people of Sydney. The eternal why. Right there.
He wouldn’t know a good a good flash if he saw one.
Yep, this is your parliament.
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper. The quote above is a complaint in response to a complaint about the Liberal MP Brett Whiteley allegedly taking a photo in the chamber. This is banned activity. Manager of opposition business Tony Burke has alleged secret photographic activity. Whitely has refuted the suggestion. You see what he did there, right?
Updated
Social services minister, Scott Morrison. Way up high.
Madam Speaker. Well I’ve been thinking, I’ve been thinking where is this ‘somehow place’ where you can magically fund all of your commitments? I thought it might be somewhere over the rainbow, Madam Speaker. Way up high, there is a land that I’ve heard of once in a lullaby.
That’s what they think, Madam Speaker. They are living in a fantasy land when it comes to how you pay for your budget promises.
We’ve got the Wizard of Oz over here, all smoke and mirrors. And it’s time for those opposite, Madam Speaker, to come back to reality – whether it’s the flying monkeys up the back or cowardly lion or Dorothy herself over here, Madam Speaker.
It’s time for her to stand up and tap her shoes together, come back to reality and say there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.
While I chased down the RBA statement, there were two Dorothy Dixers about radicalisation of young people, and the risks associated with that that phenomenon.
Justice minister, Michael Keenan:
This government will work with communities to provide the support they need to turn those who would be susceptible away from this dark and violent path.
Why not read the whole statement, prime minister?
Tony Abbott, continuing on with Bill Shorten’s secret plan to lower the value of your house.
Now, Madam Speaker, let me read from a statement which came out just a few minutes ago from the governor of the Reserve Bank.
He said, “Credit is recording moderate growth overall with stronger lending to businesses”, that’s good, “And growth in lending to the housing market broadly steady”. Now that’s good too.
Now the governor of the Reserve Bank went on to say, “Dwelling prices continue to rise strongly in Sydney, though trends have been more varied in a number of other cities”.
Let me repeat that, “Dwelling prices continue to rise strongly in Sydney, though trends have been more varied in a number of other cities”.
Why does this leader of the opposition want to punish the people of Sydney? Why does he want to punish the people of Sydney?
The prime minister really should have read on.
The next sentence of the RBA statement says this:
The Bank is working with other regulators to assess and contain risks that may arise from the housing market. In other asset markets, prices for equities and commercial property have been supported by lower long-term interest rates.
Let me repeat. Risks that might arise from the housing market.
Funny that bit didn’t get a run.
Updated
Bill Shorten is back. Does the prime minister agree there is a housing bubble?
Tony Abbott:
Madam Speaker, millions of Australians have borrowed money to buy a house. Millions of Australians have mortgages and the last thing they want to see is the decline in the most important asset. The last thing Australians want to see is a decline in the value of their most important asset. That’s the thing, Madam Speaker.
And why members opposite should be talking down our economy, why members opposite should be saying that somehow people’s houses are worth too much – that’s what the leader of the opposition is saying, he is saying that people’s houses are worth too much!
Now, Madam Speaker, this is someone who wants to be the prime minister of Australia and he wants your house to be worth less.
There’s an obvious commonsense riposte here. Does the treasury secretary, the top economic adviser to the government, want your house to be worth less if he points out there is a housing bubble? Ridiculous, this. But in that compelling way that rank stupidity often is. Coming soon to a talkback radio station near you. Put twenty bucks on it.
In the answer before Abbott’s Joe Hockey spoke about the government’s concern about housing affordability. I thought that concern was bipartisan, more or less. Less bipartisan is the government’s “tough stand in relation to foreign investment on residential housing” (Hockey’s words, a policy shift which is ostensibly about keeping residential property afforable for Australian nationals.)
Updated
I think we should be welcoming an increase in housing ... values.
Labor’s Chris Bowen has a question for the treasurer.
Q: I refer to the treasurer’s comments last year that the idea of a housing bubble emerging was a “lazy analysis” but yesterday the treasury secretary stated when you look at the evidence, it’s unequivocally the case in Sydney, unequivocal. When it comes to housing prices in Sydney, does the treasurer agree with himself or the secretary to the treasury?
Joe Hockey:
There is no doubt that since my comments last year, housing prices have increased in Sydney ..
(This attracts the predictable gotcha chortling)
Hockey:
Why are you laughing? What is funny about that? I think we should be welcoming an increase in housing values. You know what? For anyone who has a loan out there, they would be wishing their home is worth more than their loan.
That is what they would actually want.
(Context: Yesterday, the treasury secretary said there was a housing bubble in Sydney and parts of Melbourne. Yesterday, the prime minister copped some stick for failing to empathise with young would be homeowners who can’t afford a house by saying he was pleased, from a homeowner’s perspective, that Sydney property prices were modestly increasing. Note Hockey’s use of values, not prices.)
A flash of characteristic enthusiasm from the small business minister Bruce Billson.
Then Labor’s Jenny Macklin has returned. She raises the case of a 74 year old carer who stands to lose $100 per week due to cuts in family tax benefit B. How will she manage?
Tony Abbott:
I make two points in response to the member who asked the question. First of all, as a 70-year-old carer, no doubt she is on a pension and what we have done is we have scrapped the carbon tax and kept the compensation for pensioners and, Madam Speaker, the first thing Labor would do if they came back in is whack the carbon tax straight back on.
That’s the first thing that Labor would do. They would whack the carbon tax straight back on.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the family tax benefit Part B, we know that when the member who asked the question was the relevant minister, she cut $15bn.
This is followed by a skirmish about whether the word hypocrite is parliamentary.
Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie would like a commitment that $16m set aside for a grant to Cadbury will stay in Tasmania now Cadbury isn’t proceeding with its plans. The prime minister said lots of good things are happening in Tasmania, don’t you worry about that.
Minimum wage – up
BREAKING: The Fair Work Commission has increased the minimum wage by 2.5% or an extra $10 per week.
— ABC News Melbourne (@abcnewsMelb) June 2, 2015
Labor’s Jenny Macklin asks the prime minister about the ANU work referenced by my colleague Lenore Taylor today. This is the work that broadly backs a recent Natsem analysis of the budget commissioned by the ALP.
The prime minister says something rather strange.
Madam Speaker, there has been no new analysis, and the analysis that the shadow minister refers to is the old analysis, and the old analysis did not actually analyse the 2015 budget. Simple as that. It did not actually analyse the 2015 budget.
To my knowledge, both pieces of work analysed the budget.
The next Dorothy Dixer invites the treasurer to reflect on his effort to crack down on tax avoidance by multinationals. Joe Hockey reflects on the deficiency of Labor’s proposal to crack down on avoidance by multinationals.
Dorothy Dixers are starting on the subject of the budget.
Labor is persisting with the leaks. Manager of opposition business Tony Burke low balls.
Q: Given the minister for foreign affairs is currently overseas, will the prime minister also be talking directly to the foreign minister about the political and personal consequences of leaks from cabinet?
Tony Abbott:
I would have thought that the opposition would have been very pleased that the foreign minister is doing what she always does, promoting the interests of our country abroad.
That’s what she does. She is promoting the interests of our country abroad.
Anyone who raises a gun or a knife ..
First question is about the leaks.
Q: What did the prime minister mean today when he said there would be political and personal consequences for his ministers who leak from cabinet, and what steps has the prime minister taken to identify those ministers on his frontbench who are responsible?
The prime minister repeats his formulation from yesterday. The government has a strong and effective policy to keep our country safe.
Relevance, says Labor.
Sit down, says Madam Speaker.
The prime minister ups the rhetorical ante.
Anyone who raises a gun or a knife to Australians simply because of who we are and the values we have, has forfeited his or right to consider himself one of us.
Question time
Good God, here’s 2pm. The hour of glower is opening with statements of condolence on the death yesterday of Joan Kirner.
Thr prime minister offers a tribute to a community activist and a champion of women’s advancement – a mentor of the former prime minister Julia Gillard.
The Labor leader Bill Shorten says Labor has lost another champion.
She once said ‘There is no such thing as being non-political. By making a decision to stay out of politics, you are making the decision to allow others to shape politics and exert power over you. If you are alienated from the current political system, then just by staying out of it, you do nothing to change it, you simply entrench it.’
We remember her wicked sense of humour, her hatred of pomposity and her love for the Essendon Football Club. Now her battle is over, her duty done, may she rest in peace.
Cheeky I know, but given leaks are clearly the issue du jour, I wonder if this morning’s leak to Greg Sheridan will be investigated by the AFP?
Mild, carefully calibrated reverse ferret
As we roll forward on the ramp to question time, the office of the defence minister Kevin Andrews, has issued a second statement on Greg Sheridan’s story regarding the South China Sea. The first Andrews office statement that I posted at around 11.30am this morning seemed to confirm the proposition that the government was actively considering conducting “freedom of navigation” exercises near artificial islands built by China. The first statement indicated patrols in the area were not unusual, and it is in the interest of all countries to ensure free and unencumbered transit through international waters including those in the South China Sea.
Sounded like yes on the Sheridan proposition. Obviously this issue is highly sensitive.
This second Andrews office statement walks the first back by arguing patrols are entirely business as usual and there’s been no “formal” talks with Washington. It says new missions haven’t been discussed at the defence secretary level.
A spokesperson for Kevin Andrews:
It is well known by all countries in the region that Australia has been patrolling the South China Sea from the air for over 30 years as part of Operation Gateway. We’ve been doing it on an ongoing basis since 1980 and will continue to in the future as part of Australia’s enduring contribution to the preservation of regional security and stability in South East Asia.
The Australian government has not had formal talks with the United States on ‘Freedom of Navigation’ missions in the South China Sea. Minister Andrews has met with Secretary Carter twice and the expansion of current operations or new missions in the South China Sea was not discussed.
A safe region means a more safe and secure Australia and we will continue to a have a role in that regard.
Drum roll please. Come to #BrickJesus
We needed this. We truly did.
Coming to Jesus.
#BrickSermon #BrickMount #StopTheLeaks
Politics this lunchtime
Sorry, in a mild flap here. People keep sending me funny things about Jesus. We must do the lunchtime summary.
Tuesday, this lunchtime.
- Newspoll shows Labor would win any (hypothetical) election held today, although if we consider the trend, the prime minister will be happy to note a steady decline in Bill Shorten’s approval ratings and a steady incline in his.
- The prime minister has told colleagues to stop leaking or else, in what has been characterised as a Come to Jesus moment. It is unclear (to me at least) who is Jesus, and who was coming.
- Conservatives in the Coalition have been keen to smack down the trickle of Coalition MPs now coming forth to support same sex marriage. The party has a policy: marriage is between a man and a woman, and that will remain the policy until further notice.
There’s more of course, but that’s the main thrust of the day thus far.
I should have said: the two big issues currently dividing the government along liberal/conservative lines – the citizenship revocation proposal and same sex marriage – didn’t come to Jesus today, at least not substantively. The sermonising rather crowded out other business. They will have to come to Jesus another day.
A bit more on leaks, and trust. Leaks like the one we saw last week over the citizenship proposal reflect several things at once: they reflect the ventilation of genuinely held, utterly respectable different views on a topic (entirely healthy); they can reflect various personal agendas either disclosed or undisclosed (less healthy).
A couple of points can be made about coming to Jesus, whomever Jesus might be in this scenario. If leaks have to stop then they might have to stop across the board. That means sanctioned leaks as well as unsanctioned leaks. Some of the current internal frustration reflects a dynamic where the left hand of the government doesn’t always know what the right hand is doing. Is something true when it hits the Daily Telegraph? Or is it true when its discussed openly at senior levels of the government?
Also, as much as we can get preoccupied by intrigue, I’m personally glad that the citizenship proposal has sparked a genuine conversation. It should spark one. It’s a serious expansion of the power of the government over the power of the citizenry. We can also be glad that the discussion is in the public domain. It’s messy for the government, but the end result is in the public interest.
So let’s cut through here: Tony Abbott has put MPs on notice that leakers will be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. What does that mean? It means leak, and get caught .. well don’t let the door hit your bum on the way out.
The prime minister is attempting to restore message discipline. Problem is when message discipline cracks in a government, it often cracks for good.
Who is Jesus in this scenario?
Come to Jesus – Malcolm, Julie, George, Christopher
PM said that thee was a "full and frank discussion" with cabinet regarding their responsibilities @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) June 2, 2015
PM responds to question on cabinet responsibility by saying it was a "come to Jesus" moment @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) June 2, 2015
My colleague Shalailah Medhora is down at the Coaliton party room briefing now. #StopTheLeaks is certainly the official version of events.
PM reminded cabinet of "personal & political consequences" of leaking in party room meeting @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) June 2, 2015
Readers who like a dollop of irony with their daily serve of politics may note the lecture against leaking was in fact leaked by busy bees in the Coalition.
Busy busy buzz buzz. Leakzzzz.
The Labor caucus has concluded its weekly meeting. Bill Shorten seems to be signalling the prime minister’s comments on housing affordability yesterday may get a run around the park at 2pm. (Abbott yesterday stood up for modestly rising house prices, as a Sydney home owner with a bank loan.) Shorten thinks that observation wasn’t entirely empathetic.
It was extraordinary to hear Tony Abbott yesterday care more about the increasing value of his own home than for young people trying to break into the property market.
As to the substance of what Labor might do about housing affordability, Shorten said it was a complex area but one we must continue to look at and work on.
On same sex marriage, Shorten noted that the prime minister had underestimated the Australian peole when he claimed that we can only do one thing at a time. (Abbott said yesterday this week needed to be about the budget, not about marriage equality.)
In terms of legislation, Labor will support the government’s medical research future fund - but with amendments to achieve safeguards the prime minister has nominated. Labor will support the small business tax measures from the budget. One MP queried where Labor was up to with senate voting reform. The shadow responsible, Gary Gray, told colleagues this was not the time to go into detail on this issue because the senators were not present in caucus. (Gray and various Labor senators have a profound difference in views about how to proceed on this question.)
Updated
Funny old business, politics. Another former Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett, has paid tribute this morning to Joan Kirner – the lady he trounced in 1992.
Jeff Kennett:
In the end we didn’t beat her, her male colleagues beat her. Had she been premier in her own time she would have brought about a whole number of outcomes. Once she got the premiership it was too big a task. She was used by her colleagues.
The art of politics, an elixir of truth and self-serving rationalisation. Of course Kirner was handed an impossible job, but Kennett’s depiction of himself as an innocent bystander in her political demise is truly laughable.
Kids these days.
Updated
Looks like things are moving in the South China Sea
The defence minister Kevin Andrews has issued a short statement attributable to a spokesperson addressing Greg Sheridan’s story about the South China Sea, and the government actively considering conducting “freedom of navigation” exercises near artificial islands built by China.
Here’s the statement.
It is in the interest of all countries to ensure free and unencumbered transit through international waters including those in the South China Sea. Australia will continue to transit the South China Sea, including conducting maritime surveillance missions consistent with our rights under international law, as it has been doing for more than three decades now.
That sounds like confirmation to me.
Updated
Today’s conundrum. Does leaking a decision in advance of formal cabinet consideration constitute leaking? One man’s leak is another man’s ..
#StopTheLeaks
I’ve mentioned Tuesday is party room meeting day. Sky News reporter Laura Jayes has a breaking fragment from the Coalition party room meeting downstairs.
#StopTheLeaks
@TonyAbbottMHR uses partyrm to send strong message to Cabinet leakers. Such action "has both political & personal consequences"@SkyNewsAust
— Laura Jayes (@ljayes) June 2, 2015
Updated
While we have five minutes to think, always a wonderful development, it has been interesting to watch the Liberal party’s two traditions slug it out over the past week or so. We have liberalism asserting itself in same sex marriage – folks favouring a conscience vote (just freedom on principle), and folks favouring a conscience vote in order to achieve something – an end to state sanctioned discrimination. There’s also a pushback in cabinet and in elements of the backbench against the citizenship revocation proposal on the basis (amongst other things) that it increases the power of government at the expense of the individual. Then we have the party’s conservative instincts playing out with national security, and with the opponents of both a free vote and the principle of marriage equality. The party is in a really profound dialogue with itself. An obvious thought perhaps, but one worth pausing to consider.
Looking to later, for folks who like some predictability in their live coverage, we have two newsworthy events within the boundary of question time. The Reserve Bank will make a call on interest rates, and we’ll get a minimum wage decision. Foreshadowing. Best live-blogging practice.
Updated
That Bernard Keane from Crikey is a droll sort.
Essential: wow!
— Bernard Keane (@BernardKeane) June 1, 2015
(Wow! as in, I can't believe how stable it is!)
— Bernard Keane (@BernardKeane) June 1, 2015
Looks like the Essential poll, due out later today, is a bit like the Newspoll. Static. Keane is referencing a habit Peter Van Onselen, the Sky broadcaster and News Corporation columnist, has ahead of the release of the Newspoll each fortnight.
#Newspoll wow!
— Peter van Onselen (@vanOnselenP) June 1, 2015
Like, wow, dude.
Updated
We did say Canbrrra this morning didn’t we?
Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, braved the doors to speak to reporters this morning on a range of topics. She was asked about Greg Sheridan’s story, which I referenced in the second post this morning – the one that says the Abbott government is actively considering conducting its own “freedom of navigation” exercises near artificial islands built by China in disputed territory in the South China Sea. The Sheridan story follows a public criticism of China’s posture earlier this week by the defence minister Kevin Andrews.
Plibersek was asked if the freedom of navigation exercises sounded like a good idea.
Well, we have sought briefings from the government about the escalation of tensions in the South China Sea. Of course, we take no position on the territorial disputes in question, but we do say that it is important to have freedom of navigation and freedom of flight through an area that is an extremely busy trading route, an area that Australian vessels have been travelling through for many years.
We urge the parties of course to use international laws and norms to settle any disagreements about sovereignty and of course, it is important that this area remains open to trading. The very best thing for our region is if all the countries in the region – is continue to grow economically, to trade freely and to live in peace and harmony.
Q: Do you think China should halt land reclamation?
Well, as I say, we don’t have a position on any of the territorial disputes but it is plainly making some of China’s neighbours anxious, and I think it’s a matter for China and those neighbours to settle peacefully using international laws and norms.
(Plibersek has been trying to walk a line this week where she’s rebuking the Abbott government for its activism on this question, but in a fairly careful diplomatic formulation. Plibersek is stronger in referencing the concerns that China’s actions are causing regionally than she was yesterday, but she’s still in the “tone it down” camp. The biggest concern about China weaponising the artificial islands is in Washington of course. It’s fair to assume the Abbott government’s actvisim reflects that particular concern.)
Updated
In Melbourne, the Victorian premier Daniel Andrews is paying tribute to Joan Kirner. Andrews says it is always very challenging and when you are elevated to this great office – in very difficult circumstances as well.
It wasn’t easy but never a complaint, no bitterness, no sense of focussing on herself, always about working hard for others, always about supporting those in the community who are vulnerable.
Andrews says Kirner has left nine women in the Victorian cabinet.
A figher, a person of great authenticity.
That’s why we loved her.
Updated
Another asylum boat has been turned back. Apparently this vessel was trying to get to New Zealand. George Roberts from the ABC has the story.
Indonesian police say a boat carrying 65 asylum seekers has crashed onto a reef after being turned back by Australian authorities. Those aboard — 54 Sri Lankans, 10 Bangladeshis, one person from Myanmar and five additional crew — told Indonesian police they were trying to get to New Zealand. There were four women and three toddlers on board. They are now being held on Rote Island off West Timor after crashing onto a reef near the remote Landuti Island.
As the prime minister reminds us, this is the budget session. My colleague Lenore Taylor has an interesting tale this morning. A second group of academics have broadly confirmed the conclusions last week from a Natsem analysis of the budget.
The Natsem analysis (commissioned by Labor) found low-income families could lose $3,734 in 2015-16, equating to more than $70 a week, under measures in this year’s budget and those still pending from last year, while families on incomes of more than $120,000 were left marginally better off. The government blasted the study. Tony Abbott said the Labor party had “used and abused” Natsem for political purposes.
The new work from ANU examined the overall cost of the packages on childcare assistance and family tax cuts and concluded “the total volume of assistance for families is going down. To assess the overall household impact of the budget, it is necessary to balance who wins from the generally progressive child care assistance proposals versus who loses from last year’s and the new savings proposals.”
The government has begun the post budget effort with the small business package. Those measures have broad support in the parliament. There are other fights to follow. The families package is of course fight central.
You are now up-to-date with the Liberal MP Sarah Henderson adding her voice to the equal marriage push. Last night on the Q&A program, Josh Frydenberg, the assistant treasurer and supporter of same-sex marriage, supported the conscience vote.
Frydenberg has been rebuked this morning for that frankness by fellow Liberal and ACT senator Zed Seselja. Seselja told reporters the Liberal party has a policy on marriage – marriage is between a man and a woman. The party also has a tradition, ministers support the government’s position.
Seselja:
I don’t think we should have ministers go against party policy.
Seselja’s Senate colleague, Victorian Liberal Scott Ryan, was asked about the rebuke to Frydenberg a few moments ago on Sky News. Ryan says he can’t really respond, because he didn’t watch Q&A.
Ryan:
I didn’t watch Q&A. I find my weeks start better when I don’t watch it.
(I hear you, Scott.)
Updated
Citizenship is still thundering around the building. Cabinet met last night, and it being Tuesday, the Coalition party room meets later today.
Government backbenchers are making their views known. Yesterday we had contributions in favour of stripping the citizenship of alleged jihadists, whether they had dual nationalities or not. We also had Cory Bernardi expressing the small government view: we should not give the government power to remove citizenship when there is a risk a person could be rendered stateless.
As a matter of principle, I think it’s absolutely wrong for us to take away citizenship from an individual whose sole citizenship is Australian. And particularly be able to do it without any reference to a court of law, at the arbitrary whim of the minister, I think the principle is entirely wrong.
Now another backbencher, Sharman Stone, wants to talk about English language training as a requirement of Australian citizenship.
By not requiring basic English-language skills as a requirement of citizenship I think we are missing opportunities to help these new citizens get the skills that will help them get a decent job, or help their children in school and ultimately we are risking that they become alienated and discontented. They are often people from Middle Eastern countries and very often women. I am particularly concerned about women from cultural backgrounds that prefer them to stay at home, this might be their only chance to be allowed to learn English.
Forty backbenchers have signed a letter to the prime minister calling for strong action to strip people of their nationalities if they are involved in jihadism.
To same sex marriage now, which was the major political story yesterday. After the Labor leader Bill Shorten proceeded with his private member’s bill to legalise gay unions, Liberal backbencher Sarah Henderson has emerged to throw her support behind same-sex marriage.
She told ABC 24 on Tuesday morning that she reached that conclusion after extensive consultations with her Victorian constituents. “I hadn’t reached a position publicly but I’m pleased to make it known that I will support not only same-sex marriage but, of course, a free vote,” she said, adding that there is a “significant shift” from the conservative side of politics to embrace the issue. But she insisted that legislation that is eventually passed be bipartisan. “I support a bill coming into the parliament that’s sponsored by the Greens, our side of politics and also Labor.”
Tributes have flowed overnight and this morning for the former Victorian premier Joan Kirner, who died yesterday, aged 76.
Go Joan and Julia! pic.twitter.com/12U7lAwBOY
— Sir Brenden Sir (@brendens3) June 1, 2015
Click on the link in the tweet. Yes, that is the two J’s – Joan and Julia. Rock on ladies. Rock on.
Kirner was a thoroughly wonderful woman who was called to lead Labor in Victoria after the blokes had comprehensively botched the job (familiar trajectory, that). She also made it her business to ensure other women had the chance to enter politics and rise to positions of influence. Kirner was truly assiduous on that point, which makes her a stand out in the selfish and narcissistic game that is politics.
One of her friends, the former prime minister Julia Gillard, highlighted that particular contribution in her tribute.
Julia Gillard:
For a generation of Labor women, including me, she was an inspiration and a mentor. We admired her stoicism. We celebrated her policy achievements. We were guided by her wisdom. After her time as premier, Joan could have chosen a quieter and easier life. But that simply would not have been Joan. Instead, her generosity of spirit and capacity for hard work meant her formidable energy went into ensuring more Labor women entered parliament.
Updated
Without doubt the most eye catching story of the morning belongs to The Australian’s Greg Sheridan. If you were with me on Politics Live yesterday you’ll know we referenced rising concerns about China’s territorial ambitions in the South China Sea.
Well, take it away Greg:
The Abbott government is actively considering conducting its own “freedom of navigation” exercises near artificial islands built by China in disputed territory in the South China Sea. The government is understood to be examining all options but the most likely appears to be a flight by a P-3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, perhaps flying out of the former Australian base at Butterworth in northern Malaysia.
The Royal Australian Air Force aircraft would fly within 12 nautical miles (22km) of an artificial island built by the Chinese, with Beijing certain to react. It could expect the same Chinese reaction as the US received when it flew a P-8 reconnaissance craft over Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands on May 20 with a CNN crew aboard to take footage of Beijing’s massive building works, sand dredging and land reclamation. The Chinese repeatedly ordered the Americans to “leave immediately” but did not take any other actions.
Canberra’s defence establishment made it quite clear at senate estimates yesterday that it regards China weaponising islands as a significant (negative) escalation of activity in the region. Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the ANU, has been on the ABC this morning, noting there has been a lot of chatter between Canberra and Washington about China’s activities. White thinks, however, that Australia should not go down the path Sheridan is foreshadowing. If Australia escalates, then it has to persist and have a clear end game. If it eascalates and then withdraws, then it looks weak.
Hugh White:
I think it’s a very unwise step to take.
Morning one and all
Good morning and welcome to Tuesday in Canbrrrrrrrra.
We are a brisk minus six at kick off, with clear skies and a chance of hubris.
Given we’ve started with metrics, let’s look at this morning’s Newspoll, which reinforces the lack of a discernible budget bounce for the Coalition. I know it’s a bit silly to speak about budget bounces, given they exist more in mythology than in reality, but it’s not silly to check regularly whether the budget is delivering any political dividend for the Coalition, because the government certainly framed the economic statement to deliver a political dividend.
Thus far, not much dividend, apart from Tony Abbott’s personal satisfaction rating, which has been tracking slowly upwards over the past few Newspolls – although not in this fortnightly survey. Bill Shorten’s satisfaction rating is trending in the other direction. Shorten’s satisfaction rating fell three points this survey fortnight to 32 per cent and is down 10 points since the beginning of the year. While the prime minister and his staff will be cheered by that, Labor is still ahead on the two preferred measure at 52% to the Coaliton’s 48%. On that distribution, Labor wins any (hypothetical) election held today.
The poll does reinforce an obvious fact: Labor and Bill Shorten thus far have been surfing on the pervasive anti-Abbott sentiment out in the community. (Manager of government business Christopher Pyne taunted Shorten about this yesterday in the House – he’d been on the banana lounge with a milkshake, fantasising about leading the country. Time to wake up Bill. Winter is coming.) The prime minister will probably never be liked, but he’s beginning to stabilise and reset some of the perceptions, which puts Shorten in more difficult terrain. While governments lose elections more often than oppositions win them, opposition leaders do have to cut through. Voters have to understand broadly who they are and where they are coming from. Tony Abbott understood this when he transformed himself from roving loose cannon to slogan machine. Shorten right now is clearly looking for opportunities to cut through. Monday’s sortie with his same sex marriage private members bill is doubtless a case in point.
Lots more to get across, so we’d best get on. The comments thread is open for business. In the spirit of the have-a-go budget, let’s declare joining the Politics Live conversation tax deductible. The ATO may beg to differ, but a can-do attitude never hurts. You can also deliver regular affirmations and admonitions via the twits. I’m @murpharoo and Mikearoo is at @mpbowers
Updated
