Fare thee well
Curse the falling down socks. Curse them.
Now sorry to love you and leave you but I now need to get ready for the television shift. If 8,000 words on a live blog hasn’t been quite enough of me today, you are very welcome to tune in to The Drum on the ABC shortly, where I will be attempting to form complete sentences.
Let’s wrap today, Tuesday.
- The main focus of the day was Labor’s pursuit of the human services minister Stuart Robert, who pointedly declined the opportunity to share key details about his controversial China travels with the parliament, because .. well, probably because he’s currently the subject of an investigation about whether he’s breached the ministerial code of conduct. Not a great day for Stuart.
- Estimates went on its merry way, digging in quiet corners. We learned that LNP powerbroker Bruce McIver would headline an election fundraiser/farewell in a couple of weeks despite a recent appointment to a major government business enterprise; we learned that Gillian Triggs retains the talent of driving certain senators round the twist even when relations with the HRC are supposed to be in a new and happier phase; and we learned that the outgoing ABC managing director thought it might be a good idea to merge the ABC and SBS. #LOL
- We were also reminded that the government is looking at options to privatise the delivery of health services – which ran through the frenetic rolling news cycle as the government’s secret plan to privatise Medicare, which it isn’t. It is, however, a big, complex, potentially fraught idea which I suspect will be a hard political sell.
There was more, but that’s the guts of things. Thanks for reading today. Let’s do it all again on the morrow.
A little bit more on the tax questions in Essential.
I share these results mainly as an exercise in demonstrating how hard it is to cut through when you are a politician.
Because I share a zoo with these characters, I can tell you the government’s stated rationale for pursuing tax reform is boosting growth and economic efficiency. The prime minister says it all the time. He’s a good communicator, so you might think those ideas might have pierced the fog.
Nope, nope, nope, as another prime minister once famously noted.
Essential tells us 58% of the survey believe that one of the main two reasons the government is considering tax reform is to address the budget deficit. (Nope.)
Thirty percent think it is to maintain government services. (Double nope, that’s Mike Baird’s problem and Jay Weatherill’s problem.)
Twenty six percent think reform is to encourage economic growth. (Ding).
Only 5% think it is to invest in infrastructure (errr) and 10% think it is to boost employment. (Ding).
A couple of quick takes from this afternoon’s new Essential poll.
On tax.
- There was strong majority support for forcing multinational companies to pay a minimum tax rate on Australian earnings (78%), increasing income tax rate for high earners (64%) and removing superannuation tax concessions for high earners (58%).
- There was strong majority opposition to increasing the GST (63%).
These results have not changed since this question was asked in July last year.
Speaking of not very happy. Mike Bowers, with Stuart Robert’s longest walk to the dispatch box.
Catching up. My colleague Amanda Meade – who was kind enough to share a post with readers earlier – has been eyes glued on senate estimates while I’ve been eyes glued on question time.
The ABC is in the hot seat. As she noted a bit earlier, Mr Scott has been stirring the public broadcaster’s pot.
The ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, has called into question the need for a second public broadcaster, saying SBS provides less distinctive content and foreign language programming than it once did and has evolved into a general interest channel. Appearing before the Senate estimates communications committee for the last time in his 10 years as ABC chief, Scott seized the opportunity to say he believed it was “worth considering” whether Australia still needed two public broadcasters. But he said it was a matter for the government.
I’m also aware with half an eye on the twits that Nick Ross – the ABC’s former technology editor – has been tweeting during the Scott appearance. Ross has said that he was gagged at the national broadcaster from writing about the national broadband network because management did not want to upset the then communications minister Malcolm Turnbull. As I wasn’t watching the proceedings, I’m not sure what happened, but it’s pretty obvious Ross wasn’t entirely pleased with his afternoon viewing.
How can @mscott take that on notice when it's what he and everyone has been talking about for past 30mins #Estimates ???
— Nick Ross (@NickRossTech) February 9, 2016
I will bring you an update if time permits.
I was going to write something a bit more chunky, but after standing up and stretching, and taking a breath, I wondered why is chunky necessary.
I only need to say one thing at the conclusion of the hour of glower: I would rather be me than Stuart Robert right now. The End.
Of that in any case. The afternoon is rolling on, and so will we.
The prime minister has rung the bell on question time. Shorten takes a personal explanation to dispute the prime minister’s characterisation of his record at the Australian Workers Union.
I’ll be back shortly with some quick analytical thoughts on that session.
Shorten persists by reading the relevant clause in the ministerial code of conduct. How is this not over already?
The prime minister thanks Shorten for asking the same question twice. This issue was raised yesterday, I called for an inquiry yesterday, and now we’ll follow due process, the prime minister says.
Malcolm Turnbull:
We’ve set in train the appropriate process. The remarkable thing about the opposition is this parallel universe in which they live. Here we have a government, presented with an issue and immediately follows the appropriate course of action under the code of ministerial standards. Exactly what we’re required to do.
On the other hand, we have in the parallel universe of the leader of the opposition and the Labor party, we have a world in which trade unions can trade away, negotiate away the penalty rates of some of Australia’s lowest paid workers, in return for an undisclosed payment of money from the employer and they think there is nothing wrong with that.
We are not going to be lectured on accountability and integrity by that opposition.
(A little misogyny speech motif there. Nice one. Not sure the penalty rates riposte is the strongest suit though, given many in the government would like to do away with them altogether. But we get where he’s coming from.)
Bill Shorten has a question now to Turnbull.
Q: The prime minister’s own statement of ministerial standards puts a blanket ban on ministers providing assistance to companies in a private capacity. It is clear that the minister for human services did exactly that. Why is the minister still on your front bench and why won’t you enforce your own standards and if you won’t do that, what exactly do you stand for?
Turnbull turns rhetorical guns back on Shorten.
I am sure the members of the Australian Workers Union who worked for Cleanevent know what the honourable member stood for. They know how he stood up for them! They know how well he dealt with full disclosure. They know how he took $25,000 from the employer, while he traded off their penalty rates and didn’t tell them about the payments. That is what he knows about. He wants to lecture us about due process!
Turnbull says the inquiry he has initiated into Robert’s conduct will take its proper course.
Mr Speaker, due process, accountability, integrity, that is what we stand for and that is what we will deliver.
Dreyfus again.
Q: I refer to the minister’s trip to China and his statement to the House – he was in China in August 2014 in a personal capacity. But today, the Australian Financial Review reports on the same trip the minister attended a Nimrod Resources signing ceremony, the minister met with China’s vice minister of land and resources. Did the minister meet with China’s minister as a private citizen?
Stuart Robert:
Let me thank the member for his question and I refer the member to my previous statement.
One wag interjects:
Sounds like a terrible holiday!
(Diplomatic incident looms.)
Dreyfus, on strike three.
Q: My question is to the minister for human services. I refer to the minister’s previous answer where he said he travelled to China in August 2014 in a personal capacity. Did the minister’s declaration on his official Chinese visa application form reflect the statement he has just made to the House – that he was travelling in a personal capacity?
Stuart Robert:
I thank the member for his question. I refer the member to my previous answer.
Dreyfus, persisting.
Q: My question is to the minister for human services. I refer to the minister’s previous answer where he said he travelled to China in August 2014 in a personal capacity. Did the minister’s declaration on his outgoing Australian passenger card reflect the statement he has just made to the house, that he travelled in a personal capacity?
Stuart Robert, again, declining to engage.
I thank the member for his question and with great respect, I refer the member to my previous answer.
In this situation, there are two reasons to avoid answering a very direct question.
The first is, given an investigation is now underway into your conduct, you have an agreed form of words and you stick to them, come what may.
The second is you don’t answer the question because if you do, you will:
a) have to follow your answer with resigning your position, or alternatively;
b) you will risk misleading the House by failing to provide a correct answer, which is a sackable offence.
That’s why we get words signifying nothing.
Directly now, to Stuart Robert.
Labor’s Mark Dreyfus.
Q: I refer to the minister’s trip to China in August 2014 and the statement from the minister’s office in the Courier Mail: “Mr Robert was on approved leave and attended in a private capacity”. On his outgoing Australian passenger card and on his official Chinese visa application form, what did the minister declare the purpose of his trip was? Did the minister’s declaration reflect he was travelling in a private capacity?
Speaker Smith says he is going to let this one through after a rephrase, because he says Dreyfus has framed the question with reference to a public statement by Robert. He needs to tighten the question with reference to the statement.
Christopher Pyne is banging his gavel again.
Labor is persisting.
Smith says you’ve got one more chance to rephrase. Dreyfus gives it another go. Smith waves it through.
Stuart Robert reads a prepared statement that does not address the nub of the question in any way.
I thank the member for his question regarding a visit I undertook over seas in a personal capacity in 2014. Can I say to the House, I am confident I have no acted inappropriately and as the prime minister said yesterday, this matter has been referred to the highest public servant in the land, Dr Martin Parkinson for review.
I will fully assist the secretary in his review.
The man of the hour, by Mr Bowers.
Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek.
Q: My question is to the minister for foreign affairs. Is it usual for ministers to meet with ministers or vice ministers of foreign countries when travelling overseas without informing the minister for foreign affairs or her department?
Julie Bishop:
It would depend on the circumstances. There is no widespread practice, it would depend on a case by case basis.
Back to Stuart Robert. Labor’s Jim Chalmers to the trade minister, Andrew Robb.
Q: My question is to the minister for trade. What assistance did Austrade provide Nimrod Resources? Was any assistance provided leading up to or on the day of the signing ceremony in Beijing in August 2014 or in relation to any other events, and has Austrade provided any other assistance to any other companies associated with Mr Paul Marks?
Andrew Robb says talk to the hand.
In answer to the member, the prime minister informed the House that he had sought all information associated with the issues that have been raised on the other side of the House.
When that information is available, I am sure that you will hear about it.
(Grand moments in public accountability: a case study.)
The prime minister, answering a question from Queensland’s Bob Katter.
I can assure the honourable member that there is a great passion for the development of water in the north of Australia right through our side of politics, we understand water is the source of life.
Labor is winding round now to Stuart Robert. A question to Peter Dutton, the immigration minister, from Richard Marles.
Q: People leaving Australia declare that the information they provide on the outgoing passenger card is ‘true, correct and complete.’ On his outgoing passenger card for his trip to China, what did the minister for human services declare was the main reason for overseas travel? Business, visiting friends or relatives, holiday, employment or other? If the minister does not have this information now, could he please advise the House once it is accessed?
Manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, bangs his gavel and cries objection.
This is a question about a private matter ... which couldn’t possibly be within the knowledge of the minister for immigration.
Speaker Tony Smith is letting this run.
PDuddy looms at the dispatch box.
There are two points to make here.
The first is that there are millions of people movements across the borders each year and I haven’t brought the passenger cards down to question time with me. Nor could I expect to have avail myself of that information, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so because of the privacy issues involved.
That demonstrates that this question was nothing more than a stunt.
A Dorothy Dixer to the treasurer.
Q: Will the treasurer update the House on how Australia is successfully transitioning from the mining investment boom to a more diversified economy? What are the trade opportunities, especially with the transitioning Chinese economy, for Australian exports?
(China brings some titters from across the chamber.)
Shame, Labor, shame, suggests Scott Morrison. How can you laugh about Australia’s economy in transition?
Labor takes the opportunity of asking the privatisation question to Stuart Robert, who, when not in the soup about travel, is the human services minister.
Shadow health minister, Catherine King.
Q: My question is to the minister for human services. The front page of today’s West Australian newspaper reveals that the government has a radical plan to privatise Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Won’t this mean that the electronic health data of Australians, such as Medicare information, could be sold to a foreign company?
(Very cheeky indeed.)
Stuart Robert is all about technology. In case anyone wondered, Robert clarifies his portfolio interest.
I run the computing technology that pays for Medicare, that pays for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and for aged care payments.
(So noted.)
The first Dorothy Dixer is on innovation and workforce participation. There has never been a more exciting time ..
Question time
As I more or less predicted in the summary, Labor opens on the privatisation story.
Bill Shorten says the West Australian has revealed that the government has a radical plan to privatise Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Can the government rule out privatising Medicare or the PBS – yes or no?
Malcolm Turnbull:
Let me reassure the leader of the opposition that the government is, as always, totally committed to Medicare.
What we are looking at, as we look at in every area, is improving the delivery of government services, improving the delivery of government services, looking at ways to take the health and aged care payment system into the 21st century.
This is about making it simpler and faster for patients to be able to transact with Medicare, to get the services they are entitled to.
The outgoing managing director of the ABC, Mark Scott, is appearing at estimates today. The first question to Scott was about the ABC’s decision to program Foreign Correspondent at the same time as SBS’ Dateline, as revealed by Guardian Australia. The popular international current affairs show is moving from its prime-time spot of 8pm on a Tuesday night to the less populated 9.30pm slot for the 2016 schedule – and SBS is furious.
Scott has told the senators the two “totally distinct” public broadcasters do not sit down and program together and occasionally they have programs that clash. He encourages people to watch the shows on catch-up TV platforms if they clash.
But then, the hearing got interesting, as questions were asked about whether SBS should even exist, when there is already one public broadcaster.
Scott says it is a question for government but – probably needs to be reviewed.
Some cheery round the House from Mr Bowers that I’ve not yet had time to share.
Pour a double scotch. Question time is taunting us, just over the horizon.
Updated
Politics this lunchtime
Good crikey, today is groaning with content. Let’s pause a moment and try and make sense of where we are. This lunchtime update is powered by a Bill Shorten photobomb.
Today, Tuesday:
- Labor is pursuing Stuart Robert, the (pick your adjective) junior minister who went to Beijing with a mining mate on a holiday that Chinese officials interpreted as something other than a holiday given it all looked reasonably official. The prime minister has asked his departmental head to advise him whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. Labor says the conduct is a clear breach of guidelines that say quite explicitly that ministers cannot work as consultants.
- Keeping variations on a theme, Labor has also raised questions about a fundraiser to be “headlined” by LNP Queensland powerbroker Bruce McIver in a couple of weeks time. McIver is no longer a Queensland LNP powerbroker. The government has given him a spot on the board of Australia Post. Labor wants to know how headlining a fundraiser doesn’t breach guidelines applying to government business enterprises. Communications minister Mitch Fifield says the function is a farewell. Sam Dastyari says that’s all very well, but why does the flyer say it’s a fundraiser for the federal election?
- Estimates is yielding a bunch of small nuggets, the immigration minister has pretended that ABC radio host Jon Faine and other journalists could go to Nauru sometime in this lifetime.
- There is also renewed controversy about a plan the government has been considering for some time to privatise service delivery in areas like health – which I suspect we might hear more about at 2pm.
Until then, onwards, upwards.
Updated
The point of that little deep dive from Daniel is a simple one. Robert has said the China trip was not official, it was personal. But the official finance records show the minister was in Singapore (just immediately after the contentious meeting in Beijing) – for an official engagement.
The question then is who paid for the side trip to Beijing? Daniel has tried to get an answer for 24 hours without success.
Some new material on the trip. The embattled minister Stuart Robert took his controversial “private” trip to China several days before he was due in Singapore for official business – raising questions about portions of his international travel being taxpayer-funded. I’ve asked Robert whether he had undertaken the controversial Beijing visit as a side trip to his $10,450 government-funded trip to Singapore, but he and his office declined to answer. Finance Department entitlement records showed he claimed $10,449.83 “to attend the Singapore-Australia joint ministerial meeting and the defence ministers’ dialogue” from 21 August to 23 August 2014. PM&C confirmed Robert had requested personal leave for the period 15 to 22 August 2014 and this been approved by the then prime minister, Tony Abbott. I’ve repeatedly asked Robert and his spokesman whether the Beijing trip constituted a side-trip to the official engagement in Singapore, and sought clarity about which flights were paid for by taxpayers and which flights were paid for privately. There was no response to the direct queries, first submitted on Monday.
Updated
Meanwhile, back in the chamber.
Manager of opposition business, Tony Burke:
The Turnbull government can’t cover up for this minister forever!
Manager of government business, Christopher Pyne:
I move that the member be no longer heard.
Just while this division is underway, some rhetoric from Dreyfus this morning that has the bonus of articulating precisely the questions the opposition wants answered about Stuart Robert.
I have bolded the relevant paragraph. (Good to spell these things out when we get a chance, given we have about ten separate threads running in Canberra right at the moment.)
I say again, he’s got to now make a full statement about as to what it was he was doing in Beijing. It can’t be both a trip for private purposes and a trip on which he met with a Vice Minister in the Chinese Government.
What did his visa application say? What assistance did he get from the Australian embassy in Beijing? Who paid for his trip? Who paid for his accommodation? Who paid for his expenses?
All of these questions need to be answered. It’s time for Mr Robert to answer those questions and it’s time for Mr Turnbull to show some leadership.
The government has moved the gag.
Here’s the motion, moved by the shadow attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus:
I move that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Isaacs from moving the following motion forthwith, that the House notes that:
A: Except where the prime minister has given permission to continue an interest in a family business, the prime minister’s own statement of ministerial standards puts a blanket ban on ministers providing assistance to companies in a private capacity.
B: The minister for veterans’ affairs provided assistance in a private capacity to Nimrod resources to seal a mining deal with a Chinese State-owned company during a trip to China.
C: The principal of Nimrod resources, who the minister accompanied to China, has donated more than $2m to the Liberal party, and;
D: On the same trip the minister subsequently met with the Chinese vice minister for land and resources.
And: 2, calls on the minister for veterans’ affairs to immediately attend the House to provide a full explanation of his trip to China and explain why he has not breached the prime minister’s statement of ministerial standards.
Mark Dreyfus:
Deputy speaker, the prime minister needs to show some leadership to this country. This minister has betrayed his duty to the Australian people. He has betrayed his duty.
Labor pursues Stuart Robert in the House
With the House saddling up for the day, Labor is now attempting to force Stuart Robert to make a statement about his China trip. A procedural skirmish is underway in the House of Representatives now.
Meanwhile, in the HRC estimates committee, the Liberal senator Ian Macdonald is suggesting he may have to adjust the photographic guidelines in committees given the morning has produced flattering photographs of Gillian Triggs and Sarah Hanson Young, unflattering pictures of himself and Barry O’Sullivan, and a whimsical photograph of Tim Wilson.
Wilson, rebutting:
That’s not possible!
Just in case I skipped over key details too quickly there, Bruce McIver was the key organisational figure in the LNP in Queensland up until his recent departure.
He’s a former National, but he drove the merger of the conservative parties in Queensland. It’s understood he opposed the proposed defection of the Liberal Ian Macfarlane (remember that whole dummy spitting imbroglio late last year) because he was worried party unity would take a blow.
McIver was appointed to the board of Australia Post by the government in late December. The three year appointment comes with remuneration of $89,500 per year.
Fifield is quite correct. This is a farewell dinner he’s attending. Dastyari is also correct. the flyer indicates the event is a fundraising event for the looming federal election.
My quick analysis? You can, perhaps, have a fabulous, well earned farewell, without elevating it to a fundraiser. I believe it happens all the time.
Sam Dastyari:
Frankly, I think he should be pulling out. It is highly inappropriate. I am happy to leave it at that.
Mitch Fifield:
Mr McIver is attending a testimonial dinner. If that function was billed as being ‘a director of Australia Post’ that wouldn’t be appropriate. If there was an Australia Post logo that wouldn’t be appropriate.
It’s a farewell function.
Here’s the flyer showing an Australia Post board member as the main event at a federal Liberal Party fundraiser pic.twitter.com/D7gaL55CX5
— Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) February 9, 2016
Dastyari is pushing past the Fifield dead bat. Was the minister aware of this fundraising event? (He was.) When did he become aware? (Recently). Has the board considered the appropriateness of this issue? (No, it hasn’t met since McIver was appointed to his post.) The next board meeting is scheduled for a couple of days before the farewell/fundraiser.
Fundraising takes a fresh turn
Over in communications estimates, the Labor senator Sam Dastyari is on the trail of a decision by the government to appoint Bruce McIver, a past president of the LNP in Queensland, to the board of Australia Post. This appointment happened last December.
Dastyari thinks he sees a potential breach of the guidelines governing government business enterprises. He cites part of the code which stipulates “the government expects GBE boards to establish and maintain a code of conduct for directors (including any subsidiaries), employees and contractors and that GBEs, in undertaking their business, avoid activities that could give rise to questions about their political impartiality. For example, GBEs should not make direct or indirect political donations or participate in activities that would bring the government into disrepute.”
He says McIver is listed as a participant in a looming political fundraiser, in late February.
Sam Dastyari:
A board member headlining a fundraiser for the Liberal party under his own name would be a clear breach of the GBE guidelines.
If this doesn’t raise questions about political impartiality – what will?
Mitch Fifield:
It’s a farewell function for Mr McIver. It does not relate to the activities of Australia Post.
Dastyari says the flyer makes it plain the event will be a fundraiser for the looming federal election.
Fifield, squarely in nice try Sam but no banana, mode:
He’s attending a farewell event in his honour.
Dastyari:
It’s a fundraiser. He’s headlining it. Do you have any concerns this breaches the GBE guidelines?
Fifield:
There’s a farewell function that’s been organised.
Dastyari:
Which is a fundraiser.
Updated
A quick update following the Labor caucus meeting.
- The opposition is still hedging on the government’s childcare reform package – there’s agreement to support the new investment but Labor is still considering whether there are fairer ways to direct the money. The opposition will finalise its policy after a senate inquiry.
- There were questions in today’s caucus from MPs asylum issues – one person observed there was a need to keep setting out the ALP framework; another sought information about conditions on Nauru, kids in detention and prospects for resettlement; and there was a procedural question about how long it will take for the kids to be sent back to Nauru in the wake of the high court decision.
- Shadow immigration minister Richard Marles told colleagues the government had not focussed on resettlement, and there needs to be a credible resettlement outcome, independent oversight and a children’s advocate. Marles observed now that physical conditions on Nauru have improved, issues will now more about settlement of claims.
- There was also one TPP question about the impact of temporary workers under the agreement – a concern about the potential exploitation of workers.
- In the leader’s report, Bill Shorten promised the keep up the pressure, pursuing issues around Stuart Robert. He observed that the tax reform debate was now at a point where the government can’t advance well and can’t retreat well.
Here’s a direct quote from the Shorten pep talk/political positioning vis the prime minister.
Malcolm Turnbull gave his full support to Stuart Robert. You only need to ask marriage equality campaigners, climate change campaigners, and the republican campaigners what Malcolm Turnbull’s full support means. You can also ask CSIRO scientists what his full support means.
Updated
Inconvenient alternative explanations notwithstanding, O’Sullivan would like Gillian Triggs to review the Hansard of yesterday’s evidence from the border protection chief, Mike Pezzullo.
More fizz than pop. And the hearing moves on.
Updated
O’Sullivan asks whether Triggs knows why children are being held in detention. The HRC president says children are held in detention in compliance with the law. O’Sullivan begs to differ. He says children are detained because of concern about their parents. Triggs then begs to differ. That’s correct in some cases, she says, but incorrect in others. The attorney general points out that some children are in detention because they are babies, and they need to be with their mothers.
Updated
As promised, the LNP senator Barry O’Sullivan is now performing a warm up lap in order to set “the professor” straight.
O’Sullivan wonders whether Gillian Triggs accepts the high court’s decision on offshore detention, that children are detained by Nauru? She does.
I think O’Sullivan intends to suggest that Australia has no responsibility for what goes on on Nauru because asylum seekers are detained by Nauru, not by Australia. The attorney general is having to translate his interventions slightly. I think. You’ll have to bear with me.
O’Sullivan then asks Triggs whether she believes children detained on Nauru are being tortured?
Gillian Triggs:
We have never, ever, made that assertion.
She explains there’s a difference between torture and cruel punishment.
Updated
The Human Rights Commission estimates are back from their short break. The Labor senator Jacinta Collins wants to know first off the bat whether or not the government considered Tony Abbott’s former chief of staff, Peta Credlin, as Australia’s new (as yet unannounced) sex discrimination commissioner.
Attorney-general George Brandis:
The answer no.
Also, reporter beavers away on party room updates, and a voice from the ether chimes in.
David Gillespie tells Coalition party room they can't "wimp out" on tax reform, otherwise why are we here?
— James Massola (@jamesmassola) February 8, 2016
Christopher Pyne replies to David Gillespie: "we are here to get elected" in party room discussion
— James Massola (@jamesmassola) February 8, 2016
@jamesmassola - if you don't get elected, you can't deliver for the people. Governments deliver, not oppositions or protest parties #auspol
— Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) February 8, 2016
It being Tuesday, both the Coalition party room and the Labor caucus have been meeting downstairs.
Fortunately for all our sanity that committee has broken for tea.
On my quick survey of the daily field I see the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann now has a story about the prime minister urging the former small business minister Bruce Billson not to leave politics. Bruce! Don’t gooooo.
Uhlmann has popped onto ABC24 to flog his wares (as it were).
Uhlmann:
In a conversation between Christmas and new year, that he had with the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull urged him not to leave politics. You might recall back in 2010, Malcolm Turnbull himself announced he would leave politics. They talked about that and Malcolm Turnbull held open the possibility that Bruce Billson, at only 50 years of age, could work his way back into cabinet.
(Readers will remember that a reshuffle is hovering, defiantly, in the background right at the moment. The prime minister is waiting for Warren Truss to reveal his hand before sweeping up his small Christmas messes by the name of Briggs and Brough, and now, of course, Stuart Robert’s future is in play.)
Collins has moved on to asking whether Tim Wilson has resigned as a member of the Liberal party. He says he has. Why did he do that? Wilson says he did that at the request of the attorney general.
Collins asks Triggs whether that was the right call. She doesn’t want to get into this rooster fight. It’s a matter of judgment, she says, delicately.
Collins then asks Brandis why he asked Wilson to resign his Liberal party membership. Brandis says he’s happy to answer but the question might be out of order. Hint hint. Senator Macdonald. Hint. So prompted, I think the question is deemed out of order, but it’s hard to tell. There’s a steep nosedive under way in this committee.
Daggers at dawn, presently.
Ian Macdonald:
Senator Collins you are entitled to your own opinions but don’t bore the committee with them.
Updated
Updated
Barry O’Sullivan is outraged now by the indulgence of Jacinta Collins mining for Tim Wilson’s travel receipts from the Holiday Inn when there has been this outrageous allegation of torture on Nauru.
Collins inquires of O’Sullivan whether or not he learned anything at the United Nations. (I dimly remember O’Sullivan was on the annual UN delegation.) He informs her that he did.
Jacinta Collins:
That’s good.
There is much muttering about the program. The attorney-general is unhappy we won’t get to the Australian Federal Police and their national security update.
Outrageous.
Updated
Sarah Hanson Young tells Ian Macdonald he is the most biased chair in the Senate. Before actual violence breaks out in the committee, we’ve switched back to Tim Wilson’s travel arrangements.
Funny how Barry O’Sullivan and Ian Macdonald missed the memo about the government suing for peace with the HRC. Missed. The. Memo.
The committee chairman, Ian Macdonald says it is outrageous, this talk of torturing children.
Outrageous.
LNP senator Barry O’Sullivan, listening on as Hanson-Young and Triggs discuss whether we are breaching commitments on torture on Nauru, cracks a wobbly.
Barry O’Sullivan, furious:
Q: Do you share the view, professor, that we are torturing these children?
Hanson-Young is furious. She doesn’t want to be interrupted. O’Sullivan suggests “the professor” will have it coming when it is his turn to ask questions.
Hanson-Young:
You can wait to be a pig then.
Updated
A nice estimates sequence from Mr Bowers, as Gillian Triggs speaks about people’s fear for their safety on Nauru.
Updated
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has moved on to immigration detention. She asks Triggs whether or not she has a view about whether families should be returned to Nauru in the wake of the recent high court judgment.
Triggs says the commission’s view is conditions on Nauru breach Australia’s international obligations.
We have a strong view and that is the conditions on Nauru are conditions are dangerous and unsafe.
She says the families should not be returned.
Updated
Labor is plugging away now at an overseas trip taken by Tim Wilson, the human rights/freedom commissioner. Labor senator Jacinta Collins is perturbed Wilson has tacked on some personal time to a work trip. Wilson says everything is absolutely above board. She’s persisting anyway.
Brandis, the minister at the table, eventually chides Collins for being “unfair” to Wilson when she makes a passing reference to the remuneration of a human rights commissioner. Collins digs in, saying she has no dispute with the formal part of Wilson’s program, her questions relate to the private business.
The committee’s chair, LNP senator Ian Macdonald, cuts across and asks Gillian Triggs to provide records of everybody’s overseas travel: all commissioners. He chides Collins on her line of questioning. She tells him he has no business reflecting on her questioning.
Ian Macdonald:
I’m reluctant to do it.
Jacinta Collins:
Then don’t.
Ian Macdonald:
It just seems an unfortunate waste of your time.
The Attorney General’s Department wasn’t consulted on the Ruddock appointment either. It’s not clear to me whether or not the attorney general George Brandis was consulted. His locution is deliberately convoluted.
Updated
In my other ear, I can hear LNP senator Matt Canavan grilling the HRC president Gillian Triggs in estimates about whether or not Australia has an international obligation to legislate for marriage equality. Triggs is hedging her answer. It’s yes, but on the basis laws are never immutable. Her point is compared countries are moving in that direction, and so should we.
Gillian Triggs:
There is an evolving principle of equality. International law does evolve.
Labor senator Jacinta Collins then asks whether or not she was consulted about Philip Ruddock’s new job – revealed yesterday – as a new human rights envoy.
Triggs:
No I was not.
(In our office yesterday, we wondered whether or not Ruddock had been given the job the government dangled before Gillian Triggs during all the unpleasantness between Triggs and the government that we now don’t talk about because relations are in a New Phase.)
The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, is on ABC radio in Melbourne now. He says the government is determined to ensure that new arrivals don’t fill detention centres.
Host Jon Faine is determined to emerge from this interview with a commitment for some kind of transparency. Faine points out that the asylum issue is now so divisive in Australia, it might be time to start some healing, some bringing of people together. PDuddy says the national healing will start when some journalists start looking at border protection in a “dispassionate” way. Faine blows a short gasket.
Hang on, he says, you want to talk about facts? How about opening our offshore detention facilities for scrutiny? Dutton notes the host is ignorant of the facts. Faine insists he’s not ignorant of any facts, he knows he can’t go to Nauru. He asks if the minister will facilitate a visit to the island, given there’s apparently no problem with scrutiny.
PDudds is somewhat in a corner here, but he’s a man inclined to press on, undaunted.
PDuddy.
I have no problem with that Jon, but visa issue is a matter for the Nauru government.
Faine ends the interview by noting he looks forward to his Nauru visit. PDuddy ends the interview by saying he looks forward to another conversation soon.
Updated
Senate estimates are underway now. The Human Rights Commission is up early. As my colleague Shalailah Medhora reports, a new sex discrimination commissioner is on the way.
Attorney general says sex discrimination commissioner will be announced this week, filling vacancy left by @LizBroderick in Sept #estimates
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) February 8, 2016
Cabinet confirmed decision of who will become the next sex discrimination commissioner yesterday, Brandis said #estimates
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) February 8, 2016
Updated
Having given you a taste of Paul’s thoughts, I’ll just add one (considerably less than perfectly formed thought) about Turnbull and Indigenous affairs. It is inevitable that Turnbull’s approach will be compared to and contrasted with his predecessor, Tony Abbott.
Readers will remember Abbott prided himself on putting Indigenous affairs at the heart of decision making (leaving aside, briefly, the millions of dollars he cut from programs in that process). While his efforts may have looked meagre to many people spectating from the sidelines, the focus nonetheless caused Abbott grief internally, with conservatives both within the Coalition and with commentators like Andrew Bolt. The teensy tiny hedged activism cost him something.
If we project that thought to Turnbull, who of course has his own trouble with conservatives on a range of fronts, you can start to see the some of the delicacy for Turnbull associated with defining his own terms of engagement.
Updated
Good morning Mike Bowers, who is down at the reconciliation event.
Paul Daley has written a typically terrific piece this morning about closing the gap. Given several prominent Indigenous leaders are out and about this morning calling on Malcolm Turnbull to define the terms of his relationship with Indigenous people – a couple of interesting observations from Paul here.
Malcolm Turnbull, who has shown no sign that the shameful crisis in Indigenous wellbeing is a priority for his government (tick tax reform, tick border control and immigration, but what about the blackfellas?) has, however, done two things right during his brief tenure.
The first was that he did not succumb to pressure to reappoint Mal - Mr Intervention – Brough to the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. Brough, possessed of the paternalism of the old mission manager and the unquestioning strong arm of the bullying drill sergeant, was loathed during the Howard government era by all but a few select Indigenous leaders as an arrogant and destructive blow-hard who used the portfolio for little but furtherance of his deluded leadership ambitions.
Turnbull stuck with journeyman Nigel Scullion instead.
Turnbull’s second, small positive initiative, was to make his first low-key formal contact with an Aboriginal community at La Perouse in Sydney, rather than through a PR-driven Abbott era carnival-style sweep through a “real” remote community in northern Australia trailed by a largely unquestioning, ill-informed, media pack. This reflected the (encouraging) realisation of Turnbull – or that of someone in his office – that three-quarters of first Australians do not live in the bush, and that the developing world-poverty, appalling life expectancies and other associated Closing the Gap indicators of Indigenous Australians that can be linked back to invasion in 1788 and dispossession, are right under the noses of non-Indigenous city people.
That’s it for Turnbull so far. So let’s watch his response to the latest appalling indicators on Wednesday to see if he offers a response beyond the algorithmic, beyond the bipartisan smokescreen that might assuage non-Indigenous guilt and reassure a horrified global community that the Australian commonwealth is at least vigilant when it comes to the appalling plight of its indigenes.
You can read Paul’s column here.
The shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has surfaced now in the Sky News studios. He’s asked whether it is possible that the Chinese officials just misinterpreted Stuart Robert’s appearance at a contract signing.
Dreyfus doesn’t think so.
He (Robert) has misused his public office. I think that is absolutely clear. I don’t accept for a moment he went in a private capacity. The only proper approach was not to be there at all.
Q: Does it warrant sacking?
It’s a clear breach of ministerial standards. Mr Turnbull needs to show some leadership.
Q: You are stopping short then of calling for him to be sacked?
It’s the clearest possible breach of ministerial standards. We need a full [explanatory] statement [of the conduct] and that’s what should happen today.
As far as I am aware, Robert has made no public statements since the story of his 2014 travels surfaced yesterday in the Herald Sun, but a copy of his letter to the prime minister yesterday has been circulated. I’ll transcribe it here so you are across the contents.
Dear Malcolm,
As you are aware certain questions have arisen publicly regarding a visit I undertook overseas in a personal capacity in 2014. I am confident that I have not acted inappropriately but I am cognisant of the high standards expected of all ministers and I write to ask you to seek advice from the secretary of the department of prime minister and cabinet on these matters. I will, of course, fully assist the secretary.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Robert
Morning, just a quick overnight report on Stuart Robert. In Senate estimates some senators sought to find out how the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet would handle the investigation into the possible breach of ministerial standards.
Alas, most of the questions went unanswered on the basis the prime minister had only just put in the request that afternoon. Labor’s deputy Senate leader, Stephen Conroy, wanted to know if Robert would be interviewed personally and whether the full transcript of his controversial speech at the mining celebration in Beijing would be released publicly. The PM&C deputy secretary, Elizabeth Kelly, told the committee she was yet to talk to the newly appointed secretary, Martin Parkinson, about the way in which he wanted to proceed: “I don’t think there is a usual process. The secretary’s advice is sought, the secretary then determines the appropriate way to inform himself.”
Kelly confirmed Robert’s request for personal leave from 15 to 22 August 2014 had been approved by the former prime minister, Tony Abbott. (The mining event that he said he attended in a “private capacity” occurred on 18 August 2014.) As for the claim that Robert bestowed a medal on behalf of the prime minister, Kelly said she was unaware of the existence of such a medal: “I’m not familiar with such a thing.”
I’ll come back to some necessary bits and pieces about Stuart Robert but first, an update on the other major themes of this morning.
-
Outsourcing service delivery in health and aged care:
My neighbour, the West Australian’s political editor, Andrew Probyn, helpfully reminds us about a privatisation proposal we’d all almost forgotten about: a proposal that Medicare, pharmaceutical and aged-care benefits be delivered in the future by the private sector. (From memory, this idea first appeared in Tony Abbott’s commission of audit report.)
Andrew reports this morning “that planning for the ambitious but politically risky outsourcing of government payments is well-advanced, with a view to making it a key feature of treasurer Scott Morrison’s first budget in May.”
Shorten’s nostrils flared happily at the mere mention of the word Medicare this morning. He’s declared if the prime minister wants to have an election on Medicare, then B-I-O-B. (Bring it on, baby.)
-
Closing the gap
With the “closing the gap” statement to parliament due this week, my colleague Bridie Jabour has a curtain raiser.
The latest State of Reconciliation in Australia report finds that thirty per cent of the general Australian community socialise with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and while support for reconciliation is increasing, the government needs a more focused policy approach. While government intentions for Indigenous Australians were sound, there was only a “piecemeal” approach in policy.
There is a breakfast on this morning in the parliament to mark the release of this report. Indigenous leaders have already hit the airwaves to call on the new prime minister to engage on Indigenous affairs.
Good morning good people and welcome to Tuesday.
The prime minister has barely had time to clear the rowing machine and mop his brow before Labor is unloading on every open microphone about Turnbull’s (insert your adjective of choice) human services minister, Stuart Robert.
Readers with me yesterday will know Robert is in the soup courtesy of a trip he took to China with a mining mate and generous donor to the Liberal party in order to witness a commercial agreement. The prime minister has asked his departmental head to report to him about whether the trip constitutes a breach of the ministerial code, which forbids ministers acting as “a consultant or adviser to any company, business, or other interests, whether paid or unpaid, or provide assistance to any such body, except as may be appropriate in their official capacity as minister.”
As we launch this morning Bill Shorten is on Radio National and the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, is down at the House doors declaring Robert has questions to answer. Adding to the story, the Australian Financial Review is also reporting this morning the minister “met with a senior Chinese minister to discuss Chinese investment in Australia” while on the trip, which Robert has thus far characterised as a self-funded private holiday.
Shorten spoke to reporters before entering the ABC studios, noting “the Stuart Robert scandal is going to become a test of Malcolm Turnbull” – before adding that the prime minister “has lost more ministers than he’s released tax policies.” (You see what he did there, right?)
Once seated in the ABC studio, Shorten noted to his host Fran Kelly “the signs aren’t promising for one of Malcolm Turnbull’s ministers. There’s a lot of explanation required. The opposition is not satisfied that we know all the facts and we will not rest until we do.”
That gives you an opening picture for the day. Let’s sail forth into this bracing headwind and the million other things I’ve not yet told you about. You can sail forth in the thread, which is now open for your jolly business. You can also reach the Marvellous Mikearoo and I on the twits. He’s @mpbowers and @murpharoo
Pop on your life jackets. Here comes Tuesday.
Updated
