The wrap
New Zealand is getting a new prime minister and the announcement it is Jacinda Ardern has made it slightly awkward for the Turnbull government, who, for a moment in August, looked ready to declare war on our closest ally over Barnaby Joyce. Bill Shorten congratulated her by statement and with a call (which she missed, having just found out she was NZ’s next prime minister) and Malcolm Turnbull sent her a message congratulating her and said he looks forward to speaking with her “as soon as she is available”. No statements from the government yet, as we put Politics Live to bed for the night. But Julie Bishop’s previous statements on NZ Labour (we’ve included them for you in the blog) has given Labor MPs a little light relief to end the parliamentary week on.
I wonder how @JulieBishopMP is feeling right now #NZpol pic.twitter.com/m5pSOypbkD
— Jason Clare MP (@JasonClareMP) October 19, 2017
And they needed it after the fourth straight day of energy debate. Fifth if you count Sunday, when Mark Butler said Labor would consider no emissions intensity scheme would be a “deal breaker” for the opposition. The policy, the national energy guarantee, was announced on Monday and by Wednesday, Labor was arguing the NEG basically included an emissions intensity scheme, so they would consider supporting it.
That’s where we leave that. In the meantime, the government’s controversial citizenship changes were forced off the agenda by the Greens, Labor and the crossbench after the Nick Xenophon Team ruled out supporting the bill in its current form and then ruled out supporting the bill following a couple of small tweaks on the English component Peter Dutton made in the dying minutes. Labor likened it to the White Australia Policy, Dutton got cranky and that’s where we leave that.
The NBN bubbled along as an issue, with the telecommunications ombudsman releasing the most recent complaints report, which found complaints were up 159%. The government put that down to the increase in connections, with almost 3 million people now on the network. But don’t expect that to go away anytime soon.
The ABC changes One Nation demanded as part of its support for the government’s media reforms were introduced into the Senate by Mitch Fifield. Debate is yet to start on that, but tempers are already flaring, so stay tuned.
And the high court didn’t give us its judgement. But tomorrow (or in this case Monday, given the latest update a few hours ago) is always another day.
Thank you to the Guardian Australia brains trust for getting me through my second week helming the blog, particularly Katharine Murphy, Gareth Hutchens and Paul Karp. Big thank yous and all of the things to my partner in crime Mike Bowers, whom if you are not following on Instagram, you should be and of course, there is always Twitter.
And a big thank you to everyone who played along this week – I may not get back to all of you, but I am reading and you do make the day more entertaining. Mostly (#nocynicism). I’ll catch you again next Monday, for the lower house sitting, with estimates updates, so make sure you are well rested for that, particularly since the high court could give us an answer at any moment. If you have any burning thoughts, you’ll find me at @amyremeikis
Have a wonderful weekend and take care of yourselves.
Updated
Jacinda Ardern is holding her press conference following Winston Peters’s announcement. She said she missed a phone call from Bill Shorten and we understand Malcolm Turnbull has sent a message congratulating her.
Updated
The treasurer, Scott Morrison, has left the country ... for the weekend:
This week I will attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) finance ministers meeting in Hoi An, Vietnam, on 19-21 October.
Apec is the pre-eminent economic forum in the Asia-Pacific, providing an opportunity for developed and developing economies to work together on significant global and regional issues. The upcoming meeting will be an opportunity to build on the discussions I had with my counterparts at the IMF and World Bank annual meetings and the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting, in Washington last week – but with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.
Trade and investment links fostered by Apec have driven growth and prosperity of our region. This is particularly the case for Australia: our 26 consecutive years of economic growth have been built on open markets and on broadening and deepening linkages with the Asia-Pacific region. I will be emphasising to my Apec counterparts the importance of open markets to ensure that our region remains the engine of global growth.
I will also reaffirm Australia’s unwavering commitment and world-leading record in addressing multinational tax avoidance through implementation of the G20/OECD base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project, which has been one of Vietnam’s priorities this year. BEPS is a global problem that requires a global solution and Apec economies are well placed to collaborate to address this issue.
In the margins of the meeting, I will be signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Vietnam’s minister for finance, Mr Dinh Tien Dung, aimed at building cooperation between our countries on economic and financial issues. This MoU is a tangible expression of Australia’s commitment to deepening our engagement with our regional partners.
I will also be meeting with Vietnam’s prime minister and with finance ministers from Singapore, Chinese Taipei and Thailand.
Updated
Penny Wong says it is “time for Julie Bishop to undo damage” in her statement:
Labor congratulates Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand Labour party on successfully concluding negotiations to form the next New Zealand government.
Labor also thanks outgoing prime minister Bill English for his contribution to the strong and warm ties between our two nations.
The Turnbull government must now take immediate action to rebuild relations with the incoming New Zealand government following the foreign minister’s attack on Jacinda Ardern’s Labour party.
In an attempt to divert attention from the citizenship crisis surrounding Barnaby Joyce, the foreign minister publicly declared she would not trust a future New Zealand Labour government.
‘New Zealand is facing an election. Should there be a change of government, I would find it very hard to build trust with those involved in allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia.’ - Julie Bishop doorstop, 16 August 2017
It is now incumbent on the foreign minister to undo the damage caused by her irresponsible remarks during the election campaign.
Australia enjoys extremely close relations with New Zealand and I look forward to meeting with the New Zealand foreign minister once the Ardern Labour government is sworn in.
Updated
Michaelia Cash just released this statement:
In yet another display of the CFMEU’s blatant contempt of the law, today the federal court handed down a $306,000 penalty against the CFMEU for blatant thuggery on the Broadway on Ann building site in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane.
Former CFMEU president David Hanna was found guilty of breaches of the Fair Work Act and was recently handed a maximum personal penalty of $10,200.
In handing down the penalty, Justice Vasta made the following damning assessment of the CFMEU’s disregard for Australian law:
It is trite to note that the presence of Mr Hanna at that site did compromise the safety of the very workers he is supposedly trying to protect.
It may have been expected that there would be righteous condemnation of any person compromising safety on the work site coming from a union that purportedly exists to ensure safety on worksites. The silence from the CFMEU, however, has been deafening.
There has been no remorse from the CFMEU. There has been no evidence of the CFMEU training any of its officers as to the provisions of the FW Act to ensure that such abominable behaviour is not undertaken by any of its representatives ever again.
Given the nature of the contraventions, the recidivist nature of the CFMEU, the lack of acknowledgement of any wrongdoing, the lack of any remedial action and the need to deter this kind of behaviour, I can see no reason to ameliorate any of the penalties that I will impose on the CFMEU.
As I have noted, the approach of the CFMEU has been that the imposition of pecuniary penalties are nothing more than an occupational hazard.
This court has been asked to ensure that the industrial relations regime as created by parliament is observed and complied with. The parliament has given the court only one weapon to ensure such compliance and that is the ability to impose pecuniary penalties.
In the main, this weapon has been of great value. If a court has dealt with an employer who has contravened the FW Act in an appropriate manner, the use of the pecuniary penalty has deterred that employer from breaching the FW Act again. Very rarely has the FWO, or a union, had to bring a recalcitrant employer back to the court for breaching the FW Act a second time.
But this cannot be said of the CFMEU. The deterrent aspect of the pecuniary penalty system is not having the desired effect. The CFMEU has not changed its attitude in any meaningful way. The court can only impose the maximum penalty in an attempt to fulfil its duty and deter the CFMEU from acting in the nefarious way in which it does.
If I could have imposed a greater penalty for these contraventions, I most certainly would have done so.
The court can do no more with the tools available to it to ensure compliance with the industrial relations regime. If the community at large are not satisfied with the actions of the court to ensure compliance with the FW Act, then the next step is a matter for the parliament.
Labor shadow employment spokesman, Brendan O’Connor, recently confirmed that penalties for such behaviour would be “lower” under a Shorten-led Labor government. What he failed to say was that the penalties under Labor would in fact be zero, as Labor’s policy is to abolish the ABCC and have nothing in its place to enforce the law.
In light of these comments from Justice Vasta today, Bill Shorten needs to explain to Australians why he now intends to give the green light to this union to break the law with impunity.
It is now clearer than ever that Bill Shorten and the Labor party have been utterly compromised by the millions of dollars the ALP continue to receive from the CFMEU. Exactly what will it take for Bill Shorten to financial and political ties with this organisation?
Updated
High Court update
I’ve checked with a couple of the citizenship MPs before the high court and they assure me their lawyers have not been forewarned of a judgement tomorrow (and they think they would be, given as they are usually told, so they can be in the court to hear it) and the matter is not listed on the high court schedule for Friday.
So, it looks like we can stand down for a little longer. That doesn’t mean that we won’t all get a surprise tomorrow, but that is as much as I can tell you this afternoon.
The lower house does sit next week (the Senate is tied up in estimates) so there is still a chance we’ll get a Stranger in the House moment.
Mike Bowers went to catch what could be the last day for some of the MPs depending on how the high court rules (he didn’t spot Matt Canavan today, and Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam have already resigned and, yes, Barnaby Joyce could be back in a by-election)
Updated
Bill Shorten has released Labor’s statement on New Zealand Labour’s ascension to office. Spell check error aside (and yes, I know I am not one to talk), the last line appears to be directed a little more domestically:
It’s with great pleasure that I congratulate the prime minister-elect of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden [sic] and her New Zealand Labour team.
Jacinda brought extraordinary energy to the Labour leadership and campaigned passionately for inclusive, progressive policies, founded on universal Labo(u)r values.
In electing their third woman to serve as prime minister, New Zealanders have again provided an inspiration for women and girls around the world.
More than a century after the first Anzacs fought and fell together, Australia and New Zealand’s friendship is stronger than ever.
My team and I look forward to building and strengthening the connection between our two nations – and I trust the government shares this commitment.
Updated
You know Christmas is coming when Ian Goodenough starts talking calendars. #nocynicism
Sneak preview of the 2018 Moore Community Calendar featuring flames, fast cars & firearms! pic.twitter.com/jQEOH9knUU
— Ian Goodenough (@IanGoodenoughMP) October 19, 2017
Just returning to an issue which was raised by Anthony Albanese in question time today, over whether or not the prime minister was confronted by Barnaby Joyce over the decision to let One Nation make some announcements that Coalition MPs in Queensland were thinking they would make themselves – given their work in making some of the funding happen.
I’ve been told by a source that it did happen, but it wasn’t an “angry” conversation, just that the matter was raised, along with the fact that several MPs had raised concerns over the matter.
So there you go.
Updated
Julie Bishop’s office is preparing a statement.
Quick refresher on the press conference where Julie Bishop raised, shall we call them, concerns about New Zealand Labour.
Journalist: Minister, the New Zealand minister, the relevant minister Dunne, has said today that it’s utter nonsense to suggest that the Labour party’s question played any role and that it was actually media inquiries and not the Labour party’s question. What do you say to that?
Bishop: I don’t accept that. The New Zealand Labour leader has confirmed that a Labour member of parliament was contacted by an unnamed Labor member here in Australia. Bill Shorten must reveal the name of that member.
Journalist: So are you saying that you don’t accept the internal minister’s series of events from New Zealand?
Bishop: Bill Shorten must reveal the role he played in getting one of his members, that he’s refused to name, and I would be calling – I do call – on Bill Shorten to name that person and he needs to reveal his involvement in what is treacherous behaviour.
Journalist: You said that this has put at risk the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. How so?
Bishop: New Zealand is facing an election. Should there be a change of government, I would find it very hard to build trust with those involved in allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia.
Journalist: Have journalists who asked questions of the New Zealand government behaved treacherously as well?
Bishop: I’m referring to Bill Shorten using a foreign political party to raise questions in a foreign parliament deliberately designed to undermine confidence in the Australian government.
Journalist: Can I clarify your previous answer? Are you saying that you would not trust a New Zealand Labour government?
Bishop: I would find it very difficult to build trust with members of a political party that had been used by the Australian Labor party to seek to undermine the Australian government.
Journalist: The New Zealand internal affairs minister explicitly said that was nonsense, he said it started with media inquiries. Are you calling into question the official version of events here?
Bishop: I explicitly call into question Bill Shorten’s ethics. The Labour leader said this morning that the Labor party in Australia contacted the Labour party in New Zealand and we know what occurred. Allegations were raised in a New Zealand parliament deliberately designed by the Labor in Australia to undermine confidence in the Australian government.
* I was at that press conference on 16 August and as one of the two reporters (the other being Adam Gartrell, during my previous life at Fairfax) who worked on the Barnaby Joyce citizenship story, to which the media inquiries refer to (along with blogger William Summers, who was working on the story separately). It was extraordinary.
Updated
You can read all about Winston Peters’s decision, in real time, over here.
That sound you can hear is the rush of the Canberra press gallery making calls to Julie Bishop’s office.
Updated
Jacinda Ardern the new New Zealand prime minister
New Zealand First has announced it has decided to form a coalition government with Labour and the Greens.
That makes Jacinda Ardern the new prime minister. She is the leader of the party Julie Bishop said she may not be able to trust after the Barnaby Joyce citizenship kerfuffle.
Updated
The latest round of higher education reforms look like going nowhere for the moment, with the Nick Xenophon Team calling for a “comprehensive Gonski-style review of tertiary education” before they will give their support.
“Until there is a comprehensive review into post-secondary education, it would be wrong to support many of the cuts proposed by the government, including the move to reduce university funding, lowering the threshold for Help repayments and increasing the student fee contribution,” Rebekha Sharkie, the NXT spokeswoman for education, said in a statement.
“We have to prepare our future workforce and consider how best to shape the transition from high school to post-secondary education to ensure we build our nation’s capacity and remain adaptable to workforce demands.
“Currently, we have students who are leaving university with high debts and little opportunity of securing stable employment in their area of study. We have too many highly qualified young people, with PhD degrees, stacking supermarket shelves or making lattes. We need to do better than this.”
Updated
The wooing of the states over energy doesn’t seem like it is going overly well. Katharine Murphy has had a chat to the South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill:
The South Australian premier says Labor states will not accept a national energy policy that cuts renewable energy targets, removes incentives for low-emissions technologies and promotes coal.
In an interview with Guardian Australia, Jay Weatherill said the Labor states had no interest in “solving Malcolm Turnbull’s political problems” – and said the expectation of the premiers was that Bill Shorten would hold firm in opposing the national energy guarantee outlined by the prime minister on Tuesday.
Weatherill said he had spoken with all the Labor premiers over the past few days and with his federal Labor colleagues. The Labor opposition in Canberra is maintaining an open mind on the new energy policy.
Read more on that here
Updated
Labor’s employment spokesman, Brendan O’Connor, has responded to the latest employment figures:
I welcome the very slight decline in the unemployment rate, and I welcome any job that’s been created last month. I do note that just over 19,000 jobs have been created last month. Two-thirds of those jobs, or just over two-thirds of those jobs, are part-time. So still there is an issue about whether in fact we have sufficient full-time work for people.
We note that the very, very high underemployment number in this country needs to be attended to. There’s more than 1.1 million Australians looking for more work and cannot find it. That’s of concern to us.
I also note that even though there was a slight decrease in the unemployment rate, there was also a slight fall in the participation rate, which in part might explain the slight decline in the unemployment rate.
So there’s a lot more to do in relation to the challenges of unemployment. We have over 1 million Australians looking for more work. We have more than 700,000 people with no work at all – 1.8 million Australians looking for some work or looking for more work and not being able to find it.
Updated
We wouldn’t dare suggest that Coalition MPs might be trying to leave the building a little early, after all the warnings they have received to stay until the bitter end (you may remember the lost vote “incident” in this government’s early days) but the chief government whip, Nola Marino, must have had some reason for sending this out to members:
A reminder to Members NOT to leave the building until advised by the whip’s office. There is a possible chance of a division after the MPI. Ensure you have your pagers with you. Thank you
Regards
Nola
For any Coalition MPs who are yet to check their email, you are welcome.
Updated
Also from Mike’s travels today, the leaders meeting Know your Bones advocates Kerri-Anne Kennerley and Cathy Freeman. Presented with zero cynicism because you have all made your points known on that very clear. (insert smiley/wink face here)
Updated
Tony Abbott has popped his head up, commenting on this story:
Re AFR story. This isn't over. There are five million Australians yet to vote and the NO campaign is appealing to every one of them!
— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) October 19, 2017
Updated
AAP have an update on the Singapore FTA:
Australian universities, lawyers and financial firms will be among the biggest winners from an updated free-trade agreement with Singapore.
Enabling legislation has cleared parliament.
Under the changes, Australian lawyers and financial service providers will enjoy improved access to the Singapore market.
Singapore will also recognise extra law, medicine and allied health qualifications from Australian universities.
There will be new opportunities for Australian businesses to bid for high-value government procurement contracts in Singapore, including road transport, construction and engineering.
There will also be changes to visa lengths of stay for Australian expats in Singapore.
Updated
Computer has been rebooted, so hopefully that has fixed some of those bugs that were delaying me. Again, apologies.
Let me bring you some of the great Mike Bower’s work to make up for it.
Updated
Meanwhile in the House...
PM Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister JBish in #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/ACzeE2xIvl
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) October 19, 2017
Is this one of the last times we’ll see this dynamic duo in the chamber?
One Nation during #qt today in the senate @GuardianAus @AmyRemeikis #politicslive pic.twitter.com/58EzEOaeGR
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) October 19, 2017
NBN is brought up again by Michelle Rowland and Paul Fletcher gives the same answer we have heard all week: that the government has rolled it out to oodles more people than Labor managed and it is on track to be completed by 2020. My computer is about to go out a window (tech problems), so I apologise for not being able to give you the entire answer.
We finish with a dixer to Peter Dutton, who tells everyone just how much safer he’s making Australia and just how much danger it faces from a Labor government – and we are done.
Updated
After a bit of kerfuffle over whether or not this question from Anthony Albanese to Malcolm Turnbull is in order:
Albanese: “My question is to the prime minister and I refer to reports today of a frank discussion with the prime minister in which the current deputy prime minister, and I quote, ‘laid bare his fury after he was bombarded with complaints’. Who decided this should happen? The prime minister? The finance minister? All of the above? Why was the deputy cut out?
Turnbull answers: “The honourable member is very well aware, having dealt with other members of parliament, including cross-benchers, over the years during his time as a minister of infrastructure and everyone during the golden era of telecommunications when he was the communications minister, Mr Speaker – as he well knows, grants of all kinds are approved in the usual way by the responsible ministers.”
Updated
Greg Hunt answers a dixer with what is becoming the standard line of needing to keep the lights on in hospitals and its back to the main game of Butler vs Turnbull, but the prime minister taps in Josh Frydenberg to take this one.
Butler:
My question is again to the prime minister. The prime minister and the energy minister have apparently assured their party room they would not put a price on carbon or allow carbon trading, but their latest energy policy seems to put a price on carbon and involve carbon trading. Given it looks like a goat, walks like a goat and bleats like a goat, will the prime minister now accept the reality of his own policy or will he continue to pay homage to the volcano gods on his back bench?
Frydenberg:
For all those people listening at home that are struggling with their power bills, particularly in South Australia – the pensioners, the workers at the steelworks, those at the smelter, those in the member’s own electorate – what do you think they are thinking about the political games of those opposite? What do you think they are thinking, Mr Speaker?
Do you think that they are belittling the fact $115-a-year saving reflects badly on those opposite? Because when they were last in office power bills went up by 100%, Mr Speaker, 100%. The dirty dozen of policies. We had hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the small business sector. We had the dreaded $15bn carbon tax. We had that great democratic experiment. We had the cash for clunkers, we had the pink bats, the ETS, the CPRS, the EIS, the carbon tax. We had every policy under the sun, Mr Speaker!
And now the Labor party’s been presented with what they have asked for: an opportunity for bipartisanship based on expert advice. And as I said to the House, this has received widespread support from groups that said this policy ticks the boxes of lower prices, increased reliability and meeting our international target.
And the Australian Industry Group representing more than a million employees said the plan gives the electricity sector a great deal of flexibility and it gives welcomed recognition of the imperative of maintaining Australia’s trade competitors. And the National Irrigators Council, in all the regional areas across the country, have said this package is welcome. And what about the Manufacturing Australia, who said they have welcomed the government’s new energy plan? What about Apia, who represents the gas companies? They said this national energy guarantee strengthens reliability, Mr Speaker. What about Energy Consumers Australia? I thought those opposite were worried about consumers.
This policy integrates the need for reliable power and emissions reduction in the electricity sector at least cost for consumers. And what about PWC, Mr Speaker, who said it provides a long-awaited certainty, reliability and affordability [for] medicine we have been looking for to treat the ills of our energy market, Mr Speaker?
This is why this policy put forward by the experts is deserving of bipartisan support. If you don’t support it, we will because we believe in lower power prices and a more reliable system.
Updated
Another dixer and then back to Butler vs Turnbull on carbon prices.
Butler: “My question is again to the prime minister. I refer to the prime minister’s previous answer about his latest energy policy. So why does the Energy Security Board have a picture of a coal generator paying a renewable generator for carbon abatement? How is that not carbon trading?
Turnbull: The trading is of physical energy, a physical electricity. The honourable member’s inability to understand the way the energy market works is really staggering. The honourable member does not understand that the electricity market works with the trading of electricity – that will continue and retailers will be able to trade to ensure that they meet their obligations, whether it’s on emissions or on reliability. Really, no won ... no wonder South Australia is in such a bad shape with a Labor party, with the member for Port Adelaide.
Updated
After a dixer to Julie Bishop on how Australia is meeting its Paris targets:
The plan that we have announced through the national energy guarantee will also enable us to meet our international obligations and our Paris agreement target will see emissions reductions of 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030. This is reasonable and achievable and what it means is emissions per person will halve and already emissions per capita in Australia are the lowest they have been in 27 years because we have met, indeed exceeded, the first Kyoto target by 128m tonnes. We are on track to meet, indeed exceed, the second Kyoto target by 2020. Mr Speaker, our Paris agreement targets are reasonable and they compare well with other developed countries, for example Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the EU are in the target range between 25-35% by 2030.
Mark Butler tries again on the carbon price angle, asking Malcolm Turnbull if he was aware of the head of Energy Council’s confirmation yesterday that the NEG did have a carbon price. The prime minister says many things he has said before, but does not answer the question.
Updated
Mark Butler takes a second go at asking whether the energy policy includes a carbon price.
The prime minister says no. Because ... I’ll just let him explain it:
The trading is trading of physical energy, it is trading of electricity. It is not trading of permits. There are no certificates, there is no permit. It is trading of physical energy which, as the honourable member should be well aware, happens all the time.
Millions of dollars being traded every hour of the day and that has always been the case, but, Mr Speaker, as John Pearce, chair of the Australian Energy Market Commission, which is the rules maker, and a member of the Energy Security Board, as he said today: ‘There are no subsidies or certificates involved in this guarantee, and in this sense it does not involve a price or a tax on carbon. We are not pricing carbon. What we are pricing is reliability.’
Mr Speaker, the honourable member may yearn for the subsidy – Mr Speaker, this is the part of the Labor party’s position that I find most baffling. The leader of the opposition goes to a solar farm and he stands there and says this: ‘This is fantastic.’ He is blinded by the light. He says it’s fantastic. He says: ‘This is cheaper than new coal. It is so good.’ Then he says: ‘That is why we have to subsidise it.’ Talk about science-fiction, Mr Speaker.
What Australians deserve is affordable, reliable energy. What Labor has delivered is unaffordable and unreliable energy. They try the law of physics, as you heard the Energy Market Operator was asked about the reliability requirement, which she is having to intervene in the honourable member’s state constantly to maintain stability, and she said, ‘well, you have to comply with the laws of physics’.
That’s true. But not if you are in the Labor party, apparently. They think windmills will turn when there is no wind. They think solar panels will generate in the middle of the night. That’s moon beams! Mr Speaker, worst of all, worst of all, what this recklessness does is impose higher costs and less reliable power. Australians know Labor does not have the sense, it does not have the management or the business sense to deliver affordable and reliable power. Energy will always be unreliable and more expensive under Labor.
Updated
George Christensen gifts the next dixer to Barnaby Joyce, who drops the basket weaver line for something else:
The Labor party policies of wind chime power, of dream catcher nets – that is where their power policy comes from. We believe in coal-fired power. We believe in gas-fired power. We believe in hydro.
We believe in people having a job. We will make sure these people have a job. We do not think that blue-collar workers are politically irrelevant and what we see on the Labor party all the time is that policy is driven by the green movement. They have given up on working-class people. They have given up on manufacturing jobs. They have no vision for Australia, they have no vision for Queensland. They do not have the confidence anymore of the once great Labor party that they had been.
Updated
A simple question from the opposition to the government: under the prime minister’s latest energy policy, will energy retailers be able to trade to meet their carbon emission reduction obligations – “yes” or “no”?
Does not bring a simple answer from the prime minister:
In the national electricity market, there are twice as much energy traded as is dispatched. There is an enormous trading system within the energy market, both trading over the counter and then through the Australian stock exchange and, of course, that won’t change – that is the virtue of the model that has been presented, the mechanism that’s been presented by the Energy Security Board that rather than having a subsidy scheme like the renewable energy target, or a clean energy target, that operates outside the market, you have market rules both in terms of guaranteeing reliability and guaranteeing a level of emissions consistent with Paris within those constraints trading can occur freely.
That is why retailers are able to achieve the mix of generation sources that suits them. And they will all be able to find the lowest cost and most competitive way to deliver on those two obligations. It is clear, Mr Speaker, that is the mechanism, that is why it’s been recommended by the Energy Security Board. And those on the other side who are keen students of energy policy will know that John Pearce, the chairman of the energy markets commission, has been proposing an approach like this for years, for at least seven years, he said today. He’s always been a critic of the renewable energy target, or evolutions of it, because it does not operate within the confines of the market and therefore does not allow participants to achieve what we all seek to achieve.
Or I hope the honourable members on the other side will finally see reason and recognise that what we have here is a real opportunity to make a break with the mistakes of the past, a real game changer recommended by the experts, not a proposal that the minister and I cooked up. This is a recommendation from the experts. It is built on the foundations of the Finkel Review. It has been praised and endorsed by the chief scientist. It comes from a body established on the recommendation of the chief scientist.
This is the mechanism that can end the climate wars and deliver affordable, reliable energy for Australians and meet our emissions reduction obligations. Surely, Mr Speaker, at some point Labor has to stop the politicking and get on board for affordability, reliability and responsibility in Australia’s energy system.
Updated
This week must be starting to get to more than just your correspondent – Josh Frydenberg has just received a verbal smack from the Speaker for swearing.
He was responding to a dixer from Craig Kelly, who, it must be said, may have helped get him in the mood, given as he tends to present his questions like he’s interrupting a conversation at the pub bar, to tell someone why they are wrong. Frydenberg:
I thank the member for Hughes for his question and know that he supports the government’s efforts to reduce power prices and create a more reliable system. Indeed, the national energy guarantee is a credible, workable, pro-market policy which will help lower prices and create a more reliable system. It involves no subsidies, no taxes and no trading schemes, Mr Speaker. And given the 371,500 jobs we have created in the last 12 months, lower energy prices will continue to help this strong jobs growth continue.
Now, Mr Speaker, I know that those opposite like to write books – their front bench often looks like an Oprah Winfrey Book Club! We had the Good Fight, we had from the member for Fenner, a book about billionaires - an odd title - we had from the leader of the opposition, For The Common Good. It would have been better titled, ‘If you don’t know where you going, any road will get you there.’ Another, it is titled Changing Jobs but then we discovered the member for Port Adelaide had a book, Mr Speaker. It is a pretty bland cover, it is called The Climate Wars and I thought, ‘what does it say’? The truth is, we in Labor have sent too many mixed signals about climate policy. He said we have made mistakes in the design of our policies and the presentation, Mr Speaker. But then, this was the best. I was on a street corner in Port Adelaide and a guy said, ‘I was never sold on the whole climate issue, I thought you were all piss weak.’
He withdrew. The Speaker then had a word:
Before I call the leader of the opposition, I say to the minister – the leader of the House can cease interjecting for just a second – I say to the minister that that was – he’s withdrawn. If there is a repeat of that, I’ll have no choice but to take severe action against him and I ask him to be mindful not only of the audience watching ... but the audience here in parliament house.
Updated
Over in the Senate, Mike Bowers has just informed me there have been celebrations when George Brandis pronounced Richard Di Natale’s name correctly.
They always seem to have more fun in the Senate.
Sidenote: the high court is yet to decide on the futures of Malcolm Roberts, Nick Xenophon, Matt Canavan and Fiona Nash (as well as Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam, who have already resigned, and Barnaby Joyce in the lower house). Could this be the last Senate question time some of those see in a while?
Updated
A few notable visitors to parliament are in the public gallery today:
The president of the Lebanese Forces party, as well as Gary Johns, a former minister in the Keating government. Kerri-Anne Kennerly and Cathy Freeman have also been pointed out.
Updated
The independent question has been given to the Mayo Nick Xenophon Team MP, Rebekha Sharkie:
My question is to the minister representing the minister for employment. Today Anglicare Australia revealed nearly five applicants for every entry-level job, harvest season is approaching and farmers are looking for seasonal workers with many positions from Australia. What specific promotional measures have the government implemented to ensure Australians on Newstart [or] Youth Allowance know about the trial?
(Sorry for the delay in posts, but I am having a few internet issues this afternoon)
The minister representing Michaelia Cash in the House is Christopher Pyne and he shares this wisdom:
I would say to her that the very first thing I would say about her question is that the best news for anyone on Youth Allowance or Newstart is to get a full-time job or a part-time job. In the last 12 months, this government has created 371,500 new jobs. It’s a record number.
So the government’s economic policies, which have been supported by many Australians, have seen 371,500 new jobs. Now, for those people who have not yet got work, who are on Youth Allowance or the Newstart program, for three months or more, the government has introduced the seasonal work incentives trial which the honourable member refers to and that allows them to work in harvests like for fruit and nuts and other crops and earn up to $5,000 before they lose any of their Newstart or Youth Allowance. It is a really good program promoted by many members of this side of the House from regional areas and it helps to fill in some of the workforce gaps in areas of the regions who are looking for workers, particularly at harvest time, and including in the member for Mayo’s electorate.
We have promoted it through the HarvestGuide. We promoted it with stakeholders, like those who are doing disability employment services, the Job Active, the Transition to Work programs. There have been community forums and industry days being held in capital cities across regional areas, across Australia. The member for Mayo would be well aware of that and we will continue to promote it in the media and providing communications materials to stakeholders, because we want more people who are on Newstart or Youth Allowance to access that particular program.
But with the greatest of respect to the member for Mayo, I know it comes from a great state of South Australia, the best thing that we in South Australia can do for young people looking for a job is provide them with a good, stable government in South Australia. That understands the importance of reliable power and affordable power and the most important thing the member for Mayo could do is to get her boss [Nick Xenophon] to stop promoting unstable government in South Australia by running for the state parliament and cutting and running from the Senate – cutting and running from the Senate for the third time. Now [he] wants to leave the Senate early and goodness knows how long he will stay if he wins – wins a seat in the state parliament.
Updated
Tanya Plibersek takes the floor:
My question is to the prime minister. Power prices have never been higher than they are under the Liberals. The prime minister could take action right now to put downward pressure on power prices by pulling the trigger on gas export controls. Why won’t the prime minister take action to reduce the power bills of Australian households now instead of making Australians wait three years for a possible 50c saving?
Malcolm Turnbull decides to take this one, mostly, I think, because he thinks he has a very clever sledge and he can’t wait to use it:
Mr Speaker, I’m very ... concerned about the composition of the opposition’s questions pack. They seem to have pulled out a question from the last sitting, when we were last here, over a month ago.
Mr Speaker, what we have secured in terms of gas is an agreement for the big gas exporters to make sure demand on the east coast is fulfilled, which means that there won’t be a shortage of gas on the east coast and if there isn’t a shortage of gas on the east coast, then there is no need to apply any restrictions on exports.
It is an excellent outcome and one that has been welcomed by industry, by AIG, by BCA. It has been welcomed by industry because they know that having gas at affordable prices and full supply – and prices being a function of supply and demand, as all honourable members on this side at least are aware – having gas in full supply means businesses and energy generators and households ultimately will be paying a fairer price.
He continues on the “reliable, affordable” power line his government’s policy is creating. For those playing at home, “responsible” seems to have gone missing in today’s talking notes.
Updated
The treasurer, Scott Morrison, picks up the next dixer, linking the jobs figures to the government’s energy policy, with the general theme being this government is the most amazing government to have ever governed ever.
He’s so excited by how amazing the government is, he doesn’t take a breathe for about two minutes, but you don’t need air when you’re living on a high.
Australia has just experienced the strongest annual full-time growth in jobs on record. In 40 years, Mr Speaker. In the 40 years of records, on full-time jobs growth, this has been the best record of full-time jobs growth – some 316,000 full-time positions were created in the last year. 371,000 jobs were created in total in the last 12 months. And that means that the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.5% below where it was at the first time this government was elected back in 2013 and down more than half a full percentage point over the last couple of years. 20,000 new jobs were created in September. This is the 12th consecutive month the jobs growth has been present in our economy. That is the longest run of jobs growth in 23 years, Mr Speaker!
And I’m listening for the congratulations to those who got jobs from those opposite and I can’t hear a thing, Mr Speaker. I can’t hear a thing from those opposite congratulating the businesses that have gone out and created those jobs, Mr Speaker. All I see is down faces because the last thing they want to see is more jobs, Mr Speaker, because they are generated by their own self-interest when it comes to economic policy in this place.
Jobs growth means the government’s policies are working, Mr Speaker, and that is something that this government can mark down as the consequence of good economic decisions and sound economic management and that includes, Mr Speaker, the decisions we have taken on energy, whether it is the securing gas for domestic use, getting the right deals out of retail energy companies, ensuring that we get rid of the free kick for poles and wires companies that were driving up prices, building Snowy 2.0 – all of this was part of the prime minister’s energy plan that was announced in the budget this year, but to top that off is the national energy guarantee.
Updated
To opposition questions again and Jenny Macklin picks up from yesterday asking again about the axing of the energy supplement.
“Is the prime minister so out of touch that he expects pensioners to thank him because they might get a lousy 50c saving on their power bills in three years’ time and don’t flick it off this time?”
The prime minister punts the question to Christian Porter.
Thank you, it is interesting that yesterday the member for Sydney [Tanya Plibersek] got up and put to us that somehow the removal of the carbon tax was a myth and now they are complaining about the fact that we want to remove the carbon tax compensation.
That is fascinating. It’s particularly fascinating when the carbon tax compensation was a savings measure that members opposite adopted, booked, saved and spent. Wrong, wrong, we hear. Wrong. Let me read to you a fair summary, let me read to you a fair summary of the situation that appeared in The Guardian in September – sorry on 24 August 2016. The Guardian doesn’t always run to our defence, but this is what they said, this is what they said 24 August 2016 in The Guardian.
They said: ‘As both sides gear up for the looming sitting period, Labor has also this week debated whether or not to proceed with a saving it accepted during the election campaign, the abolition of the energy supplement.’
You would have thought, if it wasn’t true, The Guardian would have let us know that. Wouldn’t you think that? That you come up time and time again and try and pretend to this place that somehow or other you did not bank this saving knowing as the ending of the carbon tax compensation. What the opposition did do is before an election, they say they are opposed to the saving, then they say they support the saving and then after the election, they are opposed to it again. When the election comes round again, they will support it again and they will bank it again and they will book it again and they will spend it again and you know what, The Guardian will write about the fact that that is what they have done.
Updated
Trent Zimmerman then picks up the first dixer, which just happens to be on–you guessed it, the unemployment figures.
Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t even try to hide his grin, telling the chamber:
375,500 more Australians in work than a year ago [the longest run of] monthly jobs growth since 1994. That is an extraordinary achievement and it is a tribute to the enterprise and the hard work of Australian businesses that are benefitting from the leadership and economic leader ... The parliament has approved, applying to small and medium businesses. To remain competitive, Australian businesses need affordable and reliable energy. They need to have the gas they need, they need to have the electricity for their businesses and it needs to be reliable and affordable. And that is what we are delivering.
Now, when it comes to energy, the leader of the opposition talks, writes charming letters to me occasionally, talking about bipartisanship. He went completely off the reservation this morning, Mr Speaker. He talked, he described the considered advice from the Energy Security Board, appointed by Coag, five of the most knowledgeable people in the energy sector. He talked ... science-fiction! That is what he said.
Then he described it, then, as he started to foam and froth, he described it as propaganda from the government! This is a recommendation from an independent board appointed by Coag, accountable to Coag – more Labor government appointments than Liberal people. The energy market operator, the Energy Regulator, the chairman of the AMC, and Dr Kerry Schott and Claire Savage, independent chair and deputy chair. Excellent appointments, praised by the member for Port Adelaide [Mark Butler] at the time, and he was right then.
But now they don’t like the outcome and so all they can do is smear and play politics. Mr Speaker, Australians deserve better. The reality is this: Labor has failed to put Australian families first. They have failed to prioritise affordability and reliability. They have allowed Australians to see energy prices rise, gas becoming short supply all because of ideology and stupidity and now we see, Mr Speaker, the leader of the opposition complaining about jobs lost in renewables, so he forecasts. What about the 5,000 jobs in Snowy Hydro 2.0? What about that?”
It’s at this point, I should probably make a comment about the Snowy Hydro 2.0 plan not being more than a feasibility study at this stage, but I think most of you know that.
Updated
Question time begins
Technology issues that are too boring to go into here have prevented me from heading to the chamber today, unfortunately.
But question time has begun and it is straight into energy.
Malcolm Turnbull answers Bill Shorten’s question over whether Australians should be expected to be grateful over such little savings.
Turnbull turns that into a gloat over the economy and the jobs numbers:
Over the last few years there are more Australians in jobs and since we were first elected four years ago, 825,500 jobs have been created. Mr Speaker, jobs and growth is not just a slogan, it is an outcome. It is an outcome.
Updated
Just as we wait to head into question time, a reminder New Zealand is waiting to see who will be its leader.
Our other live blog for the day is on all the action across the Tasman, where New Zealand is waiting with bated breath for minor party leader Winston Peters to tell them who their next prime minister will be. Peters’ New Zealand First party was left in the position of kingmaker after the national election almost a month ago and has been meeting with National’s Bill English and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern since then. He has said he will make an announcement today, but gave no indication of when or what it might be ...
Follow along with that, here.
Updated
The Labor MP for Bruce, Julian Hill, has done his best to entertain the chamber ahead of question time.
Speaking in appreciation for “the generosity of our compassionate and benevolent leader”, he said:
The prime minister has thoughtfully offered struggling families some help with out-of-control power bills. He is giving families 50c a week. He is so generous, he is so loving, he is so kind, he understands his subjects, he is one of us. He is so in touch.
And I am told our nation will be doing more to honour dear leader’s generosity: planning is already under way for the festival of the half dollar. The Australian mint will be issuing a commemorative 50c coin and thousands of Australians will be making one local call in celebration.
We thank the prime minister for his compassion and his big heart. People who can’t pay their power bills can now pay for a soft serve at Macca’s or save for a month and buy a can of Coke. Tis is a truly remarkable offer from our most charitable and excellent leader. We do not deserve his kindness, but we are grateful for it nonetheless. There really has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian.
Updated
The Productivity Commission has released its final report on the NDIS and has concluded that people waiting on the service could be made to wait another 12 months before they can join.
The social services minister, Christian Porter, told the ABC he believed the rollout may have been a little ambitious.
I think that the Productivity Commission says as much. They noted that originally the estimates about the number of Australians who are transitioning at given points in time over the next several years were their own estimates back from pre-2013 and the Productivity Commission says those estimates were highly ambitious to the extent that the Productivity Commission note themselves they were so ambitious they were unlikely to ever be met.
But he said it will eventually happen:
Every state has a bilateral agreement where we agree with the states that the NDIS will be, if you like, open for business in a certain region at a certain time and nothing changes there and we are not planning to change anything there. So all of the bilateral rollout targets will be met, which means that if you are expecting in Gosford or Wagga Wagga or wherever you are in Australia, we have the ability to apply for the NDIS at a certain time. Nothing changes there.
Updated
Speaking of the economy, the National Fiscal Outlook is out today from the PBO. You’ll find it here, but a very quick look reveals the need for “continued vigilance” for both the states and the economy. AAP reported it as:
The national fiscal outlook deteriorated by $13.4bn for the period 2016-17 to 2019-20, compared to a forecast a year ago, while net debt was $22.9bn worse across commonwealth and state budgets.
Even so, over the next four years, the national net operating balance – budget balances minus net capital investments – is expected to improve from a deficit of 1.4% of GDP to a surplus of 1.6% of GDP.
“This improvement relies on a pick-up in commonwealth personal income tax revenue largely driven by higher wages growth,” the PBO says.
Updated
The employment minister, Michaelia Cash, is quite pleased with the latest job figures.
The economy under the Turnbull government is now creating jobs at a rate of in excess of four jobs to one. Again what we are now seeing is trends setting in. But in terms of full-time jobs, I am pleased to say that of those jobs created in the last 12 months [371,500] almost 316,000 of those jobs were full-time jobs. Compare that to last 12 months of the former Labor government, where full-time jobs growth actually went backwards. The reason is, the policies of the Turnbull government, the Coalition government puts in place, every lever that we pull is all about growing our economy.
With the caveat that I am not an economist, I would have thought that a big part of the reason job growth wasn’t overly strong in 2011-12 was the nation was still recovering from some of the delayed impacts of the global financial crisis. But sure, let’s put it ALL down to policy differences.
Updated
Andrew Wilkie has not held back in expressing his disappointment over Labor not supporting a senate inquiry into casinos and the gaming industry.
Here is a bit of what he had to say just a few minutes ago:
Was it the casinos, was it the clubs, was that the factional warlords, or did no one ring him and he just turned into jelly on his own? Whatever has happened, the comment from the opposition leader today is, I think, quite scandalous.
I didn’t hold out great hope of the Liberal National government supporting a parliamentary inquiry into the allegations against the poker machine industry, but I did hold out some hope that alternative prime minister would show some leadership, would understand the seriousness of these allegations, and that in the Senate he would be agreeable to an inquiry into these allegations, allegations not just against Crown casino, but allegations also against the Victorian gambling regulator, allegations that point to systemic issues across the poker machine industry, if those allegations are true, of course.
He went on:
The fact that the Labor party and the Liberal party are both sidestepping the issue shows that they continue to grovel to the poker machine industry. And I think that is scandalous, quite frankly. It is absolutely scandalous. And they are being very dishonest about it. To say that this is a matter for the Victorian government and Victorian authorities is entirely misleading, because the serious allegations include money laundering and that, of course, is a serious federal offence. If for that reason alone the federal parliament should be involved in trying to get to the bottom of these issues.
Also, to suggest that state and territory governments can be trusted these days to enquire into the poker machine industry is just laughable. We know for a fact that state and territory governments are deeply conflicted because at the same time they are meant to be ensuring that the poker machine industry operates properly, they are also recipients of enormous sums of taxpayer revenue. They have shown they cannot be trusted, that is another reason for the federal parliament and the federal government, or at least the federal opposition, to be involved in these issues.
Let’s remember here that a parliamentary inquiry, where the witnesses would have parliamentary privilege, would be just the sort of mechanism to get to the bottom of these allegations. Somewhere where witnesses, perhaps the three whistleblowers who have already approached me, or perhaps other people, could front committee and they could tell us what they know and they could do it with the protection of the parliament. That is why there is a pressing need for a senate inquiry.
Now, I note that both the government and the opposition have made it quite clear they won’t support an inquiry in the senate. Well, the challenge is to them. These are very serious allegations. They are completely out of step with the public interest, with the public’s expectation of what leaders in this place should be doing.
I would hope that when this parliament comes back next week that the opposition leader, at least, grows a bit of a backbone, shows a bit of leadership, stops kowtowing to the poker machine industry, and rings back whoever called him last night and tells them that there will be a parliamentary inquiry.
Updated
Back on energy, just before we prepare to head into question time, Bill Shorten has laid out Labor’s attack strategy:
I am not going to let the government off. They have cooked up a bunch of headlines and thought bubbles. This is pure Turnbull 2.0. Make it up on the run. Keep Abbott happy. This is a hostage note written by Malcolm Turnbull to Tony Abbott: ‘please stop brutalising my energy policies, I’ll give you everything you want’.
And then
... Let me go here for a second. The government has announced a policy on Monday or Tuesday. I get that you are more interested in Labor’s policies because we all know the government’s stuff is nonsense. This is classic Turnbull policy. It’d be interesting to see if it survives to Christmas, won’t it? The government are the ones who said they’ve got the game changer. Turnbull and his self-congratulation was saying, ‘I’ve changed the game, it’s fantastic’. Yet even within the last 48 hours, can the government guarantee any price reduction at all? Nope. Can they even provide us modelling? Nope.
The government is still busy denying it has created a policy which has an emissions intensity scheme or carbon price, but I think we can expect this is where question time is going to go.
Updated
With how quick this morning was moving, I didn’t get a chance to transcribe Mitch Fifield’s chat on RN Breakfast. Given the interest in the ABC legislation yesterday, I thought there may be some interest in this exchange between Fran Kelly and the communications minister.
Kelly: In your second reading speech on the ABC legislation yesterday, you said, I quote, people expect the publicly funded broadcaster to canvass a broad range of issues in a fair and balanced manner. Are you suggesting that we don’t do that? Can you give us an example of where the ABC hasn’t been fair and balanced?
Fifield: All media organisations need to strive to be their best selves. There is no media organisation in Australia that is perfect. Where the ABC differs from the commercial media organisations is that is receives more than a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding. Now what that means is that the public are entitled to expect a degree of confidence in the way the ABC executes its duties …
Kelly: Are you suggesting we’re not doing that now?
Fifield: As you know, Fran, the ABC’s act already requires it to be “impartial” and “accurate” in its news and current affairs presentations. What we’re proposing is that we put alongside that in the act, the requirement to be “fair and balanced”.
Kelly: And what’s the difference? As you mentioned the act there and that’s one of the differences where the ABC is different from other media organisations, we have a charter which says, quote, “gathering and presentation of news and information must be accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism”. So what’s the difference of “accurate and impartial” and “fair and balanced”?
Fifield: Well, “fair and balanced” is something that is already in chapter four of the ABC’s own editorial policies, where it talks about the need to have “fair treatment”, where it talks about a “balance which follows the weight of evidence”. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s own journalistic code of ethics talks about fairness on no less than six occasions. These are well-known journalistic concepts …
Kelly: Already built into our editorial guidelines as you say ... following the weight of evidence. Does fair and balanced mean giving equal weight to both sides of an argument, no matter if one side is spurious, because that seems to be One Nation’s understanding. Is that yours?
Fifield: I’m very comfortable with what is in the ABC’s editorial policy, a “balance that follows the weight of evidence”. And if you’re comfortable with that Fran and if I’m comfortable with that, and if ABC journalists are comfortable with what is in the ABC’s editorial policies and think that it’s good journalism, then there should be absolutely no objection to that being enshrined in the ABC’s own act.
Kelly: OK, just so long as legislating I suppose doesn’t mean that then a politician can say well that’s not fair and balanced then for instance when you were covering the anti-vaccine campaign for instance, you didn’t give equal say to an expert with a political opinion from an anti-vaxer. That would be allowed to be charged under the legislation.
Fifield: Fran, the act is given effect to ultimately by the board of the ABC. And it finds expression through the ABC’s editorial policies. The ABC’s editorial policies, as they are today, will be matters that are determined within the organisation, because the ABC has legislated independence …
Kelly: I understand, but once there’s legislation, people will be able to challenge the ABC for breaching the law if they don’t believe that is happening?
Fifield: Well, Fran, it’s open to members of parliament and members of the public, even today, to question the ABC. To ask whether the ABC is operating within its charter …
Kelly: As it should be …
Fifield: As it should be. And that will be the case if this legislation gets through the parliament. The ABC is not beyond question. The ABC isn’t always perfect. The ABC should always be striving to achieve the best journalistic standards …
Kelly: But just in that example I gave, for instance, would there be a case for someone like Pauline Hanson or someone to argue that when it comes to anti-vaxer campaigners they should be given equal say as expert medical opinion?
Fifield: Fran, if the MEAA and if the ABC, through its own editorial policies is already comfortable and supports the concept of fairness and balance, then it should be very comfortable with having “fair and balanced” in its own legislation.
Kelly: And can I just ask you to – the deal with One Nation requires pay disclosure of all ABC and SBS staff earning more than $200,000 and you’ve given the ABC until the end of the month to publish pay and allowances voluntarily, if it doesn’t try and force it do so through legislation. In the commercial world, employee salaries are protected by privacy laws. Why shouldn’t ABC salaries be the same?
Fifield: The ABC receives more than a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money, Fran. And people in the ABC, paid for by the taxpayer, hold significant positions of public trust. In that environment, it is appropriate that there be the same sort of disclosure in terms of what people are paid as there are for members of parliament, ministers, judges …
Kelly: But it’s different for members of parliament, because yours are determined by a remuneration tribunal. I mean by definition, they are determined, ABC salaries are not. What are you hoping to achieve by this? Do you think we’re overpaid or …?
Fifield: You’re right, the pay of members of parliament and judges and senior military officers and senior public servants are determined by an independent tribunal. That’s not the case with the ABC. The ABC staff receive taxpayer money, just as we do, and there is no reason why there should not be a similar level of transparency as there is for ministers, judges, members of parliament ...
Kelly: But what would it achieve? Do you think we’re being overpaid?
Fifield: Well, Fran, that will be a determination for the public. When you have transparency, the public forms a view about the value and worth of individuals and what they’re paid. The public has views about members of parliament. The public might form those views about senior people at the ABC as well.
Updated
I tend to take a very cynical view of politicians, no matter what side of the fence they sit on, and stunts (like dabbing) – but you guys seem to like it. I covered state politics for years. It leaves a mark on you.
But for those of you who liked seeing a photo of kids enjoying themselves, I gift you another.
Updated
Taking time out of his busy dabbing schedule, the opposition leader examined a car.
Updated
Bill Shorten doesn’t often dab. But when he does, he makes sure the cameras are there.
Updated
The Greens MP Adam Bandt is not pleased with where he thinks Labor is heading with the energy debate. Earlier today, we reported Bandt called the NEG as being worse for renewables than doing nothing.
Now Bandt is calling on Labor to join the Greens in its opposition to the policy
“Cutting support for renewables is appalling, but actively pulling wind and solar out of the system is pure bastardry and Labor must not have a bar of it,” he said in a statement
“Labor did a deal with the Liberals to cut the renewable energy target and they’re getting ready to cut renewables again, sending MPs out to pretend the NEG is some kind of carbon price in disguise.
“Doing another deal with the Liberals to cut renewables would be a new low for Labor.”
Updated
Andrew Wilkie has responded to Labor and the Coalition’s position on the casino inquiry
Labor and Liberal grovel to poker machine industry, says @WilkieMP #auspol pic.twitter.com/A60U0nf1xl
— Political Alert (@political_alert) October 19, 2017
Is the Neg a carbon price bingo
When economists try to be diplomats: “It’s the internalisation of an externality”
AGL is in town today, appearing before a parliamentary committee looking at electricity infrastructure. Tim Nelson is AGL’s chief economist.
Nelson has just given a tick to the Turnbull government’s national energy guarantee, at least in concept. He thinks imposing a reliability and an emissions reduction obligation on electricity retailers through the existing electricity market contracts structure is “a very neat way to tie it together” – but he adds the obvious caveat, “that said, the devil will be in the detail”.
A funny exchange follows between Nelson and the Labor MP Pat Conroy, who knows a a lot about energy policy, having worked in the backroom during the climate wars of the past ten years before embarking on his own political career.
Conroy thinks, and has said, that the NEG is an awful lot like a not very transparent carbon price. He wonders whether Nelson agrees.
Nelson, attempting diplomacy, thinks the NEG is an “internalisation of an externality.”
OK, Conroy says, what’s the externality we are talking about? Nelson says the emissions reduction obligation imposed by the government – the requirement to ensure Australia meets the Paris target.
So we are placing an internal price on carbon dioxide emissions, Conroy asks?
Tim Nelson: “Placing a price on that, yes.”
Let’s call today, carbon price bingo.
Bingo, says Nelson.
Updated
The beast continues to move: with no major party support for the Senate inquiry into the Wilkie casino allegations, the motion is being delayed.
As pointed out in the comments, it could come back, depending if anything is found at the state level. But for now, it is being shuffled off the agenda.
A little more detail on the latest job figures ...
The unemployment rate fell to 5.5% in September, driven by a large increase in part-time employment, in seasonally-adjusted terms.
Between August and September, 13,700 part-time positions were created, and 6,100 full-time positions were created.
Over the last 12 months, full-time employment has increased by 315,900 persons, while part-time employment has increased by 55,600 persons.
Last month, the largest increase in employment was in New South Wales (up 21,100 persons), followed by Victoria (up 8,900 persons) and Western Australia (up 8,300 persons).
But the unemployment rate has not fallen in every state and territory – Queensland’s unemployment rate increased from 5.7% to 5.9% last month. South Australia’s unemployment rate increased from 5.7% to 5.8%.
Updated
While we are on Holden, this is very much worth your time to read. No politics, but a lot of heart:
I wrote a little story about Holden and my family, hope you like. https://t.co/3SrVHobxV7
— Daniela Ritorto (@danielaritorto) October 18, 2017
Kim Carr had A LOT to say about Holden’s closure and has not been shy at letting us know who he blames and why.
Tomorrow marks what can only be described asa national tragedy. A national tragedy that need not happen. It was totally avoidable. A national tragedy that’s come about as a direct result of a crusade by the very hard, right-wing men and women of the Liberal party. Remember Sophie Mirabella? Crusade to take $500 million out of the automotive program. Remember the statements of the treasurer goading General Motors to leave Australia, at the time when the international investment committee was meeting in Detroit, stood up in the House of Representatives and goaded them to leave. As the head of General Motors at the time said, played chicken with the automotive industry in this country. We know, because we directly engaged with General Motors, that they were prepared to stay. They took the proposition to their own work force to substantially reduce costs at a time when the dollar was over $1.11on the parity rate. Workers voted in a secret ballot to take a pay cut, to reduce their conditions, on the condition that General Motors were prepared to invest. They came to us as a Labor government and we negotiated arrangements for two new models. A proposition which I took to the government and was endorsed by the government. General Motors, in turn, said: ‘We have to get bipartisan support for that proposition. We can’t make those sorts of investments without the support across the parliament.’ The Liberal party refused. We also know with Toyota, two new models, and if we had kept the automotive industry in place, if we had a Labor government, we would have kept the automotive industry in place and by now we’d be talking about the production of hydrogen cars in this country.”
As for why he believes it matters, Carr had this to say:
What are we losing? We are losing an industry which provided 15% of our R&D for manufacturing. Manufacturing is the largest area of our R&D. 15% of our R&D for manufacturing comes out of the automotive industry. We are losing an enormous platform for our skills development. We are losing the capacity in steel, in glass, in aluminium, electronics. A modern motor car has some 250 microprocessors within it. It is probably one of the most advanced pieces of equipment ordinary people use. We are losing the capacity, one of 13 countries in the world that can make a motor car from the point of conception to the showroom floor. We are losing that capacity. What’s been put in its place? A promise about the naval ship-building program where we won’t be cutting steel for some years. Two patrol boats for Adelaide next year. Two patrol boats. We are asking the automotive industry, the automotive workers to think about two patrol boats. This is a government that has no plan for the future, has no commitment to advanced manufacturing. We are leaving automotive communities in the lurch, we are leaving this country in the lurch, because of their blatant negligence and their ideological hostility. Ideological hostility to an incredibly important industry that this country has taken generations to build. A country that, of course, is amongst the best in the world in terms of its capacity to survive the rigors of advanced manufacturing.”
Updated
The Dfat appointments are rolling out. The latest – Geoffrey Shaw as Australia’s ambassador for people smuggling and human trafficking.
From Julie Bishop’s statement:
The ambassador for people smuggling and human trafficking plays a lead role in advancing Australia’s international interests by countering people smuggling in support of Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB). Dr Shaw will work closely with the OSB Joint Agency Task Force to coordinate the international elements of OSB across government.
The Ambassador also focuses on Australia’s regional and international engagement to combat human trafficking and modern slavery, including as co-chair with Indonesia of the 45-country Bali Process, the pre-eminent regional grouping working to address these transnational crimes.
Dr Shaw is a senior career officer with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Dfat) and was most recently assistant secretary, people smuggling and human trafficking taskforce. In Canberra, Dr Shaw has held a range of positions in Dfat, including as assistant secretary, Australian safeguards and non-proliferation office. He has served in senior positions in Geneva, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, and as the IAEA representative to the United Nations in New York.
Updated
Casino inquiry doomed to fail
The casino inquiry motion is coming up in the Senate – that is on the back of the Andrew Wilkie allegations from Wednesday – but it is expected to fail.
Both Labor and the Coalition have said the authorities and the states are better placed to carry out any investigations and without the support of either major party, the motion is doomed to fail.
Here is what communications minister Mitch Fifield had to say this morning:
Ultimately it’s up to the Senate what it chooses to have an inquiry into it. But the Minister for Justice, Michael Kennan, has already made clear that Austrac takes any allegations seriously and will investigate those. The other allegations that have been made fall squarely into the responsibility of the Victorian government, its law enforcement agencies and its regulators.
And this is what Bill Shorten had to say a couple of minutes ago:
Gambling casino legislation is regulated by the state. The Senate is not a police force. The Senate is not a state house of parliament. We said straight away when we heard these allegations, very serious, deserve a full and unequivocal investigation. But you don’t send the Senate to do a job that the police have got to door that the state regulator’s got to do. This is not a question about investigating the allegations. It’s a question who is best placed to investigate them? Police and the gambling regulators with the full resources and knowledge or another committee?
Updated
Trend unemployment lowest in four years
The ABS reports the unemployment rate for September was 5.5 % (trend) down from 5.6% in August.
The ABS says that is the lowest trend rate in four years.
Updated
Just like white chocolate isn’t technically chocolate, but you’ll still find it near the dairy milk ...
The NEG is an EIS + a reliability scheme. By allowing trading, a carbon price is established, like an auction sets a house price #auspol
— Craig Emerson (@DrCraigEmerson) October 19, 2017
Updated
Labor mourns Holden
Bill Shorten has fired the latest salvo in the “Australia First” wars, using the closure of Holden tomorrow as a rallying cry:
Where are the visionaries now? Turnbull blamed the wages of the workers when Holden made their decision. He’s washed his hands of it; not his problem. Australia is a good manufacturing nation, we’re a great manufacturing nation. I want to congratulate generations of Australian workers and their families who have worked at Holden, who have worked in the auto-component industry. They are world-class trades people building a world-class product. This car industry did not need to close. It closed because of the lazy, negligent, disinterest of the right-wing economic rationalists of the Turnbull and Abbott government. They goaded the industry into going. As a result, Australia is poorer tomorrow because of the inaction and neglect of the Turnbull government. We say to those who still work in Australian manufacturing: Labor’s got your back. We understand, and if we get the privilege to form a government, we will back Australian-made and Australian manufacturing. We have announced on the weekend in South Australia the creation of an Australian manufacturing future fund. This will ensure that the finance is available for all the great manufacturing ideas, for all the small and medium businesses who want to back Australian made. I promised Australia and I promised the Australian manufacturing sector that the three-word slogan you are most going to hear from me if I’m prime minister is ‘made in Australia’.
Updated
Bill Shorten has just repeated his dab move for school students ahead of a media event at Old Parliament House.
pin this gif pic.twitter.com/UGeqQkAm1D
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) October 5, 2017
As expected, the Medicinal cannabis bill has just passed the Senate
Updated
The Senate is busy debating the Greens motion on medicinal cannabis, which opens up the market for Australian-grown products to be accessed by patients and stops the government from using clauses in import products to stop category A drugs from being prescribed to terminally ill patients.
Labor is in support of this and it looks like most of the crossbench is as well.
Updated
Yesterday it was the proposed welfare drug testing trial which caught the UN’s attention – and not in a good way, as Paul Karp reported
Today:
Australia’s marriage equality postal survey has attracted international criticism overnight, with the UN human rights committee in Geneva telling the government that fundamental rights were not to be judged by a show of hands, or granted by virtue of popular opinion.
Committee member Sarah Cleveland told the Australian delegation of the survey: “human rights are not to be determined by opinion poll or a popular vote”.
Australia’s human rights record is being examined by the committee – indigenous incarceration and asylum policies are expected to be pre-eminent – in Geneva this week, at the same time as the country was elected uncontested to the UN’s powerful human rights council in New York.
Updated
While the government works to stave off a banking royal commission, Scott Morrison has announced the actions it is taking to pull the banking industry into line.
From his statement:
Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR)
The government is bringing greater accountability to our banks, introducing tough new rules for banks and their executives that will keep their behaviour and decision making in check. Under the BEAR, banks and their senior executives and directors will be expected to conduct their business with honesty and integrity, prudence, care and diligence; deal with APRA in an open, constructive and cooperative way; and prevent matters from arising that would adversely affect the bank’s reputation or hurt its customers.
Where these expectations are not met there will be strict consequences.
APRA will be empowered to more easily remove or disqualify executives, dish out substantial fines to banks when they fail to crack down on bad practices, and claw back remuneration from individuals.
Banks will also be required to register individuals with APRA before appointing them as senior executives and directors. And APRA will have new powers to examine witnesses, including during potential investigations of breaches of the BEAR.
Section 66
Legislation is also being introduced to deliver more choice for customers by boosting competition in financial services.
We are lifting the prohibition on the use of the word “bank”, so all banking businesses with an ADI licence will be able to use this term. Currently only ADIs with more than $50 million in capital can call themselves a bank.
Credit cards
The reforms include:
• requiring that affordability assessments be based on a consumer’s ability to repay the credit limit within a reasonable period;
• banning unsolicited offers of credit limit increases;
• simplifying how credit card interest is calculated; and
• requiring credit card providers to have online options to cancel cards or to reduce credit limits.
Crisis Management
APRA will be given clear powers that will enable it to set requirements on resolution planning and ensure banks and insurers are better prepared for a crisis.
APRA will also be provided an expanded set of crisis resolution powers to allow it to act decisively to facilitate the orderly resolution of a distressed bank or insurer.
Macroprudential powers
APRA will be able to make rules where it sees that the activities of non-bank lenders are materially contributing to risks of instability in the Australian financial system.
APRA will also be given the ability to collect data from the non-bank lender sector to determine if and when to use this new power.
Modernising APRA’s legislative framework
The legislation will insert an objects provision into the Banking Act 1959 to make clear APRA’s roles and responsibilities under the Act, aligning it with other acts such as the Life Insurance Act 1995.
This will make clear that APRA can, and will, act to address varying economic circumstances and stresses as they arise across different parts of Australia.
Updated
On issues which were all-encompassing but appear to have become less all-encompassing, the next round of banking hearings is on tomorrow.
David Coleman said the government’s plan of hauling the banking execs ahead of a parliamentary committee on the semi-regular, rather than a banking royal commission is working.
It’s become less obvious as the RBA stays steady on rates – which has made non-action by the banks, or delayed action by the banks, a little less obvious.
But Coleman told Sky the banks were still being questioned over “pay and go” fees –where paypass/paywave cards are being routed through the Visa or Mastercard route –which carries fees for retailers and ultimately customers.
So the ATM fee scrapping looks a lot less generous when you consider the drop in the number of people using ATMs and the amount of money being raked in by pay-and-go card habits.
Coleman said the committee was making progress on that.
Labor has maintained a royal commission is the only way to investigate what is happening in the Australian banking industry, but Coleman said the committee was having “ a real, substantive effect”
“Nine our of our 10 recommendations to the government were adopted, so the things about customers being able to get redress when things go wrong, that has been fixed. That was a real issue – the lack of executive accountability, no senior executives fired for any of the scandals in the banking industry – that has been fixed through the executive accountability regime. The lack of competition – we are changing the rules to make it easier to set up a bank so you can compete with the big four. All these things are happening. It is good to see moves like ATM fee abolition. We have also seen three of the four banks that have come out with a low-cost credit card in response to the inquiry and that is a big issue for a lot of Australians, so we are seeing a positive change, but we will keep at this, because this is an inquiry that goes forever, this is not a one-year inquiry, this is a permanent oversight function, we have achieved a lot in the first year and we will keep doing it.”
But it is not all sunshine and lollipops even in the Coaltion party room on banking.
As Katharine Murphy told us yesterday, a brouhaha was brewing in the party room over the plans to regulate the salary and appointment of banking executives:
Veteran Liberal MP Russell Broadbent kicked up a stink about this package in the Coalition party room meeting yesterday, and is reserving his rights, which means he might cross the floor to vote against the change.
Broadbent has told me governments should not be regulating the internal affairs of businesses. He says that’s like Labor’s plans for bank nationalisation in the 1940s.
“This is totally at odds with what the Liberal and National parties stand for,” Broadbent said. “I think Ben Chifley tried something like this in 1947.”
Updated
A Neg for breakfast
Malcolm Turnbull has started Thursday with a breakfast hosted by the Ai Group to explain the government’s new energy policy to the suits. The prime minister this week has been flanked by a hastily convened Jedi council – the heads of the energy market regulators – and they came along for the ride to the National Press Club this morning.
It was clear from the mood in the room that what business leaders want is bipartisanship. They want a policy which makes sense and they want to know the policy will remain constant for a reasonable period of time.
Turnbull said rather grandly in his pitch that the government looked to the opposition to settle the climate wars, but he also studded his remarks with plenty of trolling of the South Australian government’s idiocy and ideology, and of Labor’s stupidity more generally.
A couple of business leaders asked very politely about bipartisanship, including the host, the Ai Group’s chief executive, Innes Willox, who asked whether Turnbull had a plan B in the event the states didn’t like the new plan. Willox asked what would happen if the states said no. “Let’s focus on getting them to say yes,” Turnbull said, side stepping the elephant in the room.
I made an attempt to put the elephant back in the room by asking whether the government actually wanted a fight with Labor on energy, or whether they wanted a settlement – and if they wanted a settlement, was it productive to keep bagging Labor and the states publicly all the time? The prime minister thought one had to point out previous mistakes in order to create the ground for a settlement in energy.
John Pierce, one of the Jedi council, and the chairman of the Australian Energy Market Commission, was asked a question about prices and economic modelling. Pierce noted that economic models “don’t give you the truth”. He said good economic models lined up elegantly with the assumptions that were built into them. Rather than focussing on things like specific price reductions association with the new framework, Pierce hoped people would focus on the model. He said the purpose of the energy guarantee was simple: the business that produces the lowest cost, reliable energy, which was consistent with the emissions reduction target, “wins”.
Pierce was asked later whether the new framework was actually a de facto carbon price, as a lot of analysts have noted. He thought not. His explanation for why a system which creates a market for emissions reduction via regulation wasn’t a form of carbon price wasn’t entirely convincing.
He said South Australia, for example, wouldn’t have to do much in order to comply with the emissions reductions rules, given its high proportion of renewables. He then moved to say the new system priced reliability. Given the national energy guarantee has two components: reliability and emissions reduction, it wasn’t clear why the system priced one but not the other.
In case it’s not clear – it’s not helpful to the government to point out in public that the Coalition party room has just ticked off on a form of carbon pricing after having resisted any sort of carbon pricing for the best part of a decade. Not helpful. People who want a solution to the problem don’t want to engage on this turf.
Updated
The latest unemployment figures are due at 11.30am (AEDT) today, so get ready for that.
But on the jobs front, Christopher Knaus has written on an alarming trend:
Entry-level jobs are disappearing from the Australian labour market, and five entry-level workers are now competing for each advertised job, a report has found.
The findings prompted Anglicare Australia’s deputy director, Roland Manderson, to call on the government to stop making scapegoats of the unemployed.
You’ll find more on that here and we will bring you the unemployment figures shortly after they are released.
Updated
But Dutton did confirm that those who applied for citizenship after 20 April, when the government first proposed its changes, which included longer waiting periods for citizenship, will be processed under the existing rules.
Updated
Peter Dutton is not backing down on his citizenship changes and is condemning Tony Burke for condemning him. It seems Dutton is not impressed with the comparison to the White Australia Policy.
It is very clear from their own statements that for a long period of time they have supported strengthening the Citizenship Act but they are acting now against the national interest and in their own political interest by pulling this stunt in the Senate with the Greens in an effort to try to delay debate about what is a very important bill. Now what we have proposed in relation to the bill, very sensibly, we’ve been able to negotiate with the independent senators, given that the Labor party will enter into no sensible discussion at all. We have been able to offer up some amendments to the bill which address, in large part, some of the recommendations put forward by the Senate committee; our discussions with the independent senators will continue because we will not be distracted by a political stunt in the Senate between the Labor party and the Greens. We believe very strongly that the proposal we have put forward is moderate, it is sensible, and as I pointed out this morning, we have cancelled the visas of 3,000 people who have committed serious offences, in many cases against Australian citizens, including against children and including the distribution of drugs such as ice. One-thousand-one-hundred people within that cohort were permanent residents and would have gone on to become Australian citizens. Our argument is that these changes were sensible, because we are asking people not only to abide by Australian laws but to adhere to Australian values and we have put forward some sensible amendments. Our discussions will continue with the independents but Tony Burke’s completely over-the-top reaction today really shows that he and Mr Shorten are acting not in the national interest but in their own political interest and for that they should be condemned.
Updated
Labor started the emissions-intensity-scheme-in-sheep’s-clothing line on Wednesday. Pat Conroy, who seems to know more about energy policy than is healthy for one person, said the Neg “involves setting an emissions reduction target for its retail, so it is sending a signal through the market to reduce the emissions”.
Laura Jayes from Sky pointed out that Kerry Schott, the chair of the Energy Security Board, “said it is absolutely not a carbon price”, to which Conroy replied:
I’m just telling you what the mechanism operates like. The mechanism operates in a way that signals to retailers that you need to reduce the carbon intensity of your generation mix. That is a carbon signal, which is quite interesting that the party room of the Liberal’s isn’t picking that up. The key thing here is that we need to get emissions down, while increasing reliability and dispatchability and that’s why we will look at this once we see all the details.
We are hearing the is-it-or-isn’t-it question was much talked about at the Australian Industry Group breakfast this morning, where Malcolm Turnbull was speaking on energy policy. We’ll bring you more on that very soon.
Updated
At a doorstop in Canberra, the Greens MP Adam Bandt has said the party will push in the Senate for a full parliamentary inquiry into the Crown casino allegations after “very distressing allegations” from whistleblowers. Nick Xenophon has called for the same this morning after revelations from MP Andrew Wilkie yesterday.
Bandt said the numbers would be there if Labor supported the push, but Guardian Australia has confirmed that Labor will not support a Senate inquiry. Labor’s position is understood to be that this is a matter for the state regulator, but is happy to reconsider after the regulator has done its job.
Bandt:
The only thing protecting the casino bosses from a full inquiry into these allegations of misconduct is the Labor party. The Labor party now needs to decide whether honesty is more important than money.
Updated
While Labor (and some within the industry) paint the Neg as an emissions intensity scheme, the government is just as adamant that it is not.
Zed Seselja was quick to tell Sky that Burke was wrong, but not why.
It is not an emissions intensity scheme. What it is, is a scheme which will ensure we will have reliable, affordable power while also meeting our emissions reductions targets. This is absolutely critical to industry in this country, to jobs and to householders to ensure there is downward pressure on their electricity prices. The reason Tony Burke is trying to pretend it is something that it is not is because he knows [the] Labor scheme would push up electricity prices dramatically.
Not content with just Seselja, James McGrath was next in the studio to say Labor was wrong, while also calling on Labor to come on board.
Josh [Frydenberg] has been quite strong in saying it is not a trading scheme, it is not a carbon tax, what it is, is a plan to deliver reliability, it is a plan to deliver affordability, and what we want to hear from Labor is what is your plan, they don’t have a plan at the moment, so if you don’t have a plan, stop criticising ours and come on board and support our plan, because it will deliver reliability and it will put downward plan on electricity prices and that is what people want to hear.
The talking notes the government have released on this topic clearly point to MPs being told to hammer the affordability aspect, as well as the reliability points, with responsibility, the third “ity” in the non-three-word slogan government’s three-word slogan, being left to bigger hitters Josh Frydenberg and Malcolm Turnbull. But so far, the denial of the Neg as including a carbon price, or an emissions intensity scheme, has been left at “it’s not”, with no detail on why it’s not.
For what it’s worth, here was Katharine Murphy’s take on what the scheme involved from earlier in the week:
The reliability obligation will require energy retailers to hold hedges in the form of forward contracts totalling a percentage of their forecast peak load. The amount of hedges required will be based on a system-wide reliability standard to be determined in the new framework. That process, which will be done state-by-state and carried out annually on a five-year forward planning basis, will identify capacity gaps.
The emissions reduction obligation adds to the reliability framework. In addition to the requirement to hedge their load, there will be a further requirement for energy consumption to meet a set emissions intensity target for the electricity sector.
That target will be set by the government. The government has signalled it will be in the order of a 26% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Tony Abbott willing. Yes, that’s a joke, but not a very funny one, given this legislation will have to clear the parliament, and Abbott is still naysaying.
Updated
The energy debate has moved on to whether or not Labor will support it. So far, Labor hasn’t said either way. It has been very careful to be critical of the process, and what the government is using to make some of its claims, such as the $110-$115 saving (which is an average which kicks in some time between 2020 and 2030) but not explicitly slam the policy itself.
Now it has moved on to talking why it might support it, because it looks like an emissions intensity scheme, which is Labor’s preferred option. That has now placed the government in the unusual position of denying something contained within its policy.
Here is what Tony Burke told Sky News this morning:
It does look like it may well be another way of doing an emissions intensity scheme. It may well be that what we have in front of us is an emissions intensity scheme, managed by the energy retailers, rather than managed by the government. We are still working our way through it, we still don’t have all the detail you need to make that conclusion. It might be that that is what we are looking at. It might end up being something that Labor can support.
Kim Carr is due to give a speech today, where he has come to the same conclusion, as Paul Karp reports:
What’s particularly interesting, and I am not certain that the government party room has understood this, [is] the new measures have remarkable underlying similarities to the principles of the electricity intensity scheme that were rejected last December.
And it’s not just Labor; yesterday, the chief of the Australian Energy Council, Matthew Warren, was asked if the Neg was a carbon price:
Well, yes, of course it is. Anything that operates, anything that drives investment in the electricity sector in the 21st century, if is going to work, has to reflect the carbon price. There is a value that is attributed to the risk of carbon in all investments.”
Updated
Tony Burke has called the Peter Dutton-led citizenship changes “appalling”, likening it to the White Australia Policy.
“If you came from China to Australia you need university-level English, if you came from Canada, you didn’t need university-level English. If you came from India, you needed university-level English, if you came from Great Britain you didn’t,” he told Sky News.
“It was an appalling policy, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the White Australia Policy. I am glad it has been knocked back. Peter Dutton should back down on this.”
Updated
Speaking on Radio National, the communications minister, Mitch Fifield, has responded to calls from Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon for an inquiry into allegations Crown casino tampered with poker machines and avoided reporting transactions of more than $10,000 to Austrac.
Fifield replied:
In relation to allegations Mr Wilkie has made, the justice minister, Michael Keenan, has already made clear that Austrac, our financial intelligence agency, will, as it always does, investigate claims of wrongdoing.
But casinos and venue-based poker machines are “matters that fall squarely within the jurisdictions of the states”, he said. Fifield said federal parliament can’t assume responsibility for those, but then concedes the Senate can establish a parliamentary inquiry.
Fifield suggests the states can move more quickly:
There are state regulatory bodies there are state law enforcement agencies, they have the responsibility in this area … That is fairly and squarely a matter for those state governments. They have the power, they have the legislative authority, they are the people who can move swiftly in this area.
Updated
While a former prime minister openly questions whether climate change is real, and if it is “probably doing good” the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science were handed out overnight.
The 2017 recipients are:
Prime Minister’s Prize for Science: Distinguished Professor Jenny Graves AO, La Trobe University
Prime Minister’s Prize for Innovation: Laureate Professor Eric Reynolds AO, the University of Melbourne/Oral Health CRC
Frank Fenner Prize for Life Scientist of the Year: Professor Jian Yang, the University of Queensland
Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year: Professor Dayong Jin, University of Technology Sydney
Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools: Neil Bramsen, Mount Ousley Public School, Wollongong
Prime Minister’s Priz for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools: Brett McKay, Kirrawee High School, Sydney.
Updated
We still don’t know when the high court will return its judgment on the seven MPs facing questions over their eligibility to sit in parliament, but Nick Xenophon was taking no chances, seizing the opportunity to make a valedictory speech overnight.
In typical Xenophon humblebrag style, the South Australian senator said he was not one for valedictories, but he had a few more words to say on a few more topics. Those would be donations reform and the gambling industry.
I do not know when I’ll be making my last speech in the Senate. I hope this won’t be it, because I have a lot to say about many issues affecting my home state of South Australia, but, like others, being part of the ‘citizenship seven’, I am in the hands of the high court – of the wise women and men of the high court. I will be leaving this place, however, one way or the other and sooner rather than later, once that decision is handed down.”
That sent George Brandis running back into the chamber:
I wasn’t proposing to participate in the adjournment debate this evening, but I understand that Senator Xenophon has intimated that may very well have been his last speech to the chamber, depending upon the high court. I suspect this was not your last speech to the chamber, Senator Xenophon, because if it was, you’ve had a complete personality change. The speech has been delivered in a low-profile, unflamboyant, discreet way and there’s not a single journalist or, indeed, photographer in the gallery. So all of the indicators suggest that this isn’t your last speech. But against the possibility that it is, I do want to say to you on behalf of the government, while we do not wish you success in the South Australian election because we in the government are strongly of the view that the election of Steven Marshall as the premier of South Australia is far and away in the best interests of the state of South Australia. Nevertheless, I did want, in the event that this is your last speech, to wish you well in a personal sense on behalf of the government and to thank you for your service in this chamber, which has been very conspicuous and very consequential. We have found that you have agreed with the government more often than you have not agreed with us. But, whether you’ve agreed with us or not, you’ve always dealt with us in a considerate, constructive and collegial manner. May I say to you, Senator Xenophon, on my own personal behalf, that when the day comes that you leave us, I for one will miss you. I don’t think every one of my government colleagues would say the same, but you and I have become friends. I’ve enjoyed our friendship. I hope it will continue and, in a personal sense as well, I wish you all of the best for the future, and I wish you success in the high court as well.”
And then Penny Wong:
I apologise I didn’t quite get here before the leader of the government took his seat, but he hasn’t gone yet. I missed the beginning of your speech, Senator Xenophon, and I know you said ‘maybe’, so I don’t know if this is one of those teasing things that you do: ‘I might agree. I might not agree. I might go. I might not.’ But in the event that the ‘maybe’ is in fact the case: I think I sent you a text, which, as I chided you today, you hadn’t responded to, when you announced you were running in South Australia and I said, ‘I think I can safely say the Senate won’t be the same without you – stay in touch.’ Certainly, we disagree on a range of policy positions; we agree on some. I do appreciate, notwithstanding those differences, that you have dealt with me courteously and with my team courteously, and you have listened to us when we have put a view to you. I particularly remember when in government as finance minister, we had some difficult and personal negotiations on some very big issues, including the NBN and of course the stimulus package. We were very appreciative that we were able to resolve those issues. So, I share Senator Brandis’s distance from your political objectives: he wants Steven Marshall elected and I want the premier re-elected. Obviously, we have a different political perspective, but I do wish you well.”
Senate president Stephen Parry had the last word:
Senator Xenophon, it was a very poor way of exiting if you wanted no fuss; you’ve had some fuss.”
And the Senate was adjourned.
Updated
The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has said the government “remains committed” to its citizenship package, despite the bill being dropped from the Senate notice paper on Wednesday due to opposition from Labor, the Greens and crossbench.
Cormann told ABC News Breakfast the reforms are “very important ... and will keep working with all non-government senators to secure the necessary support”.
Cormann said the government understands it does not have numbers in the Senate but promises to “continue to work with all nongovernment senators to see how we can best secure consensus to ensure we take a step forward”.
He doesn’t list any specific compromises, saying that’s a matter for the immigration minister, Peter Dutton.
Updated
Good morning and welcome to the last sitting day of the week
Energy is still dominating the headlines, with Labor’s support for the Neg now under the microscope.
Labor has been very critical of the process, and has hit out against the lack of modelling and what they are calling an “eight-page policy” but have not ruled out supporting it. That’s what Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg are hoping for, as Labor’s support would not only mean a political win, it will help bring the states, particularly Queensland, South Australia and Victoria on board, which is the easiest way of bringing the Neg into existence. Meanwhile, the Greens say the Neg is worse for renewables than no action. More on that here.
Turnbull was up early, this time talking all things Neg with industry. Katharine Murphy will be able to give us an update on that a little later.
Also floating around today, as the parliamentary sitting week draws to a close, the government has not given up on its citizenship changes, despite the Senate, led by the Greens and Labor, forcing it off the agenda on Wednesday. Peter Dutton made some last-minute overtures to the Nick Xenophon Team to try and keep it in the land of the legislatively living, but no dice. But Mathias Cormann says it will be back.
The communications minister, Mitch Fifield, has been up and about doing his best to defend the need to include “fair and balanced” in the ABC charter, after introducing the changes One Nation wanted in regards to the national broadcaster, in exchange for their support for the media reforms.
Labor is sticking to its no minimum mandatory sentencing policy. The justice minister, Michael Keenan, wants compulsory sentences for convicted child abusers, but Labor has cited concerns within the legal community of unintended consequences – like juries being less likely to convict if judges have no control over the sentence.
A leaked poll conducted by the banking industry has found Nick Xenophon is South Australia’s preferred premier. Xenophon announced earlier this month he plans on resigning from the Senate, no matter what the high court finds in regards to his citizenship, to run for a state seat in the South Australian parliament.
And calls for an inquiry into the casino industry are continuing after Andrew Wilkie tabled allegations of machine tampering and worse in parliament on Wednesday.
So it’s a busy day ahead of us, ahead of estimates and the House sitting next week. The Guardian Australia brains trust will help keep you updated, along with Mike Bowers on the lens and myself. Follow along in the comments or on Twitter (@mpbowers and @amyremeikis) and we’ll do our best to get back to you.
Let’s get started!
Updated
