Good night and good luck
Well it is time to pull up the draw bridge for this parliamentary week. Thank you very much for your company through the madness – you’ve been magnificent.
Let’s wrap Thursday.
- Today was defence white paper day. The government has committed to an $29.9bn increase in defence spending over the next decade, with most of the increased spend backend loaded after the forward estimates.
- The government says the increase is required because Australia faces significant complexity in the strategic outlook – with threats ranging from increased competition between China and America for influence in the region, to terrorism, to cyber attacks, to climate change.
- Labor continued to pursue the government over its various missteps this week about tax. In question time today, the prime minister refused to rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing, suggesting the government is still mulling its options on clawing back concessions, despite this week’s political attack on Labor’s policy.
There was more, but that’s your main course.
Have a lovely weekend, and I’ll be back with all the madness of parliament next week.
A Senate committee has recommended criminalising the unauthorised sharing of intimate images, a practice known colloquially as revenge porn. In a report, it said that law enforcement should be able to prosecute individuals who take images without consent and the owners of websites that publish them. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions noted that existing legislation does not adequately address the problem, which is increasingly being used as a form of domestic violence. Government MPs on the committee broadly accepted the recommendations of the report, but said it was premature, noting that Coag is also looking at the issue.
@murpharoo I make no judgment on Mr Andrews contradicting Mr Andrews analysis, but here is nature enjoying a vacuum. pic.twitter.com/RGaW3G7WiX
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) February 25, 2016
Such a great picture, this.
As we begin to wind down for the afternoon, I need to pay a short but heartfelt tribute to my colleague Daniel Hurst, who leaves our bureau today for a stint overseas. Regular readers of Guardian Australia don’t need me to tell them what a great journalist Daniel is, they know that through the quality of his work. What’s less obvious perhaps is Daniel has been absolutely central to our Canberra operation since he arrived in late 2013. He works like a slave, he’s a team player par excellence, he’s got a mind like a steel trap, he makes a million daily contributions to this blog, most acknowledged, but some completely unacknowledged. Daniel’s lightning fast contributions mostly serve to make me look much sharper than I am. I know Gabrielle Chan will feel exactly the same way, and will want me to make this a joint tribute, with Magic Mikearoo of course. Readers who love this blog and tune in regularly will also, I suspect, be quite happy to join in this salutation as well. So, Daniel, thank you. I don’t know what we’ll do without you, but we wish you only the best for the adventure ahead. Politics Live will miss you, and I will miss you.
Updated
Ah yes, here we go. In June last year, after a story was published by The Australian suggesting Australia was contemplating freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea, here is what the then defence minister’s office said.
A spokeswoman for the defence minister Kevin Andrews:
It is well known by all countries in the region that Australia has been patrolling the South China Sea from the air for over 30 years as part of Operation Gateway. We’ve been doing it on an ongoing basis since 1980 and will continue to in the future as part of Australia’s enduring contribution to the preservation of regional security and stability in South East Asia. The Australian government has not had formal talks with the United States on ‘Freedom of Navigation’ missions in the South China Sea. Minister Andrews has met with Secretary Carter twice and the expansion of current operations or new missions in the South China Sea was not discussed. A safe region means a more safe and secure Australia and we will continue to a have a role in that regard.
(Yes, I know things have moved since then, but still worth pointing this out.)
Go early. Go hard. Kevin Andrews on the South China Sea.
Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.
This burst of profundity is from the former defence minister Kevin Andrews, who has just be interviewed on Sky News. Andrews point this afternoon was essentially a criticism of the US – he basically said a failure of US leadership in the region has led to China becoming more aggressive in the South China Sea.
Andrews now thinks Australia should be conducting freedom of navigation exercises within the 12 mile radius. I don’t recall him suggesting this while he was the defence minister, in fact I have a vague memory of him hosing down a story which suggested the government was contemplating that as a course of action, but you know about vacuums, and how nature abhors them.
Now we are through that session, Zac has a question.
@murpharoo can you explain to me what Turnbull is trying to say about the ALP policy? #qt
— Zac Spitzer (@zackster) February 25, 2016
Let’s step through this bit by bit.
Here’s Labor’s policy.
- Labor will limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July 2017. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered. This will mean that taxpayers will continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their wage income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing. From 1 July 2017 losses from new investments in shares and existing properties can still be used to offset investment income tax liabilities. These losses can also continue to be carried forward to offset the final capital gain on the investment.
Turnbull’s point today was the structure of the policy means wealthy investors will be comparatively less stung than more modest investors. The prime minister was arguing that big investors, people with share portfolios as well as property, would be able still to offset higher net rental losses against their investment income under Labor’s policy. Where a more modest investor, someone with one investment property and no shares, would not be able to claim losses.
I’ll give you one of his answers.
Malcolm Turnbull:
What his policy is very clear about is that net rental losses can be offset against investment income. And the only people with very large – very large levels of investment income are obviously wealthier Australians.
So the consequence would be, as I said earlier, that a person with, say, an income of $90,000 under Labor’s plan would not be able to claim a net rental loss of $10,000, but somebody on a much higher income with, say $50,000 of income from dividends or interest on bonds, investment income, would be able to offset a much higher net rental loss against that.
Now, it’s up to the Labor party to explain why that is good policy, or why that is equitable. But on the face of it, Mr Speaker, I think most Australians would see that –would perceive that as being extremely discriminatory and benefitting disadvantaging the hundreds of thousands of people on middle incomes who are deducting net rental losses, disadvantaging them while leaving the deduction available to those on very high investment incomes.
I hope that helps to clarify the line of argument (which is different to his line of argument earlier in the week.)
The former defence minister Kevin Andrews is out stirring the pot. I need to keep pushing forward.
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper. Let me scope out the landscape and come back shortly.
Over in the Senate, the Indigenous affairs minister, Nigel Scullion, has distanced himself from his Coalition colleague, Dennis Jensen’s comments relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people. As readers may recall, Jensen told parliament Indigenous people wanting to pursue a “noble savage” lifestyle choice should not expect government support. Labor asked Scullion in Senate question time if that view was shared by the minister. In short: no. “In this place those kinds of comments are usually referred to as unhelpful. And no, I do not support his comments in any way,” the minister said.
Faces of question time, part two.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull
Q: In question time today the prime minister said and I quote: “Labor’s policy is so inequitable” ... but on Monday the prime minister described Labor’s negative gearing reforms as: “Soak the rich, politics of envy policy”. Prime minister, who is right? Monday Malcolm or Thursday Malcolm?
Malcolm Turnbull says you are the one with the contradictory policy, Bill.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull.
Q: Prime minister, there are Australians who have invested under current taxation laws with regard to negative gearing. Labor’s negative gearing reforms have guaranteed no retrospectivity. These investors want to know, so I ask again, will the prime minister now rule out his government making any retrospective changes to negative gearing?
Malcolm Turnbull
The government I lead will consider the economic challenges we face, the tax reforms required and do so in a way that will avoid administering the massive shock that the Labor party is proposing.
(So that’s two goes. Nothing ruled out.)
The fact that we have been able to turn Labor’s policy of 1200 people drowning at sea into no-one drowning at sea, the fact that we have been able to turn 800 boats arriving under Labor’s time to no boats effectively under our time.
This is the immigration minister Peter Dutton.
#StopTheBoats #Effectively
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull.
Q: Labor has ruled out retrospective changes to negative gearing. Will the prime minister now also rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing?
Malcolm Turnbull
There is sixteen minutes left in question time and there’s still time for the Labor party to ask a question on the defence white paper. There’s still time for the Labor party to ask a question about national security.
(There’s no answer to the substantive question.)
The faces of question time, by Mike Bowers.
Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull.
Q: Does the prime minister think that it’s fair that under government policy surgeons get 100 times the tax benefits from negative gearing that hospital orderlies do?
The assistant treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer leaps to her feet to furnish a piece of paper for the prime minister.
Chris Bowen:
What could possibly go wrong?
Speaker Tony Smith:
The Member for for McMahon could be ejected. That’s what could go wrong.
Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce, on the perils up north.
It is absolutely apparent and has been that we make sure that the north of our nation is defended if we want to protect the south. It is apparent that the north of our nation is the point of embarkation. We remember around 7,000 service personnel who were killed during the Second World War in the engagement especially in New Guinea, Papua New Guinea. I’m sure we are going to pay that the due respect it is worth. Also the embarkation to other places such as the Solomons. What’s so important about the history of it, of course, is that it focuses our minds on the future and what we need to do and why this defence white paper is so vitally important.
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull.
Q: I refer to his claim that all investors will leave the property market under Labor’s negative gearing reforms. So why when speaking about negative gearing did a treasury official give evidence to a parliamentary hearing, and I quote: “Investor behaviour is not driven by tax treatment”.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I note the Honourable Member’s question and I just refer him to his own policy document which states that the combination of the capital gains discount and negative gearing, so it asserts, has led to over investment in loss-making investments on existing property.
So I’m intrigued that he’s taken an interest in the quote from the treasury official, but it’s entirely at odds with his own policy document.
Back to strong on the seas, under the seas, in the skies, and because our speaker is Christopher Pyne, strong on industry policy in South Australia. Today is a good day, Pyne notes.
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull.
Q: I refer to the prime minister’s claim that all investors would leave the property market under Labor’s negative gearing reforms. What is the prime minister’s response to treasury evidence before a parliamentary committee in relation to negative gearing, and I quote: “I do not see investor behaviour as being solely driven by tax treatment. It is just one factor inside all of the decision-making processes”.
The prime minister ignores treasury and sticks to his own analysis.
What the Labor party’s policy means is that even an investor, even an investor who had no gearing at all, who is debt-free, if they suffered a net rental loss, that is to say their outgoings on the property, rates and repairs and utilities, were greater than the rent, they would not be able to offset that loss against their personal income.
So that would mean that any investor in a property runs the risk of that they would not be able to offset any loss on that property at all ever against their personal income.
That is a massive disincentive.
Clive Palmer, to Malcolm Turnbull.
Q: As Australia’s third oldest prime minister, if you are still prime minister after the election, will you serve a full term in parliament or retire to your unit in New York and do a switch with a Member for Warringah, sustaining yourself with innovation and growth opportunities, your investments have provided for the people of the Cayman Islands? It’s never been amore exciting time to be a Cayman Islander. Are you a seat warmer?
Malcolm Turnbull.
I thank the Honourable Member for his question. If he hadn’t found it so amusing as to be laughing right through it, we might have been able to hear most of it.
Nonetheless, I gather the Honourable Member is inquiring about my health and I thank him for his interest and I can assure you, I’m in the very best of form.
The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen to Turnbull.
Q: Yesterday when speaking about Labor’s negative gearing reforms, the prime minister claimed and I quote: “They are proposing to remove from the market for established dwellings one-third of demand. All investors would be gone.” Is the prime minister aware that in the US, where negative gearing is not allowed, more than 30% of the housing stock is owned by investors?
Turnbull is working through the shadow minister’s policy.
Under the shadow minister’s policy, somebody on a wage of a quarter of a million dollars, who had net rental losses of $50,000, but also had $50,000 worth of, for example, dividends, unfranked share dividends, could offset that net rental loss against his or her share income against their investment income. They’d be able to do that.
But a middle income family, Mr Speaker, with a net rental loss of only $10,000 would not be able to deduct those losses against an income of $90,000 in salary and wages.
So that’s Labor.
Back to being powerful in the skies on the seas under the seas, with a girt by sea reference thrown in for good measure.
Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, to Turnbull.
Q: My question is to the prime minister. Three months ago this very day, the prime minister said, and I quote: “My government is undertaking a significant reform agenda”. Given we now know the prime minister has abandoned reform and resorted to Abbott government style scare campaigns, isn’t it the case that the prime minister has now taken on every characteristic he criticised the former prime minister for?
Malcolm Turnbull, down in the jowls.
I think we can say without any doubt that the Member for Sydney has abandoned every characteristic of a shadow foreign minister.
Just something to note in passing, over the past couple of days, the prime minister has slowed down his vocal delivery in the House. After punching up at the opening of the week, now he’s right down in the jowls. He’s trying to project gravitas rather than aggression. Just a small vocal affect. Not Watergate, but interesting.
Predictably, the first Dorothy Dixer is about being more powerful in the skies, on the seas, and under the seas.
Question time
Rightio here is the final hour of glower for the week. Bill Shorten is opening on Malcolm Turnbull’s lack of economic leadership. The prime minister says hang on, no questions on the defence white paper?
Malcolm Turnbull:
They (Labor) rendered Australia less safe, and yet, on this day, when such an important announcement is made, such an important announcement is made, the opposition has no questions on the defence white paper. They have no concern about Australia’s national security.
Just as we roll into question time, a clip from earlier this morning of the Green MP Adam Bandt talking about the safe schools program. Bandt sees the debate over the past couple of days between conservatives and progressives as a harbinger of the sorts of views that will be expressed during the marriage equality plebiscite. Pop on your crash helmets people, is his message. This will get ugly.
Meanwhile, with an election in the offing, never let the grass grow under your feet. South Australian minister, Christopher Pyne.
— Christopher Pyne (@cpyne) February 25, 2016
Stephen Conroy whacks China over the South China Sea
Conroy – who is a champion of Australia’s alliance with the US – is very pleased to see the white paper’s emphasis on America as our most important strategic partner. Very pleased. Then there is China. Not pleased. Not pleased at all.
Labor strongly supports the peaceful rise of China. Labor does not believe that China’s rise will lead to an inevitable choice between Australia’s alliance with the US and the growing relationship with China.
It’s important to acknowledge that our relationships with both differ.
Our relationship with the US is long and deep, and our relationship with modern China is only just developing. We can expect China to want a greater say in existing global and regional arrangements and institutions and to promote new arrangements and institutions which reflect its interests.
But trust and confidence will require China to demonstrate a commitment to supporting the international system of laws and norms from which both our countries have directly benefitted.
It is critical that Australia continues its diplomatic efforts to encourage a peaceful resolution to the disputes in the South China Sea. And Australia is entitled to operate anywhere in the world in accordance with international law and norms and specifically the UN convention of the law of the sea. And our defence force should be authorised to conduct freedom of navigation operations consistent with international law.
The details of operational activities conducted by our defence force are, of course, a matter for military planners, not politicians, and given that the chief of defence force has confirmed that the ADF is not authorised to conduct freedom of navigation operations, the Turnbull government should just come clean about what its policy in the region really is.
The militarisation in the South China Sea does not contribute to the deescalation of tensions in the region. Just yesterday we have confirmed that China now have aircraft on Woody Island and I would call on the government, the minister for foreign affairs to call the Chinese ambassador in and ask them what is going on.
What explanation is there for this activity?
Shadow defence minister Stephen Conroy is welcoming the white paper (even if he can’t resist a dig on the way through, noting the release of the document today by the government is tactical, to snuff out the controversy over its tax policy.)
Stephen Conroy:
Based on our initial review and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we are broadly supportive of the defence white paper. We welcome its strong support for our alliance with the US as the foundation of our national security and defence arrangements.
We also welcome its focus on increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific region, building on the pioneering work of Labor’s defence white papers in 2009 and 2013. We also support in-principle the government’s decision to deliver on its promise of raising defence funding to 2% of GDP, although we do intend to examine that in detail, and we also note that one of the reasons they have been able to do this is they’ve actually shrunk the economy.
There’s a but. Conroy says this white paper does not commit to building submarines in Australia, which was an election promise.
(The government) has refused to re-open the supply ship tender for Australian companies to compete , despite not making a decision about that very tender for over 20 months, and it has walked away from Tony Abbott’s promise to build the first few offshore patrol vessels in SA, putting at risk another 1300 jobs.
Picking up Whish-Wilson’s point about an “obscene” amount of money, Laura Tingle from the Australian Financial Review points out this white paper breaks the link between future defence spending and economic growth.
Significantly, the white paper seeks to break the link between defence spending and GDP, saying that while the spend has been estimated on the 2 per cent base, the actual spending figures will now be a firm commitment, no matter what happens to economic growth.
That’s a hooley dooley moment, that one – particularly when we think of the current state of the budget. If you feel slightly faint, do sit down before you fall down.
Back into the swim, the Greens defence spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson on the white paper:
We are spending an obscene amount of money, hundreds and billions of dollars on a grandiose vision for a future arms race without any detail at all in this document about a change to the threat level.
Why are we escalating our military expenditure when there is no evidence at all that the threat in our region warrants this?
(No evidence at all seems a rather strong statement to me.)
Quick summary el desko
While we can, let’s take stock of the morning.
- The military will get a $30bn funding boost courtesy of a new defence white paper that argues the increased spend is necessary to deal with multifactorial security threats. The prime minister has conceded this spend will impact plans to return the federal budget to surplus. In a press conference after the release of the white paper Malcolm Turnbull didn’t seem entirely clear where the cash would come from beyond the budget outyears.
- Additionally to matters military, Bill Shorten has indicated he has no regrets about calling Cory Bernardi a homophobe, and a Liberal backbencher Luke Simpkins has told parliament he’ never met a homophobe. Just for the record.
Onwards, upwards.
Updated
One more question about cybersecurity, and then it’s over and out at defence.
The prime minister is asked whether the big spend will delay the return to surplus. He suggests if it does delay the return to surplus it will be worth it because this is about Australia’s security.
Tory Shepherd from the Adelaide Advertiser invokes the phrase brain fart to inquire how the government came up with the number twelve for submarines. The defence minister professes surprise that this question is coming from Shepherd, given her editor “would be keen to have twelve if my recollection’s correct.”
(Naughty Tory, where’s your parochialism.)
Seven network reporter Tim Lester is persisting on the sustainment costs of the submarines. Is he correct in believing defence doesn’t yet know what the sustainment costs are on a $50bn tender?
The chief of the defence force says the government doesn’t need to know those yet because this is outside the current forward estimates.
CDF Mark Binskin
I won’t give you the ball park figure, but you’re talking about a fleet of 12 submarines, so it’s not going to be a tiny figure, just in commonsense.
Q: In commonsense you’d have a figure somewhere on your desk – you don’t spend $50bn unless you’ve got some idea?
Binskin:
We’ll let the CEP (competitive evaluation process) sort out the sustainment costs. It will be a factor in the decision of what boat we go with.
Q: Generally the rule of thumb is sustainment is two-thirds of the cost of a program - does that rule of thumb not apply?
Binskin:
I don’t know boats, I know aeroplanes.
Marise Payne gets asked whether the government is now trending towards building submarines in Australia.
We are not going to pre-empt in any way, we are not pre-empting in any way the outcome of the competitive evaluation process at this stage. What we have clearly indicated and what the continuous build of the offshore patrol vessels and future frigates indicates is a massive investment in Australian industry, in Australian people.
Q: The document talks about the delicate balance between China and the US relationship and it also talks about Australia’s interest in upholding freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. In that context, would Australia’s interest be served by Australia looking at a freedom of navigation operation within the 12 nautical miles?
Malcolm Turnbull:
We support and practice freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, but we are not going to canvass forecast future ADF operations.
Q: It’s all on the table?
It may be on your table, but we are not going to canvass or forecast future ADF operations.
Here’s the press conference. First question – great, but where’s the cash coming from?
Q: By 2025-26 you’re looking at an annual increase in funding of $7.2bn ... and this is a slightly glamorous way of saying where’s the money coming from? Isn’t that positively Gonski-esque increases in the longer term?
Malcolm Turnbull says he’s not going to get into tin tacks of spending way way out in the future.
Q: Those ten budget bottom lines you’ve given us on the table in the book for 10 years, are they aspirations, or can we come back each year to a Turnbull government, check the May budget figure on defence and say: “Well hang on, you haven’t met it.” Can we hold you to that commitment?
Malcolm Turnbull:
You certainly can hold us to that commitment and this is a fully costed plan. This is a fully costed plan, but there is not, that’s not the end of the work. Now it has to be implemented and it has to be implemented with the most rigorous financial discipline.
A few more pictures.
I’m still digesting all this content. There’s a press conference coming up shortly with the prime minister and the defence minister.
Boiling down, through the locutions of the prime minister.
Malcolm Turnbull:
These are momentous times. The stakes are high and as the opportunities expand, so does the cost of losing them. A stronger Australia supports a safer Australia, a safer region and a safer world.
That’s quite a lot of content to process. Let’s boil it down slightly.
Basically the argument from the white paper is we need to spend more on defence because of the complex nature of the threat. We need to muscle up in the region at least in part because of the ongoing and periodically fractious competition between the great 20th century power, the United States, and the 21st century power, China. We need to be in a position to assert influence during this historic regional alignment – as well as deal with a complex range of specific threats ranging from terrorism to cyber attacks to conventional conflicts. That’s basically the story the document tells, with digressions into submarines, planes, bombs and the like.
Marise Payne has stepped through several elements of the white paper, including a big chunk addressing the links between the military and industry. She then walks around to culture. The strength of defence’s leadership and is based on its ability to adapt and embrace a more inclusive culture, Payne notes.
Marise Payne:
We have to take advantage of the full range of skills available to us across the breadth of the Australian community if we are to fully embrace the opportunities available to us in the future. Defence has done some significant work to remove barriers to progression and to facilitiate greater development opportunities for women, for indigenous Australians, for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in both the ADF and the civilian work force. But there is still much more that we can and must do. Defence must represent the community it protects and from which it recruits.
A few pictures from over at defence HQ.
A bit more drilling down into the document. The white paper sets out six key drivers of Australia’s security environment, including the relationship between the US and China, challenges to the stability of the rules-based global order, the growing threat from terrorism, the fragility of some states in the immediate neighbourhood, and increasing cyberspace threats. The Australian Signals Directorate detected more than 1,200 cyber security incidents in 2015, including attacks on government agencies and non-government sectors, according to the white paper.
The document also specifically refers to climate change as “a major challenge” for Australia’s Pacific neighbours, which would contribute to food shortages and extreme weather events to which Australia would be called on to respond.
The white paper says while “there is no more than a remote chance of a military attack on Australian territory by another country”, Australia cannot be complacent and must be prepared to respond quickly and effectively when its interests are threatened, either by countries or non-state actors like terrorists.
It says terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere show groups continue to have the willingness and ability to launch attacks anywhere. “We can expect greater uncertainty in Australia’s strategic environment over the next two decades as a consequence of: the changes in the distribution of power in the Indo-Pacific and globally; the continuing threat of terrorism from groups like Daesh and from foreign terrorist fighters; the modernisation of regional military capabilities; the introduction of new military technologies such as cyber systems; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology.”
Like previous white papers, the document says the relationship between the US and China will be the most strategically important factor in the security and economic development of the Indo-Pacific in coming decades. It notes China’s navy is now the largest in Asia - and is likely to have 70 submarines by 2020 - while the country also has the largest air force in Asia. Within two decades, half of the world’s submarines will be operating in the Indo-Pacific and at least half of the world’s advanced combat aircraft will be operated by countries in the region. “As China grows, it will continue to seek greater influence within the region. As a major power, it will be important for regional stability that China provides reassurance to its neighbours by being more transparent about its defence policies,” the document says.
“The relationship between the United States and China is likely to be characterised by a mixture of cooperation and competition depending on where and how their interests intersect … While major conflict between the United States and China is unlikely, there are a number of points of friction in the region in which differences between the United States and China could generate rising tensions. These points of friction include the East China and South China Seas, the airspace above those seas, and in the rules that govern international behaviour, particularly in the cyber and space domains.”
The US, which is rebalancing its focus towards the region, would “continue to be Australia’s most important strategic partner”.
Australia welcomed China’s economic growth and said the government would “seek to deepen and broaden our important defence relationship with China while recognising that our strategic interests may differ in relation to some regional and global security issues”.
The document says competing claims for territory and natural resources in South East Asia will “continue to provide a potential source of tensions that could undermine stability”. “This combination of competing territorial claims and growth in military capability has the potential to destabilise the region and threaten Australia’s interests,” it says.
The document says while Australia does not take sides on competing territorial claims in the South China Sea, it was concerned that land reclamation and construction activity raises tension in the region. “Australia opposes the use of artificial structures in the South China Sea for military purposes.”
The defence minister Marise Payne is making her contribution now. Here’s her language on the regional outlook.
As the prime minister outlined over the next two decades Australia will likely face a more complex strategic environment, with the ongoing threat of terrorism from groups like Daesh and foreign terrorist fighters, and the growing shift in economic and strategic power to the Indo Pacific.
As an open trade-based economy, Australia relies on a stable and secure region. Our security and prosperity depends on a stable Indo Pacific region and a rules-based global order in which power is not misused and tensions can be managed through negotiations based on international law.
To achieve this, our defence force must continue to have a leadership role in our immediate region, comprising Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and Pacific island countries.
Turnbull goes through the acquisitions of equipment and upgrades in technology. He notes the importance of the military having agility.
He rounds out in this way.
These are momentous times. The stakes are high. And as the opportunities expand, so does the cost of losing them.
A stronger Australia supports a safer Australia, a safer region and a safer world.
This white paper supports every element of my government’s plan to support and secure our 21st century economy, investment, innovation, science, security, a safe, secure and prosperous Australia for our children and our grandchildren and generations yet unborn.
A bit more on that rationale. And climate change, look it’s there! The phenomenon that dare not speak its name.
Malcolm Turnbull:
My government is committed to this significant increase in spending for two reasons – first, we recognise that Australia’s strategic environment is the most dynamic and challenging one that we have faced in peace time.
We are also susceptible to the potential threats of conflict, climate change, malicious cyber activists, pandemic disease and transnational terrorism.
As the range and nature of the challenges evolves, so must the way our ADF responds.
The rationale for increased defence spending.
Malcolm Turnbull:
We will continue to be a constructive and influential player in the regional strategic environment and beyond. We need to have the capacity to deter and defeat threats to Australia. And we have to be able to make more effective contributions to international coalitions that secure our interests and strengthen the rules-based global order upon which our prosperity depends.
To achieve all of these goals we must be prepared to adequately fund our defence effort.
On terrorism.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Ongoing turbulence and state fragility in the Middle East and west Asia will continue to be a threat to Australia’s and the region’s security. The proliferation of terrorist threat sources, some of them home grown, many of them enlisted via the Internet, will require sustained effort both within Australia and elsewhere to limit the freedom of terrorist groups to operate and as we seek to undermine their narrative of hate.
Turnbull sets the scene for the region – noting the rapid economic transformations underway in China and India and in South East Asia. Various forces will require careful balancing, he notes. I think we know what he’s talking about.
Malcolm Turnbull:
We would be concerned if the competition for influence and the growth in military capability were to lead to instability and threaten Australia’s interests, whether in the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula or further afield.
We have a strong, vital, vested interest in the maintenance of peace, stability and respect for the rule of law the divisions we take now will impact on our defence capability and outlook for decades to come.
Now, a section of the speech where Australia looks to America. And China. And Indonesia.
Malcolm Turnbull:
The United States will remain the pre-eminent global military power. It will continue to play a vital role in the peace and prosperity of the Asia Pacific, just as it has done for almost three-quarters of a century since the Second World War.
The relationship between the United States and China will be critically important. We welcome China’s rise.
We will seek to build on our already strong military ties with Indonesia, that vibrant, stable democracy to our north. As president Joko Widodo often remarks that Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, proves that Islam is compatible with democracy, tolerance, and freedom.
On submarines – how much Australian involvement in the project.
Malcolm Turnbull:
We will ensure the Australian submarine involvement is sustainable over the longer term by building a new force of 12 regionally superior submarines, doubling the size of our current fleet. And just as innovation is going to help create the modern, dynamic 21st century economy Australia needs, it will help develop the technologies that will provide our ADF with a leading edge.
It is a program that ensures that much more of the development of our defence technologies is done here in Australia.
The prime minister is addressing reporters now over at defence HQ. Malcolm Turnbull opens by giving a shout out to the defence ministers who have contributed to the paper (there’s been a few), and to Tony Abbott. I don’t know if Abbott can hear him or whether he is already in Japan, preparing to make his globally significant intervention® on naval exercises in the South China Sea.
Malcolm Turnbull:
This white paper is a plan to deliver amore potent and agile and engaged defence force that is ready to respond whenever our interests are threatened or our help is needed.
Australia will increase its annual defence spending by $26bn over the next decade amid concerns about the increasing pace of military modernisation to its north, regional tensions and the continuing threat of terrorism.
The Turnbull government’s defence white paper raises concerns about “a number of points of friction” including differences between China and the United States over the South China Sea, and calls on China to be “more transparent” about its defence policies.
The document, which spells out Australia’s assessment of global threats and outlines its own defence plans, commits the government to buying 12 new submarines and fulfilling a pledge to increase defend spending to 2% of gross domestic product.
It says total funding, including operations, will rise from $32.4bn in 2016-17 to $58.7bn in 2025-26.
Updated
White paper: quick key points
The embargo has been lifted now on the defence white paper. My colleague Daniel Hurst is at the briefing and will file shortly. Here’s some quick main points.
- The government will increase defence spending by $29.9bn over the next decade.
- The government says it has also set “a new benchmark for transparency and funding certainty by releasing an integrated investment program and defence industry policy statement.”
- The paper promises a continuous naval shipbuilding program commencing with nine future frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels.
- Twelve new regionally-superior submarines, with a commitment “to maximise Australian industry involvement in acquisition and sustainment, to be finalised through the Competitive Evaluation Process.”
- Enhanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, space, electronic warfare and cyber capabilities.
- Advanced training, modern equipment, health care and logistics systems to support ADF personnel.
- Comprehensive upgrades to defence infrastructure across Australia to support our larger future force, including key bases, training and testing ranges and fuel and explosive ordnance facilities.
- Modernised information management, operational communications, and command and control systems.
Endorsement from the Australian Christian Lobby for Luke “I’ve never met a homophobe” Simpkins.
Just caught the end of an excellent speech by WA MP Luke Simpkins. He said Safe Schools was actual bullying kids with heterosexual views.
— Lyle Shelton (@LyleShelton) February 24, 2016
Nikki Sava, columnist for The Australian, has this morning compared Bill Shorten to John Hewson – which I confess was an idea I had rolling around in my mind yesterday. I didn’t pursue it in the end because my view was Labor’s negative gearing policy is not Fightback, which was a much more wide-ranging policy manifesto, but I do know what she means, and I think the proposition is worth thinking about.
Sava notes in the excitement over an opposition leader producing a bold policy, “too few people have bothered to ask if it’s the right one.”
They will, though, and once they do it could prove a very unhappy time for the opposition leader, particularly if the penny drops during the election campaign. Labor was clever to release its policy to pare back negative gearing when it did, taking advantage of the vacuum left by the government, but the gushing that has accompanied it brought back memories of the last time an opposition produced a comprehensive tax policy. That soared like a rocket, too, before it ended up like the Challenger disaster for John Hewson.
The Hewson case study is clearly in the mind of the Turnbull brains trust, not unreasonably. Whether they can whip Labor’s policy into Fightback by hammering housingaggedon remains to be seen. Early signs aren’t promising. The messaging right now lacks precision, to put it politely. Also, to deliver the deadly torpedo, I suspect you might have to be Paul Keating or Tony Abbott. Turnbull’s great strength as a politician is charm and ebullience, not violence and aggression.
But Nikki has a point, which is why I’m sharing her analysis.
Interested in thoughts. I’ll try and get below the line in a bit if I can.
On our mystery Cory Bernardi URL.
@murpharoo Here's how to find who is behind the Cory Barnardi site https://t.co/yGbZe6CpM0
— Damien Larkins (@mrdlark) February 24, 2016
"I did in five seconds what Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t done in five months."
The Labor leader Bill Shorten is out this morning at a primary school and is talking to reporters now. Currently the questions are about safe schools.
Q: Is it rich to talk about a bully-free environment and you have displayed that by bullying Cory Bernardi in a sense?
(In case you missed what Mike and I termed the drive by slagging yesterday, Shorten was sledged by Cory Bernardi yesterday at a press conference. Bernardi, who was walking past, called Shorten a fraud. Shorten retorted that at least he wasn’t a homophobe. This development has prompted the question about bullying.)
Bill Shorten:
I don’t know if you were at the press conference yesterday, were you?
Reporter:
No.
Bill Shorten:
I just wanted to check because then I could understand why you asked the question. Speak to your colleagues who were there. When you have a Senator walking past acting like he is at the football yelling out free advice at a press conference and he has a sook about someone standing up to him. I did in five seconds what Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t done in five months.
Q: Do you regret the language that you used?
I regret that the government is cutting programs to make the lives of teenage kids so much harder and that the Liberal party is spending so much time on this issue.
One more for the parallel universe. Liberal MP Luke Simpkins has told parliament this morning he’s never met a homophobe.
I have never met anyone that displays an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuality. I have an army background and a sporting background and never have I met anyone who has such fears.
I’m not sure if this observation follows extensive field research (hi, George, something I’ve been meaning to ask you, are you a homophobe?), or whether this is merely a feeling Simpkins has.
Rainbow Cory
Speaking of parallel universes, a friend of the blog has brought this to my attention.
A website has turned up http://www.corybernardi.com.au/ which as you’ll see when you click through, is decorated with a rainbow flag, a love heart, and the tagline: Compassion Lives Here.
Either Cory is growing his brand, or some bandit of the internet has snapped up the URL for future use. If any readers can shed light on this development, give me a shout. Until then, peace.
Readers who have been with us all week know that in the magical parallel universe that is #BrickParliament, the treasurer Scott Morrison (AKA Captain Cronulla) has been on the hunt for unicorns and pixie horses. Captain Cronulla’s quest for mythical creatures (and a tax policy) remains ongoing.
While he journeys towards aquarius, the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the assistant treasurer, Kelly O’Dwyer, have been attempting to explain whether house prices will go up or down as a consequence of Labor’s negative gearing policies.
A small amount of confusion has ensued.
Up and down. Down and down. Up and up. Then an unfortunate inversion.
Down, down, prices are down. Up and up and up. As they say in the classics: #YouDecide.
Updated
There’s also a fight brewing today about the appointment of the Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic as chair of the parliament’s joint intelligence committee. Liberal Dan Tehan has left the chairmanship of the committee courtesy of the fact he’s been promoted to a junior ministry in the recent reshuffle.
Nikolic is a pugnacious sort, and some of his colleagues find him ... how can I say this politely ... abrasive?
Labor has responded to news of Nikolic’s elevation with a certain amount of alarm. The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, has gone as far as saying bipartisanship on national security is at risk courtesy of the appointment.
Mark Dreyfus:
Bipartisanship is put at risk by Mr Nikolic who has made his political career out of being a highly partisan, highly aggressive battler for extreme rightwing views.
Updated
Still on Safe Schools, my colleague Shalailah Medhora reports this morning that only one school has pulled out of the program as a result of pressure from concerned parents, according to the program’s organisers, despite the campaign from conservatives, who invoke negative parental attitudes as justification for their objections.
Updated
The debate about the Safe Schools program is continuing to rumble at the margins of national politics. If you haven’t been particularly tuned in this week, let me summarise: various socially conservative figures in the government object to the program (which aims to prevent LGBTI kids being bullied or harassed) on the basis that it imposes rainbow ideology on the innocents of Australia. Their collective foot-stamping has resulted in the government agreeing to review the program.
It’s not only conservatives in the government. Labor senator Joe Bullock has told the Australian the program should be immediately “stopped”.
I think it’s a terrible program … while bullying is an important issue particularly among young people … this program is so narrowly focused on homosexual issues that it doesn’t provide the sort of balance one would hope.
Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong has given Bullock the side eye on Radio National this morning.
I don’t agree with Joe and the Labor party doesn’t agree with Joe on this. This is a Labor program, we funded it in government, it’s a program that is designed to address the terrifying statistics of self-harm, of abuse, of discrimination and of bullying of same-sex-attracted and transgender young kids.
Whatever your particular views about issues such as marriage equality and so forth, surely no one in this country thinks that it is appropriate for children to continue to be bullied and this is a program about lessening that.
Updated
To a couple of other issues now. Peter Martin from Fairfax Media has written this morning about the government’s thinking on its tax options.
Peter says on negative gearing, the government is mulling imposing caps on the dollar amount of losses claimable. (The treasurer, Scott Morrison has flagged this publicly in a column he wrote for one of the Sunday tabloids a couple of weekend ago, a column that said Labor was deeply wicked for going after negative gearing concessions but noting the government wasn’t ruling out acting itself in this space.)
Liberal Senator Zed Seselja is on Sky News at the moment. He’s sounding less than enthused about this idea.
I guess I’d want to know what the policy rationale for such a cap would be.
Labor has grabbed this report this morning, arguing a change like that would be retrospective (unlike Labor’s which only impacts housing investments after mid 2017). It would impact existing investments. Labor says the government must immediately rule out any negative gearing change that would have retrospective effect.
We did not just brief the Chinese. Repeat. We did not just brief the Chinese.
Marise Payne:
The role of our department in producing a new white paper is to most definitely talk it through with our nearest neighbours and our close partners and allies so not just China but Indonesia, Japan, with our colleagues elsewhere in the region, with the United States, with the United Kingdom, with New Zealand.
All of those discussions have been had and by no means confined to China.
Updated
Q: What’s this white paper going to tell us about our relationship with China?
Marise Payne:
Well, I think you will find that it’s very consistent with the views that senior members of the government have been expressing in recent times. We obviously have a very, very valuable relationship with China. At the same time, though, and I did hear the secretary of my department briefly before we began this interview, at the moment, though, we are very clear in making our views known and openly known to China and to other claimants of locations in the South China Sea that we don’t support that sort of activity and behaviour. We don’t support their unilateral declarations about which particular (outcrop) belongs to them or someone else. So we would much rather see a code of conduct adopted in that area. We would much rather see a much more cooperative approach, and we will also be continuing to say that Australia has consistently and strongly supported freedom of overflight and freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, and we will continue to say that.
Q: And should we be doing more, should we be actually joining with the US and conducting a formal freedom of navigation exercise in the South China Sea, which is something I understand Tony Abbott is going to suggest in a speech in Japan this weekend?
Those are definitely matters for government, and I’ve made – also made it very clear that I don’t intend to make public comment on the potential future activities of the ADF in that regard.
Q: It’s an increasingly delicate dance with the Chinese, you would have to concede that?
It’s a very complex environment. Absolutely no doubt about that. And one in which we remain consistent in our views and also consistent in acknowledging the strength of our relationship with China.
Q: Why was it necessary, then, to send a senior defence official to Beijing to brief Chinese on what was coming in this white paper? That suggests that delicate dance is particularly difficult at the moment?
I don’t think that’s anywhere close to being accurate, to be frank.
The defence minister Marise Payne is speaking to to Michael Brissenden on the ABC’s AM program about the white paper. She’s contested one report that suggested the government would recruit an additional 5,000 military personnel. She says the new troops number is 2,500.
Brissenden says how about these submarines? Will they be built in Australia? Payne says the submissions from the international bidders are in and three approaches are covered: an international build, a hybrid build and a domestic build.
Marise Payne:
The competitive evaluation process is being considered now by officials, by experts within defence, and we’ll get their advice in due course and the government will announce its decision then.
Top of the morning to you
Good morning good people and welcome to Thursday, the final sitting day in this parliamentary week. I hope you’ve all polished your tin hats because today is defence white paper day.
If all the previews are correct, today we’ll see the Turnbull government commit to building 12 new submarines, fund both the Joint Strike Fighter and new armoured vehicles, boost defence funding, and recruit a big whack of new military personnel.
We’ll also see the official language characterising our current strategic assessment of China’s posture in the region, and in the hot zone of the South China Sea. The Australian reports this morning a senior Australian defence official “was dispatched to brief Beijing on the concerns raised in Australia’s new defence white paper about escalating tensions in the South China Sea.” No surprises is generally a sound principle when dealing with periodically tetchy neighbours.
It has been one of those messy political weeks where as well as the stumbles and missteps, there’s been a fair lick of ‘look at moi.’
The hat tip to the foxy ladies from Fountain Lakes leads me, inexorably, to The Australian, once again. Sticking with the defence theme, the national broadsheet also informs us this morning that Australia’s former prime minister Tony Abbott will call tomorrow (Friday) for Australia to join America in conducting formal freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea.
The Australian’s Greg Sheridan characterises this planned speech in Tokyo (take that, China) as “an international blow for China.” Why, you ask, are Tony Abbott’s feels on naval exercises with the US an international blow? Because “in office, (Abbott) was not a reflexive backer of all aspects of US policy in Asia.”
Speaking of non-reflexive backing, today’s comments thread is now open for you business. Last day of the week, so get into it.
The Magic Mikearoo is currently chasing the defence minister down the corridor weighed down by 26kg of camera equipment – but he’s smiling like he’s auditioning for a Colgate commercial, such is his irrepressible love of life. If you want to send him messages of support you can find him at @mpbowers – and I’m @murpharoo
Smile, though your heart may be aching. The open the bomb bay doors. Here comes Thursday.
.png?w=600)
