Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Katharine Murphy

'I’m making no claims prices will come down': Labor's mixed message on negative gearing – politics live

Chris Bowen
Labor’s policy is badged a housing affordability policy. Which would seem to imply downward pressure on house prices. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Good night and good luck

Let’s put down the blinds on Monday by reviewing the political day as it was.

  • An Ipsos poll showed the government ahead on the two party preferred measure, but Malcolm Turnbull’s approval slipping. The poll also suggested the tax reform debate is still open to acts of suasion.
  • Another poll suggested Barnaby Joyce was facing a battle to hold his seat of New England, which is probably a helpful thought for him to throw into the mix right now, and the deputy prime minister made sure no-one missed the grim news by having an early press conference to nudge the good people of Tamworth into wakefulness.
  • The treasurer Scott Morrison thought the budget would happen on budget day as opposed to the week before.
  • The Greens leader Richard Di Natale thought he wouldn’t support Ricky Muir’s attempt to bring on the ABCC bill because this week is supposed to be Senate voting reform week not ABCC week.
  • Labor thought it would tell us tomorrow whether it will support Muir’s procedural throw down on the ABCC, and attempted to change the subject by asking whether or not the Greens would gag the Senate voting reform debate at approximately 4.30am on Friday morning.
  • The shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said Labor’s policy to make housing more affordable would not lead to a drop in house prices. I suspect we’ll hear more about this as the week progresses.
  • Stephen Smith launched what looked to be a quite strange bid to lead Labor in WA, when he isn’t even in the WA parliament. Really quite unfathomable.
  • Liberal Eric Abetz declared his party should not enter into a preference arrangement with the Greens in Victoria because Menzies would be unhappy. The Greens said Liberals won’t get their preferences but if the Liberals wanted to send preferences their way, then why sweat the small stuff.

That was Monday. It was civilised. I suspect tomorrow will be less civilised.

Do tune in then.

That was a terrific little experiment, thank you for it. I’ll post a summary next and that will be Monday, I think.

Let’s end reader’s question time on this fine note.

KM: Unknown.

From the thread, Vincentwaslean.

Q: Leaving aside your hopes regarding PwC and its costings, given that a possible ‘yes’ plebiscite result isn’t binding and, because Australia will only have a plebiscite if the Coalition gains re-election and decides to hold one, legislation in relation to ME will still need to be introduced to Parliament and passed and then given a start date, how is that money - whether $160 million or $525 million - well spent, in your opinion?

KM: If I was a politician I wouldn’t have gone down the plebiscite route, I would have simply done my job in a representative democracy, which is legislate. Unfortunately that hasn’t happened. Of course a plebiscite is ridiculously expensive. Why would anyone opt for that if there was a choice? But fact is that’s where we have landed. I also think it’s possible that a yes vote in the plebiscite (assuming it’s yes) will make legislating for marriage equality actually happen, as opposed to not happen, which is what we’ve seen for the last several years. I might be wrong, but that’s my view.

KM: The media silence on the budget deficit is pretty noisy where I sit, Mary Jane.

Back to readers now for a bit.

Andrew Geddes, via Facebook.

Q: Has there been a change in parliamentary pension entitlements or the way that they are paid that makes it advantageous to retire at this election rather than afterwards?

KM: Nope, nope, nope.

KM: My first response to this question is to laugh. Then I remember that is post traumatic stress, rather than a helpful answer to your question. Bizarrely, political consensus in Australia could be possible over the next few years. It depends on the outcome of the election. With my prediction hat on, I’d say this: if Turnbull wins the election, he’ll try to use the 2017 review of direct action to transform that policy into a baseline and credit scheme (which is a form of carbon trading). That act will provoke a fight in the Coalition partyroom, but if he prevails, my gut feeling is Labor would fall into line behind that scheme rather than continue to advocate for a brand new emissions trading scheme. I suspect Labor would do this on the basis that there’s got to be some certainty in energy policy. So consensus is actually possible on one, not insane, working scenario, but you can see how delicately balanced that scenario is. Watch this space.

Negative gearing: Labor's mixed message

Back to live mode for a bit. The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, is getting the rounds of the kitchen on Sky News this afternoon about the opposition’s tax policy.

Sky News political editor, David Speers, has a bunch of questions about the negative gearing proposal. Can you negatively gear a knock-down and rebuilt property? Bowen says yes, if it’s a new property. New properties continue under current arrangements. What about a big renovation? No, Bowen says, a renovation isn’t a new build.

Won’t this policy impose a bunch of new (onerous) responsibilities on the Australian Taxation Office? Not really, Bowen says. The ATO will be given a definition of a new property in the revised legislation, and making rulings is standard procedure for the ATO.

Will house prices rise or fall? Bowen says his expectation is prices will continue to rise, but he’d like some of the heat to come out of the housing market.

Chris Bowen:

I’m making no claims prices will come down.

(Bit odd this, given Labor’s policy is badged a housing affordability policy. Which would seem to imply downward pressure on house prices. Labor’s policy does have a clear internal contradiction at its heart, and frontbenchers do stumble on this point in interviews. Labor wants to create the impression this policy will making housing more affordable yet it doesn’t want to say prices will come down, for obvious reasons. Bit tricky, this.)

Last question is on modelling: Why won’t Labor model the impacts of the policy? Bowen dances around that one too. He implies there’s lots of modelling out there, which of course there is, just not of Labor’s policy.

Bowen says Scott Morrison has the entire Treasury at his disposal and yet he won’t model Labor’s policy. The inference here is the Treasury work wouldn’t support the key contentions in the government scare campaign.

I hope for his sake the Labor man is confident of his policy ground here, because that’s a fair challenge to throw down to a treasurer who has all the advantages of incumbency.

Updated

Still coming in. Blessings.

KM: The main way Senate voting reform will affect democracy is clearing out the opportunity for micro-parties to gain representation on a tiny proportion of the vote. Basically the Senate will revert to three main parties: Coalition, Labor, Greens, with some others at the margins, like Nick Xenophon’s NXT. Xenophon entered the state parliament in South Australia on a tiny fraction of the vote and has translated that early opportunity into a durable political force. Under the new rules that will be adopted this week it is much harder for the Nick Xenophons of the future to do what he did.

KM: Cheeky.

Updated

From Zach Abramovich, via Facebook.

Q: Despite all the new debate over the plebiscite generated by the PWC report, is it correct to say that time has run out for the chance of anything but a plebiscite?

KM: I can’t see anything stopping the plebiscite as the mechanism to resolve this issue at this point – other than the election of a Labor government at the forthcoming election. Labor’s policy is no plebiscite and a parliamentary vote with 100 days. I think I said earlier on, I’m not entirely convinced the numbers are there in parliament for marriage equality at this stage. Hope I’m wrong about that, but I think some conservatives will need the cover of a plebiscite to vote in favour.

A bit more because I’m not inclined to waste a drop.

KM: There’s a few of them lurking around. I see them, lurking.

KM: Nobody tell Johnny Depp Barnaby Joyce is an underdog. Imagine the trans-Pacific repartee.

KM: Me, or them, Susan?

KM: Great question. Slightly hard to predict at this point. I would think though, if the prime minister is unable to settle the concerns of premiers about health funding in the coming budget, that the state of our hospitals in the future will be a significant campaign issue. I also think Labor’s tax policy and the debate around it will crank up several gears.

More reader’s edition. This really is superb. Much better than actual question time.

KM: Good God woman. The mind boggles.

KM: I really hope not.

KM: Climate and renewables policy is always very near the top of my pops, and is certainly of huge interest to us at Guardian Australia – and I believe all thinking voters in this country. No diminution of interest here Andrew. Promise.

More reader’s edition.

KM: He didn’t actually say that Lady C. From memory (call me out here if I’m wrong) he said the exploration license had happened when Windsor was the member for New England, which is a more general statement. That statement is like saying Katharine Murphy was in proximity to a blue light disco in 1982. More an inference than an accusation.

KM: What are they scared of? I imagine they are scared of what politicians are always scared of: stuffing up, losing an election. But I don’t think the current vacuum is a function of timidity so much as a function of having to recalibrate a whole government within sight of an election campaign, when the prime minister has limited discretion about “captain’s calls” given .. well, the past two years. That will create complicated conditions, and we are seeing them now.

From StableQuirks in the thread.

Questions Murph:

1. Do you feel Morrison is making a sensible move by going into detail against Labor’s NG/CGT policy? On one hand he may find a hole in it, but on the other he is drawing attention to the fact that they have a policy and he doesn’t. Or is he just desperate for a clear talking point on the matter and none are coming from his side?

KM: In the broad? Sensible, in the conventional politics 101 sense. Labor’s position on negative gearing is a bold and electorally risky policy. Morrison’s objective will be to sink it and Labor along with it. One of the reasons, however, that Morrison looks silly right now trying to execute politics 101 is Labor can legitimately ask him what the government’s plans are. He doesn’t have an answer. Until he has an answer he’ll look desperate and political. When he has an answer (depending what the answer is) the playing field will level.

2. Morrison asks why Labor hasn’t released PBO modelling. Is this something that’s exclusive to the Labor party and they must release it, or does the government automatically get this modelling from PBO as a matter of course (in which case why doesn’t Morrison just release it)?

KM: Labor’s negative gearing policy has been costed by the PBO but there’s no modelling of the policy that we know of. Costing a policy and modelling its likely effects are two different things. I’d like to see some modelling on Labor’s policy, but I don’t think anyone has yet undertaken this exercise in detail. No, the government doesn’t get the PBO material, that’s material for whomever commissions it.

3. Do you feel the Greens will be hurt electorally by dealing with the LNP on Senate reform, or does it depend more on what they do with preferencing or how they handle the potential DD trigger situation? Many here have compared the situation to the Democrats/GST issue, but I tend to feel this change isn’t anywhere near as much on the average voter’s radar, even Greens ones.

KM: It’s possible there will be a backlash on Senate reform, but I think you are on the right track when you note voter reaction on this will be the sum of many parts, not just this issue. I suspect Richard Di Natale has to tread quite carefully on the pragmatism front, given many Greens supporters are party of protest people, not party of government people. It’s a fine balance, particularly with Labor breathing down the Greens necks at the local level. The hand to hand combat for progressive votes at the local level is vicious.

4. From someone who hasn’t been a close follower of politics for a very long time, is it unusual that the Turnbull government has so little clear budget policy announced at this stage? I realise that they will obviously be slower than usual given he only became PM last year, but even so it’s been quite a while without any clear direction.

KM: We are in highly unusual circumstances right now. This government feels quite ancient yet in its current iteration it is only six months old. The current vacuum on budget policy, tax policy and economic policy is highly unusual, particularly given the proximity of the election. It is very odd to look at the government and see so much open space on the whiteboard. But folks close to the PM suggest a comprehensive strategy is in the wings. Not sure myself. Just have to wait and see.

Ok, here’s part one of the reader’s edition.

KM: No Sonia, that’s just you. I’m always very disconcerted in the presence of very fit people, but that is just me.

KM: NOT from the floor of the chamber? That would be telling Graham. A breach of my ethics.

KM: Just as the ballot is secret, so are the bets BuzzFeedz. Ask me in a week.

KM: Couple of points Noel. I don’t think it will cost that much. At least I hope not. Much and all as I think the parliament should do its job and legislate for marriage equality, I don’t actually trust the parliament to do that at the present time. I know people say the numbers are there, but I’m not entirely sure about that. A yes vote at a plebiscite (assuming that’s where we end up) would give certain recalcitrants a nudge, so in that sense it could be money well spent.

Updated

I’m actually laughing so hard it’s hard to proceed, but we will. This is brilliant.

Oh man I’ve just seen the reader’s edition questions coming in. You folks are priceless. Give me a minute and I’ll start scooping them in.

A neat shutdown from Bowen but Morrison’s broad point is valid: the opposition will have to pick up its efforts to explain and sell the consequences of its policy given a large number of people seem to be undecided about it at this stage. That’s clear from this morning’s Ipsos poll. That poll shows 42% of the sample opposes changes to negative gearing, 34% are supportive, and 24% are undecided. That suggests a pretty open contest for a policy discussion. Probably best for the party proposing a substantive change to make sure people comprehend the details of the package rather than have them framed by opponents of the policy.

I mentioned earlier on that I’ve sought an answer from Labor about whether or not they will support the Muir motion on the ABCC. This is from a spokeswoman for Labor Senate leader Penny Wong:

Labor hasn’t seen the terms of Senator Muir’s proposed motion varying government business in the Senate this week. We will, of course, consider the motion on its merits. Labor is interested in the scope of the Liberal-Greens deal to ram through Senate voting changes this week ahead of a double dissolution election. Will the Greens gag and guillotine debate on the government’s bill? Will the Greens deny other senators the opportunity to debate their dirty deal with the Liberal party?

Clearly the opposition doesn’t want to telegraph its position in advance. The opposition also wants eyes on the Greens ahead of the debate on Senate voting reform legislation. Will the Greens gag the debate?

Another question could be asked that’s equally valid in this context – will Labor filibuster the debate to invite the Greens to support a gag?

Updated

Sticking with live for now. The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, is in Queanbeyan speaking to reporters.

Q: Mr Bowen, the treasurer has called on Labor to say what the effect on housing prices will be of your negative gearing policy. Will housing prices go down?

Chris Bowen:

At the risk of my colleagues thinking I’m going a bit soft, I’m almost feeling sorry for the treasurer. I mean, he has been reduced to a pathetic laughing-stock. Former strong treasurers of both persuasions must be shaking their heads that the treasurer of Australia, weeks before a budget is due to be brought down, is reduced to trawling through old newspapers and asking silly questions about Labor’s policy which have already been answered.

So before we’ll take Mr Morrison’s questions seriously, he should answer a few of his own. Three basic questions: What day will the budget be on? What is your tax policy? You said there were excesses in negative gearing; what will you do about them? Until then, his pathetic press releases should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Labor’s policy has been costed out. We have answered hundreds of interviews. The first question on his list I answered on the Insiders program the day after I made the announcement.

If he spent more time working on his own policies and doing his day job instead of engaging in silly press releases, Australia might be better off.

Updated

Bring me your questions, folks

As there is no question time today I’ve made a snap decision to clear the floor for readers. I’ve just issued an open call for #auspol questions. Let’s call this the Politics Live readers’ edition of question time.

Send them my way either here, on Twitter, or on Facebook. I’ll deal with them in and amongst keeping you up to speed.

Updated

Not really. Just trust me, there were footnotes.

I should note there were footnotes with the Morrison questions. If you need them sing out.

The shadow treasurer Chris Bowen has produced a shorter list of questions that he’d like Morrison to answer. Call this a preview of question time this week.

1. What date will the budget be held on?

2. What is the government’s tax policy?

3. What will the treasurer do with the “excesses” of negative gearing that he has previously identified?

It’s been reasonably brisk in politics today despite the fact these folks are still travelling to Canberra. This is my first opportunity to post the questions treasurer Scott Morrison says Labor should answer about its negative gearing policy. Call this a preview of question time this week.

1. What is a “new” property? How would you classify a knock-down rebuild? Substantial renovations? Would a property no longer be new once purchased, or once lived in?

2. How will the ATO determine that a negative gearer is only claiming a tax deduction in respect of a new home, or a grandfathered investment?

3. Has Labor spoken with state and territory premiers and chief ministers about increasing land supply and changing planning rules? Will Labor continue with their policy if the premiers do not cooperate? What impact would their policy have on house prices and rents if premiers do not cooperate?

4. What is Labor’s reply to former Reserve Bank Board member Warwick McKibbin, who has said in relation to changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax that: “Doing something big now, it’s not the right time to do it”? Why does Chris Bowen list McKibbin as a supporter for the Yes case on their reforms?

5. The Urban Development Institute of Australia recently found that it remains difficult to respond to changes in property demand quickly because of “delays and uncertainty in the rezoning, planning and approvals processes”. On what basis does Labor believe that these issues will be resolved by the time its policy commences, as Tony Burke has previously suggested?

6. Did Labor do any modelling of the economy-wide and property market impacts of its policies before announcing them? Why did Labor announce a policy that would affect hundreds of thousands of investors and millions of Australian home-owners without conducting any modelling beforehand?

7. Why is Labor refusing to release its PBO costing of this policy, or the assumptions behind it? Does this analysis quantify the likely impact of the policy on the property market?

8. How can Labor claim that two McKell Institute reports and an ANU study that do not quantify the impact of a Labor-like policy on house prices or rents are sufficient modelling for its policy?

9. Does Labor acknowledge that more than half of the executive and 70% of the research fellows at the McKell Institute are former Labor MPs, staff or officials? How can their research be considered an independent source of modelling?

10. ANU research often cited by Labor draws no conclusions about the impact of a Labor-like policy on rents, saying that the restrictions on negative gearing in the 1980s were made in a very different market context and little can be inferred from that experience. Will Labor continue to claim that this research supports their conclusion that rents will not increase as a result of their policy?

11. The same ANU research finds that a Labor-like policy would affect 1 to 1.1 million people but only 100,000 to 200,000 would opt to purchase a newly constructed dwelling and therefore retain negative gearing. How many investors does Labor predict will no longer invest in the property market in Australia as a result of their policy

12. Saul Eslake is a well-known critic of negative gearing, however he does not appear to have published any modelling of the economic impacts of changes to it, and certainly not in respect of Labor’s actual policy. Does Labor acknowledge that Saul Eslake has not published any modelling on Labor’s negative gearing and capital gains tax policy?

13. Does Labor acknowledge that the NATSEM modelling cited in their policy document is actually part of an Australia Institute paper commissioned by activist group Getup?

14. Isn’t it contradictory for Labor to claim that no investor will be worse off and also that negative gearing is an unsustainable call on the budget? Do they want the existing number of negative gearers in the property market or not?

15. Labor frontbenchers have repeatedly claimed that negative gearing is a tax loophole. Why then do they not shut it down completely? Are they worried that property supply will dry up?

16. Bill Shorten has claimed that the Grattan Institute had done modelling on their policy. While Labor says their policy will only slow down house prices growth, is Shorten aware that John Daley claims that Labor’s policy would actually decrease house prices by around 2%?

17. Is Labor aware that economist Dr Peter Abelson of Applied Economics has estimated that house prices will fall by 4% as a result of Labor’s policy? Are they aware that this would represent a more than $30,000 loss on a house worth $800,000?

18. ABC Fact Check has confirmed that the largest group using negative gearing are those with taxable incomes under $80,000, John Daley has previously found that middle income Australians claim the most under negative gearing, and the Re:think discussion paper found that the majority of tax filers with negatively geared properties fall into the middle income bands. Why does Labor want to impose a new tax on middle Australia, the predominant users of negative gearing?

19. Won’t this discourage investment in small business by preventing investors from managing losses through negative gearing (of net dividend income) in years when business profits are low?

20. Will this increase insurance premiums for landlords, including commercial landlords, since the risks they face if they make a loss are more significant when they cannot negatively gear?

21. Will Labor introduce complexity into the tax system through a new active and passive assets test for investors who want to use negative gearing in relation to their business?

22. Is Labor considering preventing self-managed superannuation funds from borrowing to buy investment properties, in addition to the restrictions announced in its negative gearing policy? (Is this consistent with their superannuation policy statement that says: “If elected these are the final and only changes Labor will make to the tax treatment of superannuation”?)

23. Labor’s capital gains tax increase would give us the second highest CGT rate in the OECD. Won’t Labor’s change encourage Australians to invest in property or other assets overseas?

24. Since superannuation funds are excluded from the change to the CGT discount (and will retain the 33% discount they currently hold), will the new policy allow people to use SMSFs to avoid the new rules? Has Labor factored this into its costing?

25. Labor’s policy cites Martin Feldstein approvingly, but he wants CGT abolished completely. Does Labor also support this idea?

26. Shorten has previously said: “higher taxation reduces incentives to work, save and invest, which I believe are essential building blocks for ensuring Australia’s long-term economic growth.” In light of his new negative gearing and CGT taxes, does he still believe this?

27. Under Labor, a property mogul could use rental losses from their tenth property to offset rental income from the other nine. But mum and dad investors with only one investment property will no longer be able to use net rental losses to offset against their wage income. Why has Labor deliberately set out to hurt middle income investors while allowing property moguls to continue to use tax rules to carry on investing?

28. Under Labor, someone with a $1 million share portfolio could use net rental losses from their property investment to reduce the tax payable on their dividend income. But mum and dad investors will no longer be able to deduct net rental losses from their wage income. Why has Labor deliberately set out to hurt middle income investors while allowing wealthy investors to continue to use tax rules to carry on investing?

I’ve doubled checked. A spokesman for Di Natale says the Greens will not support the Muir motion to bring on the ABCC bill. This is Senate voting reform week, not ABCC week.

I’ve sought clarification from Labor on their intentions. As yet, no clarity.

Di Natale’s position on the ABCC bill requires a further clarification which I’ll seek when there’s a moment. Saying you won’t do anything to bring on the ABCC bill doesn’t entirely rule out supporting Muir.

Di Natale is asked about a preference deal with the Liberals in Victoria. He says the Greens will not preference the Liberals ahead of Labor in any seat. He says the decision is not up to him, but he believes it is inconceivable that the Greens would preference the Liberals ahead of Labor.

He says the Liberal party may well choose to preference the Greens ahead of Labor in some seats, if the party believes that strategy is in its interests. He notes this used to happen regularly. Liberals being opposed to Greens preference deals is a recent phenomemon. (He’s quite right about this.)

The government should go full term, not shift the budget, says Di Natale

Q: Have they (the government) sounded you out about trying to add more days to bring the budget forward?

Richard Di Natale:

No.

Q: Your position is were they to, that wouldn’t be ...

Our view is that you have the schedule that’s set, we should sit according to that schedule and we should go full term, that’s what the PM should do.

He should go to a budget, we should sit in June and we should have the election as the government has already said, the PM said on a number of occasions, go full term and get a mandate.

Greens say they won't help bring on the ABCC bill

I had just picked up the phone to the Greens when leader Richard Di Natale bobbed up on the TV. He’s asked whether the Greens would support extending the hours to bring on and debate the ABCC legislation – which was where I was going with the call.

No, seems to be the answer.

Richard Di Natale:

We made it clear we don’t support extending hours to do anything other than debate the important issue of Senate voting reform – and we won’t do anything to bring on the ABCC legislation.

Updated

ABCC: bring it on says Xenophon

Nick Xenophon meanwhile is on Sky News, where he’s been asked for his position on the ABCC bill. His position is well known: Xenophon supports passage of the bill provided the government agrees to some safeguards he’s seeking on occupational health and safety.

On whether or not the ABCC bill should be considered this week, Xenophon has backed Ricky Muir’s desire to bring on the vote.

Nick Xenophon:

If we sit extra hours we should be able to deal with both senate voting reform and the ABCC.

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews is asked whether he is happy with the policing effort at Federation Square.

Daniel Andrews:

I’ve been briefed on the information that Victoria Police had and I’m confident that the preparations that they put in place were proportionate to the threat that had been advised to them.

Obviously what occurred was significantly more serious, if you like, a much bigger, much more violent, it was in many respects a unique set of circumstances.

I fully support the work of our Victoria Police on this matter.

In Victoria, the premier and the police commissioner are having a press conference about the riot in Melbourne over the weekend. The Liberal senator Scott Ryan was complaining earlier today about the response at the event because the intention for disruption was telegraphed in advance.

Q: In terms of preparation by police, do you think you were ill-prepared given there had been a social media tip-off relaid to you?

The police commissioner says there was some social media advice provided to police.

It was fairly scant information. We had no further information or intelligence that would in any way indicate that we would see the behaviour that we did see on Saturday night.

So based on the information, the intelligence available to us at the time, I believe that we were prepared.

More like, why not.

Oh, I did forget in the summary. Treasurer Scott Morrison has said the budget will happen on the day scheduled for budget day, more than likely. As opposed to the week before that.

Moving forward.

Over in the west, Labor man Stephen Smith is holding a press conference about his desire to lead the state Labor party in order to help Labor win the coming election election in the west. This development emerged over the weekend.

From this distance, Smith’s sortie makes absolutely no sense. Looking at Smith speaking now, it still makes no sense. It’s completely out of character, this burst of wildness. The hallmark of Stephen Smith in Canberra was abundant caution. He won’t even say why he would be a better leader than the current leader Mark McGowan. He will only repeat demurely what other people say to me on this subject. He says unnamed others say to him that he has the maturity and experience to lead Labor in WA. Others observe that he is calm and can cope with policy complexity. Pressed again he questions the capacity of McGowan to win ten seats on a 10% swing.

Politics this lunchtime

Time to take stock of Monday morning. The main stories:

  • A new Ipsos poll has the Coalition ahead of Labor on two party preferred terms, but it records a drop in the prime minister’s approval ratings – Turnbull’s personal rating is down 15 points since February.
  • A new study from PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests the costs of the marriage equality plebiscite will be significantly higher than forecast. The study has been dismissed the Liberal Eric Abetz as being skewed.
  • Sticking with Abetz, he’s warned Liberal colleagues in Victoria against doing a preference deal with the Greens in Victoria on the basis that Robert Menzies would not approve. Victorian Liberal party president Michael Kroger has said thanks for your input Eric. Not.
  • Senate crossbencher Ricky Muir is telegraphing procedural mayhem when the red chamber resumes tomorrow. He’s going to try and bring on the ABCC bill, which the government wants to use as a double dissolution trigger but hasn’t scheduled for debate this week because this week is senate voting reform week.
  • Foreign minister Julie Bishop has confirmed Australia’s ambassador in Turkey was only a few metres away from a bomb blast in Ankara over the weekend. He’s shaken but unhurt.

Safely in situ in new digs, I’ll be back shortly with a lunchtime summary.

Now dear readers bear with me, I need to switch locations, meaning I’ll be off the air for about twenty minutes. Just chat among yourselves while I tend to that. See you shortly.

I suspect it’s worth posting Eric Abetz’s full response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers study of the full costs of the proposed marriage equality plebiscite. I agree with Abetz that it is quite odd to analyse a democratic process in terms of opportunity cost. I don’t recall a study that has done that before. But I feel readers will be interested in this response in full.

Eric Abetz, on the ABC.

Look you can ask the question what price of democracy and changing the fundamental institution which has socialised children for the past millennia can’t be reduced to bean counting. And when you know, and if I heard correctly the $281m dollars of that figure or 500 plus is in fact the time taken to vote, it does show and indicate that this was a study in inverted commas with an outcome that was sought by those doing it.

Because quite frankly to try to take into account and double the figure on the basis of the time taken to vote as being a factor basically sees that, look let’s get rid of democracy each time people go to the polling booth it costs them $281m. But then in a very perceptive question the interviewer was able to get out of PricewaterhouseCoopers that it was not an actual financial costs but just something foregone.

So instead of sitting at home on election or plebiscite days for an extra 15, 20 minutes, or half an hour you actually go out to vote and you put the financial cost on that is, I must say, quite a bizarre way to undertake such an analysis. And of course it doesn’t take into account the costs on the other side of this debate - people who feel strongly, who will feel depressed about a change if it were to occur as a result of a plebiscite. So I think this is a very skewed study.

Updated

It’s always bad for my concentration, mentioning America. I’ve been sharing a lot of top shelf material from the primaries on Facebook but I will here too as time permits. Slate has published a piece from chief political correspondent Jamelle Bouie which is a racial analysis of Donald Trump’s rise. Very much worth your time. Here’s a very small excerpt.

We’ve been missing the most important catalyst in Trump’s rise. What caused this fire to burn out of control? The answer, I think, is Barack Obama. In a nation shaped and defined by a rigid racial hierarchy, his election was very much a radical event, in which a man from one of the nation’s lowest castes ascended to the summit of its political landscape. And he did so with heavy support from minorities: Asian Americans and Latinos were an important part of Obama’s coalition, and black Americans turned out at their highest numbers ever in 2008.

Updated

John Howard has been on television in the United States talking about the benefits to community safety associated with gun control. Howard was interviewed on CBS. Obviously gun control is a hot issue in the American election.

Former Prime Minister John Howard speaks at a dinner in honour of the 20th anniversary of the his Government in the Great Hall of Parliament House Canberra this evening Wednesday 2nd March 2016.
Former Prime Minister John Howard speaks at a dinner in honour of the 20th anniversary of the his Government in the Great Hall of Parliament House Canberra this evening Wednesday 2nd March 2016. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

John Howard:

It is incontestable that gun-related homicides have fallen quite significantly in Australia, incontestable. I mean, if you had 13 mass shootings before Port Arthur and you had none since, isn’t that evidence? And you had a 74% fall in the gun-related suicide rates, isn’t that evidence? Or are we expected to believe that that was all magically going to happen? Come on.

Bishop is also unimpressed with Ricky Muir’s plans to try and bring on the ABCC bill for a vote this week.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because the cross benchers and Labor are refusing to support legislation that would prevent corrupt unions and corrupt union officials from carrying out their unlawful activities, as identified by the royal commission.

(This response of course doesn’t explain the government’s failure to bring on the issue during this parliamentary week. If you want the bill voted down, then it does seem sensible to bring it on.)

Q: One of your predecessors, Stephen Smith, is being touted as the leader of the Labor party in your home state. Any comment?

Julie Bishop:

I think people will remember that Stephen Smith was a Cabinet minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government that brought the carbon and mining taxes to WA, trashed the budget, ran up record deficits and trashed the live export industry – so Stephen Smith will have a lot of explaining to do if he runs for high office.

Bishop is asked about the Australian ambassador in Turkey who was very close to the blast in Ankara that killed 34 people.

Julie Bishop:

Our ambassador was actually at that intersection in his vehicle about 20 metres away from the blast. He is fine. All of the Australian staff and our locally engaged embassy staff are fine. In fact, I understand that no foreigners were either killed or injured in the attack, although the investigations are still under way.

Q: Does this raise questions about the security of Australian diplomatic personnel in areas that either have had attacks or are under threat?

We are constantly reviewing the security arrangements for our diplomats overseas.

Q: Will there be a specific investigation into this particular diplomat and this diplomatic post?

There is always an ongoing review whenever there is an incident like this, there is always a review.

Q: Do you think he was targeted or just unfortunate to be in the area?

He was just there at the time. No, I don’t believe at all he was targeted. This was actually directed, as I understand, at Turkish soldiers.

Q: Will we consider pulling diplomatic staff out given the worsening security situation in Turkey?

No, we would not.

Bishop is asked about whether a meeting scheduled tomorrow with the foreign minister of Iran will produce a repatriation deal on asylum seekers. Doesn’t sound like it.

Julie Bishop:

These discussions are at a very early stage among officials. It’s certainly a goal at officials level at present.

Bishop is asked whether or not Australia is concerned that an ABC TV crew has been detained in Malaysia after investigating corruption. The foreign minister is concerned. She says this incident has been raised with the Malaysian government.

Julie Bishop:

We are deeply concerned about this. We are providing consular support for the ABC crew.

I haven’t got to this issue yet this morning. Thanks to the ABC for this report.

An ABC Four Corners crew has been detained by Malaysian police after trying to question Prime Minister Najib Razak over a corruption scandal. Reporter Linton Besser and camera operator Louie Eroglu were arrested in the city of Kuching on Saturday night, after approaching Mr Razak on the street. Both were released without charge on Sunday, but have been told not to leave the country.

The foreign minister Julie Bishop is in Fiji to inspect the relief effort after the big cyclone. She’s already done several interviews this morning, and she’s having a media conference now.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop laughs as stray dogs follow her as she meets with Australian troops, Koro island, fiji, Sunday March 13, 2016. Ms Bishop has begun a two-day tour of Fiji, where she will visit deployed Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel and meet with Fiji Government officials to discuss Australia’s contribution to the international disaster relief effort in response to Tropical Cyclone Winston.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop laughs as stray dogs follow her as she meets with Australian troops, Koro island, fiji, Sunday March 13, 2016. Ms Bishop has begun a two-day tour of Fiji, where she will visit deployed Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel and meet with Fiji Government officials to discuss Australia’s contribution to the international disaster relief effort in response to Tropical Cyclone Winston. Photograph: Rashida Yosufzai/AAP

Q: How much additional money will Australia provide?

Julie Bishop:

It’s a question of what Fiji is looking for.

While the treasurer is driving up the road past Gundaroo, the special minister of state Mathias Cormann is making himself available on the internet on Senate voting reform.

Ray rounds out with Senate voting reform and the marriage equality plebiscite – and a recap of the Cronulla game and some chap kissing people. Then Scott resumes his drive to Canberra.

The budget is on May 10, that's what I'm preparing for

Scott Morrison has just pulled over near Lake George to speak to Ray. Ray opens by observing media outlets are focussed on Malcolm Turnbull’s dip in popularity in the Ipsos poll - but that doesn’t matter surely if you lead on the 2PP?

Dead right Ray, Scott thinks, and polls/schmolls.

Scott Morrison:

The figures the prime minister and I are focussing on is the rising level of consumer confidence in the Australian economy.

Then to New England. Ray has spoken to people up north who think Windsor has zero chance. Ray doesn’t believe this poll in The Australian today. I don’t believe this poll with all due respect to them. Ray notes he can’t share some insights he has about Tony Windsor because of the defamation law. Ray will simply note that Tony Windsor seems to be a man of contradictions. Scott thinks so too.

Well I think so.

Morrison notes that bitterness is not a reason to be back in public life. He says Baranaby Joyce is not complacent.

Ray wants to know if the treasurer fears one lunatic being replaced by another lunatic in the parliament? (He means Clive Palmer out, Tony Windsor in.) Presumably this observation is separate to Ray’s defamatory thoughts although it’s not quite clear how.

Scott thinks Ray shouldn’t worry about that lunatic.

Barnaby will be back.

Ray is horrified. I’m not talking abut Barnaby I’m talking about the lunatic opposing him.

Scott Morrison:

Barnaby has a positive agenda.

To tax. Ray has seen a list of questions from the treasurer’s office this morning about questions Labor must answer about its negative gearing policy. Ray isn’t totally sold. At least the opposition is proposing to do something.

Scott, not sold on Ray’s analysis.

It’s a gumby of an idea.

Q: Now, the budget. May 3 or May 10?

Mmm. Ah. [Pause where the penny drops.]

May 10!

Q: Really?

The budget is on May 10. That’s what I’m preparing for.

On Sky News the Victorian Liberal party president Michael Kroger has just noted he respects Eric Abetz but he doesn’t agree with him. This concerns Greens preference deals in Victoria. Kroger: some of my best friends are Eric Abetz’s.

For readers concerned about the whereabouts of the treasurer Scott Morrison, he’s coming up on 2GB in a second when Ray Hadley stops talking about tasers and capsicum spray and a video he can’t post on his website.

It’s a public holiday here in Canberra. I hope you are in a position to enjoy it. If you aren’t, this should help. A bit.

On 3AW, the Liberal senator Scott Ryan is unhappy about a riot in Melbourne during the Moomba festival.

According to The Age “the riot had begun with threats over social media, leading to fears that two rival street gangs were going to fight at Federation Square just as families finished watching the Moomba festival fireworks. One of the gangs, known as Apex, has been linked to violent car thefts and threats of violence.”

Ryan seems to suggest this is a policing failure, given there had been advance warning of the incident.

Scott Ryan:

Questions need to be asked why. It’s clear there was a failure.

Ryan is then asked about some footage from the weekend where the former prime minister Tony Abbott was captured in front of a crowd booing at the mention of “the Turnbull government.”

The AW radio host believes he saw Abbott smirking once the boos started. Ryan isn’t rising to that bait. The Victorian senator says he’s not going to pretend that there’s not the occasional person bruised by events last year (he means the leadership change.) He says Abbott did the correct thing by referencing “the Turnbull government.” Ryan notes Abbott has had a difficult year, and he’s human.

One thing worth noting in passing – even if Windsor doesn’t prevail in New England, he will complicate election planning for the National party. If Joyce, the party leader, faces an existential threat in his own electorate, this will complicate the party’s national campaigning effort.

Putting this most simply: Joyce is the National’s strongest brand in the bush. It would be in the interests of the Nationals to have Joyce on the road, criss crossing the country, to try and be the rising tide that lifts all boats. How much agency will Joyce have now?

I can’t believe that point would be lost on Windsor.

There’s another poll around this morning which looks at the contest for the northern New South Wales seat of New England. Last week independent Tony Windsor announced a political comeback in the seat he vacated after the last federal election. He will run against the incumbent deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce. You would think Windsor would have a shot (I wouldn’t put it any higher than a shot) of taking that seat if he can lock up preference deals with Labor and the Greens. Windsor has been active locally against the Shenhua mine.

This morning’s poll published by The Australian would seem to bear that theory out. Phillip Hudson reports: “Barnaby Joyce risks becoming the first deputy prime minister to lose his seat at an election, according to a Newspoll which reveals a two-candidate swing against the Nationals leader of 16 percentage points in his rural NSW seat of New England.”

Given that Monday morning heart starter, Joyce has held an early morning press conference in Tamworth.

Q: Will you now be more active against Shenhua?

Barnaby Joyce:

There is no mine that’s been approved at Shenhua. And with the actual exploratory licence, that happened when the former independent was the member. All these problems that apparently are arising now, he wasn’t able, when he had the balance of power, to stop them. Then he tells us that he’s going to stop it now.

Q: What about the early swing?

Barnaby Joyce:

I always expected it’d be a hard fight. I’ve never shied away from a political battle. I remember when I was in the Senate and had basically a safe seat and a safe job, I resigned from that, basically went on the unemployment queue to comedown here because I believed in the people of New England.

I believed in coming home, I believed in fighting for the people of if New England. I’ve put it all on the line before. You know it doesn’t really concern me that I put it all on the line again.

I flagged in the opening post Tasmanian Liberal Eric Abetz is displeased this morning about the party of Menzies playing footsie with the extreme left. He’s speaking to Michael Brissenden on the AM program now.

Brissenden opens with the new study on the costs of the marriage equality plebiscite, the one I noted in the opening post. Abetz says the conclusions are invalid because the calculations on opportunity cost did not take into account the distress caused to supporters of heterosexual marriage by having to contemplate the wild notion marriage equality.

Abetz described the work as ..

.. A study in inverted commas.

Abetz is then asked what’s wrong with the Liberal party in Victoria doing a preference deal with the Greens in the coming federal campaign if it ties up Labor resources in marginal seats?

The Tasmanian says the party of Menzies took on the extreme left head on and would never countenance doing preference deals on a transactional basis.

Eric Abetz:

I think it will cost us votes if we go down that track. I’m confident we won’t.

He’s then asked about cooperating in parliament with the Greens.

Deals like the deal we’ll see this week on Senate voting reform. This isn’t the same thing, Abetz contends. He says Labor has forced the government to talk to the Greens because it won’t cooperate on voting reform.

This is not doing a deal with the Greens.

The horror. The horror. A deal in inverted commas.

Well hello there

Good morning good politics tragics and welcome to Monday of the final sitting week before the budget. Parliament is not actually sitting until tomorrow but my excitement was such that you’ve got a dose of Politics Live anyway. How long we’ll last today is a function of how much the political class keeps on warbling. Let’s keep the bottled water and canned goods handy and see how we go.

Dominant themes in this morning’s news cycle are the new Ipsos poll which shows the government ahead on the two party preferred measure 53% to Labor’s 47%. I’ll get into the other features of this poll as we jog on this morning, but suffice to say at this point this survey is more favourable to the Coalition that recent Newspolls or the Essential poll. Why? Well probably because polls tend to bounce around within their margin of error, and in any case, the week to week evidence is less important than what the trend says.

Liberal Eric Abetz is unhappy that his party is contemplating a preference deal with the Greens, because, well, Greens.

Crossbencher Ricky Muir is planning some fun procedural times in the Senate this week. Muir is planning a motion to bring on a vote on the Australian Building and Construction Commissi­on, which the government would very much like to use as a trigger for a double dissolution election, but can’t actually consider this week because the Greens want this week to be about Senate voting reform. As they say in our business, more to come.

And there’s some work around this morning suggesting the plebiscite on legalising same sex marriage may cost more than triple the federal government’s estimate of $160m.

There’s more of course, but that will do us from a standing start. Today’s Politics Live comments thread is open for your business, so pop your touch typing fingers on and have a happy keyboard dance.

I’m up and about on the twits and also on my new Facebook politics/media forum, which you can find here. Do stop by the Facebook forum. I hope it will be a useful place for conversation at a less frenetic pace than politics live, and I’m making it a treasure trove of my favourite pieces from both here and around the world.

On Twitter I’m @murpharoo and he’s @mpbowers

Roll your shoulders and pour a hot beverage. Here comes Monday.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
"She steps in the room with us, a rock'n'roll band that's fronted by a guy she adores": How a song from Tom Petty's reject pile unwittingly became the massive hit single that launched a Fleetwood Mac icon's solo career
Unhappy with Fleetwood Mac's Tusk album, Stevie Nicks gravitated towards a band whose music she preferred
Louder
Louder
The Sweet Gesture(s) Jimmy Fallon Made For Pal Stephen Colbert On His Last Late Show Appearance
"You did it your way."
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
The 5 Hairstyles That Could Be Quietly Ageing You (And What to Try Instead)
The subtle hair mistakes that can date your look
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
Woman tries to get her ring cleaned at Tiffany & Co. Then the jeweler finds out where it’s really from: ‘I felt so low class’
A woman brought in a ring to Tiffany Co. for cleaning. Then, the jeweler asked her where the ring was from, as it wasn’t a Tiffany Co. brand product. The situation ended up embarrassing the content creator.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Timothée Chalamet Slammed by Ballet and Opera Community After Saying 'No One Cares' About Their Work
Timothée Chalamet faces criticism from ballet and opera professionals after joking that 'no one cares' about their work.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
6 Videos That Show Kelly Osbourne's Alarming Look As Skeletal Frame Stuns Fans Worldwide
Kelly Osbourne's skeletal frame has sparked concern online. Five viral videos show her alarming appearance as she grieves the death of her father, Ozzy Osbourne.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play