We are going to finish up today but don’t despair – we all get to ride this bus again tomorrow.
Can. Not. Wait.
Tuesday means it is party room meeting day, and there is usually something amusing from that. I would preview tomorrow’s business but there isn’t a lot of it at the moment.
However – I do believe the Great Barrier Reef grant – you know, that casual $444m handed out by the government without a tender process, is under the Senate inquiry microscope, so we will keep an eye on that.
A big thank you to Mike Bowers and to the Guardian’s brains’ trust. This blog is but an empty oyster shell without them.
And to you, for reading and letting us know what you think – we really do appreciate it.
Until tomorrow – take care of you
Updated
.@Jordonsteele used Question Time today to ask the Government to acknowledge "the shared horror experienced by disabled people and older Australians" and both groups in the terms of reference for the #AgedCareRC pic.twitter.com/JvTd5zR74v
— ABC Politics (@politicsabc) September 17, 2018
Kelly O’Dwyer is welcoming Scott Morrison’s request for a bullying complaints process.
“I certainly welcome this very high standard, which has been set by the prime minister as part of his new generation of leadership.”
But she also mentions the word independent – which Morrison did not. Morrison said confidential and rigorous but not the “i” word. But O’Dwyer did. At least twice.
“It needs to be independent,” she said. “This is a high standard, this is a standard that no other political party that I am aware of, currently has right now, but it is the standard that he is setting as prime minister and I certainly welcome it.”
What is that standard?
“The standard to ensure that if people have concerns or complaints, that they can raise those complaints, knowing that it will be dealt with confidentially and independently and part of a rigorous process with the party organisation.
“We know that in the corporate world that there have been processes in place for quite some period of time. We know that in volunteer organisations, they also have policies and procedures in place.
“It is right, for now, that we have an appropriate standard set here too, in the nation’s parliament, but more broadly, as part of the political organisation that is the Liberal party of Australia.”
Updated
The NSW Labor state MP Ryan Park has entered the Ann Sudmalis fray, blaming a state Liberal MP, Gareth Ward, for Sudmalis leaving parliament. From his statement:
“It took guts for Ann Sudmalis to expose his actions.
“I doubt the people of Kiama would appreciate how much time he is spending undermining members of parliament rather than co-operating with them in order to help his electorate – and doing so at the taxpayers’ expense.
“He should apologise to Ann Sudmalis and to the people of the Illawarra and the south coast immediately for his behaviour.
“What today’s events show us is how deeply divided the Liberals are and how little the people of the Illawarra and the south coast can rely upon them to stand up for them.
“The Liberals are tearing themselves apart and we the public are paying the price.”
Updated
Also worth noting – Scott Morrison seems pretty focused on the “organisational wing” allegations of bullying in that statement there.
Updated
Only last week Kelly O’Dwyer publicly called for an independent and confidential process for dealing with bullying after Julia Banks raised bullying as an issue. Both Linda Reynolds and Lucy Gichuhi raised allegations of bullying, but both have said they would leave it to Scott Morrison to sort out.
And it looks like he has – by asking the party to look into O’Dwyer’s idea.
Here is what O’Dwyer said last week:
“You know, I have made recommendations that the party organisation have an independent and confidential process that can assist when and where concerns are raised with the party organisation. But I am not going to go through a public commentary in relation to these matters day in, day out. My job – my job, my primary job, is to focus on the jobs of millions of Australian men and women and I am 100% focused on that task.”
Updated
Scott Morrison asks for bullying response
After Ann Sudmalis also mentioned bullying in her reasons for leaving parliament, Scott Morrison has responded with this statement:
“This morning I met with Ann Sudmalis who confirmed her intention to withdraw her nomination for the seat of Gilmore.
“Ann has been an outstanding member and a strong voice for Gilmore over the past five-and-a-half years. I also consider her a good friend.
“Ann raised a number of genuine concerns with me regarding her treatment in her local federal electoral conference within the New South Wales division of the Liberal party of Australia. This is in addition to complaints I have received from other colleagues about processes in the party’s organisational wing.
“I stress that these are complaints that do not relate to the parliamentary wing, but to the organisational wing of the party.
“As party leader, it is my job to set the standard. It is the party’s job to uphold and protect those standards from the grassroots up, to ensure that MPs and candidates are treated with respect and are well supported.
“I have today, through the federal director, requested the federal executive of the Liberal party to consider how they will take steps to ensure there is a rigorous and confidential process to deal with concerns and complaints from party members, including members of parliament.
“Nola Marino, the chief whip, has managed this process for parliamentarians. This new arrangement will ensure that the organisational wing of the party has the same processes and upholds the same values.
“I want the federal executive to include in that report their concrete plans to ensure the party continues to attract and support outstanding men and women who want to represent their party in this parliament.
“I continue to make it clear that I want to see more women in the federal parliament. The federal and state branches of the Liberal party will work towards that outcome.
Updated
The NSW Liberal party has backed Tony Abbott’s account of receiving close to 70% of the branch vote in his preselection.
The party has told Fairfax that Abbott received 68 votes and 30 votes were lodged against him. There were two informal votes, according to the party.
BREAKING: The Liberal Party has released the result of Tony Abbott's preselection vote in bid to head off growing internal conflict. They say the former PM got 68 per cent of the vote. https://t.co/DhkLBZvgRC #auspol
— Bevan Shields (@BevanShields) September 17, 2018
Updated
Some Mike Bowers magic for your Monday:
That’s some Michelle Obama level (accidental) side eye from Darren Chester here:
The former prime minister is on emergency services leave, for those wondering.
Tfw you have to force everyone in the group assignment to do their jobs. Or in this case, speak on the motions in front of parliament so the government doesn’t run out of business.
Updated
And here is why Ann Sudmalis said she denied it:
Here's the statement from Ann Sudmalis, announcing she will not re-contest the next election. She also takes aim at a "the local self-determined senior liberal" #auspol @politicsabc pic.twitter.com/dm1Rlhqy7P
— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) September 17, 2018
Worth noting that when Ann Sudmalis was asked about the reports she was retiring (as reported by Nine News) she flat out denied it:
This tweet has not aged well.
— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) September 17, 2018
When I spoke to Sudmalis on Saturday, she said reports she was quitting were "rubbish".
They clearly weren't. https://t.co/gQZjj0pcwm
Pat on the back for whichever of Greg Hunt’s staffers came up with the line “I can’t speak for the past, but I can speak for the future” in answer to why the royal commission into aged care took so long.
That’ll fix it.
Updated
So many meat pies lost their wings today and went crashing to the ground!
It is a known fact that everytime a minister fails to spear their lapel with the sacred pin of Australian truthiness, a meat pie loses its wings and a Hills hoist no longer spins.
So many ministers just cost the latest generation a game of goon of fortune and my heart breaks for them.
Updated
Morrison government to lose another female MP
Phil Coorey from the Australian Financial Review has spoken to Ann Sudmalis, who has confirmed she is out, blaming the people “stacked into” her branch:
“I can’t work with the team there any more. They don’t know the electorate well; they don’t know how to campaign,” she told Coorey.
“This is absolutely not about Scott. He’s a very dear friend and he’s a very good man.
“I believe he can bring our party together. He’s a visionary. Scott is the man who can pull this country forward.”
Sudmalis told the Fin she believed she could win against Grant Shultz. But despite the prime ministerial intervention, Shultz did not back off, which showed she had lost control of the branch.
As Coorey points out, Sudmalis’s departure means the government is technically heading into the election holding “a notional 72 seats out of 151.”
If Kerryn Phelps upsets Wentworth enough, that could drop to 71.
Updated
Labor starts yelling out “Put your hands up.”
Earlier a Coalition MP said to me they didn’t understand why “chicken head” (another lyric from the song) had not been picked up more widely.
I then had to explain what a chicken head was actually referring to in that song. It has nothing to do with chickens. (Google at your own risk.)
Updated
Scott Morrison tells us there have been “21 well-answered questions” and puts an end to QT.
But because he’s not a regular PM, he’s a cool PM, he quickly adds: “And if Fatman Scoop is watching, I’ll see you at RnB Friday’s.”
And somewhere Tina Arena feels a stab to her heart. Along with irony.
Updated
Seems like Cathy McGowan and Rebehka Sharkie are on board for #deathtodixers
In @michellegrattan's latest podcast crossbenchers @Indigocathy & @MakeMayoMatter had some suggestions for improving question time, including ditching dixers https://t.co/NE0GYwS4AM
— Eliza Berlage (@verbaliza) September 17, 2018
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
He has had three weeks to consider his answer and he has now been asked numerous times. It is a very simple question; it’s not going away. Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull the prime minister of Australia?
Morrison (the answer is something about dust):
We dealt with this last week. The Labor party might come in here and carry on like this. Again, no questions on drought today, Mr Speaker. They had one more opportunity to ask a question on drought. They could ask about the economy, they could ask about jobs, but they just want to lay about in the political mess.
The Labor party can kick up as much mess as they want but it is my job as the prime minister to see through the dust and to see what matters to the Australian people. What matters to the Australian people is to make the decisions to make sure we keep Australians safe, we keep Australians together, we keep the economy strong.
Updated
We've checked the records. Today's was the 40th use of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker's casting vote since 1901.
— Australian House of Representatives (@AboutTheHouse) September 17, 2018
More info on the casting vote: https://t.co/LJdolLW1Go https://t.co/PRrYLGoKpY
Mark Dreyfus to Peter Dutton:
“Last week the minister for home affairs told parliament, I quote, ‘I’ve recused myself from discussions where that’s been deemed inappropriate.’ But leaks from within the government confirm the minister did not absent himself from a single cabinet meeting during the entire life of the Turnbull government. Does the minister stand by his earlier answer, or will the minister now correct the record?”
And whoops!
Looks like Dutton was prepared for a question on section 44, because he starts off with:
Dutton:
I thank the honourable member for his question and as I’ve repeated again this morning, during a press conference, Labor first raised the section 44 issue back in October. They didn’t make any mention of it whatsoever. They looked at all of the detail, made no mention of the issue at all until a fortnight, three weeks ago. It shows to you that the Labor party are determined to play politics on this issue. Nothing more, nothing less. The advice I have from Mr Guy Reynolds SSE states to me, ‘Mr Dutton cannot have ...’ ”
This is what happens when we don’t have our listening ears on. Perhaps all that smiling practice has damaged something? Or maybe it is a case of when you hear something but don’t actually listen.
That’s essentially the point of order Tony Burke raises, so Dutton tries again.
“As ... I have stated previously, I have always complied with ministerial standards.”
He is then asked to give his regular dose of “just how safe are you?” but it seems to be lacking the usual fire.
Updated
Chris Bowen to Josh Frydenberg:
On Saturday the Treasurer said ASIC and APRA have a case to answer as to how some of interest conduct occurred on their watch. In April 2016 when arguing against a banking royal commission, the now Treasurer said that ASIC and APRA had, I quote “stronger powers” than a royal commission. Why two years after he said they have stronger powers, is the Treasurer now blaming the regulators and now only promising them more powers?”
Frydenberg:
What hypocrisy from the member for McMahon. Labor voted against a royal commission, itself. That’s the reality. Mr Speaker, I want to share with the House what the minister for the then financial services, the Leader of the Opposition, what the minister and now the Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister for Financial Services, said when he was the minister about the quote “sound regulatory system we have in place”.
“Australia has an excellent regulatory system and prudent management”, Mr Speaker. When Labor was last in office, you know what happened? We had the trio the Storm Financial collapse, Mr Speaker and others. The coalition has been committed to putting in place greater resourcing for our sector, increased better personnel, Mr Speaker and increased support across the board in the sector. We have increased the penalties.
“We have increased the penalties. We have increased the resourcing. $70 million this year, Mr Speaker, to implement the new strategy. $121 million for ASIC as a funding package in April 2016 and a new chair and a new second deputy as as special prosecutor. And we established the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce. The then Treasurer and then Minister for Revenue put in place the BEAR accountability regime. These are steps we have taken to ensure a more transparent and accountable financial system.
Now, at the same time the royal commission has revealed appalling acts of misconduct, Mr Speaker, acts that have shocked everybody in this chamber. Fees for no service, fees for dead people, 300,000 allegations of providing insurance services on an unsolicited basis, Mr Speaker. This has been revealed by the royal commission and the royal commission is doing an outstanding job. So we await the interim report this month and the final report due next February, but we are committed with the measures we have put in place and we will follow up on the royal commissioner’s recommendations to ensure a more accountable and transparent financial system for all Australians.
Patrick Gorman to Scott Morrison:
The prime minister has refused to admit he cut $1.2 billion from aged care, saying it was a lie. But Mr Rooney, from Leading Aged Services Australia, has said, I quote, “$3 billion has been taken out of the aged care system by successive governments over the last four years”. Is the prime minister calling Mr Rooney a liar?
Morrison:
It is not true that the government has cut funding to aged care.
The funding has gone up by more than $1 billion every year. When there is more money provided that means there is an increase. When there’s less money provided, that means there is a decrease. It’s simple maths and I’m happy to have the treasurer explain it to you if you’d like to come around to his office and he can take you through it. I make the point again, Mr Speaker, about the hypocrisy shown by the Labor party. The very measure they take issue with [is] the measure they put in place themselves when in government and took out $1.6 billion, Mr Speaker, based on their assessment.
When the member for Blair, the overstated member for Blair, came and he was responsible for aged care services in opposition before the last election, he was asked whether they would reverse this measure, Mr Speaker.
He said no, Labor is not. We’re not going to do that. That’s what he said. Further than that, Labor actually voted with the government against a classification amendment which gave effect to that measure and Labor voted with the government to preserve that measure, Mr Speaker. They included it in all of their estimates at the last election. They come in here complaining about a measure that they voted for. Again, stop playing politics with aged care.
Support the government to make the reforms necessary. We have had eight years of pretty good bipartisanship … [and] the behaviour of the Labor party today demonstrates why this royal commission is so necessary. I’m not going to allow an issue to be politicised in this way. The royal commission will do that job, it will determine the facts. It will remove the agendas of all of those who seek to put their tuppence in to pursue their agenda. We will make decisions based on the facts of quality of care in the aged care sector and that should be the basis for all policy going forward in this place.
Updated
Flag pin watch:
Scott Morrison’s sacred pin of truthiness, meat pies and the Australian way is present but upside down.
In America, where they have rules about these sorts of things, which also include standing for the national anthem, that would be deemed as a distress signal.
In Australia, where we don’t have rules about standing for the national anthem, at least last time I checked (which is lucky, considering none of us know the second verse), it’s just another reason why making a show of nationalism a political statement is fraught with danger, because narky bloggers notice and then make fun of it.
Updated
Also in the Senate:
In the Senate, Amanda Stoker is wearing red.
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) September 17, 2018
Paul Fletcher just completed a dixer with the smallest piece of paper in the world. It may have been a Post-it.
Moving on.
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Just now in his answer, the prime minister referred to funding for dementia research to help people in the future who are diagnosed as living with dementia. Why did he fail to mention the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government’s cut to the supplement which helped nursing homes looking after people already diagnosed with living with dementia?
Morrison:
Essentially – Labor cut funding.
Updated
In the Senate, Jordon Steele-John has been brought to tears while asking questions about the abuse and neglect of disabled people in care.
I’ll bring you some more on that when I can.
Ken Wyatt, who was sort of left out to dry by the government with its aged care royal commission, after making the senior Australians minister defend the reasons for not having one, has been given a dixer on why the government is now holding one.
He is called back to the despatch box by Julie Collins, who asks him about why he criticised Labor for describing aged care as being “in a state of national crisis” as “fear mongering and verging on the abuse of older Australians”.
“Will the minister now apologise for older Australians and their families for refusing acknowledge the crisis in aged care?”
Wyatt:
Yes, I did say that in this chamber. I said it at a point in time in which the context had to be considered for why I made those comments. If you remember, I made the comments that I was slow to anger on many issues. But what I’ve done and have continued to do is to act to put in place for the reforms that are absolutely necessary. It includes living longer and having choice. In the budget proposals that we focused on with better access to care - better quality of care, but, more importantly, ageing well.
All of those were premised. Now, I know that at the time when I made that comment the Leader of the Opposition called me shortly after Question Time and he and I had a discussion. It doesn’t change my position. I’m wanting to make sure that every senior Australian in this nation who built this country and has given us everything we’ve taken for granted deserves the things we put into place and we will continue to do the reforms on a number of areas in terms of workforce.
I appointed a taskforce to look at the workforce needs in the aged care sector, because the numbers will increase from 366,000 to 920,000 by 2050. What I want to see is a workforce that provides the nurturing and care and the aged care workforce that I have had the privilege of meeting in 100 facilities-plus across this nation, I would stand beside. I would stand beside them because I have seen them deliver good care. I have seen them deliver compassion.
I have seen them at the funerals of people they cared for and the aged care workforce has been absolutely tremendous and what I want to do with our government and working with the Prime Minister is for our government to look at the opportunities we create for path ways into aged care that looks after senior Australians. It is absolutely important and I don’t reconcile from the stance of a number of issues because I have a number of - a total commitment to wanting to make sure we collectively in this House provide the pathways that ensure that the programs we put in place have bipartisan support, that what I put into place with the Prime Minister out of the royal commission and what we put into place continuing from our budget programs, will continue to ensure that we have quality of life for senior Australians wherever they live in cities, in regional Australia, remote Australia and for those in country towns where the numbers are small, because our senior Australians have the social capacity and deserve the quality of life they have earned.
Michael McCormack said some things in a dixer.
Moving on!
Julie Collins again questions the cuts to aged care in the 2016 budget.
Scott Morrison:
I do refer her to my earlier answer where I made it clear, under this government, funding for aged care has been increasing by more than $1 billion year. More than $1 billion a year. One plus one does not equal zero. It equals two. The opposition interjects, and congratulates me on my maths, but I seem to be the only one able to do it, sitting at this table. On that side, Mr Speaker, they think if you increase funding, it’s a cut. That is what they do, Mr Speaker. But let me tell you, I’m asked about funding of aged care, let me tell you what we have also done.
There’s $200 million put into a 5-year program to boost dementia research in this country, that I put in the budget this year. $150 million is used to fast-track progress towards prevention, cures. $50 million is for the national institute for dementia research, and an extra $34 million is making significant research achievements.
Highlights include ultra sound technology to improve memory, and understanding the impact of childhood stress as a dementia risk factor, and the potential for eye scans to reveal early signs of dementia. Those opposite interject, they raise the issues of the complex needs of aged care, and I’m talking about funding for dementia research, Mr Speaker.
We are putting in additional resources for mental health support for people in residential aged care. We announced $106 million, that included $16 million for funding to increase policing of standards in the aged care centre, to boot the capacity and to lift quality standards in the aged care sector.
This government is investing in aged care in this country, and we’re acutely aware of the fact that through our support for inhome care places, that Australians want to choice to stay at home longer and age in their homes, Mr Speaker. Now that means when people go into residential aged care, their needs are more acute, and that’s why we need better understanding of the issues, and that is why the royal commission would be helpful to look at that standards in place, so ensure we have a factual basis for bipartisanship.
Updated
Rebehka Sharkie has the crossbench question today:
Frank, aged 68, applied for the pension in November last year. In March, after nine months of no income, he called my office seeking urgent assistance. Due to serious health issues, Wayne applied for the pension last December. Financially and emotionally distressed in March, he called my office after waiting for four months for Centrelink to approve his application. Our older Australians deserve better than this. What undertakings will you make to address the delay in Centrelink processing aged care applications?
Michael Keenan:
Look, firstly, at the outset, there’s any individual cases she wishes to raise ... the best thing to do, as members on this side of the house do… is to raise directly with my office.
When individual cases are raised with me, or my office, then obviously we make every effort to intervene, to make sure that people get the outcomes they deserve. Now, in regards to this, if she wants to see me after Question Time, I’m very happy to look into the cases that she has raised with me. But in general, what is happening within my department, is that when we came to office, the Labor party, between 2007 and 2013, had cut people from the Department of Human Services.
Now, we, as always, are the ones fixing up that mess. Now I’m getting an extra 2,750 people contracted within my department, to be able to address these issues. To make sure that when people call, their phones are answered quickly, and they deal with people who can deal with their questions and get them the response they deserve. In terms of processing times, processing times are improving, because of the extra resources that we have put into the department. And we’ll continue to improve, as those extra resources come online. But can I say to any member of the chamber, if there’s an individual case that has been brought to you, then please, come to us, raise it with us, and we can fix it.
Updated
Looking at the chamber, and Ann Sudmalis, who is expected to announce her retirement from federal politics at the next election, is also in red.
Right.
Both parties messed around with the budget instrument which dictates aged care funding.
The government did it last in 2016. So, like the education and health funding arguments we heard over and over and over again during the byelections, it is possible for funding to be cut, and also to be increased.
How?
Because the funding is not increasing at the rate which was originally expected.
The government had to make up for some of those changes in the last budget.
But like health and education, aged care spending is only going up, because the number of people needing it, in our aging economy, is also increasing. But it doesn’t mean it is going up as much as was expected.
So the total may have gone up. But it did not go up by as much as was expected, after the instrument used to decide it, was changed. And in 2016, that was a decrease of $1.2 billion over four years in anticipated funding.
Tanya Plibersek to Scott Morrison:
How can the prime minister deny cutting $1.2bn from aged care when page 101 of budget paper number 2 of his 2016 budget, that bears his own name, states, and I quote, “The government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2bn over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the aged care funding instrument, that terms the level of funding paid to aged care providers.”
Morrison:
It’s quite simple. In the ’16-17 budget, the funding for aged care was $17.1bn. It’s increased on average by 6.2% every year. Aged care spending was estimated to reach $18.6bn. For the benefit of the member for Sydney, 18.6 is higher than 17.1 billion, and over the next four years it will grow by another $5bn to $23.6 billion.
What the member would know, because the Labor party, the Labor party when they were in government, also had issues with the estimation of potential demand in the aged care sector, and issues of compliance with allocating the funding and ensuring the funding was spent on the purposes for which it was intended, to recalibrate future growth projections upon which the services would be required.
That’s a standard budgeting function. It can be dealt with as an underspend in the estimates, as I would know as a former treasurer, or take the decision in the budget and make sure the forward projections are accurate.
Aged care funding has gone up $1bn and more every year under this government. This is the facts. This is why I want a royal commission into this area, because we should not be making decisions based on the political agendas of those opposite, or in other places, Mr Speaker. We should be making decisions based on the facts.
The Australian people know that the Labor party do not tell the truth at elections about services provided to senior Australians. They went to the last election and they didn’t tell the truth about Medicare services, Mr Speaker.
They told blatant untruths. The Australian people know they cannot trust what the Labor party tells them about what the government is doing. By contrast the Australian people can trust this government because we know how to run a stronger economy, to pay for it, and we do the things that we believe in.
Updated
Question time begins
Bill Shorten to Scott Morrison:
Yesterday the prime minister stated and I quote, “We’re committed to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity.”
Now, if that is the case, why when he was treasurer, in his first budget, did the now prime minister cut $1.2bn from aged care? How did cutting $1.2bn from aged care support the dignity of vulnerable older Australians?
Morrison:
Well, I was hoping there would be some bipartisanship, Mr Speaker, when it came to issues of aged care.
I will retain some hope on that front, Mr Speaker, but to address the leader of the opposition’s question, only this could happen with Labor party financial management. Where you increase the budget for aged care, by $1bn every single year, can that, in their minds, be a cut to funding.
$1bn extra from the 2016-17 budget, every single year, and going out to the end of the forward estimate, we’re increasing the funding for aged care. Only under the Labor party can one plus one equal zero. That’s how the shadow treasurer adds up, Mr Speaker. But on this side of the house, that has a track record for strong financial management, and it’s only through a strong economy, that we have been able to boost funding for aged care, by a billion extra every single year.
And on top of that, ensure that we’re delivering more in-home aged care places. But the member, the member refers to the 2016-17 budget. He may be interested to know what the sector said about the 2016-17 budget, when it comes to aged care. They said, “Elements of the 2016 budget measures to slow the dramatic above trend growth in active funding would have unintended consequences for providers of services heavily concentrated on servicing people with needs.”
Today’s adjustment means the risks have been negated while the government reviews in consultation with the sector. This is good news for increasing numbers of Australians who need the support of aged care services and their families.
It takes courage and leadership, Ian Yates said, in relation to the budget and the measures I handed down in this budget, because we know how to run a strong economy, we know how to get the budget back in balance, which is exactly what we’ve been doing. We know how to fund the essential services like aged care, that are necessary. You do it by running a stronger economy. The leader of the opposition, the shadow treasurer, the entire frontbench of the Labor party have no plans for a stronger economy. They don’t know how to run a strong economy if their political future depended on it.
This government is delivering year on year higher funding for aged care services, and we are pleased to support it with a strong budget and a strong economy.
Updated
It’s almost question time, so time for “Who’s that MP”.
... Julian Leeser congratulating the Demons.
Updated
Sign of solidarity?
Has red become a protest colour for some of the women in our parliament?
After Julie Bishop was seen with red shoes announcing her resignation from the frontbench, the hue has caught on, with the suggestion it is being used as a visual signal of support for women within the Liberal party. Labor MPs often wear red, for obvious reasons.
I’ve been told that red shoes, as Julia Banks is wearing today, in particular is being seen as a sign of solidarity.
Updated
It’s almost question time!
Send those predictions my way.
Updated
Over at the banking royal commission, it’s been another one of those days that makes you want to burn the financial industry to the ground.
AMP has admitted to charging nearly $1m in premiums for life insurance to 3,124 superannuation customers that it knew had died.
It also admits the number of people could be much higher.
AMP decided to investigate in April after it heard the Commonwealth Bank admit that its financial advisers had been charging dead clients for financial advice.
Paul Sainsbury, AMP’s group executive of wealth solutions and chief customer officer, told the commission today that AMP had identified 3,124 super members who have died and who have been charged $922,902 in life insurance premiums since dying, with their premiums yet to be refunded.
Sainsbury said the investigation was ongoing and there could be more refunds owing.
AMP is Australia’s largest wealth manager. It reported the breach to regulators in June, two months after its investigation began.
Updated
Julie Bishop has told the Australian reporter Rosie Lewis that “based on current information, I would vote against such a motion” if Labor or the Greens tried to force another vote to refer Peter Dutton to the high court.
Anyone who wanted to know where QT might head today might find this exchange interesting.
Scott Morrison was on the Nine network this morning where he was asked by Georgie Gardner about the timing of the royal commission into aged care.
There have been calls for quite some time – which the Coalition government only last week, said was not necessary –that the money should be spent on frontline services and instruments were being put in place to fix the issues.
But the day before Four Corners aired its investigation, the announcement was made.
Morrison was asked why, now:
Gardner: So why has it taken so long to call a royal commission is what so many people want to know?
Morrison: I’ve been prime minister for three weeks. I think that’s a pretty quick time.
Gardner: But you were part of a government that could have called this a long time ago?
Morrison: I can take responsibilities for my actions as a prime minister and that’s what I’m doing.
He’s not alone with the “this is new, give us some time” argument.
Jim Molan used it late last week, as an excuse for not having an energy policy.
.@JimMolan: I reckon we have a good energy policy now, give us a break - it's only week three of this government.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) September 12, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/ykweMevBOK #Credlin pic.twitter.com/iMLctWwbdJ
Updated
Like we reported a little earlier today:
If you needed more proof that the wheels have fallen off Scott Morrison’s Government
— Stephen Jones MP (@StephenJonesMP) September 17, 2018
They move a motion in Parliament today on tax and can only get one speaker to support it👇🏼 pic.twitter.com/rMjACHI3da
When all the crossbench votes with Labor, the government has a majority of one.
But there are some pairs, otherwise it would have been locked at 74 each.
Tied division in the house this morning 71/71 with speaker Tony Smith casting his deciding vote with the government to defeat Jason Clare’s amendment to the TTP @AmyRemeikis @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/NgF4UDczJN
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) September 17, 2018
Updated
The Coalition is one down with Malcolm Turnbull’s resignation, which makes for an even tighter house. The vote was tied at 71 each.
Tied vote in the house
The House just voted on Jason Clare’s amendment to the TTP:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) the Coalition government has waived labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six new countries in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership as well as including investor state dispute settlement mechanisms which Labor does not support; and
(2) Labor believes the way Australia negotiates trade agreements needs to change, and a Labor government will:
(a) seek to remove ISDS provisions from existing free trade agreements and legislate so that a future Australian government cannot sign an agreement with such provisions;
(b) seek to reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in existing free trade agreements and legislate so that a future Australian government cannot waive labour market testing in new agreements;
(c) legislate that all new free trade agreements would be subject to an independent national interest assessment before it is signed to examine the economic, strategic and social impact of any new trade agreement;
(d) legislate to create an accredited trade advisers program where industry, union and civil society groups would provide real time feedback on draft trade agreements during negotiations; and
(e) strengthen the role of the parliament in trade negotiations by increasing the participation of the joint standing committee on treaties (JSCoT) by providing:
(i) the government’s statement of objectives for negotiation to JSCoT for consideration and feedback; and
(ii) JSCoT with a briefing at the end of each round of negotiations.”
And it was a tie.
On a procedural vote, the Speaker’s casting vote generally shouldn’t be used to create a majority if there isn’t one.
So the amendment was voted down.
Updated
Terri Butler said Labor would continue to ask Peter Dutton refer himself to the high court:
Frankly, it’s about time he referred himself to the high court. The best he’s got to rely on is some equivocal legal advice. That legal advice is further demonstration of the importance of resolving the question of whether he is even eligible to sit in this parliament.
This is a serious question, and Peter Dutton shouldn’t be in a situation where he’s leaving his constituents, and the nation, in doubt, as part of this illegitimate government. He needs to refer himself to the high court, and if Peter Dutton won’t refer himself to the high court then Scott Morrison should refer Peter Dutton to the high court.
Scott Morrison should show some leadership. You know, even the former prime minister’s out there saying Peter Dutton should be referred to the high court. Scott Morrison should show some leadership and refer Peter Dutton to the high court.”
Updated
I have been told there has been a rush to fill in speaking spots after Nola Marino made it known the government was running short on people to speak on motions.
But Christopher Pyne says the government has plenty of business to keep it occupied.
Updated
Asked about Ann Sudmalis’s impending resignation announcement, Christopher Pyne said politics was “not a life sentence” and described it as quite “a nice way to go”.
So I guess he is not too heartbroken then.
Updated
It is worth noting, again, that, the rate of Newstart has not been increased for 24 years.
The Greens have put up several motions calling for it to be increased (and introduced another bill last week asking for it to be increased by $75 a week) and have been voted down. The Liberal party sticks to the “best form of welfare is a job” line. As we all should know, a job in this country is not necessarily a ticket out of poverty. Labor has said it will look at it, but hasn’t made a commitment to increase it.
The very sad truth is that there are not a lot of votes in unemployment benefits.
You can read more about Acoss’s latest push, here.
And I also recommend you check out, if you have not already, Guardian Australia’s Life on the Breadline.
Updated
The Australian Council of Social Service is calling for the rate of Newstart to be raised.
You can find out more about its latest report, here:
It's time to #RaisetheRate of Newstart, Youth Allowance and related payments. Let's #ChangeLives of people and communities doing it the toughest.
— ACOSS (@ACOSS) September 17, 2018
Join us https://t.co/KCqzVA5QG6#auspol pic.twitter.com/FKPENDWNxT
And you can read our news story on the report by my colleague Luke Henriques-Gomes here.
Updated
Gareth Hutchens is listening to the banking royal commission hearing today, but we have an update on some movements at NAB.
The former NSW premier, Mike Baird, will head up the bank’s retail unit as chief customer office for consumer banking after Andrew Hagger stepped down following his appearance at the royal commission and questioning over the fees for no service revelations.
“I take accountability for what has occurred on my watch, and accept that alongside successes were failures, including instances where we did not act with the pace required,” Hagger said in a statement on Monday, reported by AAP.
“I leave NAB with confidence that we are creating a better bank.”
Updated
At least with the royal commission into the aged care sector having been announced, we are talking about policy again.
But for those who had questioned why policy wasn’t making the headlines, it’s because, well, there is not a lot on the agenda.
The Senate is running very low on legislation to discuss.
Here’s today’s agenda and here’s today’s notice paper.
The tax plan was pulled, and the Neg is dead, so that doesn’t leave a lot for our senators to discuss.
Over in the House, and whip Nola Marino had to send out an email (thank you to our secret squirrels) asking government MPs to sign up to talk on motions. Because they hadn’t. Here is what she sent out late last week to Liberal MPs:
As I have had no response with regard to the following motions I am re-sending asking you to look at the motions below and let me know asap If you wish to speak. The vacancies are highlighted in yellow. I look forward to lots of responses! Thank you.
Items for House of Representatives chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS COLLINS: To move – that this House notes that:
(1) the R U OK? conversation convoy began on 30 July 2018 to raise awareness that a conversation could change a life, and the convoy will: (a) travel across 14,000km and 25 communities to show Australians that every day is the day to ask: Are you Ok?; and
(b) conclude in Sydney on 13 September 2018 which is also R U OK? day, an important day which was first established in 2009 to raise awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill health;
(2) the statistics around suicide and mental ill health are heartbreaking and confronting: (a) in 2016, 2,866 Australians lost their lives to suicide;
(b) research reveals that around 65,000 Australians attempt suicide every year and hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by each suicide death; and
(c) one in five Australians experience mental ill health in any year;
(3) all levels of government and the community are urged to work together to reduce the impact of suicide and mental ill health in our society; and
(4) work must continue towards reducing stigma and raising community awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill health.
(Notice given 13 August 2018.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Collins — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
SPEAKERS: 1_______________ 2._________________ 3._________________
2 MR VAN MANEN: To move – that this House:
(1) notes that over the year, the economy grew 3.4%, which is the fastest rate of growth since the 2012 September quarter during the height of the mining investment boom, and the 27th year of consecutive economic growth;
(2) recognises that strong employment outcomes have been accompanied by an elevated rate of labour force participation, particularly for women, and that wages can be expected to rise if economic growth remains strong; and
(3) calls on the government to remain resolute in its effective economic management to ensure funding for the essential services we need.
(Notice given 11 September 2018.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr van Manen — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
SPEAKERS: 1. VAN MANEN 2.__________________ 3.________________
4._________________ 5.__________________
3 MR ZAPPIA: To move – that this House:
(1) notes that: (a) an estimated 25 million Uighur people live in Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region;
(b) many Uighur people have fled their homeland and sought refuge in other countries including Australia;
(c) in recent years there have been increasing reports of violations of human rights of Uighurs by Chinese government authorities including arrest, interrogation, detention and incarceration in what are referred to as re-education camps; and
(d) many Uighurs now living in Australia have lost contact with family members and relatives in their homeland and they hold grave concerns for their safety; and
(2) calls on the government to: (a) raise concerns about allegations of human rights abuse against Uighurs with the Chinese government through whatever opportunities are available;
(b) assist in whatever way is possible Australian Uighur residents to make contact with family members and relatives in their homelands; and
(c) expeditiously process permanent resident visa applications for Uighur people in Australia on temporary protection visas.
Time allotted — remaining private members’ business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits —
Mr Zappia — 5 minutes.
Other members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
SPEAKERS: 1.________________ 2._________________ 3.__________________
Updated
If you see green ribbons in the Chamber this week, here's why: https://t.co/oxVqQqAF6b
— Australian House of Representatives (@AboutTheHouse) September 17, 2018
The writ has officially been issued for the 20 October Wentworth byelection.
But it is Kerryn Phelps’s announcement she will run as an independent which has everyone talking.
Dr Phelps was already well known in her electorate – and then the marriage equality debate happened and she became very, very well known in what is a pretty progressive Liberal seat.
We know that Malcolm Turnbull was popular. So the decision to dump him as leader has not gone over well. The Liberals know it, and Phelps running was one of their biggest fears.
If she wins, Scott Morrison officially loses his parliamentary majority. That doesn’t mean we will go straight to an election. Julia Gillard managed to make the parliament work with a minority government. And there will be another election in Wentworth pretty soon after the October byelection anyhow – Morrison still has to hold the election before mid-May.
But the fact the Liberals are worried about a seat the party won with 62% of vote just two and a bit years ago is very telling.
.@drkerrynphelps: I had so many requests from people in the Wentworth electorate to run, so that they had a voice that actually spoke for them in the House of Representatives.
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) September 16, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/3OrkaAnJS9 #amagenda pic.twitter.com/mNZyA3dq48
Updated
Ann Sudmalis reportedly retiring at the next election
Ann Sudmalis was facing a very, very strong preselection challenge from Grant Schultz, who had been told to back off after Jane Prentice lost her preselection in Queensland, and the lack of women in the Liberal party once again became a political issue.
Scott Morrison, then treasurer, was one of Sudmalis’s biggest supporters, directing the branch, through a press conference in Gilmore, to get behind her.
“I think it would be a bad thing for the government if Ann Sudmalis was replaced by any other candidate,” he said at the time, just four short months ago.
He hugged her for the cameras to prove his point.
After a weekend of to-ing and fro-ing, we can now expect the announcement later today.
Updated
Things are going very well:
BREAKING: Scott Morrison has been unable to convince Ann Sudmalis to recontest the marginal seat of Gilmore. She will announce her decision today #auspol
— Bevan Shields (@BevanShields) September 17, 2018
Updated
Peter Dutton on why he should not be referred to the high court:
“These issues are being raised for political purposes. It was raised as I say by the Labor party in October of last year and they didn’t raise it again so I am very confident in my position.
“ ... My message to Liberal colleagues is to get behind Scott Morrison because as we have seen in the Ipsos poll today people have made up his mind about Bill Shorten: they don’t like him.
“He is dodgy, he is two-faced, he is not credible.”
Updated
The numbers in the Tony Abbott preselection contest have still not been released.
Sharri Markson of the Daily Telegraph was one of the first to announce the news Abbott faced a strong challenge:
BREAKING: Tony Abbott has tonight been re-endorsed for Warringah. Attempts to roll him failed, but the result was tight and the final vote was not released - which outraged some. Abbott told those in attendance he would continue to be their MP even if they voted against him.
— Sharri Markson (@SharriMarkson) September 14, 2018
And as the weekend rolled on, so did the story:
EXCLUSIVE: Multiple Liberal Party members believe the preselection vote against Tony Abbott was 38-46, which would mean just 55 per cent supported his renomination for Warringah. The former PM denies this https://t.co/kMlJzmQdgS #auspol
— Bevan Shields (@BevanShields) September 15, 2018
Abbott continues to deny it was close. He told Fairfax he won close to 70% of the vote. But the numbers are still not being released.
Last night the NSW Liberal president, Nick Greiner, told the ABC he saw no reason why the numbers shouldn’t be released.
None of it changes that Abbott still won. BUT my mail (and that of most of the press gallery) is that the Liberals are worried a strong independent could be enough to knock Abbott out of the electorate. Seems like that “base” we hear so much about might not be as strong as we’ve been told.
Updated
Peter Dutton, speaking about the news of two tragic deaths at a NSW music festival (while still maintaining pill testing is not the answer), says he does not expect to be referred to the high court over his potential section 44 conflict.
Dutton was saved from a referral by one vote last time this popped up. Labor and the Greens have not dropped it and last week Julie Bishop said she would consider it if (and when) the vote came to pass.
The home affairs minister is sticking to the line he has advice that shows he is probably not in conflict (obviously I am paraphrasing).
But once again, so did everyone else who was caught up in this constitutional net – and most were found by the court as being in breach.
The only advice which matters is that of the high court. Which is the line Malcolm Turnbull’s supporters are using as they speak to colleagues.
Dutton’s supporters, including the Queensland contingent, have accused those of wanting to see Dutton referred as potentially destroying the government. A few things on that:
- There would need to be a byelection only if he was found to be in breach (so are they worried he is?);
- The timing would be bring us pretty close to the general election anyway – by the time the high court goes through all of the motions, brings the case in front of the bench, and then hands down its judgment, if a byelection was necessary, it would probably just be wrapped up in the general election.
The Senate inquiry into Dutton’s approval of the au pair visas will be handed down this week. Expect some movement on this towards week’s end.
Updated
The latest Fairfax-Ipos poll shows Scott Morrison to be the more popular leader, but Labor would absolutely romp it in at the next election, 53 to 47.
Morrison says that’s because the government is being punished for the leadership change. That would be the one that no one can really explain.
Government ministers have lined up to once again to spruik the leadership contest poll that’s showing voters find Morrison more trustworthy than Bill Shorten.
But as Fairfax’s David Crowe points out, Morrison hasn’t done a lot to shift that measure from where Malcolm Turnbull left it.
The preferred prime minister measure is pretty bupkis as it is more often than not about name recognition. And you can be the more popular leader, but still lead an unpopular party.
Updated
The government is feeling quite bruised over the claim it cut funding to the aged care sector.
Greg Hunt was out early this morning attempting to quell it:
We’ve added $5bn in the last budget. The last budget has gone from $81.6bn for aged care to $86.6bn, so an increase of a billion dollars a year over our time in government and over the period of what’s called the forward estimates or the life of the budget. We are up from $13bn in the last year of the previous government to $20bn this year, 21 next year, 22 the following year and 23 the year after that.
So, a $5bn increase in the last budget. And each year every year an increase of approximately $1bn.”
It is true that the government put money into aged care at the last budget – but it was not as much as expected, and didn’t increase home care help, or residential places, by as much as was called for.
Late last week Scott Morrison announced that the government would be bringing that funding forward.
But it is also true that the Coalition changed the instrument which determines aged care funding.
Here is how the parliamentary library described it last year:
The budget includes savings of $1.2bn over four years through changes to the aged care funding instrument (ACFI) used by residential aged care providers to determine the base funding for each resident.[2] This is in addition to the $472.4m savings over four years through changes to the ACFI scoring matrix that were announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2015–16 (MYEFO).[3]
The ACFI is a tool used to assess the care needs of permanent residents through a series of questions that determine funding across three domains: activities of daily living (ADL), behaviour and complex health care (CHC). The greater the assessed need in each domain, the higher the basic subsidy for the resident. This basic subsidy (determined by the ACFI) accounted for the majority of the funding ($9.7bn out of $10.6bn) the Australian government paid for residential care subsidies and supplements in 2014–15.[4]
Updated
Good morning
The government has kickstarted the week with an attempt to get ahead of this evening’s first Four Corners episode into the aged care sector by announcing a royal commission.
But the prime minister, Scott Morrison, is already having to defend himself over budget decisions he made in 2016 as treasurer where the “further revisions of the aged care instrument” saw $1.6bn cut from the sector over four years.
At a press conference yesterday, Morrison described that as a lie when pressed on the issue by Rick Morton, a journalist from the Australian. Here is their exchange:
Morton: Prime minister, when you were treasurer you cut $2bn from aged care.
Morrison: No, no. That’s what the Labor party says –
Morton: No, no, you did.
Morrison: No, I didn’t. The Labor party says that –
Morton: You cut $1.2bn from the aged care funding.
Morrison: No, I don’t accept that. If people want to put questions, they’re not allowed to put lies.
Morton: Aged care funding had $1.2bn –
Morrison: No, no. We’re increasing aged care funding by $1bn every year.
Morton: No, it’s a direct question, prime minister –
Morrison: We’ve put in place compliance measures to ensure that public funds don’t get misused. So, this is why we are going to have a royal commission –
Morton: Are you ignoring the facts?
Morrison: No, I’m not ignoring facts. That’s why I’m calling a royal commission, if you just let me finish the answer. This is why I’m having a royal commission, because I’m not going to put up with lies being told about what’s happening in the aged care sector. Policy must be based on facts. Not facts that are dreamt up, not facts that are misinterpreted, not facts that have agendas sitting behind them. A royal commission doesn’t have any of those maladies. A royal commission will actually look at the actual facts, not at the agendas of advocates, not at the agendas of media, not at the agenda of politicians. A royal commission will be focused 100% on the needs of residential aged care residents.
Except, the budget papers – page 101 from budget paper 2, 2016 – show that to be true. So does the independent analysis from the parliamentary library, which reported on the 2016-17 budget cuts here.
Morrison has said he expects the royal commission revelations to be “bruising”. Problems within the sector have been reported on for years. Labor had already called for a royal commission, which the Coalition government originally dismissed, saying it was unnecessary because it had put in place measures to improve the industry. That’s the same argument it used before the banking royal commission – before it was forced into establishing that.
We’ll have more on that today, as well as the news that Kerryn Phelps will stand as an independent in the Wentworth byelection – which was the Liberal party’s biggest fear – and the news that Tony Abbott came pretty close to losing his branch’s endorsement at his preselection.
Mike Bowers is out and about – follow him at @mikepbowers and @mpbowers – and the Guardian brains trust – @garethrhutchens, @paul_karp and @murpharoo – are also on the case, as usual.
You’ll catch me in the comments or at @amyremeikis.
I have had only one coffee so far this morning but the sun is shining in Canberra and winter finally looks like loosening its grip on the capital, so I am imbued with spring-ness.
Ready? Let’s get into it.
Updated
