Good night good blogans one and all
Well, it’s been real, it’s been fun, it’s been a bit loopy – all the things Politics Live generally is. I’m going to go away now in order to prepare for the nerd marathon that is tomorrow. Join me early and we’ll crack on until late.
But first, let me take you through Monday.
Today:
- ’Twas budget eve, and MPs made their way back into the building.
- Most of the focus was trained on the childcare announcement Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison unfurled on Sunday. Show us the fine print, came the cry from the famous ferals of the Senate. The prime minister opened the batting by saying he’d accept savings to pay for it other than the savings the government had itself nominated. Which seemed cheery.
- The prime minister also had to explain why his signature policy, paid parental leave, was now a budget saving. We had to prioritise, Abbott said. It was a bit of a wrench, he added.
- In between all the childcare argy the game of the day was Joe Hockey is a loser – discuss. Scott Morrison was on the rise, Hockey was on the slide, went the jibber jabber. Until Scott Morrison declared Hockey “our Greg Bird”. Unfortunate that, given Bird is a colourful character currently languishing on the NRL sidelines. Morrison later clarified he meant another Bird, Jack Bird, a person with no disrespect to the other Bird, no-one had ever heard of. Life achievement unlocked.
- Moving forward. Hockey unveiled a couple of tax integrity measures, fines for multinational tax avoidance, and the Netflix tax which has been telegraphed for some weeks. Hockey said the GST on downloads and so forth would net about $350m for the states, and he declined to put a figure on the avoidance measures. His explanation? It’s complicated.
- Hockey also reminded anyone watching that tomorrow’s economic statement was the government’s budget – which could mean a number of things. The most obvious of the things was we will all rise or fall as a consequence of what happens over the next few months.
That’s enough. Thanks for the comments. See you all tomorrow.
Updated
Bit of breaking news from the apple isle. Tasmanian Greens member for Franklin, Nick McKim, says he’ll be putting up his hand for the Senate seat vacated by Christine Milne.
Confirming I'll be nominating for the Senate. Out of respect for Party members & process I won't be making further public comment. #politas
— Nick McKim (@NickMcKim) May 11, 2015
Updated
The finance minister is now undertaking his .. I don’t know, one hundredth interview for the day. He’s on Sky News. Sky political editor David Speers is trying to burrow down into the offsetting savings for the childcare package.
Speers wants to know whether the offsetting savings are actually tied to the new spending. Cormann says to the extent there is new spending in social services, there should be offsetting savings in social services. This seems a teensy bit arbitrary to me. Obviously new spending should be offset with savings if you want to reduce the deficit, but this is a calculation that applies across the board for budgets. It’s a general principle, spend and offset – it’s not generally tied down at the portfolio level in the way Cormann is suggesting this afternoon.
It’s also very slightly at odds with the prime minister’s open for savings business from earlier today.
It amazes me how often politics gives me a reason to share this Hugh Atkin mash-up, Get Hockey, in different contexts over time.
In an analysis posted this afternoon, my colleague Lenore Taylor puts the current Hockey dynamic well.
The enthusiastically adopted pre-budget theme of how hopeless/invisible/under threat Joe Hockey is compared with the astute/omnipresent/rising star of Scott Morrison is not entirely inaccurate. Hockey did do a lousy job of explaining budget 2014 and Morrison is doing a good job of explaining his pre-announced policies this year. But the government has also completely changed the nature of the policies it is advocating. Explaining and winning support for progressive policies on aged care or super-generous policies on childcare is not an enormously difficult task. And if this budget is poorly received, it won’t only be Hockey’s job on the line. In the meantime, as we debate whether Hockey is, or is not, in any way similar to Greg Bird, actual policy details are being announced.
A lovely portrait from the press conference earlier from Mike Bowers, too.
He’s delivered a garbled and incoherent press conference.
This is Labor’s Andrew Leigh in one of the parliamentary courtyards, sledging Joe Hockey about his avoidance press conference. Given the quality of press conferences in this building, I think singling out one as garbled and incoherent is a brave call.
I don’t know what this policy is, and frankly, Joe Hockey doesn’t seem to know either.
Updated
The internet is a cruel and windswept place.
#Budget2015 (@Mikey_Nicholson @Rob_Stott) pic.twitter.com/vX8cOXqqXo
— Re:scott (@scottsues) May 11, 2015
Back to double Irish Dutch sandwiches. The new powers for the tax commissioner are apparently powers allowing the tax commissioner to deem certain activities – Irish sambos and the like – tax avoidance. Strange the tax commissioner lacks those powers now. But much is strange, right?
Updated
Just while we have a moment to think ... Parliament’s famous budget tree have peaked at precisely the right moment. Here’s Green Adam Bandt through the canopy. Little bit of gorgeous.
Updated
It’s not entirely clear, to me at least, what this new anti-avoidance measure actually is. New (unspecified) powers for the Australian Tax Office, plus fines. Get the fines; not sure what the powers are. This from Hockey’s statement only repeats the ground covered at the press conference.
Tomorrow night I will be releasing legislation that strengthens our anti-avoidance regime. After consultation with the United Kingdom it is clear that we do not need to replicate their diverted profits tax.
If we strengthen our own anti-avoidance laws to ensure the tax office has the powers to see through these contrived arrangements, then we will be able to recover the tax that should be paid in Australia. Our penalties for diverted profits will go further than the United Kingdom. The tax commissioner will have the power to recover unpaid taxes and issue a fine of an additional 100% of unpaid taxes plus interest.
Updated
Hockey says this is the government's budget. That it is, treasurer
The inevitable ‘why are you such a loser’ question.
Q: Treasurer, you have been criticised for a low profile in the lead-up to this budget. Is this your budget and also what do you make of Scott Morrison’s comments this morning saying you are the Greg Bird of the government?
Hockey:
I’m a rugby man so I’ll leave it at that.
Of course it is.
It’s the government’s budget, of course it is.
We all work together, as we should.
Next question.
Updated
Billions lost in avoidance, Hockey says
Q: You said you wouldn’t give any estimate of the revenue that could be gained (on avoidance) but in the long run, can you give some sort of feel of how much you think is involved, and I think you said that you knew something of what had been lost already?
Hockey:
We are getting a very good feel of the amount of money that has been sent offshore.
The question is what the taxable profit would be. How much is that? Well, it’s a lot of money.
Q: Is there some reason you can’t give that to us?
Hockey:
The reason is because we are still working through the structures.
Q: Are you talking tens of billions?
It is billions, obviously.
Told you there was a chart.
Updated
Hockey is asked why consumers will face GST on a download but not on a T-shirt. The treasurer says the costs associated with widening the GST net outweighed the benefits of the collections, and the state treasurers could not agree on how best to proceed. The treasurer said he’s working in a global framework.
Hockey:
What we are doing under this proposal, which is a global proposal, is going to digital providers overseas and saying to them, ‘Can you apply the GST to the products you provide into Australia ...’ These companies are agreeable to it. They are actually agreeable to it.
They actually don’t pay it; it’s a tax that is collected and they remit it back to the country where that occurs. Now there are really only a handful, comparative handful, of businesses that are engaged in digital technology transfers, even though the volume of activity is far greater than it was when the GST was introduced.
Updated
GST on overseas downloads and the like
The treasurer says the budget will also see new legislation for charging GST on foreign purchases like movie downloads, games and ebooks. He says the revenue raised from imposing more GST on more purchases will be worth $350m to the commonwealth coffers.
Hockey won’t give a revenue estimate on the avoidance measure.
The treasurer is asked whether the anti-avoidance measure will hit mining companies with operations hubbing through Singapore. Hockey says the government will consult companies on the changes.
Updated
Fines for avoidance
Hockey tells reporters he is not unveiling a new tax in Australia.
We don’t need to have a new tax in Australia. We need to strengthen our anti-avoidance measures. If we do strengthen our own anti-avoidance measures to ensure the tax office has the powers to see through contrived arrangements, we will be able to recover the tax that should be paid in Australia on the profits that are made in Australia.
Our penalties for diverted profits will go much further than the United Kingdom. The tax commissioner will have the power to recover unpaid taxes, and issue a fine of an additional 100% of those unpaid taxes plus interest.
Updated
More integrity measures
The prime minister told us earlier that the treasurer, Joe Hockey, would have his own budget announcement today. It’s proceeding now in the Blue Room. The double Irish Dutch sandwich has been invoked. This will be about profit shifting. Good God, there’s a flow chart.
Joe Hockey:
Tomorrow night I will be releasing legislation that strengthens our anti-avoidance regime. I have been working on this for more than a year now.
Updated
This is a government that does not engage in the gossip columns of newspapers.
That’s Eric Abetz, on whether or not the treasurer will be the treasurer for much longer.
Abetz, going in hard.
What’s the source? An unnamed source. The senator is unable to name the source.
The attorney general, George Brandis, is updating the chamber about the counter-terrorism operation in Melbourne over the past few days. He notes the concerning trend of young people being involved in alleged incidents.
Brandis says 23 ppl charged as result 8 counter terrorism operations. "We must remain vigilant". Young ppl being groomed.
— Gabrielle Chan (@gabriellechan) May 11, 2015
Updated
Labor in the Senate is wondering what promises the government will break in tomorrow night’s budget. Abetz sees broken promises and raises with carbon taxes. Crafty.
Sharpen the headlines now, folks. Abetz in secret treasurer pact.
Updated
Question time
Here ye, here ye. The red room is embarking on question time. The government Senate leader, Eric Abetz, is informing the chamber the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, is too busy with budget business to come to question time today. Abetz will answer questions on Cormann’s behalf.
This could be interesting.
Updated
Senate question time is approaching, and the treasurer, Joe Hockey, will have a press conference at 2.15pm. We’ll channel surf.
Updated
Retracting the Bird
Scott Morrison is, forthwith, retracting the Bird, but in so doing, he’d like us to calm down.
Everyone can calm down. I meant Jack Bird, not Greg Bird. I let Ray know straight after the interview. #upupcronulla
— Scott Morrison (@ScottMorrisonMP) May 11, 2015
So noted.
With childcare the story of the day, I’d recommend this short news analysis from new.com.au’s political editor, Malcolm Farr. Farr’s piece plots the changing thinking around women and participation in the Coalition since the Howard years.
Farr:
Tomorrow’s budget will pull apart the John Howard legacy on family policy which kept the Coalition politically successful for 11 years with Tony Abbott’s agreement. The stay-at-home mum, once adored and protected by the Howard government, will be prodded off her pedestal and into the workforce. She will be ‘penalised’, something John Howard said he would never do.
The analysis also covers the distance Abbott has covered on paid parental leave, from being a paid-up member of the stay-at-home camp to the “signature policy” period. As I’ve mentioned already this morning, Abbott’s final iteration on PPL is from signature policy to handy budget saving. That one is a revolution on the head of a pin.
But the government signalling very clearly that it wants women to work is a substantial departure from the Howard orthodoxy – which was in part based on coalitionism (the Nationals are always very touchy about policies which encourage dual-income households rather than single-income households), and Howard’s own social conservatism.
The times, they are a’changing.
Updated
My colleague Shalailah Medhora tells me the head of the ACTU, Ged Kearney, isn’t treading water – she has described the winding back of PPL entitlements in tomorrow’s budget as “outrageous”.
Kearney told Shalailah:
It is simply a lie to say that it is double-dipping, because double-dipping means you go back to the same source twice.
This is stealing wages that women have negotiated in good faith with their employers over and above the paid parental leave scheme.
Updated
Shorten in that press conference was deliberately non-specific about what Labor would ultimately do about the government’s childcare proposal. Labor has telegraphed opposition to cutting family tax benefits to pay for the new package, and concerns about alleged double-dipping on PPL.
But Abbott’s signal that he’s open to counter-offers changes the mix somewhat, at least in theory.
Shorten:
We will look at the fine print.
What is clear is 80,000 mums will be worse off because of Tony Abbott’s latest thought bubble.
Updated
For the past couple of weeks in the countdown to the budget, Labor has been playing with formulations that might be able to cut through the government’s attempted reposition on fairness in this budget.
Last year’s budget was rejected firmly by voters because it was unfair. This year the government has been at pains to portray tomorrow’s economic statement as meeting the fairness test.
The government has been hammering the fairness theme in the run-up to budget night for several reasons: it’s a simple reach-out to voters who have formed a negative impression of Tony Abbott and his government; and it’s also a strategy to box in the Senate. If the budget is fair, then how can those ferals mess with it?
The government is quite clearly trying to channel voter fatigue about zero sum game conflict and hyper-partisanship in Canberra, and Labor is trying to make sure it doesn’t end up being blamed for legislative gridlock.
With that context in the back of your mind, here’s Shorten’s little reverse-fairness formulation today:
What I would say to the government is simply calling something fair doesn’t make it fair.
It’s the detail that counts.
Updated
Meanwhile, the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, is back with some #ShortenSweet
Shorten, who is out at some off-campus event:
There is mounting concern in Australia that tomorrow night’s budget won’t be about the jobs of Australia’s future but it will just be about saving the jobs of the treasurer and the prime minister.
The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, standing alongside Shorten, is seeing phantoms, and soap operas.
Why should the Australian people have confidence in Joe Hockey if his own government does not? He’s been sidelined in one of the most important weeks for the government.
Australia has a treasurer and a shadow treasurer and a phantom treasurer within the government’s own ranks.
What concerns me most is not the soap opera of the government’s dysfunction and the sidelining of Joe Hockey, but it’s the impact this will have yet again on confidence. Again the Australian people, markets, investors saying, ‘Well if the government doesn’t have confidence in the treasurer, how can we have confidence in the economy?’
Tony Abbott has to stop the soap opera and start governing in the best interests of all Australians and doing so in tomorrow night’s budget.
Updated
Politics, pre-budget eve, this lunchtime
Rightio, time for the proper half-time summary before I source a hot crumpet to fuel me for the afternoon nonsense.
Today, Monday:
- The government’s budget childcare package, announced on Sunday, is facing pushback from Nationals, Christians, Greens and Labor, largely because of unhappiness about the fine print.
- The prime minister has responded to this unhappiness by signalling he’s open for business on the savings measures required to get the new system in place. If people don’t like cutting family tax benefit to pay for the new scheme, bring offers, Tony Abbott said this morning out in the shivery Canberra burbs.
- The government is also facing blowback on another savings measure proposed to fund the childcare package – the decision to prevent folks “double dipping” with government paid parental leave and private paid parental leave. The existing PPL scheme was actually designed to be used as a top-up to private sector parental leave schemes. But no more.
- Business, not consulted in the run-up, has said, say hey, wut? Tony Abbott has meanwhile reasoned that it’s OK for PPL to go from being a signature policy to a budget savings measure in less than 12 months because … things change, and ideas change with the things.
- Additionally, Scott Morrison has learned the perils of flipping the Bird in any forum. He’s compared the treasurer Joe Hockey to the colourful NRL footballer, Greg Bird. Sydney radio host Ray Hadley thought that might be a bit much.
Updated
Just for the detail oriented Politics Live reader, rounding out the oops, further and better particulars on Greg Bird to educate both myself, and other readers who aren’t standing start Greg Bird experts.
Gosh, he sounds like a charming sort of chap.
- Bird had a conviction quashed for glassing his girlfriend Katie Milligan, but not before a judge described the pair’s lies as “extremely foolish” – according to the Herald Sun.
- The Gold Coast Titans player became one of the NRL’s most suspended players with an eight-game ban – according to the ABC.
- Bird, along with other NRL players, faced charges of cocaine supply and possession – according to the ABC.
- Bird was also fined for urinating near police car – according to the ABC.
Updated
Is that a Bird? Oooops
I’m only just catching up with an unfortunate digression from Captain Chuckles on his favourite radio show earlier today. Captain Chuckles was portraying himself, modestly, as best supporting actor in a budget – or, for more manly types, a prop forward.
Scott Morrison made a comparison between the treasurer, Joe Hockey, and a footballer called Greg Bird. If, like me, you’ve never heard of Greg Bird – the context of the oops will become clear if you read this exchange.
Ray Hadley thought Morrison might have to re-phrase.
SCOTT MORRISON:
As politicians it’s our job to explain what we’re doing and that’s what I’ve been seeking to do over the last couple of weeks. It’s been a team effort. We’ve all been part of what we’re doing. It’s not unlike, you know, the way that a prop forward takes the ball up. I mean, that’s the job, and that’s my job, and to ensure that prior to the budget we’re explaining some pretty big changes, Ray, and I think it’s a good idea for us to go out there before the budget on two really big issues…
Q: Given you’ve made that comparison, you’re not suggesting Joe’s a fleet footed winger are you?
SCOTT MORRISON:
Well, in this role, that’s him.
He’s our Greg Bird.
I’ll be the prop forward taking it up and he can be the one who will score the try and that’s what he’ll be doing on budget day.
Q: Given Bird’s currently suspended for 8 weeks that’s a really poor analogy.
SCOTT MORRISON:
Probably is, but anyway, not to worry, he’s the guy who will be scoring the points.
Q: I don’t think Joe wants to be Greg Bird on Wednesday morning.
SCOTT MORRISON:
No, true.
Q: Okay, let’s say he’s your Greg Inglis.
SCOTT MORRISON:
Yeah.
RAY HADLEY:
All good.
Updated
A shade of Greens has now gathered below the budget tree. A shade of Greens is a wonderful phrase invented by my colleague Daniel Hurst, to capture the new age of Greens leadership – a little bit consensual, a little bit ... non-singular. To be clear I’m speaking of the publicity which has characterised the new Di Natale regime as pragmatic, and looking for deals.
Then, Monday, Di Natale said something that didn’t sound entirely friendly:
Why is it that this government can only use blackmail as a tactic to get a budget measure through when there are so many other ways of ensuring that the Australian community get the services that they deserve? Things like childcare, decent health system and a decent education system. We don’t need to blackmail the parliament, the Australian community, in order to try and get these changes through. There are huge community opportunities in terms of revenue that are just lying there waiting for this government to adopt.
Then, the Greens childcare spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson Young said something more friendly:
We’re going to have to work really hard to find a way through, to find a way of making sure we invest in early childhood education and care.
Before adding:
But as Richard said it cannot come at the cost of helping families who are among the poorest in our communities and it definitely cannot come at the cost of cutting the government’s current paid parental leave scheme.
Updated
Who said if you want a friend in politics, get a dog?
Who was more unimpressed being forced to do this shot? RT for the pooch, FAV for Joe #auspol (ScoMo only votes once) pic.twitter.com/qpUcQuTkDC
— Ed Husic (@edhusicMP) May 10, 2015
Meanwhile, over at budget.gov.au, a clock is running down the seconds until Joe Hockey delivers his speech Tuesday night.
A wag might call it a doomsday clock. I’m not a wag so I’ll call it no such thing.
Amaroo, in pictures. If I close my eyes, will you all go away?
You need to work the empathy.
And because Mr Bowers loves a pun.
Again, if you’ve just jumped on board the Politics Live bus, let’s take stock quickly. Just two points.
- We began the day with childcare, and thus far it’s still the primary focus of Monday. Tony Abbott has now joined the fray, declaring the budget childcare package a truly excellent policy, a terrific policy – but perhaps he’s open to offers about how it might be funded. Call me maybe.
- In response to why paid parental leave used to be a signature policy and is now merely a nifty budget saving, the prime minister reaches for the old Keynsian formulation: when my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
(That was Keynes, right? I’m sure you’ll correct me if it wasn’t!)
Is this a table I see before me? Why, yes, it is.
Actually, I think the prime minister fancies a biscuit.
When stuff happens, stuff changes mind
Two questions about whether Scott Morrison will be treasurer (nope) and where the other treasurer is (busy) – then back to the substance.
Q: What would you say to the 80,000 mothers and fathers who are told that they won’t be able to access the full paid parental leave scheme that they previously were able to access under the budget – and how can you justify the fact that you’re now cutting access to paid parental leave when you went to two elections with your signature policy of a rolled gold paid parental leave system?
Abbott:
As you know, the policy that we took to the last election is off the table, and I guess there are all sorts of circumstances that have changed since the last election, certainly circumstances that have changed since the election before – and intelligent governments respond appropriately to circumstances as they evolve.
Once more, with feeling – let's talk
In case you missed it. Prime minister. Open to offers.
This is a good package, a fair package, a package that will be good for families and good for the economy, so it’s socially desirable and economically desirable, but if we’re going to do it we do have to have offsetting savings and let’s talk about where those offsetting savings must be, but savings there must be if this package is to go forward.
Updated
Abbott flags he'll accept savings other than FTB cuts
This is interesting. Check out the bold in question two. The PM isn’t wedded to family tax benefit cuts as a savings measure to pay for the childcare package. He’ll take other submissions.
Q: Some of those families who won’t be better off, for example those who would lose Family Tax Benefit B once their youngest child turns six. What do you say to them? They’ll lose in the budget?
Tony Abbott:
That’s actually a measure from last year’s budget. It’s not a new measure.
Q: That needs to be passed to pay for what you’re talking about today?
It’s one of the measures stalled in the Senate and the point we make is that we can’t go ahead with the childcare initiatives with the jobs for families package unless we get offsetting savings. We’re prepared to talk to the Labor party and the cross-bench about where these savings will be found but savings must be found for this to go ahead.
The point that I’ve been making all along is that we support choice. We absolutely support choice. But once children are a certain age, obviously then we think that it’s fair enough for people to go into the workforce and to be supported when they do so.
Updated
Enormous benefits in our social services system
Whither the stay-at-home-Mums?
Q: How about those who stay at home who get nothing out of this?
Tony Abbott:
This certainly is targeted to families who want to work more, no doubt about that, but there is still an enormous amount that government does for a whole range of different families.
If you look at the family tax benefit for instance, we spend about $20bn a year on family tax benefit, yes, we spend $7bn a year on childcare and that will go up to the tune of about $3.5bn over the forward estimates – but nevertheless there are enormous benefits in our social services system for all families, including two parent single-income families, which are about 20% of all families.
Updated
Tony Abbott tells reporters his, sorry, Scott Morrison and Joe Hockey’s, childcare package is good. How good?
It’s good for families, it’s good social policy, it’s good for the economy, it’s good economic policy.
Tony Abbott addresses reporters in Amaroo
Ding, a kitchen table did indeed feature. I knew it.
The prime minister is empathiser in chief, speaking now to reporters in Amaroo.
... to have the conversation which is happening right around Australia, at so many family dinner tables, how do we cope when we want to work more?
Updated
From the Department of Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda.
The name is Costello. Peter, Costello.
From Troy Bramston in this morning’s Australian. I do love the conclusion of the second paragraph.
Peter Costello says he “probably” would have won the 2010 election if he had beaten Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull to the Liberal leadership before he resigned from parliament in late 2009. In an exclusive interview, Mr Costello, who served as treasurer in John Howard’s Coalition government from 1996 to 2007, acknowledged he had other opportunities to become leader but for various reasons never did.
Updated
Woops, haven’t got to this development yet. Something stirring in Indi that starts with an S – thanks to news wires AAP:
Sophie Mirabella has her sights on winning back the Victorian seat she lost at the 2013 federal election. The former frontbencher and Liberal MP for Indi, who was roundly beaten by independent Cathy McGowan, plans to run in the party preselection contest for the electorate.
“Having spoken to Liberal party members and other locals, I confirm I will be nominating for the Liberal preselection in Indi,” Mirabella said in a statement to the Border Mail.
McGowan told ABC radio on Monday she welcomed the prospect of a diversity of candidates for the seat, which she won on a 50% two-candidate preferred swing two years ago. The next federal election is due in 2016.
Updated
I’ve just seen some live pictures coming in from the prime minister’s jaunt to Amaroo. Not a kitchen table, reporters appear to be huddled next to a garden shed.
The new Greens leader Richard Di Natale is advising the Senate he is the new Greens leader. Christine Milne is all smiles on the Greens backbench.
Updated
A new senator approaches the Senate chamber!
The Senate is currently in the business of swearing in Labor’s newest senator Jenny McAllister. She’s replacing veteran John Faulkner.
Lots of air kissing underway downstairs.
Updated
Who says the Senate lacks levity?
Eerie? Since when is the disembodied voice of a large, red room eerie? :) https://t.co/DGwDjROmPs
— Australian Senate (@AuSenate) May 10, 2015
If you are wondering why the Senate is sitting today, from 10am, you are not alone. The order of business suggests the Senate might also be wondering why it’s sitting today.
The Senate is sitting from 10am. Not the House. The House is polishing its budget.
Updated
Got the hot beverages?
If you’ve just come back from the coffee run at work and tuned in to the day’s grim business, let’s take stock quickly.
- Today is Monday, the day before budget day in Canberra, which will happen tomorrow, Tuesday.
- Thus far, the morning has been dominated by political reaction to the childcare package unveiled by the government yesterday. Nationals and Christians say hang on, what about the ladies at home. The nitpickers of the Senate are more intent on looking at the fine print than landing friendly pats on the back at this point. Social services minister Scott Morrison says he’ll be talking to crossbenchers.
- The finance minister Mathias Cormann says paid parental leave has gone from “signature policy” to nifty budget saving in less than 12 months because this is an equity and fairness and an integrity measure.
- The 24 hour news cycle is busy playing Where’s Joe, because, ‘tis the treasurer baiting season, and playing Where’s Joe suits a bunch of metastasising intrigues in the building.
- The prime minister is speeding to Canberra’s north with TV cameras and Mike Bowers in hot pursuit to ponder life at a kitchen table. Or kitchen table equivalent.
And so it goes.
Updated
Politics Live folk are smarter than paint, so you won’t actually need me to point out the winners and losers of budget by meme. Captain Chuckles is chief beneficiary. From ABC24 earlier today.
Q: What do you make of the commentary, I guess you’re alluding to it a little bit there, the commentary that you’ve been the chief salesman and Joe Hockey’s been left out in the cold on those big announcements that people would be more favourable to?
Scott Morrison – modesty being a virtue:
I just dismiss it as the usual Canberra hyperventilation that goes on when people don’t want to focus on what was really occurring.
How "fairness" evolves over time
Rolling on from the riff about Hockey’s performance and the changing messages in the last post, here’s changing messages, a case study. It’s worth posting this exchange in full.
How to roll from the notion that Paid Parental Leave is a “signature” policy of the prime minister to being a helpful budget savings measure. Rooster to feather duster.
This is the ABC’s AM host Michael Brissenden and Mathias Cormann.
Q: Okay, let’s move on to some other measures. The paid parental leave changes that were announced by the treasurer yesterday. The government scheme that is in place was specifically designed to complement workplace schemes, not to replace them, to make sure that new parents spent the recommended 26 weeks with their baby. Now this change will mean, presumably, that women primarily will spend less time with their child and get less money, won’t they?
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well, this is a fairness measure. Most women can only access one paid parental leave scheme and women, for example across the federal public sector, can get both paid parental leave at their replacement wage, their full replacement wage, and then also access the legislated scheme provided by the government to everyone. Now we don’t think that’s fair, we think that women should be able to access one paid parental leave scheme. It’s a matter of choice for them whether they access the government scheme or the scheme that they have access otherwise through their employer.
Q: Nevertheless, the point remains it was specifically designed to complement the work place scheme.
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well, that is not the way we see it. The way we see it is it’s an equity and fairness measure, it’s an integrity measure. It’s a matter of making sure that the opportunity available to all women is the same.
Q: You’ve got Kate Carnell from the business council now saying it’s hard to see why employers would continue to pay people if it meant the government stopped paying and they were simply footing the bill for the government.
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well, the truth is that many employers have paid a very generous paid parental leave scheme before the government came into this space and, you know, I can’t see why that would change. And the truth is that many of these private or public sector paid parental leave arrangements, the full replacement wages I’ve mentioned, is actually much more generous that what is on the table from the public sector. What we’re saying is that if you are accessing a more generous paid parental leave scheme elsewhere, we don’t believe it’s fair that you also access the taxpayer funded scheme on top of that.
Q: Within a year this government has gone from a rolled gold crucial paid parental leave scheme that would have given primary carers six months wage replacement and super, to now proposing something worse than what we already have for thousands of women. How did you get to this point?
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well, it’s a fairness question; I mean obviously we’ve made an announcement earlier this year that we wouldn’t be proceeding with the paid parental leave scheme …
Q: Was it fair a year ago or not?
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well, it’s very clear, it’s not fair for some women to be able to get access to a full replacement wage and on top of that a taxpayer funded paid parental leave scheme, whereas other women only get access to the taxpayer funded paid parental leave scheme. If you get access already to a very generous paid parental leave scheme, there is no reason why you should be able to double dip – and that is the argument we make.
Q: Nevertheless, you do concede that you’ve gone from a rolled gold paid parental leave scheme to this situation now where some women are going to get less?
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well, what I’m conceding is we’re making sure that the taxpayer funded support that is provided for paid parental leave arrangements is properly targeted to those women who need it and not those women who are already getting very generous paid parental leave arrangements through their workforce.
Q: Isn’t this also about trust? About what the government tells you they’re going to deliver and what actually they end up delivering?
MATHIAS CORMANN:
Well you are a commentator, so I leave the commentary to you.
Updated
The morning news cycle is chock full of jibber jabber about the treasurer, Joe Hockey, being sidelined ahead of tomorrow’s budget.
Sidelined. Sidelined. Sidelined. Echo echo echo.
This is like budget by meme, seriously. Drives me ever so slightly nuts. It’s not news that Joe Hockey is a weak treasurer and a poor salesman for the government’s agenda – whatever that agenda happens to be in any given moment. Let’s face it, the agenda is subject to change without notice. Even the message machine that is Mathias Cormann has struggled to articulate the cross currents.
Colleagues are unhappy with Hockey’s performance. Yes, they are. With good reason. But at the end of the day, the whole government rises and falls on collective performance, not on Hockey’s performance. And this is the budget. Probably best to keep focus on the substance of the measures, particularly given what happened last year – suspect readers will thank us for prioritising the fine print over the blah blah.
Thus ends my sermon.
Updated
Just a bit more detail on the PPL changes, to ensure I’ve explained the change properly. This is from a backgrounder supplied by the government.
From 1 July 2016:
- mothers not receiving employer-provided paid parental leave will continue to receive the maximum taxpayer-funded benefit;
- parents receiving employer-provided paid parental leave that is more than the maximum taxpayer-funded benefit will no longer be eligible for taxpayer support; and
- parents receiving employer-provided paid parental leave that is less than the maximum taxpayer funded benefit will continue to be topped up so they receive the maximum benefit.
Winners and losers.
- Over 50% of eligible mothers (around 90,000 p.a.) will be unaffected by this measure and will receive the full entitlement as they have no employer-provided entitlements.
- Approximately 27% of eligible mothers (around 45,000 p.a.) will have a partial entitlement as they have some employer-provided entitlements but at less than the maximum rate.
- Approximately 20% of eligible mothers (around 34,000 p.a.) will only receive their employer-provided entitlements if this exceeds the maximum rate.
Business playback on this change has been swift.
The chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Kate Carnell, told my colleague Lenore Taylor that employers were likely to respond to the budget change by shifting payments to other employee benefits, so their employees would get the taxpayer-funded $11,500 and their existing employer top-up, delivered in a different way.
Carnell, scratching head:
It’s hard to see why employers would continue to pay parental leave if it meant the government stopped paying and they were simply footing the bill for the government.
It seems likely employers and employees would look for other benefits that suited them, if this meant the government still paid the parental leave bill and the employer payments continued to be in addition to it. The reason employers are paying additional leave entitlements now is to give employees additional reasons to work for them.
Updated
First Nationals. Now, Christians. A statement just now from the Australian Christian Lobby’s director, Lyle Shelton.
Will no-one think of the ladies at home?
Government help with rising childcare costs will obviously be welcome by many families but families with a parent working in the home should not be left out. Raising kids is demanding and many families prefer to have a period of time where one parent forgoes an income to stay at home and look after the kids.
These families make a big personal sacrifice and save the government money by not requiring childcare subsidies yet are penalised for doing so. Proposals by the Nationals and Family First for income splitting should be considered as part of any reform to childcare.
Updated
We’ll take this as a comment.
Labor cut $15 billion out of Family Tax Benefit payments when they were in Government
— Scott Morrison (@ScottMorrisonMP) May 10, 2015
Double counting and double dipping – discuss
I hope there will be a moment now to highlight a couple of wrinkles.
1. Double counting?
Labor’s families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin has posed the not unreasonable question this morning – how can you count a savings measure twice? This relates to the childcare package. She says the government has already counted the proposed saving from winding back family tax benefits in last year’s budget, so how can it be an offset for this year’s childcare package? Budget magic?
Macklin:
How can they count that twice?
As is sometimes noted in the classics, time, and a bunch of questions, and Budget Paper Number Two, will tell.
2. Double dipping.
Wrinkle number two involves the proposed saving booked from stopping women double dipping with paid parental leave. The government proposes to end the practice of parents accessing both the paid parental leave provided by their employers and the paid parental leave scheme provided by the government.
I don’t think anybody knew this was a problem until Captain Cheery and the prime minister and the treasurer nominated it as a problem yesterday. The estimated saving from this is in the order of $1bn – but on Sunday, no figures were provided indicating how many people were actually double dipping.
Morrison has found some figures this morning. He says “around 20,000-odd” have been taking the full amount of their employers and then turning up for the full amount from the taxpayer – “and you’ve got a slightly higher number than that who have been claiming a partial payment.”
The finance minister calls change to the system an equity and fairness mesaure, and an integrity measure.
Scott Morrison is asked on the ABC why the childcare package has to wait until 2017. The minister says it has to wait because it’s a big new system, and the implementation needs to be right.
The social services minister is then picked up on the difference with the finance minister’s line on this same question. The finance minister Cormann has said in one of his twenty five interviews that childcare will happen when the budget can afford the outlays, and that’s why the delay. Morrison assures his host that the finance minister is at one with him on the rationale for 2017. Not a feather between them.
Meanwhile, on another ABC platform, the finance minister is telling another host that the Nationals will come good on childcare. (We’ve reference this spat earlier this morning, concerns from the Nationals that this package might fetishize (that’s Matt Canavan’s word, I promise) work.)
Mathias Cormann is a hard man to rattle. He reasons they will see the light. How will that happen, the host wonders?
Cormann, in full Last Action Hero mode:
The Nationals are part of a very strong coalition and they understand that.
Scott Morrison jumps on the Milibandwagon
Captain Cheery has bobbed up on ABC24 to back up Mathias Cormann’s pre-budget sales pitch. The breakfast hosts point out to Scott Morrison that he hasn’t currently got the numbers in the red place to pass his childcare package.
Morrison’s riposte is it’s the crossbench, stupid.
Q: The Opposition won’t budge on those family tax benefits. Where does that leave your childcare proposals now?
Scott Morrison:
I’m not surprised that the Labor party would continue to be reactionary. I mean, what we’ve seen in the UK, Bill Shorten is the new Ed Miliband of Australian politics and they’ll continue to go down the reactionary approach.
We anticipated that.
That’s why for some time now I’ve been engaging with a number of cross benches about this and the other packages we released last week on the pensions.
We’ll continue to have those dialogues over time and, look, that’s the process.
Updated
ICYMI – the childcare package, at a glance
Just in case you were more concerned with breakfast in bed and communion with your loved ones yesterday than listening to Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, Lenore Taylor’s dot point summary of the childcare package is extremely useful.
1. The government will spend $3.5bn over the next four years on the childcare package – which takes effect after the next election in July 2017 – in addition to the about $7bn a year already budgeted for childcare spending.
The new system will:
• offer more generous payments of 85% of the cost of care to all families earning up to $65,000;
• remove the $7,500 a year each child cap on payments to all families earning up to $185,000 a year;
• continue to offer the 50% rebate to families earning over $185,000 and increase the annual cap for each child for these families to $10,000.
2. But to save money it will also:
• remove all childcare subsidies for families earning more than $65,000 where both parents are not in the workforce, replacing them with a sliding scale of payments to encourage parents to increase their hours of casual or part-time work;
• reduce the number of hours of subsidised childcare offered to non-working families earning under $65,000 to 12 hours a week, but continue to subsidise those hours recognising that children from these families may have particular need of the pre-school education that childcare provides;
• Stop parents from “double-dipping” by accessing both government- and employer-funded paid parental leave.
3. And the entire package depends upon the Senate passing the cuts to family tax benefits proposed in last year’s budget but rejected by the Senate.
They included:
• ending family tax benefit B (paid to single-income families) when the youngest child turns six, saving $1.9bn over five years;
• freezing all family tax payments for two years, saving $2.6bn over four years;
• cutting end-of-year family tax benefit supplements, saving $1.2bn over four years.
Good morning and welcome to the spectacle that is budget week on politics live. It’s magnificent to be back with you all after the autumn pre-budget recess. I don’t know about you, but I’m powered up on South African herbal tea and mandarins, which makes me positively dangerous. Lock up your abacus people, we’re baaack.
Today is, of course, Monday, the day before budget day. The past couple of weeks has seen the government drop major elements of this week’s economic statement to various favoured media outlets in an effort to avoid that SURPRISE debacle that was budget 2014.
You haven’t forgotten last year, have you? No. I didn’t think so.
Yesterday, Sunday, was childcare package day. The prime minister and a positively delighted-with-himself social services minister Scott Morrison
(sorry, I warned you about the mandarins) used Mother’s Day to outline the elements of the budget spend* on childcare. [*conditional]
You see what they did there, right? Childcare. On Mother’s Day. Better than a bunch of limp carnations.
But predictably, those ferals in the Senate were more interested in the [*conditional] elements of the package than the broad pledge that no working Australian woman would be left without a subsidy by 2017. Labor and the Greens don’t like the fact the childcare package must be funded by cuts to the family tax benefit.
It wasn’t just the ferals. Given the Nationals never cared for Tony Abbott’s signature paid parental leave scheme because it might force ladies to find economic independence, they were always going to be suspicious of a childcare package which removed benefits from ladies who only work in the home.
Nostrils to our north are flaring.
Take it away, my colleague, Lenore Taylor. With the government setting up a Senate showdown with Labor and the Greens over the family tax benefit savings, LNP senator Matt Canavan did not rule out crossing the floor to vote against them.
Canavan:
I’m not ruling anything in or out. We’re not going to get walked over, but I don’t take that kind of decision lightly either. I’ll have my say in the party room, but there is a very, very strong level of support for the idea that we should be looking after single income families.
It will be interesting to see how this plays through the parliamentary week.
The finance minister Mathias Cormann is this morning’s designated government spruiker. We’ll pick up some of his thoughts from his twenty five interviews shortly.
Before we sprint into the day, I should note there’s another budget drop this morning concerning privatisations and savings in key government departments. David Crowe at The Australian reports that “iconic assets will be sold and government departments will be slashed in a new effort to reduce the size of the public sector and raise more than $4bn.”
Let’s sprint into Monday now. I’ve thrown open the Politics Live comments thread for your business. If you fancy a chat on social media, you can find me at the twits @murpharoo and the gent with the lens @mpbowers
Updated
