Well, that's all folks!
The red room is still staggering inelegantly in the direction of finality but I am going to call it a night. It has been a huge day and a huger year and Gabi, Mike and I have been absolutely delighted to have your company in our collective live form through all the big political events of 2015. Much as we fear we might die sometimes, we love this project and our community and we are grateful for our audience buy-in. We might pop up between now and Christmas but parliament certainly won’t so we’ll bid you all a very restful festive season in the event this is it.
Let’s wrap the final sitting day.
- The prime minister defended his special minister of state without defending him, and in the process lost his initial sheen. The whole grinding business of not giving Labor the gratification of a scalp during the final sitting week rendered Turnbull’s new politics a whole lot like the old politics.
- As well as the non-defence defence of post-plausible Mal Brough, Turnbull had to weather a number of breakouts. Ian Macfarlane, dumped from cabinet by his mate when Turnbull took the leadership, decided he might try and get back into the ministry by defecting from the Liberal party room to the National party room.
- The big win of the day for the government, a deal it produced at the last minute with the Greens on multinational tax and transparency, was punctured by Cory Bernardi’s decision to stand it up in the Senate on the basis that this was a captain’s call from Turnbull and Scott Morrison – it had not been to the party room and Turnbull had promised the return of collegiate government. This was intolerable.
- So all in all, it was a day when the gloss came off. The gloss always comes off. These days it just seems to come off at warp speed.
So it goes, and so do I.
The @GuardianAus Canberra team's 2015 class photo @lenoretaylor @shalailah @murpharoo @danielhurstbne @gabriellechan pic.twitter.com/128ib2BGFg
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) December 3, 2015
Updated
A little Warren to cool us all down.
Updated
I’ve just had a very quick chat to Bernardi about his decision. He says when there’s a party room decision, it needs to be adhered to.
My determination is upholding the express will of the Coalition party room.
Updated
Bernardi: "I regret very much that it has come to this....it is really about the principles and the processes." #multinationaltax #auspol
— Naomi Woodley (@naomiwoodley) December 3, 2015
Cory Bernardi says no to Senate deals that don't go to the party room
Liberal senator Cory Bernardi is now downing tools in the Senate over today’s agreement on the tax bill. He says he won’t vote for an agreement that overturns a previously agreed government policy. Bernardi is objecting to the fact that this deal has been sprung on us at the last minute.
Sorry Scott, sorry Mathias, but I’m not copping this.
Updated
Back in the Senate, Greens leader Richard Di Natale is giving Labor counsel on the downsides of being a party of protest. Today really does have a bit of everything.
I thought a moment ago he was being emotional but actually I think he’s losing his voice. These blokes have been screaming at each other for hours. The vocal cords are shredded.
Updated
Updated
Q: So when you – just to clarify, when you said no commitments were given to Mr Macfarlane in regards to leadership, was that by you, or Barnaby Joyce or the whole party?
Warren Truss:
Ian Macfarlane has not expressed any wish to become the next leader or deputy leader or to fill those sorts of positions.
Clearly, if he’s won the confidence of his colleagues he’s entitled to be a candidate but I’m sure there will be other candidates and others who have been in the room a long time, obviously start with a bit of an advantage.
Q: Would you like to see him take on a ministerial role or even a leadership position?
Warren Truss:
I have a view that Ian is a very capable man. We’ve been friends for a long time. We grew up, we were born in the same town and we’ve grown up largely together and so we have been friends for a long time before we were both engaged in politics, and so my discussions with Ian, particularly in the early days, have been as much as a friend as a fellow member of parliament. So certainly I have a high regard for his ability and I’m sure for that reason that he could make an excellent contribution in our room.
Q: How does this impact any secession plan we have around the National party leadership and your future, your immediate future, whether you’ll contest the next election?
I don’t think it makes any difference at all.
Q: Mr Truss, how long have you been talking to Mr Macfarlane about coming across and have there been any offers in terms of potential front bench positions?
I think Ian spoke to me first only a few days after the cabinet reshuffle but I took that as a discussion between friends.
I was aware that he was angry and upset at that time but he’s clearly had a long time to think about it and he’s determined in his view that this is the best thing for him and the best way that he can contribute to regional Australia, for his electorate, and indeed to contribute towards policymaking in Australia.
(I think it’s fair to say that everyone is dumping everyone in it today.)
Updated
Truss makes it clear another body in the party room means a stronger claim on the ministry
Out in the courtyard, the Nationals leader Warren Truss says the Nationals will be receptive to Ian Macfarlane sitting in their partyroom.
We would welcome his presence in our room.
(So quaint, Truss.)
Truss says additional numbers in the Nationals team strengthens the junior Coalition partner’s claim on ministerial positions.
Our Coalition agreement talks about sharing ministerial responsibilities on the basis of our numbers. If there were to be additional members as a part of our team, that certainly strengthens our entitlements in relation to the ministry – and naturally we would expect those elements of the agreement to be honoured.
Updated
Back in the senate, the chamber is dealing with the multinational tax/transparency legislation. Labor’s Stephen Conroy is having a tussle with the finance minister Mathias Cormann about process. Conroy asks Cormann whether his deal with the Greens was put to cabinet or the Liberal party room. Cormann delivers a formulation that this issue has been dealt with in the usual way.
Stephen Conroy:
I’ll take that as a no.
Conroy says so much for cabinet government. He says he understands that when you get a deal you can’t refuse you are tempted to ram it through, but still. This means legislation is being passed that hasn’t actually been endorsed by the government in the usual way.
Cormann asks Conroy to stop misleading the senate.
Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, on a point of order.
I would like to make it clear that Senator Conroy is not a boofhead.
Things are going vaguely loco down there.
As I mentioned before, the Queenslander argued his decision was an affirmation of Turnbull as prime minister, not a negative reflection on the friend who dumped him from cabinet after the leadership change on the basis he wanted renewal.
It’s actually a huge vote of confidence ... the alternative was to leave parliament.
Macfarlane told reporters he told Turnbull of his plans yesterday.
We had a fairly forthright discussion at times.
Ian Macfarlane confirms he is now a National: expresses interest in a ministry
Macfarlane tells reporters he has made the switch to the National party to add depth and experience to the Nationals team. He also argues his actions today are a vote of confidence in Malcolm Turnbull, not a gesture of dissent. He wants to serve with Warren Truss and with Turnbull.
Reporters want to know whether this means he’ll end up back on the frontbench?
I’ll be considered on my merits along with all the other members of the National party if a ministry becomes available.
Q: Is there a plan for you to step into a leadership role?
No.
Q: Will you be putting yourself forward for the ministry?
Of course I’ll be putting myself forward if a vacancy becomes available but it will be decided on merit.
Q: Do the Nationals now have a greater claim on ministerial positions?
They are all for discussions. There will be people who will do the numbers.
Updated
People are drifting out of the Nationals meeting. Ian Macfarlane will speak to reporters in about fifteen minutes.
Liberal Brett Whiteley walks past, "I swear I didn't just come out of the Nationals party room" #scottish
— Rashida Yosufzai (@Rashidajourno) December 3, 2015
Nationals in one corner of the building. In another corner of the building the prime minister is attempting to have a meeting with Christopher Pyne about next week’s innovation statement.
As journos wait for Nationals doorstop, PM makes an appearance in hall @osbornep @AAPNewswire pic.twitter.com/2bYuH9QzHG
— Rashida Yosufzai (@Rashidajourno) December 3, 2015
Not so much breaking as thoroughly broken news
It’s official. Former treasury boss Martin Parkinson will head up Malcolm Turnbull’s department.
An excellent appointment.
Here’s the PM’s statement.
Today I announce the appointment of Dr Martin Parkinson PSM as secretary of the department of prime minister and cabinet. Dr Parkinson will take up the position on 23 January 2016. Dr Parkinson was secretary of the treasury between 2011 and 2014 and a secretary of the former department of climate change between 2007 and 2011. He has had an extensive and distinguished career as an economist at the national and international level as well as making a significant contribution to public administration in Australia at the highest levels.
I call this sequence by Mike Bowers the full sweep of the human condition.
Meanwhile, in the red room, attorney general, George Brandis, has asked the Senate to set up a new inquiry into Australia’s surrogacy arrangements, in line with a report that was released earlier this year. The inquiry would look at how to stop exploitation, the exchange of money and how to protect the rights of children. It will need to report back by June 30 next year. Surrogacy laws came into the spotlight last year, when an Australian left behind a Thai surrogacy baby with Down Syndrome, known as Gammy, but brought his healthy twin sister back to Australia. Baby Gammy was granted Australian citizenship in January.
While Mark Dreyfus launches this afternoon’s MPI on Brough, the Nationals are about to go into their partyroom meeting. I’ll keep you posted.
Labor attempts to send Brough to the privileges committee
Obviously the government succeeded in gagging that debate. Further questions have been placed on the notice paper.
Pyne is busy reordering House business to take account of the longer sitting tonight in the senate. The House will come back at 8.30pm to deal with what the red room sends down.
Manager of opposition business Tony Burke is now moving to refer various Brough “contradictory” statements of the past fortnight to the privileges committee, the most powerful committee of the parliament. This keeps the inquisition live over the summer.
Speaker Smith says he will carefully consider the matter and report back.
Never a more exciting time ...
Updated
Brilliant, as usual, from Mr Bowers.
Updated
There’s only one thing you can reasonably take from this. The government won’t sideline Brough, but will not defend him either.
Updated
The manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, is shutting this baby down. He’s moved the gag.
Poor look, this.
Doesn’t look like new politics, does it? Looks like getting through this afternoon, and god knows we’ve seen a lot of that over the past few years.
Updated
If the prime minister won't act, then the parliament must ...
Here is Bill Shorten with his motion, that the house has no confidence in the special minister of state. The Labor leader is attempting to suspend the standing orders.
If the prime minister won’t act, then the parliament must.
Updated
Bill Shorten is deployed now to ask Malcolm Turnbull why he won’t sack Brough.
The prime minister first tries a deflection.
As [Shorten] was getting up to ask the question, getting his papers together, I thought for one happy moment we were going to get a question about the Paris climate change conference. He’s just been there. He’s been to Paris. He’s flown over there and back. He’s announced a 45% target ...
The manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, says given the gravity of the situation he’d like the relevance rule to be enforced.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say with respect to the member for Watson, his stern demeanour is about as convincing as the member for Isaacs’ indignations.
Labor is not entirely impressed with that.
Turnbull repeats his public denunciation arguments from yesterday. He says Labor is more intent on accusing Brough of committing a crime than letting due process take its course. Perhaps events should be allowed to take their course.
Updated
There’s been some procedural argy-bargy about whether Dreyfus is trying to include new material in a question. Speaker Smith permits Dreyfus to reframe his question, which references James Ashby’s statement to 60 Minutes that he was happy to assist Brough.
Mal Brough:
The member for Isaacs continues to try and prosecute a case of innuendo and press release, and media commentary.
What the Australian federal police are looking at is the law and the law seeks to answer the question. Did anyone procure or counsel another person and then pass information on to a third person? That is what they will seek to answer.
I have said categorically I did not procure, counsel or pass any information to any third party in relation to this matter.
(I don’t think he has said that until now. I think his previous statement was he didn’t pass information to a journalist.)
Updated
If you want a barometer of these proceedings you need look no further than Julie Bishop’s face right now, which is like an Easter Island statue. Seriously. She is doing everything possible not to move a muscle of her face.
Mark Dreyfus:
Q: I refer to previous answers about the federal court decisions. How can the minister claim that the federal court exonerated him when the full federal court found on 9 February 2015, about the Ashby proceeding, and I quote: “There had not been a trial of all issues, the relevant evidence had not been given, and the reliability of the witnesses had not been exposed to testing by cross-examination in the event that will not occur because Ashby has discontinued his proceeding.” Minister, when you claim to be exonerated, aren’t you misleading the house yet again?
Brough is losing his lid. Those opposite are ignorant of the facts.
In relation to the matters before the AFP, surely, as a QC, you have enough decency to respect the processes? What is it that you are so afraid of? You wish to prosecute this case for political purposes; you are not interested in the substantive processes of our country and respecting them.
(I suspect if there was ever a script he’s way off it.)
Updated
Mark Dreyfus, picking up Brough’s last answer.
Q: My question is to the special minister of state. I refer to the minister’s previous answer. How can the diary have been unsolicited when the minister asked James Ashby by SMS for a clearer copy in these words: “Can that be emailed, James? It is hard to read. Mal Brough @bigpond.com”?
Brough suggests Dreyfus should drop the prosecution, take a cold shower, and allow the judicial process to run its course. He says he’s prosecuting the argument here because he knows there’s nothing in it ...
... so therefore he wishes to prosecute it today for his own pathetic political purposes?
The other man of the hour, meanwhile, tends to some correspondence.
Ian Macfarlane xmas cards "dear Libs, thanks for a great 17 years, see you in the joint party room-Ian" @murpharoo pic.twitter.com/gfrZG9wMVy
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) December 3, 2015
Updated
A short break to allow the agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, to indulge his abiding passion for dams.
Updated
Dreyfus asks substantially the same question. Brough continues with his effort to say there is nothing to see here.
Mal Brough:
You have no interest in due process.
Mark Dreyfus quotes Brough from 2012 saying he was comfortable receiving material from someone else’s diary. Is this the standards we expect?
Brough says Dreyfus has been going over this material for two weeks without success.
I would like, Mr Speaker, to table several paragraphs from the judgment of the federal court of the 27th of February 2014, dealing with my entire involvement.
I would encourage the member for Isaacs to review that, to come back to the dispatch box and point out anywhere at all where the federal court has found anything other than I acted totally appropriately.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, let me deal with misleading the House. I can confirm and I again reconfirm to the House that I have not misled the House at all this week.
(Laughter from the opposition)
Or last week, or at any time. The last two weeks, the last 12 years, where would you like me to go?
Despite the best efforts, Mr Speaker, despite the best efforts of the member for Isaacs to prosecute this case in this place, this country fortunately has very substantive ways, courts, judicial systems and police forces, who are empowered to do those things.
As you know, right now, the Australian Federal Police have a wide-ranging investigation into issues of which they have asked me – I have provided them that assistance.
I have said to them at any time in the future, if I can assist in those inquiries I will do so. So I say to the member for Isaacs, you do not accept the full bench of the federal court’s findings, and I’m pleased to see they are being handed to you know and I hope you take the time between now and your next question to review them.
I will also say to you that pay some respect to the Australian Federal Police, because there are others in this place that sit across this chamber who have had the unfortunate circumstances to have been looked upon and no one tried to prosecute the case here.
(Err, no. Sorry.)
Updated
A question from Bob Katter on water to the prime minister.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Mr Speaker, it reminds me of the great wisdom of Mark Twain, who says whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.
Mark Dreyfus.
Q: My question is to the special minister of state. This week in question time, the minister said, and I quote: “I at no time passed any diaries to any journalists. Can I be any clearer than that?” Can the minister be clear with the House now. Did the minister pass any documents concerning the former Speaker to anyone, including but not limited to, members of parliament or staff?
Mal Brough:
I can confirm for the member for Isaacs that every document that I have ever had any part to do with have been in the federal court. They have been presented to the federal court. There is no more – there are no less – and the federal court ... so any document that you are referring to that has gone to my lawyers to the federal court, is the sum total.
(If there was a direct answer in there, I missed it.)
Updated
Mark Dreyfus.
Q: I refer to the claims made by James Ashby about the assistant minister for innovation, and I quote, “he says that he presented me with a sheet of paper with instructions of what I should do and one the first steps was to get a copy of the office diary.” Was the minister aware of or did he have any input into drafting these discussions? Is conduct of this nature – is conduct of this nature consistent with the standards of this government?
Manager of government business Christopher Pyne objects to this question. This is purely a fishing expedition that probably wouldn’t be allowed in a court of law. This goes beyond the scope of his responsibilities and knowledge.
Quite frankly, it’s not the job of the member for Isaacs to interrogate the special minister of state although he is in a court of law in a case.
Speaker Smith isn’t happy either. He directs Brough to answer the last part of the question. If he remembers.
There’s some shouting from the opposition.
Brough, at the dispatch box, over reaching again.
Oh, oh, you poor diddums.
(This man really doesn’t know how to help himself, although if he’s here, the over reach today likely reflects his confidence that he will see out the sitting week in his job.)
Dreyfus puts the last part of the question again.
Brough:
He asked me to reflect on conduct, about a document I have never seen, that I do not know - what’s contained in that document, and then I’m to make a judgment upon it. That would seem to be the approach that the Member for Isaacs has taken for the last two weeks.
Question time
Labor opens on Mal Brough, and seeks to widen the circle of interest.
Shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus.
Q: I refer to the minister’s answers and statements in the House. What discussions did the minister have with the assistant minister for innovation about the Ashby affair?
(This is referring to Wyatt Roy.)
Brough says he has conversations all the time with colleagues, but if this is a specific question about Ashby discussions, then the answer is no.
Updated
Just before question time – today is International Day of People with Disability, and there are a couple of announcements to do with the sector that we should note here. Firstly, the federal social services minister, Christian Porter, has announced that the commonwealth and Tasmania have reached an agreement of the full rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). A trial of the scheme is under way now, and by the time it’s fully rolled out, in July 2019, the NDIS is expected to support 10,600 people living with disability.
Also, on Thursday, Labor announced that it would put $2m back into the disability advocacy sector, which lost over $1m in budget cuts after the Coalition took office. Labor’s funding boost would reinstate the cuts plus add a little bit of extra money it says is aimed at smaller organisations that have sprung up as a result of the NDIS.
“It’s important because it makes sure that people with disability have their own voices heard, that they can say that they hope for their lives, about where they live, about the work they do, about their human rights, about the things that make them happy,” the shadow minister for disability reform, Jenny Macklin, said. Disability advocacy also took a hit when the Coalition decided not to replace the disability discrimination commissioner, Graeme Innes, when his term at the Human Rights Commission expired in July 2014.
Updated
I think Mal Brough should join the Nationals to bring these two streams together. Can’t stop laughing, sorry, that kind of day. The hour of glower beckons. Boil the kettle. Let’s get into it.
Queensland Liberal Steve Ciobo is on Sky, clearly unimpressed with the little Queensland breakout on the final sitting day of the year.
Ciobo says Macfarlane clearly was aggrieved he was not kept in cabinet. He felt he had more to give and saw this as a pathway to getting back in the ministry.
This is about Ian Macfarlane serving his own interests.
Ciobo is asked if there’s a Liberals rush to the Nationals, would this trigger a reshuffle? (Cabinet spots are determined by a balanced ratio of Liberals and Nationals. More Nats, more representation.)
Ciobo says when Warren Truss departs the party leadership, perhaps that might open the batting. (Yes, that is a snark.)
Updated
Shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, on the ABC, taking his turn on the Brough tenderising mission ahead of question time.
I’ve been in parliament 11 years now, I’ve been a close observer of parliament for a lot longer than that.
I have never seen a clearer case of a minister having to resign, he should be resigning. This is open and shut that Mal Brough should resign. It is open and shut that Malcolm Turnbull should sack him.
It’s frankly very clear that Malcolm Turnbull should not have appointed him. He is the special minister of state – he is responsible for integrity. This is not just some sort of routine search for documents. There was a federal police raid of his house with those documents showing the police had reasonable suspicion of procuring documents. This is just crystal clear.
And the fact that Malcolm Turnbull appointed him – Malcolm Turnbull gets up in the House and says, “We already knew this.”
Yes, Malcolm, that’s the point, it goes to your fundamental lack of judgment in appointing this man.
We know you appointed him because he is a numbers henchman and we know why you’re sticking by him – for the exactly same reason.
Updated
I think it’s fair to say that for Malcolm Turnbull, the honeymoon is, officially, over.
Last day of school shenanigans as Libs defect to the Nats #auspol https://t.co/fg20gqxzcD pic.twitter.com/HrU72ZGzav
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) December 3, 2015
Macfarlane: hang on to your hats, it's a movement
The Australian Financial Review’s chief political correspondent Phil Coorey is reporting the defections may not stop with Macfarlane. He says two other MPs are considering joining him. He names one of the other wavering folks as Scott Buchholz. Buchholz lost his job as party whip when Turnbull took the party leadership. There will apparently be a meeting of Nationals later this afternoon.
It’s all happening. Hope you’ve stocked up on water and canned goods, we could be here for some time.
Facts, claims, counter claims: tax
- This morning’s Greens/government deal will ensure Australians gain access to the tax information of about 280 big private companies with revenue of at least $200m.
- But an estimated 500 to 600 companies will continue to be shielded from disclosure because they fall below the new threshold.
- Greens sources said the companies that would have to show their tax paid, total income and taxable income from early next year would include: Transfield, Grocon, Inghams, Pratt Holdings and Meriton.
- But the shadow assistant treasurer, Andrew Leigh, said: “By moving the threshold from $100m to $200m, we estimate that the number of private companies affected by tax transparency falls from around 900 to around 300; 600 companies will be left out of the tax transparency net.”
- The Greens estimated the number of companies between the $100m and $200m thresholds was closer to 500. But they argued current laws exempted all big Australian private companies from disclosure, so the comparison with the $100m threshold was misleading.
If you are confused by the developments leading up to today’s Greens/government deal on multinational tax/transparency, here are the ten steps of background leading up to this morning.
- The former Labor government passed legislation requiring the tax commissioner to publish information about tax paid by companies with more than $100m in turnover, but those reports were yet to be published.
- Some Coalition MPs raised concern earlier this year that transparency could expose wealthy business owners to security risks, including kidnapping.
- The government prepared legislation to shield private Australian companies.
- In October, the Senate passed the Coalition government’s bill to exempt private Australian companies, after a procedural bungle by opponents allowed the legislation to pass without a voting “division” even being called.
- Labor, the Greens and key crossbenchers combined in November to pressure the government to reintroduce transparency for companies turning over at least $100m. They successfully amended the government’s multinational tax bill in the Senate with extra clauses aimed at bringing back a version of the original transparency rules.
- At the time, the key amendment was moved by the Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson.
- The amendment put the government in an awkward position because the Coalition faced a choice about whether to scuttle its own legislation to implement the 2015 budget measure to give the Australian tax office greater powers to stop global companies using “artificial or contrived arrangements” to avoid tax obligations.
- The government-dominated House of Representatives decided to reject the amended bill in November, with the treasurer, Scott Morrison, denouncing the “cobbled together, last-minute, back-of-the-envelope” changes.
-
This stance put at risk the multinational budget measure due to take effect on 1 January.
- The bill was due to return to the Senate for senators to face a choice about whether to insist on the attached tax-transparency amendments or agree to a compromise. Before the deal with the Greens, there were signs the government was planning to shelve the bill until next year.
Politics this lunchtime
Let’s take stock of our hectic last day of school with a lunchtime summary.
- The government has done a deal with the Greens to pass its multinational tax package. The government has agreed to two Green amendments which have the intent of imposing more transparency on some of Australia’s large companies – but Labor says the deal goes nowhere near far enough. It says the government has largely succeeded in its objective of shielding the tax affairs of their largest political donors. There have been furious scenes in the Senate. At one point the Liberal senator Bill Heffernan told the Labor senator Kim Carr that he was happy to take the dispute outside. So far no black eyes, insofar as I’m aware.
- Labor has already launched its first pass at the embattled special minister of state, Mal Brough. Brough faced another censure motion as soon as the House sat this morning. Rather than keeping himself modestly inconspicuous during the event, Brough thought it would be a good idea to throw his hands theatrically in the air during a division, presumably because the internet and the television news had been insufficiently interested in his fate on the final sitting day of parliament. Don’t worry, it doesn’t make sense.
- Malcolm Turnbull used his Christmas valedictory speech to give some big talkers inside the government reason to reflect on their recent contributions to the marketplace of ideas. He emphasised the importance of societal cohesion in order to make Australia a safer place. He said groups like Isis wanted to isolate the Muslim populations of tolerant nations like Australia in order to create fear and loathing. He pointed out Australia wasn’t France (which has struggled to achieve a genuinely harmonious multicultural society). It was best we remain Australia and not France, was the general message.
-
There are reports that veteran Queensland Liberal Ian Macfarlane is about to jump ship to the Nationals – a move which would position him for a return to the government frontbench and also for the leadership of the National party in due course. If it happens. I don’t think the man himself has yet confirmed this is a done deal.
Onwards, ever onwards.
Updated
That Macfarlane move to the Nationals really is astounding. (Sorry to process that one on five second delay.) Pragmatic at one level. Potentially, it’s a fast track back into the ministry and possibly a fast track into the leadership team of the junior coalition partner.
But, still astounding.
But then it was astounding that Turnbull couldn’t find a spot for Macca in the ministry given the two men have considerable personal history. That was the first astounding development that doubtless contributed to the second astounding development. In exciting times, we must expect to remain constantly astounded.
Given we can’t photograph very much in the Senate at all, this contribution from The Matt Hatter – (who Mike, Gabi and I wish all the very best for the festive season) – is even more than usually welcome.
@murpharoo Mixing Liberal Blue & Greens Green makes Labor Aquarage. #Redchamberbloodbath pic.twitter.com/kVpLB555yT
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) December 3, 2015
This was it, pretty much.
Updated
Back to tax before I check if there’s actually more I’m not across.
Mr Bowers and I joked this morning we might consider a name change from Politics Live to NFI Live – because it seemed today could easily pan out that way. But we chose instead to believe in ourselves, and press on like the good soldiers we are. (And we couldn’t change the header of the blog without permission from our dear sister-in-live, the lady we refer to respectfully as The Chan.)
Moving on.
Labor has just made an argument in the chamber debate that the Greens have made a significant tactical miscalculation by rolling over to the government on this bill today. The argument is this legislation had to pass before the budget next year in order to ensure Australia kept key G20 commitments. If the Greens held firm with Labor and the crossbenchers, the government would have either have had to abandon the measure or give the Senate what it wanted up until last night and this morning.
This might be completely wishful thinking on Labor’s part, but that’s the argument.
Labor also appears genuinely astounded that the Greens didn’t get anything more from the government than just an adjustment in the threshold for transparency. This is something for nothing, Doug Cameron has just told the chamber.
This was the Greens leader Richard Di Natale’s rationale for coming to terms with the government, when he fronted reporters briefly this morning.
I said when I took on this job I want to get some outcomes here. The easiest thing for us to do would have been to shout from the sidelines and to have said this government isn’t serious about multinational tax avoidance when we had the opportunity to do something about it.
The easiest thing in this business is to walk away and shout from the sidelines.
We would have walked away today, multinationals would have had another year where they would not have published their accounts, we would have got nothing.
We would have continued with our campaign but from the sidelines.
What we have got is an outcome.
Updated
The other thing is the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370. The Defence Science and Technology Group has provided further analysis to inform the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s latest report: MH 370 Definition of Underwater Search Area Update – which reaffirms the highest probability of the resting place of the aircraft is within the current 120,000 sq km search zone. Nationals leader Warren Truss has held a press conference about this which I couldn’t stretch to cover.
Ok, let’s catch up on a few things that have broken out while we’ve been occupied elsewhere.
Herald Sun reporter Ellen Whinnett reports that the former industry minister and once Turnbull confidant (until he was dumped) Ian Macfarlane is “set to defect from the Liberals and join the Nationals party room under a deal orchestrated by agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce.”
Will wonders never cease?
The Labor efforts to throw out consideration of the tax bill failed.
The #Senate has agreed to rearrange today's business
— Australian Senate (@AuSenate) December 3, 2015
It’s coming on for consideration now.
What was I saying about that pitched battle for progressive votes?
The Greens and the Liberals have agreed to exempt 2/3 of Australia's large private companies from tax transparency. pic.twitter.com/94111j9U5I
— Chris Bowen (@Bowenchris) December 3, 2015
We are still coming to terms with the practical impact of the deal between the government and the Greens. Labor’s view certainly is there is nothing in these Greens amendments that will stop the government from achieving what the opposition says is their primary objective: the objective of shielding their biggest political donors from tax transparency.
The Greens view is some transparency is better than no transparency, and today is a down payment. They concede there is more work to do.
Labor and the Greens are of course locked in a pitched battle for progressive votes. Both parties use every opportunity they have to turn a spotlight on their respective deficiencies. Both parties use opportunities like today to talk to all swinging progressive voters, and convince them to land in one place and stay there. Labor is using today’s deal to try to persuade progressive voters they need to look a bit deeper at what the Greens do in parliament, not only at what the Greens say.
Stephen Conroy has just told the chamber that the Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, is the Greens version of Democrat Andrew Murray. If you are as old as me you’ll know immediately who that is. If you aren’t, then Murray was a pragmatic small ‘l’ liberal who favoured doing deals with the Howard government on various economic policies if he thought they had merit.
This was the period in which the Democrats went from the key balance of power player in the Senate to irrelevance. Obviously that trajectory was far more complex than the inclinations of one senator. And for what it’s worth, Murray in my experience was a substantial person and a savvy political operator.
But Conroy’s point is there are dangers for progressive balance-of-power parties in doing deals with centre-right governments. The Democrats catch cry was ‘keep the bastards honest’ and voters didn’t like it when they thought the Democrats transformed themselves into political players rather than a voice of accountability.
Conroy tells Di Natale when the Democrats sold out on their core principles the party collapsed. For what it’s worth, the Greens are doing everything possible to ignore the Labor interventions in the chamber.
Labor is pressing on with procedural efforts to disrupt the consideration of business this morning.
Updated
Labor’s Doug Cameron, undaunted.
I don’t think lickspittle goes far enough describing what you’ve done… [it] seems too small a smear.
Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson, on the current Senate screaming match.
I wonder if anyone will be issuing Oscars after this performance in the Senate today.
— Peter Whish-Wilson (@SenatorSurfer) December 2, 2015
Updated
Let's take this outside ..
Things are getting more restive than festive in the Senate. I think (it was hard to hear) the Liberal senator Bill Heffernan has told Labor senator Kim Carr that he’s happy to take this argument outside.
As a consequence, things are seriously surly now.
Heffernan has been told to withdraw. He wants to know what he’s withdrawing – is he withdrawing calling Stephen Conroy a “boofhead”? Heffernan is pushing his luck and he knows it. He withdraws.
Labor’s Doug Cameron:
Who ever would have thought that senator Heffernan would be in here defending the Greens?
Cameron says there is no way the Greens are on the side of the angels in this transaction.
You’re on the side of Lucifer on this one, you’re definitely on the side of the forces of evil.
Updated
Another outrage shift change in the Senate. Now it’s the turn of Labor frontbencher Kim Carr, who declares the Greens have become the party of the ultra rich, in lock-step with the blue bloods (by this he means the Liberal party.)
The best social conscience money can buy!
Updated
Labor has executed a shift change in the Senate to extend this session of hollering in fury at the Greens.
Labor’s Senate leader, Penny Wong.
They fold. They fold.
They pretend they are holier than thou, but then they fold and sell out their constituents!
Wong is currently attempting to amend the proposal to change today’s order of Senate business to omit consideration of the tax bill.
Updated
Just while I’m in a brief transition, a Mike Bowers sequence from that censure motion division earlier on this morning. Deadpan in Brough’s circumstances really is the best course. Didn’t happen though.
Just a quick taking stock of tax transparency and the current furore in the other chamber.
Australians will gain access to the tax information of about 280 big private companies but about 500 will continue to be shielded from disclosure, as part of a last-minute deal between the Turnbull government and the Greens this morning.
But the Senate has descended into uproar on the final sitting day of the year, with Labor immediately accusing the Greens of “selling out” to Scott Morrison and predicting the party would lose supporters.
The Greens defended the deal as a win for outcomes over shouting from the sidelines, and said they had also secured agreement to force multinational corporations with global revenue of at least $1bn to prepare “general purpose” financial statements for the corporate regulator, instead of “flimsy” special purpose statements.
The government is currently seeking to change the order of business to prioritise dealing with the multinational tax bill that was previously looking likely to be shelved until early next year.
As long as the truffles are up to standard ..
The Labor leader is wrapping up now, with a touch of sarcasm and a touch of self deprecation.
Mr Speaker, predictions and assumptions in politics can be a fraught business. If you had told me in January that by December we would have a new treasurer, a new speaker and a new prime minister, I’d have been rapt .. but I had an election in mind!
There is a long way to go and a lot more to happen in the months ahead of us. So with that in mind, I want to wish the prime minister a restful and happy Christmas with Lucy and the family.
As long as the truffles are up to standard, it’s never been a more exciting time to be Malcolm Turnbull!
Shorten, continuing.
I also want to thank my Comcar drivers, Steve Smith and Peter Taylor. I know my youngest daughter appreciates your high standard of I spy work just as I’m sure they appreciate my navigation skills and driving tips.
On the subject of people working behind the scenes to much a much appreciated contribution, I want to thank the members of the press gallery.
Your advice is always ... available.
The Labor leader Bill Shorten has launched into his Christmas valedictory now but while he’s talking in the other chamber Labor’s deputy senate leader Stephen Conroy is screaming (volume, 11) about the Greens rolling over on tax transparency.
Screaming is not an exaggeration.
Shorten by contrast is calm as a clam.
As a parliament and a nation, we commemorated the centenary of a chilly dawn when a group of brave young men clamoured out of small boats on to an unfamiliar beach and into history. For our sports-loving country, there was much to cherish. Our netballers and cricketers both won World Cups. In England, the Southern Stars reclaimed the Ashes. At Flemington Michelle Payne made history by half a length and told every bloke who ever doubted any woman to get stuffed.
Thanks, Tony, for being a great prime minister
There is a section on the economy-in-transition, and the government’s “laser like” focus on jobs. Another section on violence against women and the importance of rising to the challenge.
Malcolm Turnbull:
It is a very important issue for all of us to recognise, that we must ensure that particularly our children, particularly our sons, are brought up to respect their mothers and their sisters.
There are tributes to people in politics who have died this year, to members of the Australian parliamentary staff, to ministerial colleagues, to Turnbull’s own political staff.
Finally on the thanks, can I acknowledge once again my thanks and the debt we all owe on our side of the parliament and I believe right across the parliament and the community to the great service of my predecessor as prime minister and leader of the Liberal party, Tony Abbott.
He has been a great prime minister and I thank him for his service and I thank him for his support today as a member of our party.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I encourage everyone to have a joyful and restful Christmas and new year’s break. Spend time with your families and your loved ones.
We will all come back, I believe, re-energised for, dare I say it, excited in 2016 and looking forward to a year of great opportunities.
We must not allow our enemies to divide us. And we are not France.
There’s a big chunk in the speech which is aimed to reinforce Turnbull’s key messages on the importance of investing in societal cohesion. The implied rebuke here is very clear to the folks who have, in recent days, been out on the subject of extremism, stirring the pot.
Some interesting reflections too on the French difficulties with intergration of their Muslim community.
Malcolm Turnbull:
It is very important that we ensure that we do not allow our enemies to divide us. That is what they seek to do. They seek to divide us and cause us to turn against, in this case, the Muslim Australians. That is their objective. We know from a practical point of view we are the most successful multicultural society in the world. Having just returned from Paris, you can see the challenges when you centre, in France - when you have, in France’s case, a large Muslim minority where the levels of integration and harmonisation, if you like, have been well below those of Australia. They face great challenges. They recognise - the French recognise that they do and they recognise they have to make changes but it will take a long time.
We have a much stronger foundation upon which our security is built but we have to maintain it. At the heart of our security, yes, there is the hard edge, if you like -national security, strong laws, the laws we have passed and passed with the support of the opposition too, again I thank them for that, professional agencies, good intelligence, strong law enforcement, all of that is important but at the heart of all of this is a culture of mutual respect and a sense that all Australians, regardless of their race, their cultural background, their ethnicity, their religion, have a common share in this great Australian project.
Turnbull says if there is a call for further Australian military involvement in the Middle East that will certainly be considered.
But.
The goal is to see – from the Australian government’s point of view – we would like to see other like-minded countries making a larger contribution. Australia is making a very large contribution there relative to others given the size of our economy and our proximity to the conflict.
Turnbull delivers his Christmas valedictory
I’ve asked Daniel Hurst to deliver a guest post taking us through the tax deal because I know you are interested by right now I have to keep going. I’ll post that soon.
For now, the prime minister is delivering his Christmas valedictory in the chamber. He’s opening on a sombre note.
In 2015, there have been great challenges to our security, both at home and abroad. It is about a year since the Martin Place siege that shocked the nation and shocked the city in which my wife and I live, Sydney, and many other members live. It is only weeks ago that Curtis Cheng, the police worker, was murdered in Parramatta.
The battle against violent extremism, against terrorism, is one that all nations are now engaged in. In my recent travels to many summits, I have had the opportunity to discuss with many other leaders the way in which we can better work together to cooperate in a military sense.
There is an important military dimension. The single most important objective in the battle against the extremism, the violent extremism as practised by Daesh is to defeat them in the field. To defeat them in the field in Syria and Iraq. That has a military dimension and, of course, a political dimension.
We are very keenly interested in securing a stronger commitment both on the military side of this solution and on the political side. But as I have discussed in the national security statement I made last week, it is a very complex environment and one where the limitations of military power have to be recognised and the complexity of the political solution has to be recognised as well.
Meanwhile, in another hemisphere, after a marathon parliamentary debate overnight, my UK colleague Patrick Wintour has some breaking news.
The UK will launch airstrikes in Syria.
Commons authorises extending RAF air strikes from Iraq to Syria by 397 votes to 223.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) December 2, 2015
What could possibly go wrong with this gesture once the interwebz gets hold of it? I don’t know .. maybe ..
This image is bound to come in handy, right? Mal Brough pic by @mpbowers @GuardianAus pic.twitter.com/7JsMgLgvHS
— Stilgherrian (@stilgherrian) December 2, 2015
I guess you do put your hands in the air when you are riding front seat of a roller coaster, don’t you? Not the gesture I would have chosen in Mal Brough’s current position, but then I am a notorious wowser.
As I said before .. ho, ho .. ho ..
Mal Brough arrives for a division to shut down opposition attempts at a censure motion @murpharoo @GuardianAus pic.twitter.com/BvNJwJr2Vc
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) December 2, 2015
The government is shutting this down as it did yesterday. Funnily enough the prime minister had planned to deliver his Christmas valedictory at 9.15. That clearly isn’t going to happen. Although it won’t be too late, given the efficiency of the gag now being applied.
For those interested, here’s the full text of this morning’s censure motion.
That the House:
1. Notes that yesterday, the prime minister said in question time in relation to the special minister of state’s involvement in the Ashby affair: “The evidence or the information about them has been in the public domain for some time. There have been no new developments, no changes or additions to that material”;
2. Resolves that in making this statement, the prime minister ignored numerous new developments, namely:
(a) The Australian Federal Police conducting a raid on the special minister of state’s home in relation to the minister’s involvement in the Ashby affair;
(b) The special minister of state misleading the parliament on three separate occasions this week;
i. On Tuesday in question time when the special minister of state was asked about statements he had made in relation to the Ashby affair, the minister said “In relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question”. But On Channel Nine Television News on Tuesday, in a story by journalist Laurie Oakes, the original vision of the 60 Minutes interview was played and makes it clear that there were no words omitted which could in any way be considered part of the question the minister was asked;
ii. On Wednesday, the special minister of state made a statement on indulgence in the House in which he claimed during his interview on 60 Minutes, he was answering a different part of the question which prompted his admission when there was clearly only one question asked;
iii. On Wednesday in question time when the special minister of state was asked the exact same question that he was asked on 60 Minutes, he changed his answer from “Yes, I did” and said “No”. This was not withstanding the subsequent questions in the 60 Minutes interview which clearly affirmed his statement “Yes, I did”,
3. Therefore censures the prime minister for failing to enforce his own criteria for taking action and sacking the special minister of state for repeatedly misleading the parliament and breaching the prime minister’s own statement of ministerial standards.
The prime minister doesn’t have the character to put this to an end.
He doesn’t have the judgment ...
This is Mark Dreyfus, at the dispatch box.
Resources minister Josh Frydenberg, in the Pyne chair this morning, is moving Dreyfus be no longer heard.
Labor kicks off today's parliamentary assault on Brough
Meanwhile in the House, the shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus is kicking off the Brough batting. A censure motion is now underway.
Ho, ho, ho.
Updated
Breaking: Peace in our time on tax, courtesy of the Greens
I flagged earlier talk around the building that the government and the Greens looked to be coming to terms on the multinational tax/transparency legislation – a development that would allow the government to save its budget measure.
The whole saga of Mal Brough has largely obscured it, but truth is it’s been a really bad week for the government on the business front: they’ve pulled the medicare safety net bill, a superannuation governance bill, totally amended a VET Fee Help bill – and up until last night looked like losing their key multinational tax budget measure.
But the Greens will, this morning, give the treasurer some good news.
The Greens have secured two amendments:
- One will force multinational corporations with global revenue of $1bn or more to prepare “general purpose” financial statements. Currently they have to prepare documents called special purpose statements. This particular amendment was originally rejected by treasurer Scott Morrison when it was sent to the House of Representatives last week.
-
The second will end an exemption for private companies with revenue over $200m from having to disclose their tax affairs. The Greens say this will expose 281 large companies currently shielded from transparency.
The Greens will sell this as a victory for tax transparency. I predict Labor and others will not characterise today’s agreement in quite those terms.
Yes I know there are many serious issues today, and they will all be given due care and attention, but in the spirit of muck-up day, and the spirit of seasonal giving, let me share BuzzFeed’s 51 WTF things that happened in Australian politics in 2015.
I laughed out loud more than once.
Hello good citizens of Politics Live
Good morning and welcome to the final sitting day for 2015. Yes, we’ve actually arrived there. Hard to believe that, but it’s true.
Labor is polishing the rhetorical ammunition for a final go at the special minister of state, Mal Brough, before MPs make haste for the airport. Readers with me yesterday will know that I now characterise Brough as being in a post-plausible state. There’s really no question in my mind that he should step aside while police are investigating his conduct during the James Ashby/Peter Slipper affair both as a point of principle (my interest) and for the good of the government (the political calculation, which is the government’s interest).
Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese has told the ABC this morning Brough must go because he misled the parliament. The special minister of state has lynched himself on the procedural boo boo, is Albanese’s argument, but not only that. Albanese says the current police investigation is a very serious matter. Getting a staffer to procure a diary is a crime, Albanese says. (Bear in mind Brough denied that actually happened in parliament yesterday – a denial which contradicts an unambiguous statement he appears to have made to 60 Minutes in 2014 that he wanted to purse the diary because he believed Peter Slipper had committed a crime.)
If you are late to the in’s and out’s of this whole saga, and can’t make sense of the various increments of this week, my colleague Daniel Hurst has put together an excellent backgrounder which you can read here.
So Brough remains the focus. But today the chambers will also be running full tilt to deal with the business of the parliament. I haven’t actually checked (perhaps there’s been a change of policy so apologies if I’m misleading you) but today we conventionally see the valedictories to the 2015 political year given – these are Christmas speeches in the chamber that are often quite fun.
On the legislative front there was a draft document circulating last night that seeks to change the senate order of business for today in order to get the last measures through. The priority is the citizenship laws, which should pass today.
Early evening yesterday I was under the impression the government had resolved to pull its multinational tax/transparency bill. Thus far, a standoff between the two houses of parliament has threatened to scuttle a government-backed crackdown on multinational tax avoidance and a Labor-backed plan to increase tax transparency. But then late last night I heard the government was in negotiations with the Greens to secure passage. The Greens party room is meeting this morning as we go live. I don’t have specifics yet. My colleague Daniel Hurst is also chasing details. We’ll see how that goes, and I’ll keep you in touch with developments.
You don’t have to wait for me, however. You can go immediately to the comment thread, which is wide open for your business – or if so inclined, you can give us a shout on the Twits. I’m @murpharoo and Mikearoo’s @mpbowers
Break out the fruit cake. Here comes Thursday.
