Night-time politics
@gabriellechan 🍩Hello🍩 Five minutes to anything will now been known as Donut Time. #qt #dt pic.twitter.com/aIKy25YI8q
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) March 30, 2017
Well folks, it is donut time so I am skipping out the door.
- The government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission argued for caution on the minimum wage. Labor attacked and blended it up with the Fair Work Commission’s penalty rates cut. It was aided by a poor performance by Michaelia Cash on 3AW, when she could not answer how many low-paid workers were living in higher income households, as submitted by the government.
- The government hit back and read from previous Labor government submissions in 2011 to 2013 which echoed the Turnbull government’s arguments for caution.
- Labor won a Senate vote on a private member’s bill to protect wages from a Fair Work Commission penalty rate cuts. However the bill is unlikely to survive the lower house where the government has a majority of one.
- In the penalty debate, One Nation copied a Greens proposal to mandate that industrial deals can’t cut a worker’s full rate of pay, including penalty rates, below the award, in a bid to embarrass Labor and unions that strike such deals. It failed to get up.
- George Brandis again came under Senate scrutiny on the Bell matter but the known knowns did not progress much further.
- A group of parliamentary friends of an Australian republic was established with a membership of 50, including Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten and George Christensen. Liberal Jason Falinski and Labor’s Katy Gallagher’s are co-conveners.
- The Senate is still debating the changes to 18C. After that, it will go back to the company tax cuts. The 18C bill is likely to fail and the company tax cuts are likely to get a fairly substantial shave, given Nick Xenophon only supports tax cuts for companies up to $10m in turnover.
- The government imposed a sugar code of conduct to force resolution on sugar growers and millers, something that One Nation claimed credit for. However, given it was in the works, Barnaby Joyce said pffft. Given it imposes more regulation, Joyce was asked if there would be a regulatory impact statement on Sky. Barnaby said pffft. Or something close.
Thanks for your company today. Thanks to the brains trust of Katharine Murphy, Paul Karp and Gareth Hutchens. Mike Bowers excelled, as usual. I leave you with a picture of The Bowers by Fairfax’s talented young whippet, Alex Ellinghausen.
That is #politicslive until May, unless crisis intervenes.
Goodnight.
Updated
We have just published a piece by former Liberal senator Chris Puplick documenting the long proud history of the Liberal party supporting the LGBTI community. Puplick has urged Malcolm Turnbull to allow a free vote in the party room.
Isn’t it time for Australian laws to reflect our values on this issue, as has happened in so many other countries whose values are similar to ours? Isn’t it about time to recognise that the tide of history is flowing in one direction only? Isn’t it time for justice?
Does the Liberal party really want this issue dragging on to the next election, being used as a cynical wedge by the Labor party and sucking the oxygen out of the public debate about its positive agenda of budget repair, welfare reform and national security?
The choices are clear for Malcolm Turnbull, he can adjust to the new post-plebiscite reality, something that political master John Howard would have done, or he can emulate John Howard in another way, and become the next prime minister to break the nation’s heart.
It must be Thursday afternoon.
High court ruling on Bob Day next Wednesday
The Senate president has just advised that the high court, sitting as the court of disputed returns, will hand down its ruling on Bob Day next Wednesday at 10.15am.
You may remember that Day has resigned but the court is determining if he was ever validly elected.
If he was validly elected, Family First will nominate a replacement. If not, then the court will make a further ruling probably for a recount. Which will mean when resolved, the Senate will be back to a full complement.
Updated
Linda Burney to human services minister, Alan Tudge: Can the minister confirm his office sent separate emails to the Canberra Times and the Guardian, which attached two documents marked “official use only” containing extensive personal information of Ms Andy Fox, including her relationship and tax history?
Tudge says Fox wrote a column in Fairfax and made allegations “including that she had been terrorised by Centrelink, and including that she had been barred from receiving Centrelink payments, amongst other allegations.
They were incorrect allegations. On the basis of formal advice from the chief legal officer from my department, we were able to correct the record against those allegations which she has made.
So a very small amount of information was provided in order to correct the record, and it was corrected on the basis of a specific request from a journalist who was about to write a further column referencing this particular article, and whether or not the allegations were, indeed, correct.
Tudge says he takes privacy very seriously but there is also provision in the law to provide “discreet pieces of information to correct the record on certain occasions”.
Updated
Shorten to Turnbull: Is the prime minister really telling Margarita that, when penalty rates fall her wages won’t, because she is actually employed on award terms. What is Margarita meant to do?
Turnbull says many employers pay above-award rates so Shorten has to confirm that Margarita is actually losing pay from her employer.
As it turns out, Paul Karp reported on Margarita’s case earlier this month.
Murray-Stark works 30 hours a week as a housekeeper in a luxury hotel, as a permanent employee under the hospitality award.
On 23 February the Fair Work Commission decided to cut penalty rates on that award from 175% to 150% on Sunday, cutting Sunday rates from $33.10 to $28.37 an hour.
For Murray-Stark, that amounts to $2,000 a year from her pay of $30,000, which she described in her letter to Malcolm Turnbull as ‘the difference between staying afloat or drowning in bills’.
‘It will make it harder to pay the bills and I’ll probably have to work a few more years to save for retirement,’ she said. ‘My work is physically demanding, and I just don’t think my body will be able to put up with extra years of bending, leaning and straining.’
Updated
Shorten to Turnbull: Margarita is a 58-year-old widow and grandmother who works as a housekeeper in a hotel. She’s sitting in the gallery today. Because the prime minister supports cutting penalty rates, Margarita tells me she will lose $2,000 from her take-home pay of about $30,000. She says this money is the difference between staying afloat or drowning in bills and costs. She wants to know why is the prime minister doing nothing to stop her pay being cut?
Turnbull says:
I’ll give the leader of the opposition the opportunity to assure us that he’s made that inquiry and that her pay will be cut.
Shorten stays firmly seated.
Turnbull wants to know who her employer is and whether he has confirmed to Margarita that her pay would be cut.
Shorten goes a little coy.
The employer has said that he will cut her wages, is that right? Oh, no, not prepared to go that far. Mr Speaker, the truth is, the one thing I can say for sure is that Margarita is lucky not to have the leader of the opposition representing her.
Because she’d be sold down the river like the cleaners at Cleanevent.
Updated
Plibersek to Turnbull: And I refer to the prime minister’s previous answers – does the prime minister agree that there is no precedent for a formal government submission which tries to justify holding back a pay rise for Australia’s lowest-paid because of who their parents are or who they’re married to?
Turnbull says the government submission does not recommend that the minimum wage should not be increased.
He says it leaves the decision to the independent umpire and it simply makes the point that not all people on the minimum wage live in low-income households.
Labor’s 2012 submission - for example - around half of all low-paid workers live in the top six household income deciles. And, of course, from 2013, the panel should also consider the fact that all low-paid workers do not necessarily live in low-income households.
Updated
LNP MP George Christensen asks Barnaby Joyce about the sugar code of conduct.
Tony Burke to treasurer Scott Morrison: In quoting the 2013 submission, why did the treasurer not refer to the following quotation: ‘low paid employees are also significantly more likely to live in low income than high income households’? And that was used as an argument in favour of a wage increase. Why is the government now claiming that there should not be a significant increase on the basis that some people on low incomes are in high-income households?
Morrison again quotes the Labor government’s wage submission and says Labor are clearly embarrassed by it.
Updated
Former Labor government submission: "all low-paid workers do not necessarily live in low-income households"
Brendan O’Connor to Turnbull: Why does the government’s submission argue that the pay rise for all workers on the minimum wage should be held back because some low-paid workers have high income families? It does.
Turnbull says it is wrong but he flicks it to Scott Morrison.
Morrison says Bill Shorten was employment minister when the Labor government argued low paid workers don’t necessarily come from low income households.
I’ll give you a quote, “The panel should also consider the fact that all low-paid workers do not necessarily live in low-income households.” Now that quote is from the Australian government’s submission of the annual wage review 2012-13, and the employment minister at the time was the Leader of the Opposition.
Updated
Denison independent Andrew Wilkie to Turnbull about the absurd difference in the price of petrol and LPG in Tasmania compared with the mainland. “This difference is often in the tens of cents per litre, it can’t be explained by Bass Strait cost alone. Surely energy security and affordability is too important to leave to the market. What will you do about this? Will you intervene and help ordinary Tasmanians in a way no prime minister has ever done before?”
Turnbull says the government is implementing competition policy to improve consumer prices.
But it is true that prices are higher in Tasmania.
However, it is without question that Tasmania’s prices are among the highest in the nation because of higher transport costs per litre due to the small size of the market and relatively weak retail competition.
The ACCC has found, however, that in Tasmanian cities, such as Launceston, increased competition has made a positive difference for consumers in petrol prices.
Updated
Labor’s Brendan O’Connor to Turnbull: The government’s submission to the minimum wage review states, “low-paid workers are more likely to be young, female, single or without children”, and then argues why the minimum-wage workers should not get a fair increase in pay. As a matter of government policy, is the government telling Australians, don’t be young, don’t be female, don’t be single, and don’t have children?
Turnbull:
The key paragraph states the government submits the panel should take a cautious approach, taking into account the uncertain economic outlook, the need to boost employment and new job creation, particularly for young people and the low skilled. The minimum wage and award classification wages are only part of Australia’s comprehensive safety net of workplace relations policies, public services and transfer payments which is all very straightforward. It is a responsible submission.
Updated
Shorten to Turnbull: Yes the prime minister was asked about the government’s submission to the review of the minimum wage. Was the reason the prime minister failed to answer the question because his submission argued against a fair increase to the minimum wage? Why does the prime minister believe that Australia’s biggest companies deserve a $50 billion tax handout but a worker on $17.70 per hour doesn’t deserve a decent pay rise?
Turnbull reads from a former Labor government submission on the minimum wage.
‘The national minimum wage should be set at a level that provides sufficient incentives for people who are not employed, including those receiving unemployment benefits, to enter work. However, the national minimum wage should not be set so high as to place undue financial burdens on businesses, discouraging them from employing low-skill workers. Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the developed world’. Now Mr Speaker, that wasn’t from our submission; that was from the Labor government’s submission in 2013.
Turnbull also notes the government’s argument about minimum-wage earners coming from middle-income families was also argued by Labor’s assistant treasury shadow when he was an economics academic at the Australian National University.
Updated
The first government question is about the government’s company tax cuts.
Turnbull:
We owe it to Australians to ensure that the businesses they rely on for their jobs can employ them and will invest. That’s what we’re doing, Mr Speaker. At the same time, we’re cracking down on tax avoidance. Yes, we believe taxes should be lower. We do. But they are not optional. We do not accept a self-help approach to tax reform. So we have introduced multi-national tax avoidance just as we are seeking to reduce company tax.
Updated
First question from Shorten to Turnbull. He thanks Turnbull for dealing with Labor in a bipartisan manner to tour cyclone ravaged areas. He asks the prime minister to update the house.
Turnbull says it is the biggest predeployment of defence force personnel in anticipation of a natural disaster. He acknowledges George Christensen, the local member.
The speed of the reaction of the Australian Defence Force should make every single one of us so proud.
Turnbull says Bowen is cut off by flood waters and the defence force is getting electricians there to get power back on.
He notes the post-1985 structures stood up to the cyclone quite well.
I have to say nature flicks her worst at us again and again, and North Queensland feels the brunt of that again and again. But when Australians pull together, when they work together in a common cause, they can tackle anything.
Bill Shorten follows, praising the government action. He notes there will be a slump after the cameras move with hard slog involving the clean up and the paperwork.
The people affected, recovery takes a long time and if people are doing it hard, not just financially, but a sense of how do you put things back together again, and it’s such a, seems such a mountain of work, I just encourage them to put their hand up and ask for a bit of help from their friends.
It is a relief when the House unites.
Updated
A tale of two civvies.
He was speaking with the Business Council’s Jennifer Westacott and president Grant King. Business leaders want to see businesses ensure there is no modern slavery anywhere in their supply chains, here or overseas.
Question time is delayed by half an hour so stand down people.
Labor’s Treasury shadow Chris Bowen and Joel Fitzgibbon were out earlier so apologies for bringing this to you late. They were railing about the sugar code of conduct and contracting out policy to One Nation. The code of conduct, proposed last year, was later claimed by One Nation as a win. The code forces sugar growers and sugar millers to resolution if grower contracts break down.
The Treasurer last night claimed it contained mandatory arbitration. That would be almost unprecedented in Australia. The next paragraph he claimed it was light touch, which indicates he is clearly not across the detail.
You can’t have mandatory arbitration and light touch, you can’t have both, it’s one or the other. But Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce outsourcing policy to Pauline Hanson is a very dangerous development.
Scott Morrison already outsourced so much to Joyce. Anti-competition piece of policy to be put before this parliament by Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison with the assistance of Barnaby Joyce.
Their colleague Labor frontbencher Ed Husic could feel the tension.
Updated
Australian Republican Movement chair, Peter Fitzsimons, has launched the Australian republic parliamentary friendship group with Labor’s Katy Gallagher and Liberal Jason Falinksi. The group already claims 40 members, including the prime minister and opposition leader. ARM says a majority in both houses want a republic.
Fitzsimons set out a timeline for the movement to consolidate (in 2017), have a conversation (2018), hold a plebiscite with a simple yes/no “do you want an Australian head of state?” question (2019), followed by debate on which model to choose and a referendum in 2021.
Half [of people] are for us, a quarter are against us, and quarter don’t care and want to keep watching Married at First Sight,” he said, arguing the movement was close to the 60% support it needed to push ahead.
Gallagher said: “Republicans did learn lessons from that 1999 referendum, when there was support for the republic but disagreement about the model – that lost some support.”
She said a longer conversation would allow people to decide whether they support a republic and what it might look like.
Falinski said at the 1999 referendum voters didn’t think about the republic until they were voting, and allowed their doubts to sway them to vote against it.
The other reason we fell short in 1999 was there were snake oil salesmen, saying: ‘Don’t vote for this republic, in another three years you’ll get a vote on the republic you want’. We now all know that wasn’t true – and that that was a lie. I don’t think the Australian people will be conned again.”
Updated
Lunch time politics
- Employment minister Michaelia Cash could not explain why the government argued for caution in raising the minimum wage, partly on the grounds that minimum wage workers often live in high-income households.
- Labor has won a motion to protect penalty rates but it is unlikely to pass the House where the government has a one seat majority.
- George Brandis has again answered to the Senate on the Bell matter without revealing new info.
- The Senate will keep sitting until some form of the company tax cuts is passed and 18C is voted on. Happy days.
-
Immigration minister Peter Dutton has called ACTU secretary Sally McManus a “modern day communist”.
Updated
The Senate is onto 18C again.
Pauline Hanson finished her speech, saying she got a visit from Bill Leak’s family last week, asking her to stand firm in support of changing 18C.
Criticism is not racism ... Australians are not racist.
Updated
Labor wins penalty rate motion
Labor has just won a motion to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 in the Senate.
It is unlikely to pass in the House.
It would:
Ensure that modern awards cannot be varied to reduce penalty rates or the hours to which penalties rates apply if the variation is likely to result in a reduction in the take-home pay of an employee; and provide that any such determination made by the Fair Work Commission made on or after 22 February 2017 is of no effect.
Labor won the vote 37 to 26.
Hanson, Hinch, Lambie, the Xenophones and the Greens voted with Labor.
Leyonhjelm and Bernardi voted with the government.
Updated
One Nation has tried to throw a spanner in the works on the Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie penalty rates bill.
Although One Nation supports the bill in principle, Malcolm Roberts has now moved amendments that would prevent enterprise agreements trading off award conditions.
The Coalition and One Nation have criticised EAs at major fast food and grocery stores that pay penalty rates lower than the award. Labor and the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association argued this is because the EAs raise other conditions, including base rates of pay, as a trade-off.
In a statement and before the Senate, Roberts said:
One Nation is committed to both supporting Aussie workers and to helping Aussie small businesses compete, so to this end I will be moving an amendment to Labor’s bill to extend the protection against the loss of penalty rates to existing EBAs”.
He gave the example of McDonalds, where he said workers receive $21.08 on Sunday instead of the award rate of $29.16.
That’s a 27% pay cut for McDonald’s workers ... courtesy of their union bosses!
Conversely, the local family-run milk bar that tries to compete with them doesn’t get to pay those rates. They still have to pay the full $29.16 per hour, so how on earth can they compete with giant multinational chain stores?”
Leave was not granted to the Roberts amendment.
Updated
In the remainder of the 3AW interview, employment minister, Michaelia Cash, has spoken on 3AW in Melbourne defending the government’s minimum wage submission.
As Katharine Murphy reported the government has used its submission to the annual minimum wage review process to warn that wage increases not supported by higher productivity or higher prices for customers and consumers “will most likely cost jobs”.
Cash said that the government is “absolutely” committed to “a fair go for everyone”.
There needs to be a genuine acknowledgement that employers need motivated employees and employees need successful employers.
It sounds like the line now is that employees need to settle for less or their employers will fall over.
Cash was asked if she can work with new Australian Council of Trade Union secretary, Sally McManus, who used her speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday to double down on comments justifying disregarding unjust anti-strike laws.
She replied:
I can work with the diverse Senate crossbench, so I am prepared to work with anyone. What I won’t stand for is anyone who continually makes statements that are wrong.
Cash accuses McManus of incorrectly stating the law on right of entry by suggesting unionists would have to give 24 hours notice to investigate a safety complaint, and points out that no advance notice is required when they suspect a work health and safety breach.
That is just wrong. She puts it on the record as a fact. She creates an attitude that employers are not allowing people onto sites because the law doesn’t allow it. Any employer who didn’t allow a union official onto a site where there is a suspected breach of safety law - they deserve to be prosecuted.
Updated
Michaelia Cash: it's not necessarily fat, rich parents Neil
I have to come to employment minister Michaelia Cash’s comments on the government’s call to the Fair Work Commission for caution when considering an increase in the minimum wage.
Broadcaster Neil Mitchell tried to ask the minister to explain one of the government’s arguments that low-paid workers are “often found in high-income households”.
The implication appears to be that it’s OK that they don’t get a pay rise because they have other support, i.e rich parents/spouse/partner/fairy godmother. The interview went on and on but here is a snippet.
Mitchell:
So how many of those 200,000 people have got fat, rich parents at home?
Cash:
Oh well it’s not necessarily fat, rich parents and I’d never say that …
Mitchell:
All right, well how many people, how many of these low-income earners, earning their $17 an hour, go home to a wealthy support?
Cash:
Ah look, and again, that is not what the government is saying …
Mitchell:
Yes it is!
Cash:
What we’re saying is less than 200,000 workers are paid at the national minimum wage …
Mitchell:
What’s this line mean, quote: ‘Low-income workers are often found in high-income households’? What does that mean?
Cash:
Again, often what it is that they will have another partner that has a high income … and they are part of the contribution to that household’s income.
Mitchell:
And what percentage of the low-income workers are in that position?
Cash:
Well, as I said, there’s only about 200,000 workers that are actually paid at the minimum wage and that is why when you actually look at where the majority of workers lie, the vast majority of people are paid under awards and they actually receive more.
Mitchell:
I understand that, but what percentage of the 200,000, as you say in your submission, are found in high-income households?
Cash:
Well, it’s not so much what percentage …
Mitchell:
Well of course it is!
And so it goes. The problem with this argument is that it reminds people of Joe Hockey’s “get a good job” response to high housing prices, and other greatest hits.
Updated
Mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest is holding a press conference on combatting modern slavery. No doubt he will be asked about the corporate tax cuts.
As the Senate debates penalty rates, there has been a veritable storm of legislation in the lower house, where the government is introducing its 18th bill. Because they are introductions, there has been nothing more than the opening speeches. For the list, see the beginning of the blog.
Updated
Labor WA MP Tim Hammond has written a beautiful piece for the West Australian on the shroud of secrecy surrounding miscarriage.
Upon receipt of the message, I raced home. We looked incredulously at the pregnancy test. Like about 1000 times. And then I went and bought a second test just to make sure it wasn’t a false reading.
It was wonderful news, but we weren’t emphatically jubilant. Because we had been here before. Five times before to be precise. And we lost three babies along the way.
In between the blessing of our first daughter, and what felt like the miracle of our second daughter, we experienced three early miscarriages in a row.
Three times in a row we felt the excitement and joy of that positive test. Three times in a row we felt the nerves of the days and weeks in which Lindsay remained pregnant. And three times in a row we felt the sorrow, grief and loss — when her dreaded cramping came and we lost our babies in the first trimester.
After starting with his own story, Hammond wants a more open discussion.
But what I don’t get is that so many parents suffer such grief in secrecy, under the cover of some arbitrary non-disclosure period of seeing out the first trimester.
The reality is that for a huge number of pregnant women and couples, they will suffer a heartbreaking loss. And for as long as we perpetuate a convention that the “right” time for disclosure of pregnancy is at 12 weeks, thousands of women and couples face the prospect of having to endure the grief of miscarriage in an unnecessarily private way, creating an increased risk of loneliness, isolation and depression.
You will notice that the government has only insisted on the resolution on 18C and company tax cut bills. Native title, which confirms native title land use agreements, has been deferred until the next session. Right now, I can hear mining chiefs picking up the phones.
More lives than a cat.
Updated
Matt Hatter is always channelling my substantial feelings...
@gabriellechan "The legislation list...in the lower house is as long as your arm." We're going to need a longer arm... #politicslive pic.twitter.com/KjvIs58MCG
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) March 29, 2017
Senate timings
After Brandis, the Senate worked out their sitting hours. That is, first on to Labor’s penalty rates bill, which will be voted on at 12:45. That time is hard and fast.
Then there will be the 18C debate, followed by company tax cuts. Those two bills have to be dealt with before senators go home.
As a result, the Senate will sit until midnight and then come back on the morrow if required to finish those two bills.
Updated
George Brandis’s main points rebutting Labor are:
- There was no deal done with the WA government to favour the state over the tax office.
- There was no pressure from the AG applied on the Australian Tax Office regarding the Bell matter.
- Labor is therefore lying in asserting these two points.
- That Labor is extending the matter around “bureaucratic whispers” shows they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
- It is a waste of the Senate’s time.
Updated
Brandis is quoting former Labor Senate leader and QC Gareth Evans, and Howard AGs Daryl Williams and Phil Ruddock, who all refused to disclose legal advice.
Brandis says as attorney general he would be in “outrageous breach” of government practice.
Updated
George Brandis finally rises to make a closing statement on the Bell matter.
He accuses Labor and the Greens of flogging this dead horse of an issue.
He quotes Charles Dickens from Bleak House on the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case, a comparison first raised by the prime minister. In other words, it is a case that drags on through various lifetimes.
Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.
Brandis says of the original Bell company of the 1970s and 1980s, very few directors are still alive.
He says, like the young child promised a rocking horse in Jarndyce and Jarndyce, there is an articled clerk who started working on the Bell case who now sits on the high court.
Updated
After a long Ian Macdonald speech designed to rebut Labor and the Greens, senator Derryn Hinch makes the point that the government says the whole Bell/Brandis motion is a waste of time and then puts up a speaker for 20 minutes to waste more time.
Hinch says he is not part of the Labor/Greens cabal, as alleged by Macdonald, but he wanted answers.
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald is standing up for George Brandis as the best AG in recent times, including on the Liberal side. Though he doesn’t name them, that would include Howard AGs Philip Ruddock and Daryl Williams.
George Brandis is as good as, if not better than any of them.
He suggests Labor and the Greens want to bring Brandis down because he is the most effective minister.
If you want to bring down a minister in parliament you don’t bring down the worst, you bring down the best.
They want to attack the person who is most valuable to the government.
Macdonald contrasts Brandis with the former solicitor general Justin Gleeson.
I thought [Gleeson’s] conduct was improper and he did the right thing by resigning.
Updated
Modern day communist, ole Sally McManus
The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, has been asked on 2GB radio about ACTU boss Sally McManus’s speech to the National Press Club in which she doubled down on comments defending unlawful industrial action.
He replied:
She’s a modern-day communist, old Sally McManus. She believes it’s OK to operate outside the law.
Dutton then accuses Bill Shorten of “standing for” union corruption ... “because of his history at the [Australian Workers Union] he thinks it’s OK to sanction that kind of behaviour”, in reference to union bosses allegedly taking bribes like free work on their house, which the unions and Labor have consistently condemned.
Asked about opinion polls that show he is at risk of losing Dickson, Dutton says opinion polls only show a snapshot at a point in time and the next election is two years away.
There’s a lot more to come out on Bill Shorten, I think his past is going to catch up with him. There is a real doubt about him – people say to me ‘you’re on the right track, there’s something that niggles in the back of my mind about whether he’s genuine or not’.
Fancy that, regular punters come up to Dutton and deliver attack lines about the opposition leader.
Updated
Liberal MP Jason Falinski and Labor senator Katy Gallagher are putting an Australian Republic back on the agenda, in the parliament at least.
#AusRepublic Friendship Group is a strong step toward the realisation of an Australian republic #auspol pic.twitter.com/h6rn5si1Pa
— AusRepublic (@AusRepublic) March 29, 2017
Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are doing a joint press conference, having travelled to Queensland together to tour the disaster areas hit by cyclone Debbie.
Turnbull says the whole nation is behind the state as it recovers.
He gives kudos to the Bureau of Meteorology for predicting the low and allowing good planning to take place. He praises the spirit and resilience of the community.
Shorten calls on Australians to holiday in the Whitsundays to aid the economic recovery.
There was a bit of bipartisanship on the tarmac.
Updated
George Brandis essentially maintains the public interest immunity on the Bell matter. He answers politely but offers no extra information.
A lot of the argument is over Brandis’s claim of public-interest immunity over legal advice related to Bell and the fallout over the rift with former solicitor general Justin Gleeson.
Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice states that:
It has never been accepted in the Senate, nor in any comparable representative assembly, that legal professional privilege provides grounds for a refusal of information in a parliamentary forum … It must be established that there is some particular harm to be apprehended by the disclosure of the information, such as prejudice to pending legal proceedings or to the commonwealth’s position in those proceedings.
Updated
Can the attorney general explain to the Senate why he believes that what the Senate accepts or asks for is “neither here nor there”?
Does the attorney general believe he is above the rules of the Senate, which specify legal privilege on its own is not a basis for refusing to answer questions in a Senate committee?
Why has the attorney general not complied with the Senate’s request to provide the basis for his public-interest immunity claims?
The report tabled yesterday by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee required the attorney general to “provide to the committee a statement of the grounds for concluding that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information, specifying the harm to the public interest that would result from the disclosure of the information of documents”. Will the attorney general comply with the committee’s requirement?
Why won’t the attorney general permit the full truth of this matter to come out? What is he scared of?
On what basis does the attorney general believe that there would be harm to the administration of justice given that the litigation has now ended – and as such there is no risk of compromising that litigation?
Has the attorney general been in discussions with the current WA state government in regards to their views about the disclosure of information relating to the Bell Group matter?
Updated
So all this jiggery pokery is about what form George Brandis’s explanation on the Bell matter to the Senate will take.
I am merely seeking to comply with the Senate ... to say I am not doing so is unfair and false.
Updated
Attorney general George Brandis gets up to speak but he goes to an hours motion.
So Labor’s Louise Pratt seeks a formal explanation.
Brandis is not giving a statement, he wants a question. I’m here, I want a question.
So Pratt asks a question about his direction to his offices related to Bell litigation.
Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong intervenes to ensure
we don’t have another jig to avoid having to answer.
Updated
This is the George Brandis motion.
Senate motion in part:
The Senate requires that the attorney general be in the Senate at 9.30 am on 30 March 2017, so that a senator may ask the attorney general for an explanation in connection with his actions on this matter, and at the conclusion of the explanation any senator may move a motion to take note of the explanation; or if the attorney general fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of his failure to do so.
Updated
You can see the legislation squeeze is on but, before anything else, George Brandis has been asked by the Senate to provide an explanation on the Bell litigation matter.
Then the Senate will debate Labor’s penalty rates motion.
But in amongst all of that, the government will try to change the hours to ensure the Senate sits until the job is done.
Updated
The PM and Shorten are visiting cyclone-ravaged areas but will be back for question time.
The legislation list for new bills in the lower house is as long as your arm:
- Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review)
- Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting
- Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions)
- Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment
-
Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment
-
Parliamentary Business Resources
-
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions)
- Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online)
- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures)
- Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus)
- National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge)
- National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge)
-
Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1)
- ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy
- ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection)
- ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments)
- Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1)
Parli Business Resources relates to the government’s expenses reforms, which introduce a “dominant purpose test”. This will mean members have to prove they are travelling for official business as the dominant reason. I am tempted to call this the dominant person test, in honour of B.Bishop.
The other interesting thing in there is the PM and cabinet legislation, but the bill is not up on the website yet. Messages have been sent.
Updated
Friends of the republic
At 10am, we have the establishment of a bipartisan Parliamentary Friendship Group for an Australian head of state.
Co-convenors are Labor Senator Katy Gallagher and Liberal Mackellar MP Jason Falinski . The chair of the Australian Republic Movement Peter FitzSimons will do the official biz.
The aim of the exercise is to push for a republic and its membership includes Malcolm Turnbull and opposition leader Bill Shorten.
Updated
Three weddings and a funeral
Tom Minear and Rob Harris at the Herald Sun have obtained the expense report on the artist formerly known as Madame Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop.
It looks as though a lot of the details were missing.
The Herald Sun has obtained the official review of the former Liberal MP’s use of entitlements, which reveals she returned $6768.25 to taxpayers, on top of the $7200 repaid over the “Choppergate” scandal.
But Ms Bishop provided records for only three years of her travels before informing departmental investigators that she no longer wanted to ‘open her life to the world’.
That abruptly ended the probe and left the Department of Finance unable to properly scrutinise hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims over another seven years.
The damning report — secret until today — criticised Ms Bishop’s commitment to the inquiry, saying records she had provided were “in large part, lacking in any details”.
Ms Bishop repaid costs for travelling to the weddings of three Liberal colleagues and to the funeral of media mogul Kerry Packer.
But last May, a month after losing preselection for her NSW seat of Mackellar, she stopped co-operating with the Department of Finance.
Ms Bishop — who now receives a taxpayer-funded pension of more than $250,000 a year — quit as House of Representatives Speaker in 2015 after “Choppergate”.
Updated
Australian Energy Markets Operator chief operating office, Mike Cleary, has spoken to Radio National about the effect of Hazelwood power station shutting.
Cleary’s message is that the effect will be manageable as new power generation is coming online, including renewables in Victoria and Pelican Point gas station in South Australia. But he concedes that “extreme situations” including cyclones, bushfires and heatwaves will put the electricity system under pressure.
Asked if Victoria will become a net exporter of power, he is equivocal: “We will see both imports and exports [of electricity] from Victoria.”
Asked about electricity price rises, he says that’s part of “the market response we’re looking for”, explaining that higher prices encourage more generation.
On South Australia’s electricity plan, including the government investing directly in gas generation, Cleary says he can’t comment on the political battle between the federal and SA governments but adds “any increase in supply is going to help manage the system”.
Updated
The parliamentary friends of Australian music organised Rock the House, a gig to celebrate Australian music and increase the profile for industry issues such as dwindling venues.
Our Daryl, Diesel, Ross Wilson, Kav Temperley, Montaigne and Megan Washington were among the artists who played as MPs behaved like starstruck teenagers.
Oz Strewth columnist James Jeffrey started the evening with his bagpipes.
Albo and Joel Fitz are Thunderstruck by James Jeffrey.
It’s right on the tip of his tongue.
Good morning petals.
There was a whole lot of shaking going on in the House last night. After the Senate rose, the treasurer, Scott Morrison, and DPM and agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, finally pulled the sugar code of conduct out of the bottom drawer. This forces resolution on to break the deadlock happening in Queensland between the international sugar miller Wilmar and the growers in Wilmar-serviced areas.
Gareth Hutchens caught the ball last night.
The code will be introduced by regulation next week, ending a bruising three-year fight over sugar-selling agreements between Wilmar and Queensland Sugar Limited.
The treasurer, Scott Morrison, and the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, made the announcement on Wednesday evening in Canberra.
Morrison said the code would provide a ‘safety net’ for sugar growers and marketers to prevent future agreements between the parties breaking down completely. ‘It’s a compulsory arbitration process,’ he said.
‘In the event that negotiations or an agreement breaks down, then I have the power under the Act though this regulation to appoint an independent arbiter … who goes in and listens to the various positions of the parties and comes to a conclusion which is binding on the parties.’
This was an issue bubbling away for years (the LNP MP George Christensen had already threatened to resign over the issue and Joyce threatened Wilmar with a code last year) but it came to a head last night because of a perfect storm. The sugar harvest was due and One Nation started thumping its collective chest at a time when the company tax cut package needed to get through the Senate. Hanson threatened not to vote on any legislation until the code was implemented.
Thus, this morning we have One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts on the ABC claiming credit for Pauline and simultaneously saying One Nation does not horse-trade. (Ask for one thing in return for a different unrelated thing). #youknowitmakessense
So now that hurdle is jumped, the Coalition just has to steer the tax cuts through the Senate. As Morrison said last night:
All of your questions on that will be answered in the next 24 hours.
It is one of four key bills to watch in the Senate today.
- Company tax cuts.
- Native title amendments to confirm the legal status of agreements which have been registered by the Native Title Registrar.
- 18C amendments.
- Labor’s private member’s bill to dump the penalty rate cuts (a political wedge which won’t survive the house).
I will drill down into all of these things in the morning.
The other looming clusterduck for the government is the minimum-wage submission, which Katharine Murphy has covered.
The government’s submission urges caution:
Excessive increases in minimum wages are likely to reduce employment in award-reliant industries, particularly for youth, and especially when wages growth elsewhere in the economy remains moderate and inflation is low.
Think about the Labor/union campaign combining penalty cuts with the government’s argument to keep a lid on the minimum wage.
That’s the way it’s gonna be, little darlin’.
Daryl Braithwaite was in the house as was a host of other singers for a music industry event and Mike Bowers has a bunch of pictures for your viewing pleasure. Talk to me in the thread, on the Twits @gabriellechan and on Facebook.
Updated
