Nighty night
That kind of day really. Let’s pull up stumps for now. Recapping Wednesday.
- The Greens gave the government a timetable for launching a double dissolution election (post July 1) by signing on the Senate voting reform. The government has had to adjust the package a second time to secure that agreement.
-
Joe Bullock said he couldn’t sit in the Senate anymore for the ALP given he didn’t support a bound vote on marriage equality. Before the news had even a morning to settle, Bill Shorten wheeled in a star replacement, Pat Dodson, an eminent Australian, who thought it was possible politics could be different.
- Proving that it is very difficult for politics to be different, Tony Abbott provoked Malcolm Turnbull once too often and the prime minister chose to respond with war not appeasement. Just a timeless sort of observation: once governments break they really cannot be glued back together.
- Treasurer Scott Morrison is holding onto the idea he might be able to fiddle a little bit with negative gearing in order to deliver something in the budget by way of tax relief. This conduct seems rational, given he’s spent months making the case for tax relief but found himself rather checkmated by his own reductionist political formulations and by fiscal reality.
Ah yes, another day in Canberra. Zenmasters, one and all. I hope you have a great evening, and I’ll see you a bit after sun up tomorrow.
Politics doesn't have to be politics
A bit more from Dodson earlier.
Q: Mr Dodson, you’ve aligned yourself politically now, that’s an act that attracts natural enemies just by doing it. Do you feel or did you give consideration to the fact that you know the bipartisan nature of your advocacy may be affected or do you think you’ll be able to work equally with people like Ken Wyatt and the other side of politics on issues that (inaudible)?
Pat Dodson:
Now I’m not sure why it should be de-facto naturally antagonistic.
Q: That’s politics.
Pat Dodson:
It’s politics but it doesn’t have to be politics. Politics is about achieving real good outcomes in my view and about working collaboratively with those who may have a different point of view as you, and trying to find a common ground basis to go ahead. I do understand the fine distinction you make but I think that people with goodwill across the party and in the parliament and between the Houses - those who’ve got a genuine desire to see this nation go forward, resolve some of the residual problems that we constantly have thrown up that as a nation is an embarrassment to us and - we can find some solutions to this. I’m happy to be working with anyone, and I know Mr Wyatt very well.
Q: Mr Dodson, can I just ask, among the many things in your life, unless I am mistaken, you were a Roman Catholic priest at one stage. Joe Bullock is leaving the parliament because he does not believe that in conscience that he can vote for same-sex marriage. Do you think that it is a good thing for the Labor Party that that kind of diversity might not feel it has a home in the party any longer?
Bill Shorten:
Chris, if you’re asking about the whole Labor party policy, whilst Pat will be outstanding, he is going to give his view in a moment. Let me just make it clear - people in the Labor party are entitled to have their own opinions. Joe Bullock has served with distinction for the needs of retail workers over 37 years. But what I also know is that we have a conscience vote in the Labor party. So I don’t want you to mischaracterise our current position, but Pat can go to substance of your issue.
Pat Dodson:
The debate between church and state has gone on for millennia. And the questions of the custodians of the morals of individuals is a real problematic issue. Of course, the respect for human dignity is also a very important factor. And I think in the case of conscience votes, well that’s a matter for people to make their own minds up and to live by their consciences and I respect those that do so, who may have a different view.
But when it comes to our civil society or the society we live in, any discrimination or disadvantage caused to people who make their own choices then as a parliament we should try to eliminate those in order to facilitate the quality of life that individuals want to pursue.
Updated
A statement from Louise Pratt, who says she’ll withdraw from the WA Senate (non) race for the Bullock vacancy. She says she’ll be on the ticket come polling day, and will campaign with Dodson in the west.
Louise Pratt's statement on Pat Dodson #auspol @Louise_Pratt pic.twitter.com/MmOz24CbdE
— PatriciaKarvelas (@PatsKarvelas) March 2, 2016
I want to roll back for a bit as well, given so much was happening when Bill Shorten announced Pat Dodson was coming to the Senate to replace Joe Bullock, I really didn’t cover the remarks extensively. Let me try and rectify that now. This was Dodson’s opening gambit.
Patrick Dodson
[Shorten’s] phone call came as a surprise, and it took me a little while to adjust to the idea that you had proposed. I was a member of the Labor party for a short period in the ‘80s but since then I’ve been not aligned to any particular party, so to decide to do so now at this stage of my life took some deep thought. I did seek counsel from some close friends, family and others for whom I hold the highest respect and regard. I couldn’t contact all. For some, this move may come as a surprise. However, after many conversations it became clear to me that this was a good opportunity and one that should not be passed up.
Having spent much of my adult life trying to influence our national conversations, debate, government and the parliament from the outside, it is now time for me to step up to the plate and have a go at trying to influence those same conversations, debates and public policies from the inside as a member of the Senate and representing Western Australia.
You have referred to the need for a lasting settlement outside of the framework of the constitutional change that I hope will come over the next little while. But the constitutional recognition that we are currently seeking remains fundamental. And if we are ever to begin coming to terms with the national narrative, and its consequences for this nation, we need to pursue that.
Any lasting settlement, however, if it is finally to emerge can only come as a result of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s being at the centre of the discussion and the debate, and not on the periphery as is currently the case. That is another reason why I am pleased to accept Bill’s invitation and offer. Just as I am pleased that there are more Aboriginal people being preselected for Parliament. And of course as I’ve said I want to acknowledge the already sitting members here and those that have gone before.
As a nation I believe we should be open to all sorts of possibilities, some see treaty or some compact as being the course to pursue. For others the idea of a formal regional agreement, setting out rights and responsibilities is another. They are of course clearly not mutually exclusive and I note that some are already pursuing these courses of actions or some elements of it. I hope that we can move forward for all Australians, recognise that the Constitutional Recognition and any future settlement is important for our maturity as a nation. I know that across the Parliament and in the wider Australian community, there are people of goodwill, who want to engage in these processes so that we can achieve a mutually acceptable outcome. An outcome that we can all be proud of.
There’s much to be said about the future of Northern Australia and the need for its development. Much of the discussion centres on infrastructure such as roads and ports and these are all necessary. However I’m concerned that this discussion has not paid sufficient attention to the human capital of the north. In particular, there need to be a far deeper conversation about the importance and value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to this development and the basic needs to address the importance of elevating poverty and disadvantage for so many in the north across the board.
If we don’t address this then it will become a permanent drag on our future development. I’m confident that with this there’s a discussion which the nation is pretty much up to having around all the development and various passages, economic and cultural passage. And it will not happen unless we can agree around these and so many other similar issues across the Parliament to deliver wins for all.
Updated
Checking in on super Tuesday, the consensus seems to be good for Hillary, not bad for Bernie, good for Trump, reasonable for Cruz, washout for Rubio.
Rolling back slightly. The education minister, Simon Birmingham, spoke to media before question time. He issued a “final warning” to four Islamic schools whose Commonwealth funding is under review, telling them they must clean up their act by April 11 or face being cut off.
The four schools - in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth - are accused of not being properly accountable for public funds. All four are affiliated with the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (Afic). Another two Afic affiliated schools - in Sydney and Canberra - has already had its funding axed.
Birmingham said the schools must clean up their act. “It is very clear that this is a last chance and a final warning that these four schools must ensure that they comply with the conditions that they have offered to the Commonwealth,” he said.
Afic has told Guardian Australia that it will appeal the decision to cut off funding for its Sydney and Canberra schools, but as of Wednesday afternoon, the Department of Education had not received any notices of appeal.
Meanwhile, in the other chamber, the Greens have introduced a private member’s bill into the Senate that would prohibit offshore detention for children and limit the time under-18s can be held in immigration detention in Australia to 30 days.
The ‘Migration Amendment (Free The Children) 2015’ Bill would also mandate that children currently held on Nauru be returned to Australia. Introducing the bill, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Senate “children do not belong in detention”.
“This bill will protect the children in Australia and on Nauru. It’s high time the government stopped locking up children and I appeal to my Senate colleagues to back this essential reform.”
But the bill is not expected to win support from either Coalition or Labor Senators.
Both major parties support the policy of mandatory detention of boat-borne asylum seekers arriving in Australia, including children.
Mandatory detention was introduced by Labor in 1992, and originally had a time limit of 273 days detention for anybody. The time limit was abandoned in 1994.
Offshore processing began under the Howard government in 2001, and was reinstated by Julia Gillard in 2011.
Proving that all is fair in love, war and suspensions of the standing orders.
Brilliant shot from Magic Mike. I’m sure Gray’s sidelining has absolutely nothing to do with the pitched battle that has riven Labor for months – with Gray on the side of reforming the Senate voting system, and Labor’s Senate leadership on the side of rejecting the government’s proposal. Nothing to do with that I’m sure.
The Labor leader Bill Shorten announced just before question time that the former special minister of state, Gary Gray, had been relieved of his portfolio command. Gray will remain shadow minister for resources until he retires at the coming poll, but SMOS (my favourite acronym, SMOS) will now sit with Brendan O’Connor.
(Who, him? Yes, me.)
There’s a few things to catch up on. Give me a few minutes to survey the field and I’ll be back with the remainder of the political afternoon.
The result of the division means we are not considering marriage equality this afternoon. Put up your hand if you are shocked?
Labor’s point in this debate is Malcolm Turnbull has broken the hearts of all gay and lesbian people by not pressing ahead with marriage equality. If you believe in representative democracy then you’ve got to believe parliament can resolve marriage equality with a free vote, so let’s spare the public an expensive and divisive plebscite and bring on the resolution. Like, this arvo. Those arguments have been put by Terri Butler (pictured in the last post) and by Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek.
The government response, articulated by Christopher Pyne, was this is too serious an issue to be the subject of a political stunt. I, Christopher Pyne, will be campaigning for marriage equality because the time has come to sort this out. We have a process for sorting it out. And excuse me, isn’t Labor’s policy for a conscience vote now followed by a bound vote – and didn’t you just lose a senator (Joe Bullock) over that policy last night? Does that policy actually make sense to anyone? (No, was the Pyne view.) In any case, was his final contribution, if you want to actually do something, we could make sure we pass a bill ensuring that a yes vote in a plebiscite becomes a tick and flick issue after the next election. You, know, if you want to do something apart from posture.
That’s the summary. The House is dividing now.
Ok, back to present tense.
Here’s the motion that has just been moved by Labor MP Terri Butler. This is an attempt to force a free vote today on marriage equality, ahead of Mardi Gras this weekend.
I seek leave to move the following motion —
The House:
1. Notes:
a. The prime minister has previously said he supports a free vote on marriage equality;
b. Former prime minister John Howard supports a free vote on marriage equality;
c. Members of the prime minister’s own party have said that they would not respect the result of the prime minister’s plebiscite on marriage equality;
d. A plebiscite on marriage equality would cause a divisive national debate, which would harm community cohesion and give voice to extreme bigotry; and
e. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families are just as valued as every other member of the Australian community; and
2. Calls on the prime minister to be the prime minister that Australians hoped he would be and allow a free vote in the parliament on marriage equality; and
3. Suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent Private Members’ Business Order of the Day No. 1 in the Federation Chamber relating to the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, being returned to the House for further consideration, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6.30pm on Wednesday, 2 March 2016, with the question on the second reading being put immediately.
As escalations go, this one is pretty serious
A live blog requires you to keep moving, always. But it is equally important that we stop periodically to make sure things don’t get lost in the wash.
So today, this happened. A former prime minister Tony Abbott decided to defend his legacy in an interview with the The Australian newspaper. He, Tony Abbott told The Australian that he, Tony Abbott, would have built Australia’s new fleet of submarines sooner than the man who replaced him, Malcolm Turnbull. The Australian had copies of documents that seemed to bear out Abbott’s arguments, confidential NSC documents no less. As vanquished leader tantrums go, this was a good one, following on from foot stamping in the Coalition partyroom meeting on Tuesday on budget strategy.
Turnbull had two options today: ignore the provocation or double down and go to war. He’s chosen go to war of his two options. There is now a police investigation into the leak to The Australian. Turnbull also gave a different version of Abbott’s history to the House in the first and second questions in question time today, a version he was at pains to point out was backed by Australia’s defence chiefs.
Turnbull chose to greet Abbott’s provocation on Tuesday with obsequiousness. Not today. As escalations go, this one is pretty serious.
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper.
Labor is moving now in the House to stir the pot on marriage equality. I’ll keep an ear on that obviously, but I think it’s more important right now that I give you a quick summary of the implications of that question time session. Be back with that in a minute.
Labor’s Jenny Macklin, to the prime minister.
Q: Isn’t it the case that by not addressing what the treasurer calls excesses or enthusiasms in negative gearing the prime minister is choosing to protect tax breaks for people buying their seventh house instead of protecting older Australians from cutting to their pensions?
Turnbull says housing affordability is a big issue, but it’s predominantly a state issue because its about land release and zoning.
He insists Labor hasn’t thought through the consequences of its negative gearing policy.
The treasurer spoke earlier about the apartment developments. And the fact that most of the buyers for apartments in most of our cities, particularly in close to the city where the member for Sydney’s electorate is and where my electorate is, are investors, because the properties are typically rented out. They’re rental properties.
What the Opposition’s policy will do is have this very adverse effect. It will have this very adverse effect. The Opposition’s policy would mean that investors would be able to buy an apartment off the plan from Meriton or Mirvac or somebody like that, but then when they chose to sell that apartment they would not be able to sell it to an investor. Yet that is the market. So that would have the consequence of not only reducing the value of those apartments on the resale, but it would also start progressively reduce the stock of housing that was available for rental.
I missed excesses becoming enthusiasms in that press conference earlier today.
Neat-o.
Updated
A Dorothy Dixer on cyber security.
Bowen is back on negative gearing. Given the treasurer today has redefined “excesses” of negative gearing as “enthusiasms” – will the treasurer now outline what the enthusiasms are?
Scott Morrison says he spoke today about distributions in negative gearing.
I said you can call them excesses, you can call them enthusiasms, you can call them whatever you like. They can refer to it however they wish. I simply made the point that across the income spectrum different Australians engage with negative gearing at different levels of activity. There’s no great shock about that.
Chris Bowen has asked the treasurer whether or not he knows what negative gearing is given earlier he described it as an “entirely legitimate practice to offset the cost of earning an income against that income.” (He did, actually. A slight swerve into incoherence.)
Q: Is the treasurer aware that that is not negative gearing? Does the treasurer know what negative gearing is?
The treasurer thinks people aren’t interested in school boy debating tricks, they are interested in real developments in the economy.
Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek wonders if the prime minister eventually caves in and does nothing to negative gearing this will be a co-captain’s call. She means that Tony Abbott will have effectively forced Turnbull’s hand.
Speaker Smith notes this last reference has breached the irony limits.
The prime minister opens on Labor’s negative gearing policy, and the socialist paradise offered after the next election.
Two Dorothy Dixers about thuggish union behaviour on building sites. One for Christopher Pyne and a second for trade minister Steve Ciobo.
Another question from Bowen to Morrison about negative gearing.
Q: Today, the treasurer said in reference to Labor’s negative gearing reforms: “Obviously those who are more engaged in negative gearing have higher incomes than those who are on modest incomes.” Is the treasurer aware that is the point?
Morrison says Labor’s policy benefits wealthy investors and stings modest investors. That’s a bad policy, he reasons.
Meanwhile, down the back.
Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie.
Q: My question is specifically to the prime minister because the community wants to hear his answer. PM, I’ve just given notice of a private member’s bill to combat poker machine problem gambling that would bring in the $1 maximum bet and mandatory pre-commitment. Since poker machine gamblers are concerned, will you support the bill or at least allow a debate on it?
Turnbull says gambling is a state issue. He throws then to human services minister Alan Tudge, who doesn’t care for mandatory pre-commitment.
Alan Tudge:
I think the problems of the future will come from the online environment where as you would be aware we have an inquiry into that and we will be responding to that shortly.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen is up now on negative gearing. Actually he’s up now with a gratuitous crack against Scott Morrison. He wonders whether the treasurer is one excess that the government can deal with?
The question infers there’s a division in thinking between Turnbull and Morrison on negative gearing: Morrison wants to act, Turnbull doesn’t.
Morrison tells Bowen he’s not rushing to failure, unlike the Labor party.
Two Dorothy Dixers on growth.
Shorten comes back with the obvious question: so was the former prime minister’s version of events in The Australian this morning wrong?
Malcolm Turnbull:
The chief of the defence force confirmed yesterday, as honourable members would have noted, that there has been no delay to the future submarine program. The actual delivery date, the first future submarine, will depend naturally on the outcome of the competitive evaluation process which is under way and that reality has not changed.
Question time
It being 2pm.
Bill Shorten opens today on the leak to The Australian about submarines. Has this gone to the police?
It has, as a matter of fact.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I can confirm that the secretary of the department of defence has advised me that he has initiated an investigation which will obviously be conducted by the Australian Federal Police into the apparent leak of these classified documents, that were referred to in the newspaper.
I should also advise the House, Mr Speaker, that the secretary of defence and the chief of the defence force have advised the ... their advice to the government since 2013 has been that it was highly unlikely the first of the future submarines could be delivered by 2026, and an extension of life for the Collins class submarine would almost certainly be required.
The secretary and the chief of the defence force further advised us that a study commissioned by the defence minister confirmed in 2012 that an extension of life for the Collins submarine was feasible and practical.
The department of defence and the Australian Defence Force have since that time worked on the basis that an extension of life would be undertaken as the only practical option to ensure that there was no capability gap between the Collins and the future submarines.
(Take that Tony.)
People just being mean now.
Christie right now. https://t.co/BfMaG4y5ci
— Colin Jones (@colinjones) March 2, 2016
Lest you think I jest.
Trump on Super Tuesday: It's really been great. pic.twitter.com/s4NKQWDtaO
— POLITICO Video (@POLITICOvideo) March 2, 2016
Meanwhile, somewhere in the Super Tuesday parallel universe, I can see Chris Christie standing behind Donald Trump as a human endorsement. He’s looking at Trump in the way you regard a minor deity. Truly disorienting.
Worth posting this section of Trent Zimmerman’s speech in full I think.
Mr Speaker, I am very conscious that my election to this Parliament represents the first time an openly gay man or woman has entered the House of Representatives.
I am proud to do so as a member of the Liberal Party. I am of course not the first in this Parliament – and I pay tribute to those that have forged a path in the Senate.
Some have said to me this is not an issue I need reflect upon, particularly on an occasion such as this. Surely a person’s sexuality is irrelevant in this day and age, they have asked.
We do live at a time and in a world where we can be proud of how far we have progressed in breaking down centuries of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. This weekend hundreds of thousands – gay and straight - will join together to recognise diversity, acceptance and respect at the Sydney Mardi Gras. They will do so peacefully and in a spirit of celebration.
It’s emblematic of the change that has occurred and, in many respects, it’s no surprise and so very Australian. While we have made great strides discrimination remains and too many are prepared to peddle prejudice.
Our laws still deny access to marriage - our society’s ultimate expression of love and commitment. Young gay men and women are more likely to suffer depression and other mental health issues. They are more likely to be bullied at school. More are likely to attempt to take their own lives and tragically some will succeed.
Coming out remains hard for many people. And believe me, I know what that’s like. And while people feel the need to suppress their identity they will live in a life of fear and trepidation. They are denied the opportunity to love and be loved. To be full and flourishing member of our community. To simply be themselves. We will not have reached the end of the journey until no person feels compelled to live a life that is not their own.
Until we recognise that a person’s sexuality is not a choice or a preference – it is as innate as the colour of their skin. We should regard intolerance in the same way modern Australia regards discrimination based on sex or race – no more and no less.
Hello.
Is it me you’re looking for?
Politics this lunchtime
Let’s take a few minutes to check where everything is up to.
- Cancel your winter breaks blogans, bloganistas. A deal on Senate voting reform between the Turnbull government and the Greens on has paved the way for a double dissolution election anytime from 1 July. (Although the Greens leader Richard Di Natale thinks the government shouldn’t go the double D route, because they might look like they were running scared.)
- Courtesy of said deal, the government has agreed to amend its voting reform package again to allow optional preferential voting below the line. Legal experts suggested the change was necessary to ensure the change survived any scrutiny by the High Court.
- Labor has unveiled a high profile recruit to the Senate: Patrick Dodson, the Indigenous leader considered the father of reconciliation in this country. Dodson will stand for the position vacated by Joe Bullock, who told the Senate last night he couldn’t stay in politics any longer because he couldn’t support Labor’s position on “homosexual marriage.”
- The treasurer Scott Morrison is holding on to the option of doing something on negative gearing despite free advice from Tony Abbott yesterday to cease and desist.
- As for Abbott, the government is examining an NSC leak to The Australian this morning about his policy while prime minister on submarine acquisitions. As far as anyone knows, Abbott remains flabbergasted. By things. But not leaking. Apparently Abbott has issued a statement saying he doesn’t leak, he says what he wants to say, minus subterfuge. I haven’t seen that statement but I’m told it exists.
And so we go in the direction of question time.
Meanwhile, in Texas.
#BREAKING: Clinton, Cruz win in Texas on Super Tuesday: US networks #SuperTuesday
— AFP news agency (@AFP) March 2, 2016
Zimmerman rips through urban congestion, public transport (he’s a supporter, seeing no logic in funding roads and not rail), multiculturalism (Australia’s great achievement). A shout out to the Armenian community (Turkey should acknowledge the genocide), a shout out to friends and mentors (Bruce Baird, Robert Hill) – before wrapping in this way.
Mr Speaker, there has never been a more exiting time to be the member for North Sydney!
(Crawling. He’ll go far, this chap.)
There’s a segment of the speech devoted to short-termism and the perils associated with that. Democracy, he says, promotes short term decision making. Zimmerman says three year terms are too short. Three year terms means two years of governing followed by a year of election posturing. He supports four year terms.
It should be done and it should be done soon.
Zimmerman is telling the chamber of his long held passion for politics – doing work experience for Nick Greiner, who called him Troy. He describes his own politics as warm, dry and green. He’s a liberal, in the classical sense. Zimmerman says economic freedoms are the inseparable twin of personal freedoms.
Down in the House, Trent Zimmerman – the chap who replaced Joe Hockey in the seat of north Sydney – is making his first speech to parliament. Zimmerman refers to the traditional owners from his part of Sydney, before moving to the harbour, and the bridge, and the built heritage of the densely populated part of the city. Chatswood, he notes, rises like a citadel from dense bush. (Citadel is not quite the word I’d use for Chatswood, but I respect his love of place.)
Zimmerman then reflects on his sexuality. He is proud to represent the Liberal party as an openly gay man. He wants to own that fact as a symbol of progress when too many people are prepared to peddle prejudice. He says coming out is a hard thing, particularly for young vulnerable people. He says a person’s sexuality is not a choice, it is innate.
Trent Zimmerman:
I hope my election to this place will send a small message of hope.
Deeply irritating when a day is so brisk that I can’t do justice to Magic Mike. I’ll try and make that up where I can. Look at this marvellous shot from the Di Natale/Rhiannon press conference from earlier today.
Q: Do you still think there are excesses in the negative gearing system?
Morrison says his recent comments on this question relate to the distribution of how people engage in it. The treasurer says there’s nothing wrong with that in principle, but the government is asking about the broader consequences. Morrison says the prime minister put things like negative gearing back on the table so it could be examined. This is a considered process.
We’ll do the homework, then we’ll make an announcement.
Q: Where are the excesses though?
Morrison repeats his formulation that there is a distribution of people who engage in negative gearing. Let’s cut through here – this is basically code for high net wealth individuals. He says there are people who report net rental losses of $50,000.
Those who are more engaged in negative gearing have higher incomes.
Translation being: we are looking at those folks. We may do something, we may not, we’ll get back to you.
Q: How do you expect to reduce government spending in a time of weak nominal GDP growth?
Morrison says revenue as a share of the economy will continue to rise. He says when it comes to forecasting, he’s seeking to be honest. He says the government needs to continue down the path of fiscal consolidation.
Morrison says if you want to boost confidence, you don’t jack up the GST. He pauses momentarily.
CGT.
Capital gains tax.
Morrison is asked what he made of Tony Abbott’s intervention in the partyroom meeting yesterday. The treasurer hopes there are some economists in the room who are interested about the December quarter growth figures.
To questions now.
The treasurer is asked about tax reform. Where does his appetite sit now? Morrison says the scope for tax relief is limited. There’s no surplus and no growth dividend.
You’ve got to deal with the situation you are in.
How about bracket creep, what’s a reasonable tax cut? Morrison says a tax cut has to be funded. Expenditure cuts need to go to the business of achieving a surplus. As to specifics, you’ll find out in the budget in May. Morrison says he wants to reward effort, but the size of the reward is contingent on the fiscal circumstances.
Morrison is working through how the growth forecast impacts the budget. He says fiscal consolidation will take budgets and budgets and budgets. Nominal GDP is not supplying a tailwind. The treasurer says he has a close eye on expenditure restraint (thanks for that, Tony), but the economic circumstances are what they are.
Down in the Blue Room, the treasurer Scott Morrison is welcoming the GDP figures.
We are growing faster than every economy in the G7.
Labor is trying to insist that all divisions on this bill are accompanied by ringing the bells for four minutes. Sorry Penny (Wong), says president Parry. We will ring the bells for one minute.
Labor Senator, Jacinta Collins.
This is a gag on a gag!
The Senate voting reform bill has now moved to the first reading.
The government will take this leak very seriously
Back to Tony Abbott and his submarine offensive. First up today I pointed you to The Australian’s story, which referenced the Abbott government’s plan for submarine acquisitions (buy them more quickly) and contrasted that with the Turnbull government’s decision to acquire them more slowly – a decision which has reportedly flabbergasted Abbott.
The manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, is sounding less than delighted about classified material being in the public domain.
Christopher Pyne:
I would make the point that it’s a highly classified document – there are no more highly classified documents than ones that are in the National Secuirty Committee – and therefore the government will take this leak to The Australian very seriously.
Guardian Australia contributor, Stephen Koukoulas, on the GDP.
Annualised GDP growth over second half of 2015 was 3.5%
— Stephen Koukoulas (@TheKouk) March 2, 2016
And now with commodity prices marching higher, things are looking quite good
We also have new economic growth figures which say 3% for the year. Stronger than forecast.
Meanwhile, in Vermont.
"This campaign is about transforming America" Bernie Sanders celebrates his win in Vermont pic.twitter.com/NBJa4EoVqL
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) March 2, 2016
The Senate voting bill is about to proceed without formalities. Well, it will after this division, unless Labor intends to launch another procedural bombardment.
Senate president Stephen Parry is advising Conroy to take a seat. The Senate is currently rejecting Labor’s efforts to delay consideration of the Senate voting reform legislation until the budget session.
During this division in the Senate chamber, I can hear Labor’s deputy Senate leader Stephen Conroy boasting about kicking five goals this morning at soccer. Sportsplaining. I did warn you.
While Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong is shouting at the Liberal Senator Ian MacDonald in the chamber, a statement from Family First Senator Bob Day.
It begins: Family First Senator Bob Day has lamented the conversion of the Senate into a Green rubber stamp for the Liberals, with the indications very clear that today electoral laws will be rammed through without proper debate.
Bob Day:
This is what your new Senate looks like. It is no longer a house of review – it is a house of back room deals and legislative ramming. The Liberal, Nationals, Nick Xenophon and Greens have decided the will of voters no longer matters, they have the numbers, the power and control, and they will force this legislation through the Senate despite its clear errors, irrespective of what others have to say, or the unintended consequences.
Updated
Richard Di Natale:
We are going to get this reform done and we are going to ensure voters get the people into parliament they vote for, not [through] some backroom deal.
We believe in the reform.
The Greens leader says there have been no discussions with the government about preference swaps.
No, no discussion about preferences.
Di Natale says he’s confident that the Greens will hold Sarah Hanson Young’s Senate spot under the new reforms. There’s analysis around suggesting she’ll be a casualty.
Green Senator Lee Rhiannon (speaking to reporters) is currently urging ALP Senators like Stephen Conroy and Sam Dastyari to come on board with senate reform and leave behind their power broking past.
Leave that path behind!
On double dissolutions, Greens leader Richard Di Natale says he believes the government should not go to a double dissolution. He suggests that will look like the government is running scared.
Double dissolutions in our time, anytime after July 1
More on the Senate voting reform package.
A locked-down deal between the Coalition and the Greens on Senate voting reforms has paved the way for a double dissolution election anytime from 1 July.
As we’ve already noted, the government has accepted the joint committee recommendation for optional preferential voting below the line. Prior to the deal, the government had designed a bill for optional preferential voting above the line only.
The Greens have insisted that the government allow the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) time to implement the reforms – at least until 30 June.
As a result, the deal would give Malcolm Turnbull the option of a double dissolution from 1 July onwards with a new Senate voting system of optional preferential voting if the legislation.
The AEC told the JSCEM committee yesterday it would need three months to implement the new system – longer if the bill was amended.
To one other piece of news I haven’t had a chance to cover off yet. Private health insurance premiums will rise by an average of 5.59% this year. That’s quite a big increase, given inflation is low, but the health minister Sussan Ley has managed the claw back the hike the insurance companies originally wanted.
Sussan Ley, on the ABC:
A record number of insurers resubmitted lower price rises in response to a direct request from me to reconsider and recognise that for consumers, affordability and value is vitally important in their hanging on to their private health insurance.
From one star recruit to another. Lovely shot.
Scrap that. The government’s response to the JSCEM recommendations on Senate voting reform no longer anyone’s guess. The government will roll over.
Here’s a statement from Malcolm Turnbull and Mathias Cormann:
The government welcomes the supportive report and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into our proposed Senate voting reforms.
We thank the members of the committee and all those who have made submissions and given evidence to the inquiry.
Our proposed reforms to Senate voting are designed to ensure that the results of future Senate elections reflect the will of the people.
Our reforms will empower Australian voters to determine what happens to their preferences when voting for the Senate above the line, instead of having those preferences traded and ultimately directed by political parties through insufficiently transparent group voting ticket arrangements.
The government has considered the issues raised and the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee to introduce a form of optional preferential voting below the line as well as above the line and has decided to adopt that recommendation.
The government will move amendments to that effect during the committee stages of the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.
Those amendments will provide for instructions to voters to number at least 12 boxes from 1 to 12 in order of their preference when voting below the line, together with a related savings provision that any vote with at least 6 boxes numbered from 1 to 6 below the line would still be considered formal.
These are important reforms in the public interest that will ensure election results reflect the will of voters. We again call on Labor to reconsider their position and to follow the considered advice of their highly regarded shadow minister for electoral Matters Gary Gray instead of just succumbing to the pressures of the union lobby and Labor’s backroom operators.
Let's recap in case you are just tuning in
That opening of super (Wednesday) is hectic enough to warrant a quick recap of events.
-
Bill Shorten has unveiled a star recruit to replace Joe Bullock in the Senate, Indigenous leader Pat Dodson, the bloke dubbed the father of reconciliation. The Labor leader wants a national executive meeting, stat, to sort this out. Dodson is obviously a high quality human being and upper house candidate, but I think it’s fair to wonder how this play will ultimately pan out. He’s been a stand out leader in his own community, a person of significant stature. Indigenous politics is a fierce battleground in which to learn your craft. That said, I wonder how he’ll adapt to playing with others and how he’ll cope with the ceaseless trivia of modern politics.
- The government has been advised to amend its Senate voting package yet again, this time to remove the disparity in voting procedures above and below the line. What happens from here is currently anyone’s guess, given the government said yesterday it wasn’t inclined to amend the package, and the AEC warned any amendments to the bill would push out the implementation timeframe beyond their estimated three months, a development that of course effects election timings. Labor’s pitched battle with the Greens over this proposal continues. John Howard has meanwhile expressed concern that the winner of this reform is the Greens.
- Oh yes, and Beyonce is unhappy about submarines. Flabbergasted, apparently. Sorry did I say Beyonce? I meant Tony. Tony Abbott.
Updated
Labor has lost the suspension.
Green-Lib gag underway in the Senate. Greens abandoning principle in pursuit of Senate voting deal. #auspol
— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) March 1, 2016
The Senate voting reform bill will therefore come on for debate.
JSCEM advises the government to amend the Senate voting reform bill. (Again.)
Just a quick clean up on Senate voting reform and the key recommendations from the JSCEM report. As we’ve already flagged, any reforms to the senate voting system should include optional preferential voting below the line, with voters instructed to number a minimum of 12 boxes, according to the bipartisan joint parliamentary committee.
The committee, headed by Liberal MP David Coleman, supported the government bill to change the senate voting system - but only if it was amended to include optional preferential voting below the line.
The existing bill abolishes group voting tickets, the party-submitted mechanism to decide how preferences flow for supporters who simply vote “above the line” rather than filling in all the candidate squares “below the line”.
The committee has also recommended a “savings provision” which would ensure any ballot paper with at least six boxes numbered sequentially from one would also be considered formal.
“Preferential voting below the line is most important to ensure that voting below the line is not an extraordinarily arduous process that it currently is and acts as a disincentive to voters to vote below the line,” said Coleman.
Back to that point about tribalism.
Dodson optimistic on bipartisanship: " not swapping indigenous tribalism for white fella tribalism". @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) March 1, 2016
Mike Bowers tells me that Labor MP Sharon Bird’s phone just rang in the press conference. The ring tone was the Game of Thrones theme.
I will come back to Dodson’s substantive points when there’s a slight break in the weather.
Tools at twenty paces
While this press conference is underway, there’s a procedural fight banging away in the Senate about today’s order of business.
Suspension of standing orders in progress in the #Senate to bring on Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill
— Australian Senate (@AuSenate) March 1, 2016
Labor has attempted the suspension to bring on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill.
Government business leader in the Senate Mitch Fifield has described this action as one of the strangest interventions in the Senate.
The government has previously argued the tool bill is urgent. So bring it on, says Labor’s Senate leader, Penny Wong.
Fifield says no one is fooled by Labor’s tactics. Labor didn’t accept the urgency argument last time but now they do. Fifield says he simply wanted to deal with the tool bill in this sitting. This is just a filibuster says Fifield.
(It’s a proxy fight over Senate voting reform.)
Shorten is asked about Louise Pratt, given she’s made it known she’ll be nominating for the Bullock vacancy. He says Louise Pratt is a quality person, and has been a great Senator but ..
On this occasion though, I’ll be supporting Pat Dodson.
He says he wants a meeting of the national executive as soon as possible to sort this out.
Dodson is asked whether he accepts that aligning himself politically carries risks, like alienating people he needs to work with. Dodson says politics doesn’t have to be politics, as in constant combat. Tribalism doesn’t always serve people’s best interests.
Updated
Bill Shorten:
I want Labor to seize the moment. We should put aside the rough and tumble of the party system and give someone of Pat Dodson’s remarkable qualities the opportunity to serve as a senator.
Dodson says some of the current problems with Indigenous policy is communities are outside the process. That needs to change.
Shorten is telling reporters that he wants to take the opportunity of recruiting people of renown to politics.
Bill Shorten:
Pat Dodson’s CV speak s for itself. He is a person of unmatched intelligence, integrity and achievement. He’s nationally recognised and rightly admired as the father of reconciliation.
Pat Dodson to fill casual senate vacancy for Labor @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/uTPNPk29uM
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) March 1, 2016
Dodson says recognition in the constitution and future settlements b/w Indigenous and non-Indigenous Austns vital. @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) March 1, 2016
Dodson says Shorten's call came as a surprise and "took some deep thought". @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) March 1, 2016
The presence of Pat will bring credit to not just Labor, but the parliament, shorten days. @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) March 1, 2016
The Labor leader is having a press conference downstairs with Pat Dodson, a prominent indigenous leader, at the moment. My colleague Shalailah Medhora is down there.
Pat's decision to stand for Labor will be a win for Australia esp with unfinished business of reconciliation, Shorten says. @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) March 1, 2016
Updated
Bill Shorten asks Patrick Dodson to stand for the Senate
Now here’s some news.
Shorten to ask Labor to endorse Pat Dodson to fill Joe Bullock's vacancy @murpharoo
— Shalailah Medhora (@shalailah) March 1, 2016
Updated
It was interesting last night on the ABC’s 7.30 Report that John Howard appeared quite ambivalent about the Senate voting changes. Well, actually not ambivalent. He thought the Greens the big winner, and in Howard’s estimation, that would be close to end times.
Howard said he thought the proposal was ok.
I understand the frustration of the public with, you know, like, the Motor Enthusiasts party and the preference whispering.
There’s a but coming. You can hear that, right?
John Howard:
But people shouldn’t lose fight of the fact that the principal beneficiary of these changes is probably the Australian Greens and that is why the Australian Greens are so strongly in favour.
So I hope this doesn’t presage some kind of understanding about preferences in House of Representatives elections between the Coalition and the Greens.
(I hope the Liberal party director, Tony Basil Nutt was taking note. Nutt certainly didn’t rule out preference deals with the Greens at the forthcoming election during his appearance yesterday before JSCEM).
My colleague Gabrielle Chan tells me JSCEM has supported the Senate voting reform bill, with a proposed amendment for optional preferential voting below the line. More on that shortly.
Speaking of Senates, the fight over the government’s proposed reforms to voting procedures will be back on like Donkey Kong today. We expect a quickie report on the proposal from the joint standing committee on electoral matters to be tabled once the red room whirs into action.
Not one for the world game, Senator Bill Heffernan, strolling into work.
Here are the combatants in happier times. Magic Mikearoo tells me there was a great deal of sportsplaining going on with a certain Senator who may or may not have been highlighted in my previous post.
Meanwhile, outside the building, bend it like ... Conroy.
To media reform now. Readers with me yesterday will know the government brought forward its media reform legislation. The practical effect of this legislation is the incumbent media companies will be permitted to get bigger and own assets across platforms. This could mean the Nine Network pairing up with Fairfax Media, or News Corp grabbing hold of the Ten Network.
Consolidation brings obvious challenges to maintaining a diversity of voices in an already concentrated Australian media market. But this morning on Radio National, the communication minister Mitch Fifield said he was “particularly untroubled” by people who worry about a lack of diversity as a consequence of the government’s proposed ownership deregulation. There were all those blighters chirruping away online, and there was the ABC, the communications minister noted, perhaps momentarily forgetting that the government cut the ABC’s funding.
The test invoked this morning for whether it was ok to deregulate was whether young people would understand the current restrictions. I laughed at that formulation, imagining the conversation with my 16 year old. “Love, are you happy with BuzzFeed and Junkee and Rookie?” “Yes, Mum, thanks.” “Love would you like an Australian version of Fox News on free to air television?” “Good times Mum, except which sad sods even watch free to air television?” You can see this is an interesting test: a valid one given children being our future and all that, but a less than comprehensive one I’d suggest.
The shadow communications minister Jason Clare told the ABC he has an open mind when it comes to ownership, however he noted (correctly) that most of the expansion of media activity online in recent years is the existing media companies exploring digital strategies, not new entrants.
Rather promisingly to my ear at least, Clare said he knew very well what the media companies wanted. (Media companies, I’d note by way of background, are never shy about rent seeking.) Now, Clare wanted to know what the Australian people wanted. He pointed to an upcoming parliamentary inquiry into the legislation as an opportunity for people to make their views known.
Jason Clare:
I think it’s time the Australian people had their say.
Both the communications minister and the shadow communications minister have been on the wireless speaking about media reform. More of that shortly, but sticking with Joe Bullock, I gather Louise Pratt has her hand up for the Senate spot. Pratt was in the Senate before losing out to Bullock after a bruising preselection process in the west which caused all sorts of ructions nationally.
The shadow communications minister Jason Clare has just told the ABC no-one need worry about the stampede of WA Labor MPs out the door.
Jason Clare:
We’ve got some good MPs in the winds ... there’s lots of talent in WA.
Don’t you worry about that.
Happy super (Wednesday)
Good morning good people and welcome back to politics live. Today will be hyoge (as Bernie Sanders might say.) As well as the million things on in our madhouse, it’s super Tuesday in the United States. I’ve broken out my Trump “Making America Great Again” mug to honour the milestone.
Turning back home, two significant developments overnight. The Labor Senator Joe Bullock announced that he was bowing out of politics because he couldn’t support his party’s position on “the homosexual marriage question.” If this language seems a little quaint, some context. Bullock hails from the right wing “shoppies” union, a bloc within the ALP that leans socially conservative.
Bullock told the Senate last night the 2015 national conference decision allowing Labor MPs a conscience vote on marriage equality for the next two parliaments, but then a bound vote after that, meant he had left the conference “shocked, alone and in deep despond”.
Joe Bullock:
How can I, in good conscience, recommend to people that they vote for a party which has determined to deny its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question – a question which I regard as having a fundamental significance to the future shape of our society? The simple answer is that I can’t.
Bullock says he was unable to campaign positively on a bound vote, therefore he was unable to remain a Labor Senator. He didn’t intend to trouser the prize (being the Senate spot) and not represent the Labor party’s position. Bullock’s departure basically clears the field for Labor in the west for the coming election. Three lower house MPs, Melissa Parke, Gary Gray, and Alannah MacTiernan, are also bowing out at the coming election.
Bowing out brings me back to Tony Abbott, who is currently inclined to strategic interventions, rather than dignified silence. It’s full tilt legacy activism right now. Yesterday we saw the extravagant fake compliments session in the Coalition partyroom – which was an effort by Abbott to drag Malcolm Turnbull back into line with his failed budget strategy. This morning he’s had a chat to Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian, about submarines.
Sheridan reports that Tony Abbott as prime minister had been determined to build the first new submarine by 2026-27, whereas last week’s defence white paper unveiled by Malcolm Turnbull delays the proposed build by at least half a decade, but more likely by nearly 10 years.
Tony Abbott:
I’m not just disappointed, I’m flabbergasted at this decision.
Now a couple of points on this. One of the reasons for delaying the submarines acquisition will be budgetary: the delay has the handy effect of pushing the red ink out well beyond the current forward estimates (helpful when you’ve promised both a big increase to defence spending and fiscal restraint, something that’s hard to deliver in tandem). And wasn’t Tony Abbott in the party room yesterday urging Turnbull to deal with the current budgetary pressures by cutting spending rather than increasing taxes? Evidently some spending is more equal than others.
Now let’s get cracking. The comments thread is wide open for your business. Magic Mikearoo and I are up and at ‘em on the twits. He’s @mpbowers and I’m @murpharoo
Fly like an eagle. Here comes Wednesday.
