Good night good people
Time to fold the Politics Live tent in anticipation of a lively day tomorrow. Malcolm Turnbull will be back in the country. How delightful that will be for him.
Let’s wrap today.
- The special minister of state Mal Brough is facing a sustained interrogation about his role in the Ashby affair, and today, the pressure showed in a couple of exchanges. It is notable that no senior minister or Liberal colleague rode to his defence in a matter of public importance debate about his conduct. I suspect Brough may have to explain tomorrow why he said 60 Minutes had edited a question that it really didn’t edit very much at all, assuming transcripts are accurate.
- The government was firmly in get it in or chuck it out mode with various legislative proposals. It hit pause on its medicare safety net legislation and agreed to fundamentally rework separate legislation covering the VET sector in an effort to secure Labor’s support. The senate will sit later tonight to try and pass the citizenship legislation – the one that revokes citizenship for dual nationals involved in terrorism.
- In Paris Malcolm Turnbull laid out Australia’s global climate commitments. At home the foreign minister Julie Bishop took the fire hose to conservatives worried that Turnbull was about to unveil one world government by emphasising that the government had worked out a climate policy, and would stick to it. Stick to it. Over. And out.
That’s Tuesday. Thanks for your company. I will see you Wednesday.
Updated
Much ado about halal
A senate inquiry in halal certification has found that “lacklustre” regulation has given rise to scammers, and that the federal government needs to step in and set minimum standards for certification. In a report tabled in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, the committee recommended that the federal government work with the halal certification industry on setting minimum standards which certifiers would be forced to comply with. The standards would be monitored by the Department of Agriculture.
“It is an inescapable fact that halal certification is poorly understood, and arguably under-regulated, certainly in the domestic market,” the former chairman of the committee, Sam Dastyari, said. “This compromises the integrity of the system and has allowed questionable conduct by certifiers of questionable expertise and questionable intent. “Let me be clear: some certifiers are nothing more than scammers.”
The point of posting the full 60 Minutes transcript is to allow you to determine whether Mal Brough was on the money when he told parliament this afternoon:
In relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question.
The relevant question for our purposes is question one in the 60 Minutes transcript.
In a strict lawyerly sense this is true. The program did edit out “Um why then also did you assis, seek, well [plane noise]”.
But if this transcript is accurate, I think the substance of the question was, in fact broadcast. Just another piece in our Brough in the rough puzzle.
I’m indebted to my colleague Daniel Hurst for securing the transcript in full.
"My point is you decided to become the police .."
60 Minutes has released the full transcript now of its interview with Mal Brough.
I’ll post it in full.
Q: Um why then also did you um assis, seek well, [plane noise] did you ask James Ashby to procure um copies of Peter Slipper’s diary for for you?
M: [10:32:19] Yes I did.
Q: Why did you do that?
M: [10:32:22] Because I believed Peter Slipper had committed a crime. I believed he was defrauding the Commonwealth and the courts have…
Q: [10:32:26] When did you become the police?
M: [10:32:27] … and the, and the courts have fundamentally [plane noise] have actually now proven that to be the case.
Q: [10:32:33] When did you become the police?
M: [10:32:35] Well Liz if you don’t think it’s right, if you believe someone’s defrauding someone [noise still] and you have the capacity to uncover that…
Q: [10:32:43] Why didn’t you go to the police?
M: [10:32:44] [plane louder] I had no evidence.
Q: Why didn’t you ask them to investigate? Why did you get James Ashby and his ah colleague to do ah your work for you?
M: [10:32:53] Well Liz the fact is that they had been asked via many different media outlets to have the Commonwealth investigate and many people had asked for where Mr Slipper was and why he was in places and we couldn’t get the answers
Q: [10:33:10] So you you decided that it would be appropriate to ah surreptitiously ah procure that information.
M: Yeah that’s your call.
Q: [10:33:20] Do you feel good about that?
M: Um…
Q: Is that the right thing to do?
M: [10:33:24] Ah I felt that Mr Slipper had for a very long time done the wrong thing in, in a criminals action and that has proven to be true in a court of law.
Q: [10:33:33] Was that the right thing to secretly…
M: Well that’s ..
Q: … get copies of his diary?
M: [10:33:36] Liz that’s for others to judge. You can judge and [over talk].
Q: [10:33:39] You believe it was the right thing to do.
M: [10:33:40] Well I’ll let others to judge that.
Q: [10:33:41] You believe it’s the right thing to do?
M: I will let others judge that.
Q: [10:33:44] Well you did it, does that mean you still believe it was the right thing to do?
M: [10:33:48] I will let others judge that.
Q: Would you have done it to Tony Abbott who’s had to repay more than ten thousand dollars in travel allowances? Would you have asked for copies of his diary secretly? Would you have done that to Barnaby Joyce?
M: [10:34:01] See it’s interesting how we like to draw these analogies when the reality is that one person has been found, found by a court of law to have actually altered documents to create a profit for themselves at the cost of the Commonwealth. No one
Q: [10:34:16] If you, if if you ..
M: Liz…
Q: … thought, if you thought…
M: … no one has…
Q: … Tony Abbott had been misusing his…
M: [10:34:20] … Liz no one has …
Q: … travel allowance, would you have asked a member of his staff to …
M: [10:34:23] … Liz no one ..
Q: … surreptitiously get a copy of his diary…
M: [10:34:26] Liz no one ..
Q: … would you have done that?
M: [10:34:27] Liz no one is making those suggestions and I think it’s quite wrong of you to make that assumption.
Q: [10:34:32] My point is that why would you do that to Peter Slipper in that manner and not do it to other?
M: [10:34:39] Because Peter Slipper had been on the public record for year after year of doing things which could not be answered and ultimately the Commonwealth and the taxpayer has been paid and you know if don’t, if we just want to turn a blind eye to these things, well that’s a decision for you.
Q: [10:34:58] My point is that you decided to become the police.
M: [10:35:00] No I didn’t decide to become the police, I decided to become a concerned…
Q: You did the investigation.
M: … a concerned individual.
Q: [10:35:04] You did the investigation. You didn’t go to the police with certain dates and concerns, you did the investigation yourself.
M: [10:35:12] You can draw that conclusion.
Q: Well you did.
M: [10:35:14] Well you can draw that conclusion Liz, that’s fine.
Q: [10:35:17] Well is that appropriate?
M: [10:35:17] Oh absolutely it’s appropriate.
Q: [10:35:20] You don’t think for a minute that was out of order?
M: No I don’t believe that was out of order.
Updated
Good grief.
Stacks of Aussies working on #climatechange at Paris. Riley from @GlobalVoicesau & Anthony the recycling king. K pic.twitter.com/cJz1e9LVJC
— Kevin Rudd (@MrKRudd) December 1, 2015
Lovely frame of Kenneth Branagh .. sorry Clive Palmer .. from our visiting picture editor, Jonny Weeks.
Updated
Labor’s Terri Butler is picking up the friendless point. Why no Liberals? Why no ministers? Why Nationals? She thinks she can hear the distant sound of a bus, and suspects someone might be about to be thrown under one.
Almost like the special minister of state is a bit friendless.
It is mildly interesting that its fallen to the Nationals to defend Brough in this MPI. I know we are under the Truss regime until the return of the prime minister tomorrow, but even still. Also notable in this MPI is the lack of any specific defence by government speakers of the special minister of state.
I can still hear the boos the member for Fisher received on that cold morning ...
This is Palmer, weaving a midly elaborate tale of woe, which I don’t think contains any significant new facts. He’s harking back to a big internal barney over the merger of the Liberal and National parties in Queensland. Brough wanted to be president. He didn’t end up as president. There was foot stamping and so on. Hard to see a direct connection to the specific matters currently in dispute.
Updated
Clive Palmer is on his feet. He appears determined to bring a Shakespearean affect to his contribution in the MPI. There is much pointing skyward.
Looks like 60 Minutes isn’t taking its representation by Brough in question time today lying down.
Transcript of the Mal Brough question. More to come... #60mins pic.twitter.com/6oIEVcjbwA
— Tom Malone (@malonetj) December 1, 2015
Darren Chester is defending Brough for the government.
While we have a nation building program, they [Labor] have a gutter building program.
Chester says listening to the party of Eddie Obeid and Craig Thomson talk about integrity is way rich, like hearing a lecture on fidelity from Tiger Woods.
Updated
Couple more.
Updated
Dreyfus, continuing the contribution in the MPI, says there’s no way on earth Brough has been exonerated in any court proceedings.
He was not the focus of the litigation. He was only lurking in the shadows.
Question time in one frame.
Updated
Here’s the matter of public importance. Dreyfus opens subtly.
It is past time for the special minister of state to go.
(Yes, that was a small joke.)
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper. Stay tuned for whatever the Palmer theatrics will be.
Dreyfus asks now about a story in the Australian this morning, quoting James Ashby, that reports he had a document that would show it was Queensland Liberal MP and frontbencher Wyatt Roy who had told him he should copy the Slipper diary. Is this becoming conduct?
Mal Brough
I am aware of the media reports and I have nothing further to add.
A Dorothy Dixer allowing the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, to conclude the CPSU is wrecking Christmas.
Then .. . Dreyfus refers to the text correspondence between himself and Ashby. If he wasn’t asking for the diary, what on earth is the parliament to think he was asking for?
Mal Brough
Mr Speaker, despite the best efforts of the opposition, they have not put one thing forward that was not already in the federal court, that has been dealt with by the federal court.
I stand by all of my actions as being entirely appropriate and entirely honest.
Updated
Dreyfus:
Q: My question is to the special minister of state. I refer to the minister’s previous answers. I refer to comments made by James Ashby in today’s Australian: ‘I went home and pulled a copy of the diary out of my cupboard, took pictures of the relevant dates and sent them to Mal. He couldn’t read them and texted me and asked if I could send them again.’ Did the minister receive those unauthorised copies of the former Speaker’s diary? Is conduct of this nature consistent with the standard this government applies to the minister’s portfolio.
Mal Brough
The question is – did I receive any further correspondence of any kind from Mr Ashby? The answer is no.
Call it whatever you like. I say to the shadow attorney general I refer to him to a radio interview today on 2GB between Alan Jones and Mr James Ashby where Mr Jones asked: ‘Did Mal Brough ever ask you for copies of Slipper’s diary?’
No.
Updated
Dreyfus:
Q: My question is again to the special minister of state. Yesterday and today the minister has referred to paragraphs 122-124 of the full federal court’s judgment in the matter of Ashby and Slipper. Paragraph 124 states that the minister was: ‘The recipient of copies of some of Slipper’s diary entries.’ Given the judgment, the minister mistakenly clings to as some sort of defence, finds he receives copies of the Speaker’s official diary, isn’t it time the minister resigned?
Brough, really irritated now.
A truly remarkable statement from a QC, “clinging” to the judgment of the full bench. Did you read the rest of that paragraph which said there was nothing inappropriate about me having any diary notes or has that slipped your memory?
(So, I had the diary notes, but that’s OK?)
Updated
60 Minutes didn't broadcast the full question: Brough
Dreyfus:
Q: My question is to the special minister of state. I refer to the minister’s previous answer. Isn’t it true that the federal court judgment was handed down before the minister admitted on national television to procuring copies of the former Speaker’s official diary? By claiming the judgment exonerated him, hasn’t the minister misled the parliament?
Mal Brough:
I have two things for the member. In relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question.
He then reads out the section of the judgment he just read out a moment ago.
Brough’s irritation shows in his final flourish.
Do go on in your year of ideas.
Updated
Dreyfus:
Q: My question is again to the special minister of state. If the federal court judgment found that the minister acted appropriately, why did the Australian federal police raid his home?
The Speaker, Tony Smith, rules that one out of order on the basis that it requires the minister to answer for someone else, namely the AFP.
This gives me a moment for reflection.
Smith has done a very good job with these Brough questions thus far – he’s played the straightest of straight bats. Imagine Madam Speaker permitting a rolling interrogation like the one we’ve seen over the past few days? The horror. The horror.
Updated
Dreyfus again.
Q: My question is to the special minister of state. On Thursday last week during question time the minister said: ‘I refer you to the findings of the full bench of the federal court which dealt with all of the evidence put before it and found entirely that I acted appropriately.’ I have read that judgment from beginning to end, including paragraphs 122-124. Can the minister name the paragraph which he finds acted appropriately? If there is not one, hasn’t the minister misled the parliament?
Special minister of state, Mal Brough
This is what the full bench of the federal court judgment says. ‘We are of the opinion that there was no basis for the primary judge to conclude that Brough was part of any combination with anyone to the commencement of these proceedings with the predominant purpose of damaging Slipper in the way alleged, or at all.’
Furthermore, I conclude by continuing with the findings of the full bench of the federal court: ‘Despite Brough’s hesitation at seeing Ashby, he did so and referred him to Russell QC. There is absolutely nothing untoward about these matters.’
Updated
After a Dorothy Dixer on mango exports, Dreyfus is back.
Q: My question is to the minister for justice. Given the minister was informed of the Australian federal police’s intention to execute a search warrant at the home of the special minister of state, did the minister or his office inform any of his ministerial colleagues, including but not limited to the prime minister, the attorney general, the special minister of state, other ministers or any of their respective offices?
The justice minister, Michael Keenan.
Thank you very much. After the warrants were executed, as I would normally do in a matter like this, I informed the prime minister’s chief of staff and the attorney general as the cabinet minister in the portfolio.
Updated
We are hitting the Brough in the rough segment of question time.
Shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus.
Q: My question is to the minister for justice. When was the minister for justice or his office first informed of the Australian federal police’s intention to execute a search warrant at the home of the special minister of state?
The justice minister, Michael Keenan.
Thank you for the question. As is usual practice, the Australian federal police informed me prior to it being executed.
Updated
Innovation minister, Christopher Pyne, digressing.
They are always dealing with the big issues, aren’t they? On the other side of the House, focusing on my tie is apparently the big issue for the shadow treasurer, apart from replacing the member for Fowler, the other issue he is concerned about is my tie.
Is it a Hogwarts tie?
(It isn’t.)
Updated
I got a pocket full of quarters/ And I’m headed to the arcade/ I don’t have a lot of money/ But I’m bringing everything I made/ I got a callous on my finger/ And my shoulder’s hurting too/ I’m gonna eat ‘em all up/ Just as soon as they turn blue
‘Cause I got Pac-Man fever – (Pac-Man fever)
It’s driving me crazy – (Driving me crazy)
I got Pac-Man Fever – (Pac-Man Fever)
I’m going out of my mind – (Going out of my mind)
I got Pac-Man fever – (Pac-Man fever)
I’m going out of my mind – (Going out of my mind)
"The Opposition is like Pacman going around gobbling up jobs, gobbling up the budget" - Scott Morrison #qt pic.twitter.com/cgOeh65pRL
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) December 1, 2015
Never a truer word.
Updated
The Greens MP, Adam Bandt.
Q: Will you commit here and now to retaining the Australian renewable energy agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and doubling their budgets?
Scott Morrison says the government’s policy remains unchanged. Then there is a retro gaming reference which might mean something to somebody. You never know.
Morrison:
The opposition and the Greens, when it comes to this issue, is like a Pacman going around gobbling up jobs, the economy and gobbling up the budget. You know what happens at the end of Pacman. It is game over and that is what it will be for the economy if you’re ever let near it again.
Updated
Labor is back linking the report to the GST.
Q: I refer to the treasurer’s previous answer. Given the treasurer just ruled out including the family home in the pension assets test by affirming the government’s policy will not change, why won’t he also rule out increasing the GST to 15% which will push up the price of everything for pensioners?
Scott Morrison:
The members opposite make reference to the goods and services tax. We are going back to where we were a few weeks ago, last week even. The government has no such proposal, has not put forward any such preferred option or set of options. What the government has done has responded to the request from states and territories who have raised the issue of the GST.
Updated
On that report, my colleague, Shalailah Medhora. Including the family home in the pension asset test or allowing retirees to use its equity would help make Australia’s taxation system more fair, and unlock the $926bn worth of home equity held by older Australians, a new report has found.
Labor’s Jenny Macklin has a question on a report from the Productivity Commission that I haven’t had time to look at yet.
Q: The Productivity Commission report released today recommends the family home be included in the pension assets test. Will the treasurer give pensioners certainty in their retirement by ruling out, including the family home, in the pension assets test?
The treasurer, Scott Morrison:
I note that the Productivity Commission report to which she refers to was a report to government, not from government. It was also a report that was initiated by the Productivity Commission not by the government.
The government’s policy on this issue is well-known. There is no change to the government’s policy.
Updated
Question time
Here we are. It being 2pm ...
Labor opens on climate policy. The question is from Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, to the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop.
Q: Yesterday the prime minister failed to mention the government’s woefully inadequate 26 to 28% carbon pollution target even once in his speech to the climate conference in Paris. Is the government leaving room for a more ambitious target or, like the foreign minister, is the government saying one thing in the conference room in Paris and another thing entirely in the party room in Canberra?
Bishop by way of retort feels Plibersek is prone to over-statements. We are hearing about Plibersek over-statements about Aneco Island. (Aneco? Forgive me, but I’ve ever heard of this island. Pressing on.)
Bishop:
The island that she says has literally disappeared into the sea has in fact got a residence on it. It has got a beautiful and accessible beach getaway. You can rent a bungalow for $50 a night. It is in good condition, we’re told. There are houses, lawns, gardens, there is a toilet block and there are picnic tables. It seems to me that when the deputy leader of the opposition makes a claim, people had better test it very carefully.
Updated
The Senate has amended today’s sitting hours. This is the government motion.
I move—That, on Tuesday, 1 December 2015:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to adjournment; (b) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with; (c) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm, shall be government business order of the day no. 2 (Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015); (d) government business be called on after consideration of the bill listed in paragraph (c) and considered till not later than 9.30 pm today; and (e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 9.30 pm.
So the red room sits til 9.30pm and citizenship is the priority, which is in line with the guidance I gave you all earlier today. Phew for that.
Labor supported the extension of today’s business, the Greens opposed it.
Green senator Rachel Siewart:
Yesterday we had five rearrangements of government business. How many other times is the business of the Senate going to be rearranged while the government makes up its mind on what it wants?
Still no clarity on what happens for the rest of the week.
Earlier today I wondered what the food standards bill was. The marvellous thing about this live blog is you rarely wonder for long. For that I’m insanely grateful.
The bill makes technical adjustments. It enables, for instance, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to publish a public notice on its website rather than having to publish a notice in a newspaper. It also amends the composition and appointment process of the FSANZ board.
Labor isn’t happy with the government’s proposal on the board and will seek to amend it. According to a Labor man, the government proposal significantly weakens the appointment criteria to the board of FSANZ, exposing the board to risk of capture by interest groups. The minister is able to appoint seven members of the 11 member board, plus the chairperson. The New Zealand minister may appoint three members of the board. The CEO (appointed by the board) is also a member of the board. The bill prescribes minimum numbers of appointments by categories of expertise and removes the requirement that the board must include an appointment by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Bottom line? Too much ministerial discretion over the appointments in Labor’s estimation.
Given the events of the morning, backflips, amendments, amendments on amendments, hand shakes, grimaces – all part of the predictable end of year race to the door – we’ll watch this space.
The hour of glower, it cometh. Refresh the teapot.
Here comes 2pm.
Politics, this lunchtime, with a lash of breaking news
Rightio, let’s take stock.
-
The government has just announced it will completely overhaul the loans scheme for private training courses from 2017 and in the meantime freeze payments to existing providers at current levels. This is part of last minute government amendments to its VET Fee-Help bill, which is first cab off the Senate rank this afternoon.
To less freshly minted content.
- The government has pulled its medicare safety net legislation for now at least, having failed to come to agreed terms with various senators in the required time.
- Liberal senator Cory Bernardi has joined the chorus of Coalition folks with strong feelings that Islam is a problem, and anyone who thinks otherwise is likely an appeaser.
-
Clive Palmer has taken to Twitter to say, “look at moi” at 3.30pm. This tease relates to the special minister of state, Mal Brough, who remains in the rough over his past dealings in the Ashby/Slipper saga of the last parliament.
- Malcolm Turnbull has delivered Australia’s climate commitments to the Paris summit, including ratifying Kyoto2 and redirecting aid money to emissions reduction projections. Labor says meh to all that.
Onwards. Sideways. Roundabout.
Updated
There’s a conspiracy against this summary quite clearly.
Speaking in parliament today on a matter of public importance around 3:30pm. @MalBrough_MP & @LNPQLD supporters should tune in. #auspol
— Clive Palmer (@CliveFPalmer) December 1, 2015
Sorry, just before that summary.
Government about to announce it has caved in and accepted Labor’s call for tough measures to control dodgy VET providers
— Kim Carr (@SenKimCarr) December 1, 2015
The government is about to announce it will amend its VET bill, which I mentioned earlier is first up on the Senate notice paper for consideration. I described this legislation earlier as not deeply controversial. Now, presumably, the controversy will evaporate entirely.
This man must be stopped.
Yes, yes. I will stop wisecracking and post a summary next.
Meanwhile, the Nationals leader Warren Truss is intensifying his naked grab for power by delivering an infrastructure statement to a packed chamber.
Standing room only.
Captain Hastie's lived experience and other verities
The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi is taking his turn in ‘Islam: straight talk.’ He’s on Sky News now defending the western tradition and our way of life.
Readers with me yesterday will know that various government types have been out sharing their feelings on radicalisation and extremism. Bernardi is somewhat late to this party. The South Australian senator is backing in the resources minister Josh Frydenberg’s weekend criticism of the Grand Mufti.
I salute him for it and commend him for it. If you really feel passionately you need to go in and say it.
Bernardi also notes “Captain” Andrew Hastie – one of the MPs out and about on this topic in the last 48 hours – has a lived experience in this. Which sounds a little like Hastie (a former SAS soldier who served in Afghanistan) may have been a participant in the crusades. Which of course he wasn’t. But let’s not sweat the hyperbowl.
Bernardi, continuing:
They are discussing what needs to be discussed.
Their motivations are entirely pure.
Bernardi is asked about the counter view – the view that inflaming the situation with idle water cooler chatter actually makes Australians less safe.
Bernardi isn’t buying that analysis. Appeasers have been around since Neville Chamberlain, he notes.
[Ed: Possibly before that, even.]
Updated
Apologies, I shouldn’t assume you are across the detail of the now paused measure.
The safety net legislation would have lowered the thresholds needed to access benefits for out-of-hospital services while capping the amount payable for individual services once these have been reached. Medical groups – including mental health practitioners, cancer specialists and IVF providers – were vociferous in their opposition. The concern was patients would be left with substantial out-of-pocket costs.
Updated
Medicare safety net bill – out the back door – for now at least
I flagged earlier on today the government had pulled the Medicare safety net bill from the notice paper.
The health minister, Sussan Ley, has just confirmed that measure is officially over and out, for now at least.
The health minister:
I am announcing today the government will be pausing discussions on the Medicare safety net measure while we develop our broader Medicare and primary care reform package.
This is a good measure that aims to address significant inequities in a system failing to help the very people it’s designed to protect – our most vulnerable patients with complex and costly medical needs. We have also had constructive discussions with both the Greens and crossbench in recent months about the need to address the current safety net failings. However, at the end of the day I was unwilling to compromise over the fundamental integrity of the policy’s intention and design in favour of a quick political solution.
The current measure will remain on the table while we continue to work with our parliamentary colleagues from all sides over the coming months on an agreeable solution as part of our broader discussions on Medicare and primary care reform.
Updated
The red room will open today’s proceedings shortly and has this agenda.
- Higher education support amendment (VET FEE-HELP reform) bill 2015 – resumption of second reading debate;
- Australian citizenship amendment (allegiance to Australia) bill 2015 – resumption of second reading debate;
- Food Standards Australia New Zealand amendment (forum on food regulation and other measures) bill 2015 – resumption of second reading debate;
- Labor 2013-14 budget savings (measures No 2) bill 2015 (subject to introduction and exemption from the bills cut-off order).
The first bill is not deeply controversial. We expect it will pass. The second, citizenship, will also pass due to the agreement between the Coalition and Labor. I’m not sure about food standards – I’ll need to check that when time permits. That final bill is the one Daniel has just briefed us about. Double backflip. Hold the pike.
Updated
Tidying up caucus. Labor has performed its second U-turn on Gillard-era higher education cuts in the past two years. The opposition caucus meeting decided this morning to support two elements of a bill the Coalition government has quaintly titled the “Labor 2013-14 budget savings (measures No 2) bill 2015”.
Those who have been closely watching the university funding debate will remember the Gillard government proposed more than $2bn in savings from the higher ed sector – including an efficiency dividend – to help pay for the Gonski school funding reforms.
But Labor did not legislate the budget measures before the 2013 election and Tony Abbott’s newly elected Coalition failed to get Senate support for the changes.
Labor resolved in December 2013 to oppose the Gillard budget measures on the basis that the Coalition was undermining the Gonski reforms, a charge led by the Labor senator Kim Carr.
Now Labor has agreed to pass two elements:
- changes to the student start-up scholarships that are available to help people with the upfront costs of study: they are to be replaced with income-contingent loans that will need to be repaid after graduates start earning a decent income (saving the budget $920m over four years);
- changes to incentives for early repayment of Hecs-Help loans: the 10% discount for upfront payments of $500 or more is to be scrapped, as is the 5% voluntary repayment bonus ($200m).
But it continues to oppose the other elements of the bill, most notably:
- adjusting university funding as if an efficiency dividend of 2% had been applied in 2014 and 1.25% in 2015 ($920m over four years).
Labor is presenting its new stance as being in the context of its recently announced policy to increase university funding at a total cost to the budget of $14bn over a decade.
Updated
Just before Daniel and caucus, the justice minister, Michael Keenan, has just refused to back comments from some on the conservative side of the Coalition who have called on the Muslim community in Australia to do more to fight radicalisation. Keenan, whose portfolio takes in responsibility for the Australian federal police, was careful to note that individuals are the problem, not whole chunks of society. “We’ve got to constantly reassure the Muslim community in Australia that they are a valuable part of our community, and they are. We don’t seek to target any group of Australians in any circumstances,” he said.
Readers may recall the Liberal backbencher and part-time UN Facebooker Craig Kelly stood in Parliament yesterday and said the “tyranny of political correctness” was holding the community back from having a frank discussion on the link between Islam and radicalisation.
Updated
Daniel will have a jot more on caucus shortly but in the meantime, here’s how the Liberal MP Craig Kelly views UN climate summits.
1. The Hopes
2. Last Chance
3. Time is Running out
4. The Circus
5. The Deadlock
6. The 5 minutes to midnight breakthrough
7. The cold light of day
8. And we’ll all be back at another exotic location to do it all over again reall soon !!
Not a great deal of realistic optimism to be seen here.
Updated
My colleague Daniel Hurst is back from the Labor caucus briefing. Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek took today’s session give Shorten is in the other hemisphere.
Plibersek told colleagues Malcolm Turnbull was in Paris with Tony Abbott’s climate policy baggage. She noted Turnbull’s “biggest mistake” was raising the spectre of a GST increase so close to Christmas when voters were concerned with cost of living pressures. She also said the ALP had released 50 policies over 2015 (which readers with long memories will know Shorten dubbed the “year of ideas”).
She ended thus.
It’s been a year where the caucus has shown loyalty, discipline and unity of purpose. Bill’s done a terrific job hunting down Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, he’ll now do the same job against Malcolm Turnbull.
Updated
Readers with me yesterday will know the Labor leader Bill Shorten is in Paris as well. He’s been underwhelmed by the Turnbull commitments. But he’s not proposing anything different when it comes to protecting the diesel fuel rebate.
You know you are not exactly in cut through political territory when the response to this question ..
Q: Can I ask you about some of the specifics that have come from Malcolm Turnbull’s intervention in Paris – one is that the government has opted out of signing an international agreement to phaseout fossil fuel subsidies. How do you feel about that decision by the government?
... is ...
Bill Shorten:
I can see both sides of that argument.
Shorten went on to say he supported keeping the diesel fuel rebate.
But ..
The question is Australia pretending to do climate change reform, or is it fair dinkum? This conference is about setting out the global action on climate change from 2020 onwards, post the Kyoto conference goals. And yet, today the Australian government has fronted up and announced that they are going to implement the second stage of the Kyoto goals and Labor had announced that three years ago. My point is, leave aside the technicalities, Australia needs to be acting on climate change, gaining some of the investment opportunities and job opportunities that come with that, and we need to pull our weight. Having seen what other countries are doing, I am not convinced that Malcolm Turnbull is on the right track by keeping Tony Abbott’s policies.
Points for persistence.
Q: But just to clarify on that one on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, the government are saying it will not do that and that would endanger the diesel rebate among others, you are with the government on that?
Bill Shorten:
I don’t think when you look at all the policies, I think there are other ways to achieve meaningful change on climate and that’s why we have committed that by 2050 we believe Australia can be a net zero emitter of carbon pollution. We believe that we should be guided by Climate Change Authority policies which keep temperature rises within 2 degrees increase and that’s why Mark Butler will be consulting with industry, with community on the Climate Change Authority’s proposals. The Climate Change Authority was set up to be an independent body, it was set up to do the best practice research. Ever since they have made a recommendation on what policies should be in Australia for the long term, the Liberals in power have studiously ignored it. We won’t ignore the best science. People can vote for Labor in the complete assurance that we are backing the science and that we are not interested in the short-term politics.
Good we cleared that up.
In the spirit of this timely prompt from Zac Spitzer ...
Still waiting for @murpharoo to mention "what a time it is to be alive" over on the live blog
— Zac Spitzer (@zackster) November 30, 2015
... let me share this quite marvellous opening of the prime minister’s press conference in Paris overnight.
Hi, I’m Malcolm Turnbull and I’m here with Greg Hunt and we are here in Paris in a spirit of realistic optimism and commitment to ensuring that we have a global agreement.
Realistic optimism could be the new excitement.
Give it time.
Updated
Sorry! I’m spending entirely too much time on social media with people who think only progressive women face gender stereotyping. This choose-your-own-facts world really must be a lot of fun.
Need to get back to business. The Labor caucus briefing is under way now.
Back to the other hemisphere, it’s interesting that the US president, Barack Obama, has met the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the climate summit in Paris.
The two also held a very public meeting in a hotel foyer at the G20, a public display of “thaw” in an effort to get to a political solution in Syria.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Ria-Novosti/Pool/Prensa Inte/REX Shutterstock (5370683a) Barack Obama, left, with Vladimir Putin, on 15 November at the G20 meeting in Turkey. Photograph: Prensa Inte/Rex Shutterstock
The second meeting overnight in Paris follows the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey last week, a development with the potential to derail the nascent diplomatic progress made at the G20. Obama reportedly expressed regret about that incident, and urged Putin to turn his military force against Islamic State, not the enemies of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
Updated
I’ve just been told today’s Coalition party room meeting was procedural only, just ticking legislation. The full discussion has been reserved for when the prime minister is back in the building tomorrow.
Updated
Interesting development but, like all “last-week-of-parliament” developments, all things liable to change without notice. The word downstairs is that the government has pulled from the Senate the bill to amend the Medicare safety nets. The changes are worth $257m to the budget, and are due to commence on 1 January, so if they don’t get through this week that’s a small problem. Labor opposes the bill.
The Medicare bill was not in the list of priority bills circulated yesterday in the context of a possible extension of sitting hours over the next few days. I flagged just before I don’t know whether or not the government will press ahead with an extension of sitting hours, but there is some expectation the government will lodge a motion to extend sittings from 7.20pm to 10.30pm today.
I mentioned first up the citizenship revocation bill passed the House last night. Perhaps an extension tonight (if it’s forthcoming) will focus exclusively on passing that legislation. Lot of ifs in this post. When things firm up I’ll let you know.
Updated
Before going to the party room meeting, the Liberal MP Ewen Jones shaved off his Movember thatch with a couple of his closest camera-wielding friends hovering at the bathroom door.
Which could be weird, except it was great. No pressure, Ewen.
Thanks to Jonny Weeks for converting Mike’s stills into a fun GIF.
Updated
It being Tuesday, there will be party room meetings.
I’d like to tell you whether or not the sitting hours will be extended in order to drive through the last remaining government business but, sadly, I can’t right now.
Updated
First lady MP home – Liberal Fiona Scott.
From Nats in Hats to Amazing Race. This morning the fit cohort of Australia’s elected representatives (curse them) raced around the building. The winner was Liberal MP Andrew Laming, pictured below.
Updated
Mr Bowers has been doing his rounds of the building. A couple of lovely sequences, including Nats in Hats.
Updated
Bishop has done a round of interviews this morning. She’s conducting them in a spirit I’d call end-of-lease cleaning.
As well as reassuring colleagues that Turnbull on climate policy is contained in a locked box called the cabinet and partyroom mandate, she’s also out hosing down Peter Hartcher’s latest instalment for Fairfax chronicling the demise of the Abbott government. Today’s Hartcher instalment can be summed up at Peta Credlin is/was wicked, with copious anecdotes underscoring the wickedness.
It is truly amazing how endless the appetite is in my parts for “Peta is wicked” content. I know Credlin was a chief of staff who fatally undermined her own boss by over-reaching and under-delivering in terms of sensible advice to him. Who doesn’t know that? We were all here, and she made herself public enough for her failings and misjudgments to occur periodically in the public domain. It’s not even the stuff of deep Canberra lore. You all saw her snarling in the advisers box, doing selfies on the floor of the UN, berating a minister on camera during an election campaign.
But strangely I never seem to read a version of history that puts the blame where it actually lies, with the boss.
Surely the story is that Tony Abbott, the occupant of the most powerful office in the land, allowed himself to be a sock puppet for reasons that remain hard to comprehend. Anyone who thinks there is no gender dimension to the way Credlin is judged – “that unbearable witch in the office” – need only reflect on that point. Any power Credlin had was derived from Abbott’s power. When he lost his power she lost her job.
Anyway back to Bishop, who was a public critic of Credlin in the late Abbott period. In one of her interviews this morning she’s noted that people can view recent history through their own prisms, but Australians have moved on. She’d also like people to move on from Peta watch. She notes Credlin no longer has a job. It would be good if people in that position could be permitted to get on with their lives, she says.
Updated
Interesting that Julie Bishop is trying to convey the impression nothing changes on the target for five years. I strongly suspect Turnbull’s timetable for iterations on the climate policy is much sooner than that – after the next election, assuming of course he wins in 2016. Turnbull has been flagging the use of international permits for some time (a practice considered a thought crime in the Abbott period) and I wouldn’t see that as the end of the tinkering. Key people around Turnbull suggest the current deficiencies can be fixed after the election.
But worthy aspiration isn’t concrete progress. He’s going to have to drag the whole government with him. Given allies at home are busy battening down the hatches, all you can say on that point is good luck.
We’ve just published some analysis from Lenore Taylor on the Turnbull pledges.
There’s nice contrast in Lenore’s piece between a constrained Turnbull and an unconstrained Justin Trudeau.
[The Paris commitment] wasn’t anywhere near big enough for Turnbull to stride to the lectern like Canada’s new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, who declared: “Canada is back, my friends. We’re here to help.” Tony Abbott and Trudeau’s predecessor, Stephen Harper, combined in international forums to defeat pro-climate change motions but, unlike Trudeau, Turnbull does not yet have the comfort of his own election victory to forge his own policy path.
You can read her analysis here.
Updated
With bonus gravitas filter.
Talking to PM @David_Cameron and PM @JustinTrudeau on Leaders Day at the Paris Climate Conference #COP21 pic.twitter.com/ZbZSfAMax6
— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) November 30, 2015
The foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, is on the AM program on ABC radio and she’s asked what happened with the fossil fuel communique. She says the issue (meaning the controversy) came to her late last week.
Bishop says she had some concerns about the wording in the New Zealand-initiated communique but changes “couldn’t be negotiated in time so we didn’t sign up to it”. She says Australia had already made a very similar commitment in the G20.
She is also pressed on the conservative resistance to beefing up Australia’s anaemic climate commitments. Bishop says the government has a settled policy on emissions reductions – a target of 26% to 28% % – and that is locked in until a review in five years. That is the cabinet agreement and the party room agreement. No one has a mandate to go beyond that until the review.
But don’t people have fears Turnbull will expand the envelope?
Julie Bishop:
People can have fears about all sorts of things.The reality is our target is 26 to 28%.
Bishop is also asked whether the aid funding commitment is new money.
No, it’s not new money.
Updated
Good morning
Bonjour and welcome to the second day of politics in two hemispheres. It’s delightful to have your company.
While some of us were sleeping, Malcolm Turnbull delivered his contribution to the climate talks in Paris.
As my colleague Lenore Taylor reports, Australia will ratify the second stage of the Kyoto protocol, a move that underlines Australia’s change in attitude towards international climate talks but is unlikely to make any practical difference to reductions in emissions. Turnbull also said $1bn from Australia’s existing aid budget will be directed towards projects that reduce emissions or help countries adapt, including the $200m already committed by the Abbott government to the Green Climate Fund.
While Turnbull attempted to unfurl his wings in Paris, back at home, as I reported throughout yesterday on Politics Live, a group of Coalition MPs thought they might have a little proxy war on climate policy by insisting the government not sign a communique on fossil fuel subsidies that they argued might foreshadow the death of the diesel fuel rebate used by farmers and miners. The Minerals Council had stamped its well-shod foot.
The end result is Australia won’t sign that communique. Turnbull in Paris blamed a “gratuitous” communique reference to an IMF report to explain the non-signing. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, told the ABC the important story is that Australia will sign Kyoto2 – not the fate of a more obscure communique. “We actually have endorsed precisely that principle [winding back fossil fuel subsidies] in the G20. There was one element, a reference to an IMF report, that we didn’t agree with. There are numerous communiques here that we are endorsing. Forests, clean energy, solar, Kyoto.”
Hunt is quite right, of course, on the substantive judgment. As I noted yesterday, this was a fight about two fifths of bugger all. But when it comes to issues such as climate change, the fractious internal politics are as they are.
Apart from climate, last night the House of Representatives passed the citizenship revocation bill and the Senate passed, with Labor’s support, legislation to scrap family tax benefit part B for couples whose youngest child has turned 13.
The social services minister, Christian Porter, has hit the air waves this morning to say the government was willing to compromise to get the rest of its reforms through, provided it could also secure necessary savings.
And last night the government’s former Senate leader, Eric Abetz, was getting his cranky on, as you can detect from this sequence from Mike Bowers.
I do love the communications minister’s face in this shot.
The ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, was in Canberra last night to make what we expect will be his last appearance before Senate estimates before he leaves the job. Abetz was displeased by a number of ABC transgressions, including coverage of same-sex marriage, and the performance of the Middle East correspondent, Sophie McNeill. Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda. Outrage outrage outrage.
You lucky ducks, of course, have a daily avenue to highlight my transgressions – you don’t have to wait for estimates. The comments thread is open for your business. And we are up and at ’em on the Twits as well. I’m @murpharoo, he’s @mpbowers
Strap on your parachute. Here comes the Tuesday base jump.
Updated
