The day that was: Monday 6 March
And that’s where we’ll leave you this evening. Here’s a wrap of the main events today:
Malcom Turnbull said he raised initial concerns about robodebt with minister Alan Tudge in early 2017, the then prime minister told the royal commission into the failed scheme.
The independent MP Sophie Scamps introduced her “ending jobs for mates” bill, which seeks to ensure government appointments are done independently.
The Nationals senator Jacinta Price said the Coalition will vote against changes to the Referendum Machinery Act unless the government sets up and funds official yes and no campaign bodies.
Adam Bandt and the Greens said “everyone needs to give a bit” to get climate legislation on the safeguard mechanism through the Senate.
The Albanese government made a legislative instrument authorising $9.5m of spending for a voice civics and awareness campaign.
Heatwave conditions gripped NSW, as temperatures exceeded 38C across Sydney and 32 schools across the state were closed due to bushfire risk.
The independent senator David Pocock said that there was “surely a better way” to reduce inflation than by raising interest rates.
The Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi said that “anything less” than paid parental leave for PhD students would be “a pretty cruel oversight”.
The New South Wales corruption watchdog discontinued its investigation into the appointment of the former deputy premier, John Bariarlo, to a plum trade role last year.
Updated
And you can watch Monique Ryan’s clap back to the opposition during question time earlier today in the video below:
Updated
Returning to politicians appearing in the media, Liberal senator Linda Reynolds was on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing, and also doubled down on the Coalition’s opposition to the government’s superannuation proposal.
Reynolds said it was “yet another broken promise” made by the government, and that they were justifying it with “weasel words”:
Both prime minister and the treasurer during the campaign, both promised that we were not going to have any big changes to the superannuation system and, guess what, yet another broken promise.
All of these weasel words that the government are now trying to use, and again in the Senate this afternoon with the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, ducking and weaving, but she had to admit as a result of questions from Senator Canavan, that, in fact, it is not 0.5%, it is 10%, and there is secret modelling.
So now what we’re saying is let’s release the modelling that they have been hiding from the Australian people and see what that modelling actually says.
Updated
ABC staff postpone strike to consider new offer
ABC editorial staff have announced they will be postponing a 40-minute strike, initially scheduled for tomorrow to coincide with the Reserve Bank’s next interest rate decision, to consider a new offer from management.
The proposed strike has been halted to give union officials time to work through the new offer, which includes an 11% pay increase over three years and a $1,500 sign-on bonus.
In a statement from the MEAA, the media union’s media director, Cassie Derrick, said the threat of a strike had brought management back to the bargaining table:
The new offer provided by management this morning contains several improvements on what has been on the table until now.
Members are encouraged that the new offer hears their concerns on gender and race pay gaps and buyouts and comes some way to addressing claims on progression and a fair pay rise.
It does not satisfy all of employees’ demands and there is still work to be done, but there is no doubt the pressure from union members has led to this better offer from ABC’s managing director David Anderson after his executives refused to negotiate for weeks.
Updated
Coalition demand funding for yes and no campaigns in voice referendum
The Nationals senator Jacinta Price says the Coalition will vote against changes to the Referendum Machinery Act unless the government sets up and funds official yes and no campaign bodies, claiming those demands were “the line” for opposition support.
Earlier we reported that the shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, said the opposition would stand against the amendments until more of its demands were met. The Indigenous Australians minister, Linda Burney, has asked the Coalition to “meet us halfway” and support the changes to the Referendum Machinery Act, saying the government had already made a “significant concession” by reinstating the official information pamphlet, setting out the official cases of the yes and no side, after Coalition requests.
Price, appearing on the ABC on Monday, said those two requests were “the line” for the Coalition’s support. Asked about official funding for the yes and no campaigns, something the government has flatly ruled out, Price said: “Yes, that is certainly the line.”
“As well as establishing an official yes and no. It is important in terms of funding for any referendum going forward that we can ensure that there isn’t foreign interference, that the AEC are involved when it comes to appropriately listing donors to both sides as well,” she said.
Price, a leading campaigner of the no side, said the Machinery changes would go further than just the voice to parliament referendum.
“Making changes to this piece of legislation also affects future referendums, so the Coalition is right in terms of considering issues [like public funding],” she said.
Updated
Icac drops John Barilo investigation
The New South Wales corruption watchdog has discontinued its investigation into the appointment of former deputy premier, John Bariarlo, to a plum trade role last year.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption has been investigating the appointment since July and, after conducting interviews and collecting information, did not identify any evidence of corrupt conduct.
A spokesperson for Icac said:
In July 2022, the commission decided to investigate whether, in relation to the recruitment of the Senior Trade and Investment Commissioner to the Americas, John Barilaro, Stuart Ayres, Amy Brown or any other public official breached public trust, or exercised their official functions dishonestly or partially, or adversely affected the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official.
During the course of the investigation, the commission obtained information and documents from various sources by issuing notices under sections 21 and 22 of the Icac Act and summonses under section 35 of the Icac Act. The commission also conducted interviews and obtained oral evidence from witnesses in a number of compulsory examinations. The investigation did not identify any evidence of corrupt conduct. As a result, the commission has discontinued its investigation.
The commission does not plan to take further action.
Previous reporting:
Updated
Guardian ranked sixth in digital news in February
The Guardian has come in sixth among digital news platforms last month, with its reach beating out the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Daily Telegraph.
Coming in behind leader news.com.au and a range of news sites, such as ABC News and Daily Mail Australia, the Guardian reached 34% of online Australians over the age of 14.
It comes after Ipsos IRIS became the officially endorsed industry measurement for digital ratings by the IAB.
The new measurement services has extended reporting capabilities, including expanded demographic reporting, new metrics, duplication functionality and reporting at the subsection level.
Updated
Anne Ruston doubles down on opposition to super proposal
Returning to politics, the Liberal senator Anne Ruston was just on the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing, where she was doubling down on the Coalition’s opposition to the government’s superannuation proposal.
Ruston argued that the key issue wasn’t the actual financial machinery of the proposal, but that it was a broken election promise:
I think the real issue here is the fact that you can’t go to the election and make a promise and then a few minutes later change that. So all this says to the Australian public is what this government said in order to get themselves elected, they don’t actually care about, they are quite happy to go back on it.
Then in Question Time we ask questions of the finance minister about what happens if one member of a couple dies, what is the impact on the other person? We don’t know what will happen to primary producers who often have the farm in the superannuation accounts.
It is just that huge uncertainty and the broken promises that I think will eventually start coming out and realising that this policy has been ill-conceived and there is not enough detail.
Updated
NSW heatwave
I wanted to just step away from politics for a moment to discuss the heatwave conditions that are currently affecting New South Wales.
In an update this afternoon, the Bureau of Meteorology says fire dangers reached extreme levels today, and are set to remain high tomorrow, with Fire Weather Warnings current for the Greater Hunter, Central Ranges and Lower Central West Plains districts.
Maximum temperatures are forecast to spike 6 to 12°C above average across eastern parts of NSW.
Sydney's 37.2C so far may be close to its peak. The airport at 40C and Penrith at 40.1C are vying for the city's hottest places. (Source: @BOM_au )
— @phannam@mastodon.green (@p_hannam) March 6, 2023
These conditions are being driven by hot and dry continental west-north-westerly winds, bringing the high temperatures to eastern NSW including Sydney.
They also say dry thunderstorms may impact north-east NSW on Tuesday and Wednesday.
⛈️Thunderstorm forecast for today 6/3. Storms are possible across southeastern and northeastern #NSW (including the #ACT). Gusty winds with little or no rainfall, and dry lightning strikes may pose a risk of new fire ignitions. Warnings, when issued: https://t.co/4bcNC78MDm pic.twitter.com/5Pvw5pD2R9
— Bureau of Meteorology, New South Wales (@BOM_NSW) March 6, 2023
The Bureau saud it wasn’t unusual to experience heatwave conditions in March, as the weather transitions towards autumn and winter.
The Bureau’s long-range forecast for Autumn indicates it is likely to be drier and warmer than usual for much of Australia.
Updated
Good afternoon, Mostafa Rachwani with you to cover the rest of the day’s news.
The wonderful Mostafa Rachwani will take you through the rest of the afternoon, and what else is happening today, outside of politics. I will be back with the Canberra team very early tomorrow morning, where it is party room meeting time, and more parliamentary shannigans.
Thank you so much to everyone who joined me today – I very much appreciate it. Have a wonderful afternoon, and take care of you.
Peter Dutton’s Aukus information ‘out of date, and he knows it’
In question time today, two government ministers took aim at the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, for comments he made about Aukus with only a short time to go before the official announcement is made.
The defence minister and deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, argued Dutton’s comments had muddied the waters on bipartisanship around Aukus. Marles told parliament Dutton’s remarks had “raised eyebrows abroad about whether or not the Coalition is on board”.
Marles said the last time the former defence minister had received a confidential briefing about Aukus “was in the very early days of a process which has gone a long way since then”:
The leader of the opposition’s information is very out of date, and he knows it.
The minister for defence industry, Pat Conroy, reaffirmed the government’s pledge to build submarines in Adelaide. Conroy claimed that Dutton’s comments meant he had “surrendered on Aussie jobs and advocated building our nuclear submarines overseas; he cut Adelaide loose”.
It’s worth pointing out that Dutton has repeatedly pledged to support the government’s announcement on the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines (even after he made a few public interventions last week expressing his preference for the US Virginia class submarines over a British option still in development).
Updated
Jacqui Lambie Network ‘just want Tasmania’s fair share’ on housing funding
The Jacqui Lambie Network senator Tammy Tyrell is next up on the ABC speaking about the negotiations the JLN is having with the government over things like its national reconstruction fund and the housing future fund.
If the Coalition opposes a bill, then the government needs the Greens and at least two crossbench senators (it used to be one, but Lidia Thorpe becoming an independent now makes it two) which puts Lambie and Tyrell in a key negotiating spot.
Tyrell says they will be using it to get what they can for Tasmania:
We are asking for the 1,200 homes because there is a government report that comes out annually and within that 4% of the people most in need of a home and support are in Tasmania. And 4% of the housing fund is 1,200 homes over five years.
Tyrell says they just want Tasmania’s fair share, which is 4% so they aren’t shooting for the stars.
Updated
‘If you don’t approve new coal and gas, we can start to tackle the climate crisis,’ Greens say to government
The Greens senator Larissa Waters is on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing where she is giving an update on the negotiations with the government around its safeguards bill:
We are still in active discussions with the government and you are right to say we’re suggesting strongly to them and offering to them, we will cop your very average scheme that allows unlimited offsets and has limited targets if you just stop making the climate problem worse by approving 113 new coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline. Or a subset thereof.
We don’t understand why Labor wants new coal and gas so badly that this is somehow a sticking point for them. We are still making that offer, you have got a scheme that is pretty weak and will deliver some pretty weak targets but at least if you don’t approve new coal and gas, we can start to tackle the climate crisis. Again, we are having those discussions, we have made that offer and we really would like the government to take that offer very seriously.
Updated
TikTok says it ‘collects less data than many popular mobile apps’
Earlier today the Liberal senator James Paterson called for more Australian government departments to ban TikTok on government devices. Asked for a response to these comments, a spokesperson for TikTok said:
Just like many private sector organisations, commonwealth government agencies have policies that may restrict the use of social media and messaging apps on devices. In the case of these departments, we understand the restrictions apply to a range of apps and software, not just TikTok.
As a global company, we are not unique in how we operate. Some of the best-known and trusted Australian companies, including banks and telcos, openly state in their privacy policies that they share Australian user information with employees and third parties around the world, including China. These organisations often collect sensitive data like financial information, medical records, legal information and more. The TikTok app collects less data than many popular mobile apps.
Our community’s safety and privacy is our top priority, and we continue to be diligent in ensuring we meet, or exceed, the data security standards applied to companies that operate in Australia.
Updated
Bill Shorten also used QT to give his latest robodebt statement
Asked: What has the Royal Commission into robodebt uncovered about what was said in public by former ministers in charge of the unlawful scheme, versus what they actually believed, and how many robodebts were raised between 29 May 2019 and 19 November 2019?
Shorten replied:
In the most recent block of hearings at the royal commission into robodebt, we’ve heard from professor Renee Leon, former Secretary of Department of Human Services, Timothy French, DHS legal counsel and the member, then the minister for human services. Specifically, Mr French testified that in a meeting in early July 2019 the member for Fadden was verbally briefed with the Australian government solicitor opinion that robodebt was on very shaky grounds. Testimony which professor Leon corroborated in her own in her own evidence. Further evidence was led that on July the 31st, the member for Fadden appeared on the ABC’s Insider program defending robodebt and stating, amongst other things, that in 99.2% of the cases, the debt was correct. 99.2%, he said.
However, last week, under questioning by the royal commissioner, the member for Fadden admitted that he knew that what he was saying was false. The royal commissioner said, and I quote commissioner “your evidence was that you could not raise a debt based solely on averaging”. Member for Fadden, “Yes, that was my belief, Yes, Commissioner”. “And the 90% of those cases, that is exactly what was happening under the program, to your knowledge, minister?” “That’s correct, commissioner”. “So what you said there, to your knowledge at the time was false?” Minister, and this is very, very, very interesting, “my personal view, yes, but I’m still a government minister, and it is still a government program, and that was the approach the government had signed off on”. The basic position of the evidence of the member for Fadden was that cabinet solidarity allowed him as a minister to give statistics that he did not believe on robodebt in Australia.
(Paul Fletcher had a point of order about not drawing any conclusions, as the commission is ongoing)
Shorten:
I say this in all collegiality, but I thank the manager of opposition business for giving me the chance to go to the precise quote, minister for member for Fadden at page 4220, “they were the numbers from the department based on the work approach and how the program is being run. That was the accepted figures. And as a dutiful cabinet minister, ma’am, that’s all we do”. Then the commissioner replies, “misrepresent things to the Australian people?” The evidence was very idiosyncratic for the member, for the member for Fadden. The story that was being put in the royal commission last week is that there is a doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility that allowed the previous government to mislead the people.
Updated
Greens say 'everyone needs to give a bit' to get climate legislation through Senate
Adam Bandt and the Greens held a press conference before question time, including speaking about the safeguard mechanism.
Bandt said:
New coal and gas will blow even the government’s own climate targets. The government’s own modellers have confirmed on the government’s emissions projections from last year, there will be a 35m tonne blowout in the safeguard mechanism. This reinforces what the Greens have been saying all along: there is no space for new coal and gas if we are to meet our climate targets.
We will continue to have discussions with the government about the safeguard mechanism, including this week, while we are in parliament. The one thing we haven’t yet heard a satisfactory answer to publicly from the government, is why they want to keep opening up new coal and gas mines.”
Asked about negotiations, Bandt said the government doesn’t have a mandate for new coal and gas because they don’t have a majority in both houses of parliament and 57% of Australians don’t support new coal and gas.
He said:
So the government is going to need to shift a bit if they want to get legislation through the Senate. We’ve been prepared to shift. We’ve been prepared to compromise on targets, we’ve offered to compromise on offsets, we’ve even accepted the government using Tony Abbott’s reheated climate mechanism. For just one thing: the government stops opening new coal and gas mines. Now, everyone has to give a bit to get legislation through...
We’ve also said if there are other suggestions of why you’re dealing with coal and gas, we will look at those in good faith as well. A climate trigger has been suggested by others. Some have said, let’s have a pause on new coal and gas projects while we reevaluate our environment laws. We are happy to look at all of those proposals and we will in good faith as part of a package to see some genuine climate action in this country.
But the government has to shift and the government has to understand, you can’t tackle the climate process by opening new coal and gas mines.”
Updated
Anthony Albanese finally, finally calls an end to question time – and just as Michael McCormack gets up to ask a question.
It’s enough to send you hunting for kava.
(McCormack changed his twitter header photo to one of him drinking kava, so at least he has a sense of humour)
Question time is now at 1.45 hours
I am on coffee number five. If I had known this is how today was going to turn out, I would have had the easter eggs for breakfast, so I would have had one small moment of joy today.
Updated
We are sticking with super, after Katy Gallagher told the Senate in that chamber’s question time that Treasury advice is that in 30 years time, one in 10 Australians could be affected by the super concession changes (because of indexation capturing more Australians, but Treasury has also overestimated wage growth almost every single year for the past decade and a bit).
It is also pretty bold to assume there would be no changes to tax or super in three decades, but anyways.
Peter Dutton has a question:
Was the prime minister aware of the treasurer advise that one in 10 Australians will be affected by the proposed super changes when he made public commentary on this matter last week? If so, prime minister, what is your advice to a 37-year-old’s investment decisions today into their superannuation who would be affected by these changes?
Anthony Albanese:
My advice to a 37-year-old would be listened to old Angus and not new Angus. In June 2016... (Albanese is asked to refer to members by their proper titles)
The shadow treasurer… He is very angry, Mr Speaker. Save the yelling for the New South Wales Liberal campaign launch on Sunday. Save it for that. This is what the shadow treasurer had to say.
‘The situation we had was some people were contributing millions of dollars into super, and it is totally inappropriate that someone who has contributed millions and millions of dollars continues to get those 15 per cent concessions. That is what they had to say’.
Well done, Angus.
It was after the Treasurer budget speech that year were the then Treasurer, the member for Cook had this to say.
‘We will be reducing access to generous superannuation tax concessions for the most wealthy’.
Today, they have come in here and I have let question time go for over an hour and a half. They have finally got to ask me a question about super. What they talk about is something that happens in 30 years. Even though when they made the changes under section 293, they did not index it. Income tax rates. They do not index it.
In 30 years’ time, I make this prediction. I make this bold prediction in 30 years’ time. Some people will be earning more than they are today in dollar terms, and some people will be paying different income tax rates in 30 years than they are now.
Different people will be contributing, under section 293, in terms of superannuation, the changes that they delivered in 2016 and 2017. The difference is this, Mr Speaker. Our tax changes affect one-half of one per cent.
The difference is this. Our changes affect half of one per cent. Their changes affected four per cent. They were not indexed. They had an impact of $5bn. Our modest changes...
Albanese runs out of time.
Updated
We are now one and a half hours into this question time and that we are all still here, pretending these are very normal people having very normal reactions in a very normal situation really says something about what years of question time has done to our brains.
Because this is the question time that never ends, we even get to Angus Taylor asking Jim Chalmers a question.
My question is to the treasurer. Has the treasurer seen advice for Treasury that the so-called half a percent of people affected by their super changes rise to 10% of Australians?
(There are cheers from Labor)
Chalmers:
It took until 3.24pm to break the pea-hearted silence of the shadow treasurer, 3:24 we had to sit here for an hour and a half to wait for a question from the shadow treasurer, he hasn’t asked me since November, Mr Speaker, and after all that waiting, that’s the best of the can come up with.
What a joker, Mr Speaker, the answer to this question is this, and I know that it comes from the questioning in the Senate what they did have the courage to ask some questions about superannuation in the Senate today, not like the pea-hearted approach of those opposite here and the shadow treasurer, but the and that the shadow treasurer is referring to, is that right now, in 2025, less than half of 1% of people will be impacted, by the time...
Let me finish, let me wait for in, let me finish, by the beginning of next decade, it’ll be around 1% and the answer of that, Senator Gallagher, the great Finance Minister and the other place gave, a moment ago on, is in 30 years, one in 10 people will be impacted by it, this is the number that the shadow treasurer thinks is some kind of stunning insight.
The lengths that they will go to, Mr Speaker, the lengths that they will go to to hide what should be their shamefaced embarrassment that we can’t get a question, can’t get a question from the shadow treasurer about energy bills, can’t get about housing affordability, can get about manual manufacturing that this bloke will go to the wall for half a percent of people getting tax rates in the superannuation system.
What we are proposing, Mr Speaker, is a modest change but it is a simple choice.
And on the side of the house when we inherited $1 trillion of Liberal party debt and deficits as far as the eye can see an unfunded ongoing commitments and intensifying pressures in the budget, we say that the generous concessions in superannuation for half a percent of people can be a little bit less generous, we know what those opposite do when the budget and the pressure, the victimised and they demonise people, the most honourable people in this country with robodebt and they come after Medicare like the member for Dickson did last time that the Liberals were in office.
Mr Speaker, as those opposite thrash around in the shallowest and mightiest bottles of political opportunism, on this side of the house, the adults will continue to make serious decisions about serious pressures on the budget that we inherited for those opposite. And will continue to make the right course for the right reasons to clean up the mess that they left us.
Updated
The shadow attorney general, Julian Leeser then has a question for Amanda Rishworth:
Two weeks ago, the leader of the opposition and the member for O’Connor and I travelled [to the Goldfields in] WA, we heard from local leaders that since this government abolished the cashless debit card, it’s been an increase in alcohol-related violence and children in this community is not being fed. When will the prime minister start listening to the local voices of communities calling for the reinstatement of the cashless debit card?
Rishworth:
Of course, there’s a lot of emotion around the cashless debit card and some on the other side are using that for political purposes. They are using it in a way to divide communities and spread misinformation.
Of course, alcohol misuse in remote and rural Australia due to a complex ranges of issues and the Goldfields is no different.
I will remind the house, I will remind the house that the [Goldfield lands] were never subject to the cashless debit card. So, of course, making this connection is misleading.
Of course, it’s also been publicly reported which I’m assuming the leader of the opposition listen to, that there is recent royalty payments which have attracted larger groups in to town to access these funds, that are remind everyone that royalty payments have never been restricted by the cashless debit card.
So, once again, these connections do not actually add up and once again, as an example of the misinformation that I would also like to quote some comments from Aboriginal elder who said people with serious drinking problems among those from who receive substantial money royalties and travel to the Goldfields region to spend the payment alcohol, that’s what the leader of opposition heard and why he would come into this place and try and mislead and conflate is beyond me.
But I will say that we, as a government, investing in the things at work, we will invest in the support and services that work, we are continued my department continues to consult with those regions because not only did we promise and commit money to the existing services that were to end under those opposite, the 1 July this year, no more money for these sites, of course, we have not only committed that funding but committed extra funding to the services that work.
I will, and this government will continue to work with those communities affected by these complex issues to deliver real and lasting solution, we’re not to play politics and either of those of the other side well.
Updated
The Liberal MP for Casey, Aaron Violi, who is in the running to take the ‘Vince Connolly question delivery tribute’ trophy (we miss you Vince) has the next non-government question:
Kieran, who runs a cafe in Lilydale, is bracing for the cafe’s power bill to increase by $2,438 this year. The prime minister promised Australians like Kieran that he would cut their power bills by $275. Why has the prime minister misled the Australian people? Isn’t this yet another broken promise by this tricky prime minister?
(He delivers it like he’s standing in the spotlight of a community theatre stage, addressing the fourth wall, and thinking of his high school drama teacher who always urged him to ‘really believe it Aaron!’)
Anthony Albanese:
I thank Kieran for his question - the member for Casey for his question about Kieran, a constituent in his electorate. And I hope that he can tell Kieran that the parliament sat last December and we passed a significant plan.
We passed a plan for a cap on gas prices. The New South Wales Parliament and the Queensland administration also put in place price caps on coal. The RBA, the IMF, AEMO and AGL have all confirmed that our plan is working, has made a difference. The energy price relief plan is something that the member for Casey came in here and voted against.
And as of 3 February, wholesale electricity forward prices were nearly half that in November. 3 February, wholesale electricity forward prices were nearly half of that in November. And that is in spite of the opposition of those opposite. And I hope he tells Kieran that he’s sorry that he voted against energy price relief because they vote against everything over there. Don’t have any constructive ideas.
Apparently aren’t aware that, you know, there’s been this international spike because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Apparently, that hasn’t happened and hasn’t had an impact. Well, it has had an impact right around the world. And we’re dealing with practical measures, unlike those opposite, who - unlike their Liberal and National counterparts in New South Wales and indeed in Queensland - chose, chose to just say no.
Updated
A secret squirrel blog watcher in the chamber tells us it was Peter Dutton who was heckling Kooyong independent MP Dr Monique Ryan about being prime minister as she rose to ask her earlier question.
So it seems it was to Dutton that Ryan said “I’ll be there before you”.
Updated
The Labor MP for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou has a very broad dixer for Mark Dreyfus:
How important is it for ministers to act in accordance with the law?
That is so Dreyfus can bring up Stuart Robert’s royal commission appearance:
When we set up the robodebt royal commission shortly after coming into government, the degree of dishonesty and shocking lack of probity and lack of integrity of the former Liberal government was already very well-known. But the painstaking work of this royal commission has uncovered an even greater degree of wrongdoing than many of us had anticipated.
Last week, the member for Fadden revealed to the commission that while he was the minister responsible in 2019, he had serious doubts about the legality of the robodebt scheme. And despite those doubts - this is what he also revealed - the member for Fadden continued to publicly defend the scheme and use fake statistics that he knew to be false. When asked about this at the royal commission, the member for Fadden said, “cabinet made me do it.” I can reassure this house that there is nothing...
Paul Fletcher has a point of order:
Again, the principle is that a minister should not be putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions. Now, I will give the member for Maribyrnong [Bill Shorten] credit that he was quoting from precise, verbatim pieces of evidence. You would have thought that the first law officer of the nation would also adopt that same principle.
Milton Dick:
Just remind all ministers not to give a concluded view whilst the royal commission is under way. And I’d ask the minister to refer directly to evidence in his answer and I give him the call.
Dreyfus:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I would refer to transcript pages at the commission, pages 4219 to 4220. The damage done by behaviour that we’ve seen revealed at this royal commission weakens the bond of trust between voters and elected representatives. Voters are entitled to the most basic expectation that those in power abide by the law...
Fletcher:
Mr Speaker, it is extraordinary this point needs to be made about the conduct of the first law officer of the land, but the royal commission is specifically tasked with finding facts and drawing conclusions, and for this reason you have rightly ruled, as have previous speakers, that there is a distinction to be drawn between reporting facts and putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions. That is precisely what the attorney general has repeatedly done in this answer.
Tony Burke:
The comment from the attorney general that that point of order was just raised against was - and I think I’m quoting precisely - those in power need to abide by the law.
Now, it’s extraordinary that that’s controversial. And that does not need to be seen - that does not need to be seen through the lens of interpreting specific pieces of evidence. It can’t be the case that the standing orders don’t allow the attorney general to make clear that members of the government need to obey the law.
Dick:
I’m just gonna remind the attorney general not to make any conclusions or give his opinion about what happened at the royal commission, and if he’s got an answer relating to evidence, I ask him to provide that to the chamber. Otherwise, I will sit him down. He can, in conclusion, continue his answer.
Dreyfus:
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. And let’s move away from the royal commission. When Labor came to government, it was very clear that there was an urgent need to restore integrity and transparency, which had been so badly eroded by the former Liberal government.
The former Liberal government reneged on their promise to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission. They ignored calls for a robodebt royal commission.
The Albanese Labor government has been left with a very big clean-up job to do. But we’ve already made very important progress, including by legislating for a National Anti-Corruption Commission that will be up and running in coming months. The robodebt debacle is one shocking example of what can happen when governments throw accountability above the law. It must never happen again.
Updated
The National MP for Mallee, Dr Anne Webster has the next non-government question:
My question is to the prime minister: for more than 20 years, Ian Mortlock has operated a tomato-growing business in my electorate. Under this government, Ian’s company endured a 400% rise in gas prices for his last contract. He has been quoted a new price, but despite the government’s much-hyped gas price caps, it’s still so high it will damage his business. The prime minister promised Australians like Ian that he would cut their power bills by $275. Why has the prime minister misled the Australian people? Isn’t this yet another broken promise by this tricky prime minister?
Milton Dick says the member was “well out of time with that question” and asks her to repeat the end – which she does – and Dick makes the point it is broad, but allows it.
Albanese:
We brought the parliament back last December to put a cap on gas prices. We put it back.
The members opposite voted against it.
The members opposite also voted against the $1.5bn of energy price relief.
So, I hope that the member tells her company that she voted against the company on gas prices and that she voted against the $1.5bn of energy price relief.
Updated
To the question:
Dr Monique Ryan:
My question is for the minister for health: Minister, Australians are struggling with the cost-of-living pressures. In 2018, the PBAC recommended allowing prescribing of two months at a time supply for 143 medications. This would save dispensing fees of up to $180 a year per prescription medicine and will take pressure off GPs. Will you commit to decreasing healthcare costs by making this change to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Pbac)
Mark Butler:
Well, you’d think they’d have learned about interjecting on the member for Kooyong!
This is an opposition that doesn’t appear to learn, Mr Speaker.
I thank the member for Kooyong for her question. And I appreciate the contribution that members of the crossbench, particularly those with such long experience as health professionals, are making to a really difficult debate about healthcare right now. It’s never been harder to see a doctor, it’s never been more expensive to see a doctor, and at a time of really severe cost-of-living pressures, just those basic questions about whether you can take a script to your pharmacist and have it filled or whether that will place too much of a burden on your household budget are real pressures on hundreds of thousands of Australians.
We’ve heard from the ABS that almost a million Australians every year either defer or go without a script that their doctor has given them as important for their health because of household budget pressures.
Now, for the first time in 75 years, on 1 January, there was a substantial cut to the price of general patient scripts, down from $42.50 to $30, and already that has saved tens of millions of dollars for many, many Australians.
Made a real difference not only to the household budget but, importantly, to their healthcare as well.
The member for Kooyong is right - the PBAC has made other suggestions about ways in which that cost-of-living pressure but also the convenience, the convenience of patients can be improved, and those pressures can be alleviated, in terms of the number of times they need to go to GPs, get scripts, or go to the pharmacist to have their medicines topped up.
We’re obviously looking at all of those options. There’s a budget process under way. We’re looking at all of the options available to government to make access to healthcare better and easier for patients, and to make the cost of healthcare, including the cost of medicines, even cheaper.
So, I’m not in a position to make any particular announcements this afternoon, Mr Speaker, but I thank the member for Kooyong for her question.
These are all matters that we take very, very seriously because we know, in spite of the fact that the change we introduced on 1 January has already had an enormous impact, enormous beneficial impact on patients, a change supported very strongly by the community pharmacy sector, there is much more we can do, and we’re examining all of those options very closely.
Butler then gets into a back and forth with opposition MPs asking them why they didn’t do anything when they were in government when they criticise his answer.
Updated
Independent Kooyong MP, Dr Monique Ryan has the next crossbench question and there is a bit of a back and forth between an opposition heckler (Paul and I didn’t catch who) and the good doctor, who has already proven in the chamber she can very quickly shut down attempts to heckle.
Milton Dick gives the call to the member for Kooyong and then the opposition wannabe comedian uses it as an opportunity to make a crack about ‘calling the prime minister’.
(If you don’t understand that reference, you’ll find the context in here)
Ryan asks the heckler to repeat themselves as there was a lot of noise and fires back “I’ll be there before you” which earns the praise of the Labor side of the chamber.
Sussan Ley throws in “Kooyong forever” for… reasons.
Updated
WA Liberal Rick Wilson was booted out during that question and then Michael Sukkar and Anthony Albanese had a nice back and forth across the table:
Sukkar: “Rule it out tough guy”.
Albanese: “How’s it going in Aston?”
This is not a chamber for grown ups.
Updated
Liberal member for Flinders, Zoe McKenzie has the next non-government question:
The prime minister said he would stand by the stage-three tax cuts. Will the prime minister rule out any changes to the stage-three tax cuts or will this be the next broken promise from this tricky prime minister?
Anthony Albanese:
I thank the member for Flinders for her question. And we’ve made our priority very clear, and so have the Liberals. We now have the first commitment from the leader of the opposition, which is on tax issues. He will - he will, if he’s successful at the next election... with support, I assume, of the member for Flinders if she’s successful, he will introduce - he will introduce better tax concessions for those people who have $100m in their bank account. In their super account.
So, finally, having gone through an entire almost a year as opposition leader, having had his first budget reply without having a single policy to put forward...
(Dutton interjects with “rule it out”. Dutton: “very tricky!”)
We now have one. And we expected some questions about it today.
There is a point of order from Paul Fletcher, which Milton Dick says is not a point of order and Albanese continues.
Of course, we haven’t changed our position on that issue. But we do find...
He won’t fight for those veterans at risk of homelessness, that we just discussed about. He won’t fight for those women and children escaping domestic violence, who will benefit from the Housing Australia Future Fund. He won’t fight for those people in regional Australia who want manufacturing jobs in the National Reconstruction Fund. He won’t fight for those businesses who are calling for certainty with the Safeguard Mechanism. He won’t fight for those families who want cheaper childcare. He wouldn’t fight for those families who will benefit from energy price relief. No to all of them.
We’ve found a group that he will fight for - the 17 Australians who have over $100m in their superannuation accounts, and the one Australian - he probably knows who it is - who has over $400m in his super account. I mean... they have consistently opposed absolutely everything, but finally they’ve found something that they’re in favour of.
But they come in here, having got on every interview with a friendly journalist they could find over the last week. They come in here and it’s almost radio silence on super.
Updated
The Greens MP for Ryan, Elizabeth Watson-Brown has the next crossbench question and its to Tanya Plibersek:
My question is to the environment minister: Recently, you quietly issued, late on a Friday afternoon, your decision to approve Labor party donor Santos a licence to frack 116 new gas wells in Queensland until 2077. The International Energy Agency recently showed that Australia’s methane emissions from coal and gas could be 60% higher than now accounted for. Why are you approving new gas wells that will make the climate crisis worse?
Plibersek:
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. And I think the first thing to say is that imputation is unworthy and insulting.
The second thing I’d like to point out to the honourable member is that the project she’s talking about is a 1.3% expansion of a project that’s been going for eight years. To listen to the member opposite, you’d think it was something quite different. But I will say to the Greens, as they’re sitting there feeling self-righteous, that the very best thing the Greens political party could do, if they were really interested in climate change in this country, is back the government’s safeguard mechanism.
Those sitting up there in that corner should not make the same mistake they made it 2009, when they voted with Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to block action on climate change. Because what they delivered last time was more emissions for longer, and a Liberal government. That’s what they delivered last time. I am proud of what we’re doing on this side of the parliament. It’s the Albanese Labor government that is delivering real action on climate change with a legislated path to net zero emissions. With a pledge on methane, with real action to protect the ozone layer, with $20bn to rewire the nation so we can put more renewable energy into our electricity market. With $3bn in the National Reconstruction Fund to support low-emissions technologies. Are you gonna vote for that? Are you gonna vote for the $3bn for low-emissions technologies? Why don’t you answer that question?
The best thing those opposite can do, if they sincerely want to see real action on climate change, is support the government’s Safeguard Mechanism, don’t make the same mistake as 2009, back the National Reconstruction Fund, and get on board for our measures addressing climate change.
Updated
Paul Karp is in the chamber and heard the heckles of “afraid of the debate” and “where’s the transparency” from Peter Dutton in response to Tony Burke.
Karp says that Dutton looked up at the press gallery deliberately after that, to make sure they caught it.
Burke sends debate on Labor cost-of-living 'promises' to end of question time
The not-prime minister, Peter Dutton, is now trying to suspend standing orders to debate “that before the election the prime minister promised on 97 occasions to reduce Australians’ power bills by $275. But instead power bills have increased since he became prime minister. Before the election, the prime minister promised Australians cheaper mortgages, but instead there have been eight successive increases in mortgage interest rates since he became prime minister…and notes that, as a result of the prime minister’s conduct, Australians are now unable to trust any of the promises he made, and therefore, four, calls on the prime minister to keep the promises he has made, including in relation to reduced power bills, cheaper mortgages, and not introducing new taxes on superannuation.”
(There are other cost of living hits that form part of the motion, but you get the idea)
Leave is not granted, so Dutton is about to launch into his speech, but Tony Burke, who seems to know parliamentary procedure better than almost anyone (outside of Anthony Albanese) knows how to use Practice to get his own way and doesn’t gag the debate (which was the former government’s favourite way of dealing with pesky motions to suspend standing orders) but instead, sends it to after QT.
Under standing order 47(e), I require that this debate be continued at the conclusion of Question Time.
And so the debate is not gagged, but Dutton has to sit down and it will be held after QT.
Updated
Speaker Milton Dick is having an absolute pearler of a bad day today – after calling treasurer Jim Chalmers, “premier” he just referred to Peter Dutton as “prime minister”.
There is just too much Queensland in the chamber for Dick this afternoon, it seems.
Angus Taylor is up next with a question for….Anthony Albanese.
My question is to the prime minister: on 30 March 2021, the prime minister said, “We won’t have any changes to the franking credits regime.” Why has the prime minister misled the Australian people? Isn’t this yet another broken promise from a tricky prime minister?
There are the usual groans that the question isn’t for Jim Chalmers.
Albanese:
[It was] proposed by the former government. But then again, then again, the shadow treasurer, I mean, the treasurer’s been waiting patiently there since last November to get a single question. Last November! It’s now March. It was his birthday last week! It was his birthday! On the same day! Give him a question! Give him a question - that’s all he asks. That’s all he asks for, Mr Speaker
…I would have thought - I would have thought that the shadow treasurer might have asked a question about super. He’s had a lot to say. He’s had a lot to say about super. He’s had a lot to say about super, Mr
The prime minister will return to the question.
But apparently not. Well, he’s just picked another argument with himself. But he picked an argument with himself accidentally, accidentally last week as well for the entire week. At last, a fair fight. At last, a fair fight. A fight between the shadow treasurer with the shadow treasurer. I think they’ve only got one. I think they’ve only got one now. Angus versus Angus. A true battle of the lightweights.
Updated
One of the issues with the government intervention in the energy market is that power prices will still go up – they just won’t go up by as much as they were going to.
And it is hard to convince people of a saving if they don’t see it.
Still though, without the intervention, power prices would have skyrocketed and the Coalition DID vote against it.
But the Coalition is banking on the fact that not many people take in that much about political debate – and that includes taking who votes for what (or who doesn’t vote for something) into account.
PM says Liberal party ‘voted against $1.5bn of energy price relief’
The member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan, has a question for Anthony Albanese:
Ross and Cynthia are aged pensioners who live in South West Rocks in my electorate. This week, they were told by their provider their new power bill is about to skyrocket by more than 40% to $474 per quarter. The prime minister promised Australians like Ross and Cynthia that he would cut their power bills by $275. Why has the prime minister misled the Australian people? And isn’t this yet another broken promise by this tricky prime minister?
“Tricky prime minister” seems to be the phrase of the day. What a time.
Albanese:
I thank the member for his question, and I do hope that the member told Ross and Cynthia that he voted against $1.5 billion of energy price relief.
I hope he did. I hope he did.
That was a plan that went through … every state and territory leader – Labor and Liberal – it’s true there were no Nats there, so we don’t know where the Nats would have stood. But every state Liberal leader, including the premier of New South Wales, voted for this plan. And, indeed, responsible oppositions, such as the New South Wales opposition, voted for the plan as well. And you know what’s happened as a result of the plan is that, as a result of us announcing it … wholesale prices have halved as a result …
And this is what Philip Lowe, the RBA governor, had to say just last week. He said this: ‘This episode of high inflation has its origins mainly in developments on the supply side’ – something that the minister for industry was just talking about.
‘But, over time, demand-side factors have become more prominent. It emerged in the wake of the Covid supply chain disruptions and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’ – that is what the Reserve Bank governor said last Friday.
Now, we are dealing with that in a practical way. We brought forward legislation, indeed brought the parliament back here last December for extraordinary action due to the extraordinary circumstances which were there.
You didn’t. You voted against $1.5 billion of assistance, and I hope you’ve told your constituents that.
Updated
Mark Dreyfus: Government committed to ‘merit-based, transparent appointment processes’
Dr Sophie Scamps has one of the crossbench questions today:
My question is for the attorney general: This morning, I introduced a bill to end the jobs-for-mates culture in federal politics. Having abolished the AAT because of rampant cronyism and announced a review into public board appointments, it appears the government agrees this is a major integrity problem. Without a process like I proposed in my bill, how can the government guarantee any future appointments to public institutions will not end up as more jobs for mates?
Mark Dreyfus:
I thank the member very much for her question. As she knows, we have met to discuss her private member’s bill, and as I have explained to her, and would explain to the House, we as a government are committed to merit-based, transparent appointment processes. You will see those merit-based, transparent appointment processes in all respects in the appointments of this government.
Updated
Mehreen Faruqi: ‘Anything less’ than paid parental leave for PhD students ‘will be a pretty cruel oversight’
Greens Senator for higher education, Mehreen Faruqi has urged the Senate to adopt her move to amend the paid parental leave scheme to include PhD candidates.
Faruqi told the Senate on Monday PhD candidates “often fall through the cracks” and she could think of “no good rationale” for excluding the cohort.
Despite often conducting research on a full-time basis, they cannot access the same parental leave entitlements as other working parents. I will be introducing amendments to fix this.
As a PhD student who had a baby while doing my research and a former academic who is passionate about the importance of research, this matter is very close to my heart.
PhD candidates are eligible for a university stipend through the government research training program at $29,863 without tax, well below the minimum wage.
Universities have the option to top this amount up but data on 189 of them found only 42 offered above the government stipend and none of them meet the minimum wage.
Faruqi said in response to a written question on notice, the Department of Social Services advised the scheme was intended to support “working parents who have demonstrated attachment to the workforce”.
That’s completely unreasonable. It is unfair to expect every PhD student in Australia has the opportunity to get paid work while they are studying full-time. That is just atrocious.
PhD students are struggling to make ends meet amid the cost of living crisis and rising rents. In January this year, the Guardian reported PhD students are barely scraping by often relying on a partner to survive or being forced to eat instant noodles and work extra jobs during the night.
We need to increase the stipend and we have the opportunity to include students in the paid parental leave scheme … Anything less will be a pretty cruel oversight by the government.
The Greens will also move for parental leave to be paid at a person’s full wage, arguing the minimum wage was insufficient and discouraged men who were often higher paid from taking leave.
Updated
The speaker, Milton Dick, was just asked to rule on a point of order from Paul Fletcher on a Jim Chalmers dixer.
“I could not hear what the premier … uh, what the … Don’t tell the premier that!”
Annastacia Palaszczuk is one of Dick’s best friends so seems the Queensland nexus (Queensland speaker, Queensland treasurer) just put Dick into a Queensland state of mind for a moment.
(Which is obviously the best state of mind.)
Updated
PM highlights shared equity scheme in response to question on cheaper mortgages
Sussan Ley is up next (there is an absolute pattern in how the opposition handles questions and it involves Ley getting the second question)
My question is to the prime minister, and I refer to his promise to deliver cheaper mortgages.
Interest rates have risen eight times under his watch, and more Australians are turning to food bank so they can put their grocery money towards their mortgage payments. Why has this prime minister misled the Australian people? Isn’t this yet another broken promise by this tricky prime minister?
(The focus groups might need to do a little more work on that moniker.)
Anthony Albanese:
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. And perhaps if the deputy leader attends the New South Wales Liberal party launch on Sunday, and she might get to speak, then she will get to speak about the shared equity scheme, which I announced during our election campaign, and the shared equity scheme that is being promoted by the Liberal-National government in New South Wales.
Shared equity schemes – what it means is, instead of having 100% of the mortgage yourself, a share of the mortgage is held by the government. That’s the scheme … that New South Wales’ Liberal government has announced. It’s based upon the WA Liberal party scheme. It’s based upon the Victorian scheme. The WA scheme has been in place for many, many decades and has been a huge success. And I thank the member for her question.
Updated
Breaking in to question time for a moment:
The first fire to go to Emergency Warning in NSW since the terrible 2019-20 fires. Still a long afternoon ahead. https://t.co/tVslVkD8LK
— Ben Shepherd (@benjoshep) March 6, 2023
What about question time for the people?
There is a dixer on what Labor has done while in government.
Once again, this could be a press release.
But we want to try to actually use the ridiculous attempts to hold on to dixers for good.
If governments won’t take it seriously, then we will try to create the space to do that, and are hoping to create a reader question time where we will take a few questions each sitting week from you on what you want to know about your community and take them to the MPs.
We hope they will take it seriously, and use the opportunity to actually answer your questions. Let me know what you think – you can reach me here and we will work out what form this all takes.
Updated
Question time begins
We are straight into it – and if you had super as the first question on your bingo card, give yourself a little pat on the back.
Peter Dutton asks if Labor’s proposed changes are a broken promise.
Anthony Albanese says:
I do thank the leader of the opposition for his question. We have made our priority clear and so has the leader of the opposition. Our priority is dealing with the trillion dollars of Liberal debt that we inherited off those opposite.
We are making a very modest change that will impact one half of 1%. One half of 1%. Seventeen of those people have over $100 million in their account. One has over $400 million.
So, I do note that a majority of Australians, including a majority of Liberal voters, say that they agree with this change. But I tell you what we won’t do.
We see an issue of a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, we get advice from Treasury saying that there are these 17 people who have over $100 million in their account … and we say, “Well, we should do something about that.”
Those opposite see the most vulnerable people in our community and introduced the robodebt scheme. And this is what they had to say: “We’ll find you, we’ll track you down, and you will have to repay those debts, and you may end up in prison.”
That said it all about those opposite and their attitude towards this. We’re a government for all Australians. They have been reduced for a government of one half of 1%.
Updated
ADF developing uncrewed surface vessels for use in the sea
The ADF has taken delivery of its first Ocius BlueBottle uncrewed surface vessels, which seems like a drone for the sea.
The Royal Australian Navy and Defence industry have worked together through a Defence Innovation Hub initiative to develop the Ocius BlueBottle USV, with two of the five vessels received.
Minister Pat Conroy said:
As a trading nation, surrounded by oceans, a sustained maritime security presence is essential for assuring our national economy.
Autonomous capabilities and innovative technologies, such as the Ocius BlueBottle Uncrewed Surface Vessels, will assist our Navy in supporting Australian interests.
Powered by the wind, waves and the sun, the Ocius BlueBottle can autonomously monitor designated areas for extended lengths of time.
As a Gold Coaster, I am used to dodging bluebottles in the water and the shore, and avoiding strong onshore conditions (iykyk) but it seems these BlueBottles are more of the “don’t you worry about that” type.
Updated
Good times:
Craig Kelly is running for NSW Parliament in the upcoming election as an independent because UAP is not registered.
— cameron wilson (@cameronwilson) March 6, 2023
Also noteworthy: they're still looking for candidates 3 days before the deadline pic.twitter.com/iDfOK8VK6x
Updated
Forecast NSW power shortages fuel questions over buying back Eraring plant
As we mentioned earlier, the low-intensity heatwave lapping eastern parts of NSW is expected to push up electricity demand.
There’s a level 1 (low level) alert about a shortage of power in the state for this evening, which will probably be met. As tomorrow’s likely to be warm again (if not quite as hot), there’s also a lack of reserve at level 2 issued for tomorrow evening by the Australian Energy Market Operator.
As it happens, debate is been stoked again about whether NSW should buy back its (and Australia’s) biggest coal-fired power station. Origin Energy’s Eraring plant.
The Australian today reported NSW’s treasurer and energy minister, Matt Kean, as saying: “We will take the necessary steps to ensure there’s enough energy in the system to keep the lights on and drive prices down.” Kean declined to rule “things in or out”.
A spokesperson for Kean’s office has sought to dispel unwarranted speculation:
The government is not considering an extension of Eraring, which is entirely a matter for Origin Energy.
Thanks to the Waratah Super Battery, there is no forecast gap in the reliability standard in 2025
For its part, Origin isn’t budging from their line of February 2022 that Eraring will shut in 2025, seven years early: “We’ll continue to assess the market over time and this will inform the final timing for closure of all four units.”
Bear in mind that it costs $200-250m a year in maintenance work alone – quite apart from the fuel costs – to keep Eraring going, and you get a sense taxpayers might be up for a hefty bill if they did buy back a plant sold by the Coalition in 2013 for about $659m.
Chris Minns, the NSW opposition leader who is hoping to become premier after the 25 March election, offered a cautious response when asked a bit prematurely how much he’d be willing to pay to take back the plant to extend its life.
I’m not going to take anything off the table.
I will not allow the lights to go out in NSW.
Whether or not the government ever would buy back Eraring, Minns has sought to channel the issue into Labor’s broader rejection of the privatisation of state assets.
We’re getting hosed as a result of those privatisations. Don’t elect a government that’s dumb enough to sell [assets like Eraring].
Kean’s spokesperson has described such comments as implying a “dangerous nationalisation of this power station for ideological reasons”.
A major blackout might change the debate but odds must favour Eraring shutting in 2025 at this stage.
Separately, the difference between future wholesale power prices in NSW and Queensland compared with Victoria and South Australia is getting wider, at least according to the latest numbers published by the ASX.
The north-south split in electricity prices is also showing up (again) in the futures prices in the National Electricity Market. Recent increases in NSW and Qld will also narrow the benefits the federal govt has attributed to the price caps announced in December. pic.twitter.com/WBqWSmmaiG
— @phannam@mastodon.green (@p_hannam) March 6, 2023
The Albanese government, which has pointed to falling wholesale power prices as proof its energy market intervention to cap gas and coal prices was getting some traction, will be hoping those prices turn lower again.
Updated
Over in the Senate and Dynamic Red (the Senate’s live business paper) tells me Labor’s paid parental leave scheme changes have passed the senate, although the Greens attempts to amend it, including to make it available for postgraduate work, have failed.
Updated
We are now half an hour out from the first question time of the week.
Huzzah.
Bill introduced by Greens would allow stripping of governor general entitlements in cases of ‘serious misconduct’
The Greens senator David Shoebridge is introducing legislation to the Senate which would allow governments to strip former governors general of entitlements, if they are found to have “engaged in serious misconduct”.
Shoebridge said former GGs found to have done wrong shouldn’t receive their $600,000 a year in entitlements.
If someone is struggling to get by on $282 a week in jobseeker payments and they miss a job interview they get a warning; if they do it twice, they can have their payments halted.
If a former governor general is convicted of a crime or is proven to engage in the most serious misconduct, they keep on receiving up to $600,000 a year in entitlements, that’s about $11,500 a week, no questions asked.
Supporting this bill will show survivors that the parliament listens and understands, and will no longer allow laws that shield past or future abusers from consequences.
The bill would need the government’s support to get anywhere. There has been no indication Labor will support it.
Updated
Male-dominated occupations likely to have skills shortages, analysis shows
Well, smash me down and call me avocado – there is a gender imbalance when it comes to the skills shortages.
From Brendan O’Connor’s office:
Analysis from Jobs and Skills Australia shows that occupations with skills shortages are likely to have significant gender imbalance in their workforce, particularly towards male-dominated occupations.
For more than half of occupations in national shortage, women make up less than 20 per cent of their total workforce.
These occupations include Metal Fitters and Machinists (1% female workforce); Motor Mechanics (2% female workforce); Electricians (2% female workforce); Mining Engineers (14% female workforce); Construction Managers (14% female workforce); and Software and Applications Programmers (19% female workforce).
In contrast, for 14 per cent of occupations in national shortage, men make up less than 20 per cent of their total workforce.
These occupations include Early Childhood Teachers (2% male workforce); Child Carers (3% male workforce); and Registered Nurses (12% male workforce).
And lo and behold, that same analysis has found that when there isn’t a gender imbalance, there is less likely to be a skills shortage.
Updated
Independent MPs call for rules on referendum pamphlet to include factchecking
Back to the Referendum Machinery Act: the Indigenous Australians minister, Linda Burney, says the government will move its own amendments to the bill in the Senate.
The exact basis of the pamphlet, for instance, is not yet clear, with some independent MPs like David Pocock and Zali Steggall calling for independent factchecking of the essays – but the government says the spirit of the amendments is to bring the Referendum Act into line with laws governing normal elections, which hints at there being no special factchecking apparatus.
We’ll see what those amendments look like later on.
Steggall spoke in the house right after Burney, raising again her concerns about truth in political advertising and factchecking: “It really should happen,” she said of the need to avoid misinformation in the campaign.
The Warringah MP claimed people felt “cheated” that there were no rules outlawing lies in political ads.
The government knows it needs to protect truth but is failing to do that.
If this isn’t the right time, when will be?
Updated
Review of social media cybersecurity on government devices due within weeks
Just returning to the issue of TikTok on government devices:
Last year the home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil, asked her department to review the cybersecurity implications of all forms of social media on government devices. That obviously includes TikTok but is not limited to it.
We’re told the review isn’t far off. It is understood the Department of Home Affairs is likely to hand its report to O’Neil within weeks.
Updated
Albanese to join Universities Australia chief Catriona Jackson on India visit this week
Visit comes as the government turns its sights on the education sector.
It follows a university delegation to India last week, led by education minister Jason Clare, where he signed an expansive mutual qualifications agreement with his counterpart and 11 memorandas of understanding were signed between Australian and Indian educators.
Jackson said higher education and research were “central pillars” of the Australia-India relationship.
Jackson:
Universities fully support the government’s focus on strengthening Australia’s ties with India – one of the fastest growing economies in the world and a very important strategic partner.
We especially welcome education being front and centre as our governments move to strengthen the bilateral relationship. India is undertaking sweeping reforms of its education sector and they want our help.
India’s new education plan includes the goal of educating 500 million students by 2035, while also encouraging international universities to establish campuses onshore.
It’s in our national interest to continue strengthening our trade links, and we can do that by educating Indian students in Australia, research collaborations and through our universities having a physical presence in India.
It’s clear we are entering a golden era in our trade relationship with India, and we must make the most of it for the social, diplomatic and economic benefit of both our nations.
Jackson said there were now more Indian students studying in Australia than before the pandemic, making India Australia’s second largest and fastest growing international student market.
Data released by the Department of Education found international student fees were the second highest source of revenue for universities behind government funding, bringing in $8.7bn in revenue. At some institutions, international students accounted for more than 40% of yearly income.
Updated
Linda Burney asks Coalition to ‘meet us halfway’ on voice referendum amendments
Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney has asked the Coalition to “meet us halfway” and support the changes to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, after shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the opposition would stand against the amendments until more of its demands were met.
Burney said the government had made a “significant concession” by reinstating the official information pamphlet, setting out the official cases of the yes and no side, and called on the Coalition to compromise.
To step back for a minute: there are two bills the government needs to pass before setting up the voice to parliament referendum. There’s the constitutional amendment bill, which sets out the question and the exact wording to be inserted into the constitution, which will come later this month; but first there’s the Referendum Machinery Act changes, the rules governing the vote.
The government planned to modernise that act, by updating rules around financial disclosures, banning foreign campaigners, and initial plans to scrap the official 2,000-word essays mailed out to every household. After Coalition criticism, the government agreed to bring back the pamphlet.
But the Coalition also wants to have public funding given to both the official yes and no sides. The government hoped bringing back the pamphlet would be enough to win back the opposition, but in a speech to parliament this morning, Taylor said the Coalition still planned to oppose the bill unless the government set up and funded official campaign bodies.
Burney, speaking right afterwards, noted the government had already changed its plans after Coalition suggestions: “I hope the opposition sees this and meets us halfway to support this legislation”.
Labor doesn’t necessarily need the Coalition to back the bill, as the Greens have already pledged support - but the government is keen to try and get some level of bipartisanship on the referendum.
Updated
Malcolm Turnbull has joined the ranks of podcasters
He has joined LiSTNR with “Defending Democracy with Malcolm Turnbull’, a six-part podcast series with “key global and local political figures and commentators including former British prime minister Theresa May, former US Republican Party congressman Adam Kinzinger, veteran Homeland Security official John Cohen, Australian Members of Parliament Allegra Spender MP and Zali Steggall MP, journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa, and American author and expert on Russian disinformation Nina Jankowicz”.
Don’t expect Turnbull and guests to sit around smoking cigars while bragging about their gains.
Together they question if liberal democracies can prevail against populist authoritarians. Can we stop the madness of the ‘angertainment’ industry without stifling free speech? What lessons can Americans learn from Australian democracy and what warnings can Australians take from America, from Europe and closer to home here in Asia?
The first two episodes are out where you get your podcasts.
Updated
Paterson on TikTok use by federal agencies: ‘It doesn’t have to be a government-wide ban’
James Paterson was asked if there was room for nuance in this debate in terms of a ban on all agencies. A journalist pointed out that some agencies like the National Gallery and Tourism Australia have said that they use TikTok for marketing and outreach purposes. The Liberal senator replied:
I think some exceptions could be granted in exceptional circumstances. It doesn’t have to be a government-wide ban. But at the moment, there’s not a clear direction centrally from government. It appears that individual departments and agencies are making their own decisions about that and it’s not clear that that’s informed by the best advice and that they’re considering that advice.
Asked how many agencies had TikTok bans and restrictions in place at the time of the change of government last May - whether more may have actually taken action since Labor took office - the former chair of the intelligence and security committee said:
I don’t know. I’ve only asked these questions now that I’ve got the opportunity to as the shadow minister for cybersecurity, this has never been previously asked or publicised.
Q: Why didn’t your government take more action on this? It seems like after the fact now you’re calling on the government to do it when your government could have taken stronger action?
Well, there’s been two key developments since the election. The first was in July last year, when I wrote to TikTok, and I asked them, ‘Do you allow Australian user data to be accessed in China?’ And they acknowledged in the reply to me that they did. That was the first time the company had ever admitted publicly that that happens.
Paterson also cited a report by Forbes in December 2022 that said an internal investigation by ByteDance - TikTok’s parent company - found employees tracked multiple journalists covering the company in an attempt to identify whether they had been in the same locales as ByteDance employees.
At the time, a spokesperson for TikTok told Forbes:
The misconduct of certain individuals, who are no longer employed at ByteDance, was an egregious misuse of their authority to obtain access to user data. This misbehaviour is unacceptable, and not in line with our efforts across TikTok to earn the trust of our users.
The office of the minister for home affairs, Clare O’Neil, and ByteDance have been contacted for comment.
Updated
Liberal James Paterson: Labor has ‘haphazard and inconsistent approach’ to TikTok security
The Liberal senator James Paterson is on the warpath today regarding TikTok on government devices. Paterson, who is the shadow minister for cybersecurity and countering foreign interference, held a press conference in the Senate courtyard to outline figures based on questions he had asked a range of government agencies and departments.
Paterson said 25 Australian government agencies had banned TikTok entirely on employees’ devices, 12 had imposed partial restrictions, 11 permitted TikTok, while five either didn’t respond or gave vague answers:
This is a haphazard and inconsistent approach from the Albanese government and we need clear action from them on this issue. For eight months now, since July last year*, I’ve been calling on them to act to protect Australians from the serious national security risks posed by TikTok. Had they acted then, Australia could have led the world like we did with Huawei when we banned it [from the 5G network] in 2018, a decision which has been vindicated by many other countries following our lead.
* That would be from two months after the Coalition government lost office.
Paterson said Australia’s friends and allies were acting on TikTok and that showed it was “a very serious threat and we need to address it”:
And the question that the Albanese government and the minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, Clare O’Neil, has to answer is: if it’s not safe to be on the phone of a Canadian or American or European bureaucrat, why is it safe to be on the phone of an Australian government bureaucrat? ...
I hope the government is not tolerating unacceptable national security risks for the sake of the bilateral relationship [with China].
Updated
Turnbull tells inquiry it never occurred to him robodebt was ‘unauthorised’
Malcolm Turnbull has told a royal commission he didn’t turn his mind to the legality of the robodebt scheme, saying it never occurred to him that it was “unauthorised”.
The former prime minister told the inquiry on Monday:
My concern was essentially accuracy and fairness … we didn’t turn our mind to legality or lawfulness because we assumed [it] was how it had been represented [legal].
I did not turn my mind to the legality of the program
It never occurred that it was unauthorised.
The decision to implement robodebt was made by Tony Abbott’s cabinet for the May 2015 budget, but the scheme was launched at scale during Turnbull’s prime ministership.
Turnbull pointed to the 2015 cabinet submission brought by then social services minister, Scott Morrison, “which expressly stated” that “no legislation is required”.
The representation ... is legislation is not required. It’s clear what it says.
Other ministers responsible for the scheme, including Alan Tudge, have also pointed to the checklist, telling the royal commission they were essentially misled by the public service.
The inquiry continues.
Updated
Malcom Turnbull raised initial concerns about robodebt with minister Alan Tudge in early 2017, inquiry hears
Appearing at a royal commission on Monday, Turnbull spoke to WhatsApp messages of discussions between the then prime minister and key ministers Alan Tudge and Christian Porter at the initial height of the scandal in early 2017.
His statement includes a 7 January 2017 message Turnbull sent with a link to a Sydney Morning Herald article by Peter Martin, which suggested the program could be unlawful.
Tudge replied in the exchange by saying “it is not correct that we simply take the average of the income declared to ATO and apply that average across 26 fortnight”.
Despite Tudge’s explanation, the commissioner, Catherine Holmes ACS, told the inquiry on Monday that was how the scheme often worked.
Asked if it became apparent that’s what was happening, Turnbull said he didn’t “recall that”.
More broadly, Turnbull said he had accepted what Tudge had said as the “responsible minister”.
Asked if he believed Tudge had a good grasp on how the system worked, Turnbull said: “Alan Tudge, I always regarded as a technocrat. He was a management consultant. I didn’t regard him as being a negligent or incompetent or careless minister.”
Turnbull told the inquiry that later, on 20 January 2017, he messaged Tudge saying they needed a “frank assessment of what the problems are and what is happening to fix them.” Turnbull said he was pressing Tudge to do his job and queried whether the department was giving him the right information.
Turnbull also defended the scheme at a press conference on 18 January 2017, later messaging Tudge to ask if he had answered “correctly”.
Turnbull said he had little independent recollection of the time aside from the WhatsApp messages and other documents.
The inquiry continues.
Updated
Acoss says indexed jobseeker still ‘well below the poverty line’
The Australian Council of Social Service (Acoss) also has thoughts on the indexation changes to welfare payments:
This increase will not deal with the fact that jobseeker is not enough to cover food, utilities and medicines, not to mention keep up with the cost of essentials, with rent up by more than 10 per cent, food by 9.2 per cent and electricity up 8.6 per cent in the 12 months to December.
The jobseeker indexation increase is just $1.77 a day, taking the payment for a single person from $48 to $50 day.
The payment will still be 57 per cent below the minimum wage, 34 per cent below the pension and well below the poverty line.
People receiving youth allowance - currently $40 a day - will not receive any increase, as youth allowance and other student payments are only indexed once a year.
Acoss acting CEO Edwina MacDonald said the only solution is real change:
People on jobseeker and related payments cannot afford to eat enough, cannot get essential medication or healthcare, and often go into debt to pay their energy bills.
The inadequacy of these payments directly corrodes people’s capacity and confidence. Being forced to go without the basics like enough food impairs people’s ability to look for paid work and engage in their community.
Updated
‘Crowing about indexation is a slap in the face,’ says Antipoverty Centre
The Antipoverty Centre has had enough of governments claiming indexation changes as “increases”.
Welfare payment indexation is linked to the Consumer Price Index, which was 7.8% in the December quarter. But ‘non-discretionary’ inflation is currently 8.4%. Even that doesn’t reflect reality because it includes so many items we simply go without because we cannot afford them.
Inflation does not capture that living in poverty is more expensive because we are generally forced to buy smaller quantities with higher unit prices.
Another flaw in the ABS’s measure is rent price inflation, which ignores the disproportionately higher costs borne by low-income tenants. For example, the ABS puts rent inflation at 3.3% in Sydney for the year to December 2022. However, rents in the greater Sydney area have increased by 10% above inflation, based on bonds lodgement data published by the NSW Tenants’ Union. Many tenants are suffering eye-watering increases that are not captured in this data because no new bond has been lodged.
Enough about indexation. Crowing about it is a slap in the face.
Updated
Indexed welfare payments rise with CPI
The slight rise to welfare payments is all down to indexation – the cost of living goes up, so there is a slight increase to indexed payments.
But it works out to about an extra $1.70 a day – which is not a material change to people’s living situations.
Here is how minister Amanda Rishworth has explained it:
More than 4.7 million pension and allowance recipients will receive a boost to their social security payments when indexation of their payments occurs on 20 March 2023.
Recipients of Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment can expect an increase of $37.50 a fortnight for singles and $56.40 a fortnight for couples combined.
The maximum fortnightly rate of pension will increase to $1064 for singles and $1604 for couples, including Pension Supplement and Energy Supplement.
JobSeeker Payment and adult ABSTUDY payment rates will also be indexed.
Single JobSeeker Payment and ABSTUDY recipients aged over 22 and without children will receive $701.90 per fortnight including Energy Supplement, reflecting a $24.70 increase.
Each member of a couple in receipt of JobSeeker Payment and ABSTUDY will benefit from an additional $22.50 per fortnight, with the fortnightly rate increasing to $639.10 including Energy Supplement.
Updated
More on Turnbull at robodebt inquiry
Luke Henriques-Gomes is watching Malcolm Turnbull’s appearance at the royal commission and will send through a post or two.
A reminder though that comments count as publishing and we have to be careful when it comes to legal risk. It’s about keeping us all legally safe and also ensuring no interference with the commission. Thanks everyone.
Updated
More on voice funding debate
Paul Karp has an update:
The Albanese government has authorised $9.5m of spending for a voice civics and awareness campaign to include the “facts of the voice” but insists it is not funding a de facto yes campaign.
The new $9.5m was contained in the “decisions taken but not announced” section of October’s budget, revealed in a legislative instrument made by the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, on Thursday.
The funding has fuelled controversy over Labor’s decision not to provide public funding to the yes and no campaigns, as the shadow attorney general, Julian Leeser, has warned the government appears to be tipping the scales in favour of the yes case.
Updated
‘No easy fixes’ for inflation problem, finance report says
With the Reserve Bank heavily favoured to lift its key interest tomorrow (making it 10 rises in a row), attention is shifting fitfully towards alternatives to quelling inflation by squeezing borrowers.
Research out this morning by Canstar found 68% of mortgage holders and 65% of renters are feeling financially stressed. Apparently one in 10 have missed at least one mortgage repayment or rent instalment or other bill repayment since the RBA’s rate hikes began last May.
Also, 54% of the 3,100 surveyed said more rate rises were not the solution to cutting consumer spending and reining-in inflation. That was up 10 percentage points in three months, from a 44% reading then.
There is a sense of urgency added when you consider that around one-third of all home loan debt is on loans taken out over the last two years when property prices were high,” says Canstar’s finance expert Steve Mickenberger.
Values are now being whittled back and disappearing equity is piling on further pressure.”
Mickenberger says the RBA – and other central banks – had “totally underestimated” the inflation pressures building in the system that were made worse by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a year ago.
Alas, Canstar did not ask respondents what policies might do a better jobs.
Mickenberger:
There are no easy fixes to this … It’s reflective of what’s happening elsewhere in the world, which says that no one’s come up with the silver bullet for that.
Updated
32 NSW schools closed due to bushfire risk
More than 30 New South Wales schools across the central tablelands have been closed for the day due to bushfire risk.
The education minister, Sarah Mitchell, said the Department of Education had taken the advice of the Rural Fire Service to close 32 schools.
She said:
It’s really about taking that precaution and making sure that we don’t put any of our students at risk. We’ll get updated advice from the RFS throughout the course of the day. There’s an extreme fire danger warning in that area.
Updated
Malcolm Turnbull to front robodebt royal commission
Former PM Malcolm Turnbull will give his testimony to the robodebt royal commission today – he is appearing by videolink, so won’t be in Brisbane.
We will cover his appearance for you right here in the blog and, as always, Luke Henriques-Gomes will report on everything that happens with the royal commission.
Updated
Mehreen Faruqi to move for paid parental leave bill to include postgraduate students
The Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi will move an amendment today expanding the class of people who can claim paid parental leave to PhD students.
In the Senate, Faruqi will request “eligible postgraduate work” be included in the paid parental leave bill alongside the “paid workforce”, enabling PhD candidates to access the same leave entitlements as the workforce.
PhD candidates receive a stipend from their universities for their research and are considered students, not workers, preventing them from accessing the government’s 18-week paid parental leave scheme.
Her amendment suggests postgraduate students should be eligible for the leave if they’re enrolled in a course of study or research for a doctoral degree and perform study or research for the purposes of that course, whether within or outside Australia.
It follows a Guardian Australia report in January which found PhD candidates were increasingly struggling to make ends meet, with stipends for single people falling well below the minimum wage.
PhD candidate Maddy Hoffman, then four months pregnant, discovered being a scholarship holder meant she was entitled to a maximum of 12 weeks paid maternity leave through her research program, and no antenatal care.
She told Guardian Australia:
If you want more time, you have to stop studying and get 0% of your scholarship. I was shocked. It’s been the most stressful point of the whole pregnancy. Apparently, a PhD does not count as work.
Updated
In case you didn’t see this yesterday, it is very well worth your time reading this piece from Graham Readfearn – particularly as the safeguards legislation negotiations continue.
Voter support for super tax changes doesn’t indicate appetite for other reforms: Burke
Voters are in favour of the concession tax changes to super earnings over $3m (it is still a concessional rate, in that you are not paying what you would in income tax, but instead of paying 15%, those with balances of $3m or more pay 30% on future earnings) but Tony Burke says that doesn’t mean voters want to see further tax reform.
I guess it depends on what your personal situation is when it comes to that. Do you have a house? A plan for retirement? Any way of getting ahead? A chance of inheriting anything other than your parent’s debt? An opportunity to buy a house in the area you’d like to live in?
It’s all relative. But the lessons of 2019 have maybe been learned a little too well (if they were the right lessons in the first place) and Burke shut down tax reform very quickly this morning while speaking to ABC radio RN Breakfast.
Q: This morning, Newspoll has shown two‑thirds of voters support your changes to super, including 80% of Labor voters, and also actually a majority of Coalition voters. Are you buoyed by the response?
Burke:
I think that matches what we’re getting in the community. People understand that a trillion dollars of Liberal debt doesn’t look after itself and there are different ways you can go to try to deal with the debt that you face.
You can have modest revenue‑raising measures like this one is; you can do what you can to grow the economy, which is what things like the Reconstruction Fund are about; or you can try to make cuts like the previous government did with robodebt. When people look at the different options, I think people can see this is a pretty sensible, calm response to it.
Q: Do you see it as evidence that voters have an appetite for more reform, more changes to taxation, particularly at the higher end?
Burke:
I think you’ve got to be careful of over‑reading what’s there at the moment. I think the fact that this has been a modest, calm, balanced change, I think, is part of the support that it’s receiving.
Q: So, what are you saying? That this should not be seen as evidence that Australians have an appetite for broader tax reform?
Burke:
I think when you’re getting a good response about a particular proposal, then the response is about that proposal that’s in front of people. I just don’t think you can draw too much further than that.
Updated
The independents are really kicking things off in parliament this morning – Zali Steggall is moving a motion calling on the government to enact effective methane regulations to stop gas leakage.
Updated
Senator James Paterson: ‘No question TikTok is a serious national security threat’
Over on Melbourne radio 3AW, Liberal senator and security hawk James Paterson has his eyes on threats to national security – in this case, TikTok. And what he says is the government’s inaction on the social media site by not making a blanket ban on departments using it.
There’s no question TikTok is a serious national security threat. TikTok is a company which is very close to the Chinese Communist party, and like all companies ultimately headquartered in China, is subject to China’s national security laws, including its 2017 National Intelligence law, which says that all Chinese citizens and Chinese organisations and companies must … cooperate with Chinese intelligence services if they are requested to do so.
Now, given those risks, many of our close allies and friends like the United States, the European Union, Canada, Denmark and others have now banned TikTok from all government devices. And in July last year I wrote to TikTok to ask them whether Australian user data was accessible in China, and they admitted it was. So, I shared that correspondence with the minister for home affairs and cybersecurity and encouraged her to act. Eight months on, the government has taken no action to protect Australians.
Paterson has no evidence of any hacks of government departments or MPs. But he says there has been a case of a journalist who was critical of TikTok being surveilled.
If they can do it for a journalist who is writing critical articles, why wouldn’t they do it for public servant?
Paterson says he is not a wowser and is on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, but not TikTok.
Updated
Ending jobs for mates bill addresses culture of cronyism, Sophie Scamps says
Dr Sophie Scamps:
The national anti corruption commission is a safety net; investigations will be activated in response to corruption allegations. We now need to take steps to prevent corruption and cronyism from happening in the first place.
To do this, we must build integrity, accountability and transparency into every area of our political system. There are many changes this parliament needs to enact to that end, including addressing lobbying and donation reforms and implementing stronger protections for whistleblowers.
This bill that I’m introducing today addresses the culture of cronyism and party-friendly appointments that have distorted and undermined our democracy.
My ending jobs for mates bill will establish a framework to ensure that major public commonwealth appointments are made independently and transparently, and that appointees are of the highest quality and expertise.
This bill would mean that appointments are no longer left entirely to the discretion of the minister, and so would end the ‘jobs for mates’ culture that has plagued our political system.
Updated
Sophie Scamps introduces ‘ending jobs for mates’ bill to parliament
Independent MP Dr Sophie Scamps will be introducing her “ending jobs for mates” bill to the parliament right about … nowish.
The private member’s bill has been drafted in conjunction with the Centre for Public Integrity and seeks to ensure government appointments are done independently and not handed out as little treats to political party favourites.
Dr Helen Haines will be supporting the bill, with members of the crossbench, including Zali Steggall, Kylea Tink and Dr Monique Ryan also standing in favour of the bill.
Updated
Plibersek ‘not going to offer a running commentary’ on claim she would have won Labor leadership in 2019
Tanya Plibersek was pushed on that, given the leadership titbit in the book, which is something that Barnaby Joyce was very keen to pursue.
(Anthony Albanese’s Newspoll approval rating has dropped two points to 55%, which is the second month it has fallen. Not unusual as voters get used to new prime ministers and the reality of governing means the shine wears off, but the opposition is looking to see if it can start any sort of leadership issues.)
Q: From your personal story to the political side of this, you also said you were confident that if you had run, you would have won the leadership battle. Does this make it a little awkward for your relationship with the current prime minister?
Plibersek:
Look, I’ve said from the very beginning that I’m not going to offer a running commentary on this. I’ve been really clear. I think politicians talking about themselves is the most boring thing in the world –
Q: But you kind of have here.
Plibersek: Well, there’s a book that I didn’t want written –
Q: But did you say that, though.
Plibersek:
And a series of news stories … have flowed from that, but I’m not going to offer a running commentary. I would much rather be talking about the issues that are facing Australia today, not ancient history – the issues that are facing Australia today. We’ve been left, Australian taxpayers have been left with close to a trillion dollars of debt by Barnaby’s government. We’ve got to get on top of that. We know that cost of living is really affecting Australian families –
Joyce:
Well, you’re not helping that, are you?
Plibersek:
We’ve got all sorts of issues before us as a nation. That is my focus every minute of every working day.
Updated
‘I hope that others will see that there’s support available’: Plibersek on daughter Anna’s work after surviving abusive relationship
Tanya Plibersek is the government minister who has the enviable job of fronting up to the Seven network to “debate” Barnaby Joyce each week. Should one person be granted so much single joy each week? That’s a question for another day.
Among today’s delight, Joyce could barely contain his delight in bringing up a section of journalist Margaret Simons’ biography of Plibersek, which was published in the Nine newspapers this weekend. The book includes Plibersek talking about her daughter Anna’s experience with an abusive relationship and how Anna decided to share her story in order to help others.
Plibersek is quoted in the book saying she pulled out of the contest for the Labor leadership in 2019 so she could be there for her daughter.
Asked whether she could have clinched the leadership from Anthony Albanese at the time, Plibersek said “we’ll never know” but that she was confident “that if I had run, I would have won”.
Tanya Plibersek: On Her Own Terms is out this week on Monday. Plibersek said it was a book she never wanted written.
Just to be clear, this comes from a book that I didn’t want written. I made very clear to the author at the time that I didn’t want it written. She’s written a similar book about Penny Wong. Penny also didn’t want that book to be written.
But one of the, I guess, the only good thing to come out of telling this story is the opportunity to talk about the amazing work that Anna and some other volunteers are doing in setting up an organisation – a peer‑led survivor support organisation called The Survivor Hub that helps people who are going through either talking to police, going through the court process, after they’ve experienced sexual assault or family violence.
And I think the really important thing to say is that this is a story that touches so many Australian families. We know the statistics – about one in five Australian women over the age of 15 has experienced sexual violence.
And I think by telling Anna’s story and a little bit about the impact it had on our family, I hope that others will see that there’s support available, organisations like Survivor Hub, obviously, but also 1800RESPECT. There’s a lot of help out there and reaching out at the most terrible time in your life is a hard thing to do. It is an important thing to know that there’s help available.
Updated
Zoe Daniels, Susan Templeman and Andrew Wallace form parliamentary eating disorder awareness group
There are a bunch of “parliamentary friends” groups in the parliament, which is when politicians from across the political divide come together to learn more and support causes they all have an interest in.
Independent MP Zoe Daniel, Labor’s Susan Templeman and the LNP’s Andrew Wallace have come together to form the parliamentary friends of eating disorder awareness.
It’s estimated that 2,000 Australians die every year from medical complications arising from eating disorders.
Anyone who has had any experience with disordered eating knows it is a lifetime affliction and recovery is not linear.
The MPs hope that having an official parliamentary group looking at the disorders will help with advocacy and support for those affected, as well as give stakeholder groups a direct line to parliamentarians.
Updated
‘People’s view of me, I think, has changed and softened’: Dutton
And finally, Peter Dutton says his mum tells him he needs to smile more (in the context of a question of whether or not he has a negative perception of himself he needs to overcome in the public):
Well look, you know, my mum says to me, you know, you should smile more. When you’re in front of a camera, fair point. But if you are the home affairs minister and you’re talking about the levels of sexual abuse against kids, if you’re talking as defence minister, about an evacuation from a particular, you know, village or a particular town or airport, they’re not issues that you can just sort of, you know, crack a joke over.
… But I think as leader now, and when you see the polling you refer to, the people’s view of me, I think, has changed and softened just over the last 12 months. And I think that’ll continue because people can see in a more holistic way who you are, your background, you know, the reason given your life experiences, particularly around my time as a police officer.
You know, people I think can put into perspective how they see you. And I think even in relation to the voice, I think our position in relation to the voice has been perfectly reasonable, reflective of the views of literally millions of Australians.
And I think people can reconsider you when you’re in this role, as no doubt they’ve done with Anthony Albanese when he was infrastructure minister. People had a very different view of him than they do now.
… The opportunity in this job is to show the whole product, who you are and what you’ve done in your life and the way that’s influenced you. And I hope that people can reconsider on that basis.
Updated
Dutton: PM ‘can’t rule out’ any area of policy that would not be affected by Indigenous voice
On the Indigenous voice to parliament, Peter Dutton says he supports it in legislation: “There is no question about that.”
He says there is still no decision about how the Liberals will answer the question about it being in the constitution (although Dutton has been campaigning on a soft no for months).
Dutton again raises his issues with “detail” and Tom Crowley raises that Dutton, as a member of parliament, could actually work out that detail in the parliament.
Dutton:
Tom, it’s a huge issue because it’s open to the interpretation of the courts and the high court can interpret a form of words in a way that you and I can’t, I mean …
Q: But a number of high court justices and former high court justices have made assurances that there’s no particular issue with that wording. What specifically is the concern?
Dutton:
Well, that there are high court justices who have made the opposite case as well. And this is why people like Frank Brennan who’s an adjunct professor, I think law, and many others … [and] the prime minister himself has said that, you know, the crafting of the words is incredibly important. And a different set of words can deliver a very different outcome than what you thought would be the desired outcome.
So … I just think we’ve got to take a step back and look at the question, for example, of when the prime minister says the voice will only be concerned with issues relating to Indigenous Australians.
Now, I mean, do you think that that includes health and education? Of course. Does it include law and order and policies around those areas and communities? Of course it does, but it’s actually a racist statement to say that an Indigenous person is impacted differently than a non-Indigenous person in relation to any area of public policy. Defence affects Indigenous people in exactly the same way as it does non-indigenous people, and that’s been ruled out by the prime minister. But he can’t rule that out.
So I think there are just questions that are reasonably asked, but do I want to hear from Indigenous Australians about how we can improve the situation? Absolutely.
And in East Arnhem Land where I was the other day in Nhulunbuy and Gove, they have a 90% attendance rate of kids at school. They’ve got employment programs, they have a huge housing initiative and many of the problems that we see in other Indigenous communities don’t exist in some of those communities. They’ve got a dialogue which is basically the four clans coming together and almost a government, sort of a small government or a cabinet, I suppose, that’s set up there. Now, in their situation, … they want their voice to be heard and they want their voice to dictate the local policy.
Updated
‘There are always global factors’ affecting rate changes: Dutton
What would Peter Dutton do to lower the cost of living if he was prime minister?
Dutton says:
Well, I think if you look at the industrial relations system, everybody wants a system where people are paid fairly, uh, and, and get proper remuneration for their work.
But if you’ve got a system which is inflationary, and it’s not just in the area of industrial relations, but some of the … policy decisions that they’re making otherwise, and that they made in the October budget, they’re fuelling inflation.
And so the Reserve Bank governor gets all the blame, but he has to deal with the economic settings that are a result of the government’s policies. And at the time when he’s trying to increase interest rates to get above inflation, the government’s driving inflation further.
And it’s no mistake that during the Coalition’s time in government in nine years, out of 100 meetings of the Reserve Bank, they increased interest rates on one occasion. Labor’s been in power, they’ve had eight meetings, they’ve increased interest rates eight times, but you go back to the Keating years as well, and compare that to the Howard times, again, much higher interest rates in Labor’s time than now.
Tom Crowley asks what specifically he would do, pointing out that there are global factors to what is happening. Dutton says:
So you’re right to point out that there are global factors, but there are always global factors. There was the avian bird flu, there was the collapse of Ansett – if you go back over the last 20 or 30 years, there have been different economic circumstances, both domestic and international, that Liberal and Labor governments have had to deal with.
But interest rates have always been higher under Labor governments over the last 30 or 40 years. Not just because of the international factors which always exist – the war in the Middle East, the situation in Asia where there was a financial collapse. There have been all sorts of international factors.
Updated
Peter Dutton asked why Liberal party is so unpopular with younger voters
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has spoken to social news site the Daily Aus (which has also done an interview with Anthony Albanese according to its socials) for its podcast.
It’s an … interesting listen. Here are some titbits from Tom Crowley’s in-person chat with the opposition leader.
Why is the Coalition so unpopular with younger voters?
Dutton says:
I think a few things. I think we’ve allowed the Liberal party to be defined by our opponents as opposed to making it very clear as to who we are.
I mean, we stand for aspiration. We stand for rewarding effort. And for young people, there’s a particular focus at, you know, a different stage in life maybe than right now on home ownership and how you’re gonna balance a budget once kids come along [or] how you can save money for retirement. I mean, they’re all the things that we believe in, supporting people on that journey and helping them through those different stages of.
So I think it’s important for us to recognise what we did on the environment when we were in government. The incentivising of renewables. We’ve got probably the biggest take-up on a per-capita basis of solar anywhere in the world. And that aspiration, I think, is a really important piece to talk about because parents want the best for their children, you want the best for your children, and it’s how we can give people the best start in life.
When I left school, I mean, unemployment was very high. There were for-lease signs all over, closed down shops, and it was hard to get work. And we’ve been in a different environment for some time.
But hopefully we can demonstrate to people the true value of the Liberal party’s being able to manage the economy well so that you can do well in your own life.
And also, I mean, final point, is if the government’s doing well and the economy is being run well, then you can afford to put money into all sorts of projects, social projects, environmental projects that otherwise couldn’t be.
Updated
Albanese government authorises $9.5m spending for voice civics and awareness
The Albanese government has made a legislative instrument authorising $9.5m of spending for a voice civics and awareness campaign.
This could be controversial in the context of the Coalition calling for funding of the yes and no campaigns while Labor has held the line on no public funding for the campaigns.
The explanatory statement said:
The program is needed because all Australians over the age of 18 who are qualified to vote are required to vote in a referendum. Voters should understand the referendum process and what is proposed. The program would focus on delivering facts about the Constitution, referendums as the mechanism to change the Constitution, and information about the Voice proposal. The program would be separate to a campaign run by the Australian Electoral Commission on the mechanics of voting in a referendum. The program could start delivery as early as March 2023.
Funding of $9.5 million over two years from 2022-23 would be provided to:
- bolstering civics education on the Constitution and referendum process;
- improving the impact and reach of the Agency Voice website;
- developing a more comprehensive information program on the facts of the Voice proposal and relevant civics information;
- paid media placements for the Voice information program to significantly expand reach across the broader community; and
- activating the First Nations media sector to boost the delivery of civics education and information on the referendum and Voice proposal in First Nations communities across Australia.
Details are still a bit vague. The civics education would be provided by an unspecified a “non-government organisation” but the explanatory statement also notes it will fund an upgrade of the National Indigenous Australians Agency Voice website, including translating it into 30 languages.
It said:
Separate to the upgrades to the Agency website, funding would be provided to support the development of a more comprehensive information program on the Voice and relevant civics information. This program would focus on the available facts on the Voice. It would not be a ‘yes’ campaign – but would increase understanding of the issues relating to the referendum question.
Repeated reference to “the facts” suggests there could be some government-funded factchecking involved. Guardian Australia has asked Indigenous affairs minister, Linda Burney, if this is what it will be used for.
Updated
Activity test restricting families’ access to early childhood education and care, says Thrive by Five director
The Thrive by Five campaign, run by the Forrests’ Minderoo Foundation, has looked in to the activity test (which measures how many hours of paid work a parent does to work out the amount of early childhood education subsidy available) and found that all it does is act as a barrier for parents (mostly mothers) who want to return to the work. (Impact Economics was commissioned to do the analysis)
Thrive by Five’s director, Jay Weatherill, says it should be scrapped.
Most concerning is that the activity test is forcing more than 126,000 children from low-income households in Australia to miss out on early childhood education and care.
This means that a single policy measure is restricting hundreds of thousands of Australian children from accessing the lifelong benefits of high-quality early learning which is simply unacceptable.
By continuing to utilise the activity test as a precondition for childcare subsidy allocation, the Australian economy is losing out on more than $4.5bn in GDP contributions from parents who would otherwise be active workforce participants.
Instead of incentivising a return to work for parents resulting in more economic activity, as was its original purpose, the activity test has done the exact opposite and has restricted economic participation for far too many.
Abolishing the test would increase the workforce participation for about 40,000 women in low income households, the campaign has found.
Updated
‘Surely a better way’ to reduce inflation than rate rises: Pocock
The RBA board will meet tomorrow to make its decision about raising interest rates (which, if it does so, will be the 10th increase in a row). The board has said it won’t hesitate to raise interest rates again and again to get inflation down to its target band (between 2 and 3%), but the data shows whatever savings buffer some people had after the pandemic is diminishing.
David Pocock told ABC Breakfast TV it might be time to look at how we deal with inflation:
I mean, this is a big question. There’s so many Australians doing it tough. My understanding is that they are simply implementing the rules. I’d like to maybe see some discussion about the rules.
If – you know, to reduce inflation, is the best way just to give money to the banks? You know, there’s surely a better way of locking up some of the cash in the economy, whether it’s putting it into super, raising the GST, I don’t know – but to have politicians criticise what seems to be just the process that has been set up by politicians is one thing.
What I do know is that there are so many Australians doing it tough and cost of living has to be a focus. We have to find ways to look after people in our communities who need the support.
Updated
East’s heat to add a bit of strain to power supplies in NSW
A top of 38C is not uncommon for Australian cities but coming this far into the year (on this side of winter) is a bit unusual for Sydney.
The harbour city is in the midst of a low-intensity heatwave (based on comparisons with historic averages and the past 30 days), according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
Going to be hot in parts of eastern Australia today, including a forecast top of 38C in Sydney. City has only reached this warmth or higher eight times this late in the season in records going back to 1859, says @weatherzone's @Ben_Domensino. pic.twitter.com/vr0jRrtzs9
— @phannam@mastodon.green (@p_hannam) March 5, 2023
According to Ben Domensino, senior meteorologist with Weatherzone, Sydney has only reached 38C eight times after 5 March in all the years since 1859.
On 18 March 2018, the city recorded a 38.0C reading, while 9 March 2004 notched a 39.3C day, Domensino tells us.
One issue to keep an eye on will be electricity supply in NSW. The 1260 remaining megawatts of AGL’s Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley will come in handy. (Those remaining three units shut at the end of this month.)
The Australian Energy Market Operator has been issuing forecasts of a lack of reserve for NSW, a fairly routine alert to let generators know it has concerns about enough electricity at a certain time.
The most recent forecast lack of reserve is still only level 1, with the operator has reserve requirement for NSW of 1,365MW for a period from 5.30pm AEDT to 8pm. So far, the minimum capacity reserve available is 928MW.
At this stage, you’d expect the supply gap to be filled. Still, a few politicians will be keeping a wary eye on who things unfold, particularly the premier, Dom Perrottet, who is seeking a fourth term for the Coalition at the 25 March elections.
Updated
Most Australians support changes to super tax concessions, polling shows
Also on the super changes – the latest Newspoll, first published in the Australian, has found that the majority of Australians support it.
64% of those polled approved of Labor’s proposal, with just 29% saying they did not.
On the party breakdown, 80% of Labor voters were in favour (no surprise there) but 54% of Coalition voters polled were also in support – despite the Coalition’s stance that this was “an attack on middle Australia” and the Coalition saying it would appeal it if it won the next election.
Updated
Pocock points out contradiction of stage-three tax cuts versus unchanged jobseeker rate
Meanwhile, David Pocock is in support of the super concession changes, although he thinks they could go further.
And he also thinks it is time to revisit the stage-three tax cuts – and concessions as a whole.
I think they have to be revisited … We get told that raising jobseeker for people who do desperately need that support who are living in poverty, one in six children growing up in poverty at the moment, we’re told, well, we need to be really careful about lifting the rate of jobseeker because that could be inflationary.
Yet that $250bn of tax cuts – most of that’s going to the, you know, the wealthier Australians – are somehow exempt from being inflationary, and that, in that conversation, I just don’t get it.
You know, if we wanted to deal with bracket creep for people at the low end, there’s better ways of doing that than the stage-three tax cuts.
Updated
Safeguard mechanism lumping ‘industries of the future’ together with fossil fuel projects: Pocock
Chris Bowen could make some changes to the regulations and thereby bypass the Senate with the safeguards mechanism, if it comes to that.
What does David Pocock think of that?
He could; it would mean that we don’t have these safeguard mechanism credits, which companies and facilities will earn for reducing the emissions on site – they can then trade those with what they’re calling SMCs with other companies. That’s clearly not … a great way to go about it.
This is something that we should get right and one of the big concerns with this policy is that we’re lumping together a whole bunch of industries that we desperately need and we know are going to be industries of the future: steel, aluminium, cement. We’re lumping them together with fossil fuels, which we know aren’t the future.
And we’re designing it in a way in that those steel, aluminium and cement [producers] are going to have to be competing with potentially new fossil fuel projects, new gas projects that are going to want to offset their emissions. So there’s there’s no acknowledgment of that.
And I think, while in principle, this is something that we need. We’ve got to get it right. And so, so far, I think there’s been some really good faith discussions about this, and that’ll obviously continue this week.
Updated
‘Some limits’ needed on carbon offsetting, David Pocock says
Independent ACT senator David Pocock is one of the votes the government needs for its safeguard legislation. He is still not across the line.
He tells Patricia Kavelas:
Well, as it as it stands, we will join Kazakhstan as the only two countries in the world that will allow 100% of emissions to be offset using carbon credits.
We are allowing heavy industries and things like coal and gas to offset their emissions in the land sector. I think there needs to be some limits on that to ensure that we’re actually incentivising onsite abatement, that people are avoiding emissions rather than just offsetting them and that there are a range of other issues that have been raised.
The price cap is also fairly unique in that if we hit the $75 price cap and the government doesn’t hold any more [of] these carbon credit units, then the commonwealth is on the hook for whatever the differences in price between $75 and the price of carbon.
I think there’s a lot to get through, having some really good discussions with government. It’s an important piece of policy. I’m not approaching this with red lines. I want to make sure that this policy is as good as it can be and that it will deliver the reductions that we need.
Updated
Burke: ‘Incredibly important’ for state and federal governments to address deaths in custody in tandem
Labor senator Pat Dodson wants the government to urgently implement recommendations from the Deaths in Custody report. Dodson says the government does not need to wait for a voice to act – there is a royal commission report from 1991 which has recommendations which have still not been implemented.
And deaths in custody continue to rise.
Tony Burke says:
Obviously, I’m not the one with carriage of this, but it’s incredibly important [that] anything about custody involves the states. And what Pat Dodson is really calling for is for the federal government to provide leadership in bringing the states with us. One of the things that has to happen nationally is for there to be a national register.
We did at the election make a commitment to be able to deliver on the National Register. So that part of it we’re already committed to bringing. The states’ law on this is something that that hasn’t happened. That should have happened and I’m, I’m certainly hopeful that we’re able to get there.
And so therefore, it’s a case of the extent of bringing them together. Ultimately, the decision on state laws is still going to rest with them. It’s not something where we can simply force that, but the part of it that we are asked to do with the National Register is something we’ve committed to just on a very key decision that will be made this week.
Updated
Tony Burke is then asked about this story by Henry Belot:
He says:
The general principle, I think, that everyone needs to always bear in mind is: even when a government enterprise is functioning on commercial terms, people do have an expectation that ultimately taxpayers own it.
Updated
More and more people ‘having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet’: Tony Burke
Tony Burke, who is the minister in charge of government business, is on ABC radio RN Breakfast.
He is asked about the ABS’s latest labour force figures, which showed the number of people with multiple jobs increased by 1.7%.
Is he concerned about that?
I’ve been concerned about it my whole career. That was one of the issues that I went through in my first speech. And ever since. When I actually worked as an organiser for retail workers, and I discovered that the person who I would have met at a night fill meeting at midnight the night before was then serving me a coffee at 8am, the next morning, in a completely different role.
There are always going to be some people who choose multiple jobs, students in particular; there’ll be times where people move in and out of a series of different jobs and have more than one on the go. And that’ll always be the case.
Increasingly, though, it’s people who are trying to hold a household together, who are having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.
And some of the problem here is where full-time jobs or part-time jobs are available with regular decent hours and people are only being offered very short shifts and insecure work.
If you look at last year, a whole lot of the secure jobs, better pay bill, the focus was on the ‘better pay’ part. The ‘secure jobs’ part of that bill was a critical first step in being able to get a better deal for people to get more hours at their main job, rather than having to juggle two or three all the time to make ends meet.
Updated
Good morning
Welcome back to parliament.
It’s just a week long sitting this time around – the main game this month will be in another couple of weeks when the parliament sits for a fortnight.
The prime minister is heading to India this week and none of the government’s big headline bills are close enough to getting the numbers they need in the Senate, so this is a week of negotiations and ticking some things off the list.
Among those things is the referendum legislation for the voice – which is another cog in the referendum machinery. We haven’t held a referendum this century and there are some things about voting which have changed (early polling etc) so this legislation will update all those bits and bobs.
Also on the agenda – the paid parental leave amendment bill, which increases the number of weeks of government paid leave to 20 for sole parents. Legislation which will see the scheme increase to 26 weeks by 2026 will be introduced as part of that raft of changes Labor promised at the election (childcare has already passed).
Ed Husic’s National Reconstruction Fund is on the agenda (that’s about money for manufacturing and securing supply chains) and Chris Bowen’s safeguards legislation will be in front of the parliament (where negotiations are ongoing)
Outside the parliament, former PM Malcolm Turnbull will front the robodebt royal commission, where he will be questioned about what he knew about the scheme while prime minister.
The Canberra Guardian team will bring you all you need to know, helped by the entire Guardian brains trust. You have Amy Remeikis with you for most of the day.
Ready? Let’s get into it.
