This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/mar/02/tony-abbott-flabbergasted-at-submarine-purchase-delay-politics-live

The article has changed 16 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 13 Version 14
Labor targets Scott Morrrison over negative gearing – question time live Labor targets Scott Morrrison over negative gearing – question time live
(35 minutes later)
6.08am GMT
06:08
Politics doesn't have to be politics
A bit more from Dodson earlier.
Q: Mr Dodson, you’ve aligned yourself politically now, that’s an act that attracts natural enemies just by doing it. Do you feel or did you give consideration to the fact that you know the bipartisan nature of your advocacy may be affected or do you think you’ll be able to work equally with people like Ken Wyatt and the other side of politics on issues that (inaudible)?
Pat Dodson:
Now I’m not sure why it should be de-facto naturally antagonistic.
Q: That’s politics.
Pat Dodson:
It’s politics but it doesn’t have to be politics. Politics is about achieving real good outcomes in my view and about working collaboratively with those who may have a different point of view as you, and trying to find a common ground basis to go ahead. I do understand the fine distinction you make but I think that people with goodwill across the party and in the parliament and between the Houses - those who’ve got a genuine desire to see this nation go forward, resolve some of the residual problems that we constantly have thrown up that as a nation is an embarrassment to us and - we can find some solutions to this. I’m happy to be working with anyone, and I know Mr Wyatt very well.
Q: Mr Dodson, can I just ask, among the many things in your life, unless I am mistaken, you were a Roman Catholic priest at one stage. Joe Bullock is leaving the parliament because he does not believe that in conscience that he can vote for same-sex marriage. Do you think that it is a good thing for the Labor Party that that kind of diversity might not feel it has a home in the party any longer?
Bill Shorten:
Chris, if you’re asking about the whole Labor party policy, whilst Pat will be outstanding, he is going to give his view in a moment. Let me just make it clear - people in the Labor party are entitled to have their own opinions. Joe Bullock has served with distinction for the needs of retail workers over 37 years. But what I also know is that we have a conscience vote in the Labor party. So I don’t want you to mischaracterise our current position, but Pat can go to substance of your issue.
Pat Dodson:
The debate between church and state has gone on for millennia. And the questions of the custodians of the morals of individuals is a real problematic issue. Of course, the respect for human dignity is also a very important factor. And I think in the case of conscience votes, well that’s a matter for people to make their own minds up and to live by their consciences and I respect those that do so, who may have a different view.
But when it comes to our civil society or the society we live in, any discrimination or disadvantage caused to people who make their own choices then as a parliament we should try to eliminate those in order to facilitate the quality of life that individuals want to pursue.
Updated
at 6.12am GMT
5.55am GMT
05:55
A statement from Louise Pratt, who says she’ll withdraw from the WA Senate (non) race for the Bullock vacancy. She says she’ll be on the ticket come polling day, and will campaign with Dodson in the west.
Louise Pratt's statement on Pat Dodson #auspol @Louise_Pratt pic.twitter.com/MmOz24CbdE
5.51am GMT
05:51
I want to roll back for a bit as well, given so much was happening when Bill Shorten announced Pat Dodson was coming to the Senate to replace Joe Bullock, I really didn’t cover the remarks extensively. Let me try and rectify that now. This was Dodson’s opening gambit.
Patrick Dodson
[Shorten’s] phone call came as a surprise, and it took me a little while to adjust to the idea that you had proposed. I was a member of the Labor party for a short period in the ‘80s but since then I’ve been not aligned to any particular party, so to decide to do so now at this stage of my life took some deep thought. I did seek counsel from some close friends, family and others for whom I hold the highest respect and regard. I couldn’t contact all. For some, this move may come as a surprise. However, after many conversations it became clear to me that this was a good opportunity and one that should not be passed up.
Having spent much of my adult life trying to influence our national conversations, debate, government and the parliament from the outside, it is now time for me to step up to the plate and have a go at trying to influence those same conversations, debates and public policies from the inside as a member of the Senate and representing Western Australia.
You have referred to the need for a lasting settlement outside of the framework of the constitutional change that I hope will come over the next little while. But the constitutional recognition that we are currently seeking remains fundamental. And if we are ever to begin coming to terms with the national narrative, and its consequences for this nation, we need to pursue that.
Any lasting settlement, however, if it is finally to emerge can only come as a result of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s being at the centre of the discussion and the debate, and not on the periphery as is currently the case. That is another reason why I am pleased to accept Bill’s invitation and offer. Just as I am pleased that there are more Aboriginal people being preselected for Parliament. And of course as I’ve said I want to acknowledge the already sitting members here and those that have gone before.
As a nation I believe we should be open to all sorts of possibilities, some see treaty or some compact as being the course to pursue. For others the idea of a formal regional agreement, setting out rights and responsibilities is another. They are of course clearly not mutually exclusive and I note that some are already pursuing these courses of actions or some elements of it. I hope that we can move forward for all Australians, recognise that the Constitutional Recognition and any future settlement is important for our maturity as a nation. I know that across the Parliament and in the wider Australian community, there are people of goodwill, who want to engage in these processes so that we can achieve a mutually acceptable outcome. An outcome that we can all be proud of.
There’s much to be said about the future of Northern Australia and the need for its development. Much of the discussion centres on infrastructure such as roads and ports and these are all necessary. However I’m concerned that this discussion has not paid sufficient attention to the human capital of the north. In particular, there need to be a far deeper conversation about the importance and value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to this development and the basic needs to address the importance of elevating poverty and disadvantage for so many in the north across the board.
If we don’t address this then it will become a permanent drag on our future development. I’m confident that with this there’s a discussion which the nation is pretty much up to having around all the development and various passages, economic and cultural passage. And it will not happen unless we can agree around these and so many other similar issues across the Parliament to deliver wins for all.
Updated
at 5.52am GMT
5.42am GMT
05:42
Checking in on super Tuesday, the consensus seems to be good for Hillary, not bad for Bernie, good for Trump, reasonable for Cruz, washout for Rubio.
5.33am GMT5.33am GMT
05:3305:33
Shalailah MedhoraShalailah Medhora
Rolling back slightly. The education minister, Simon Birmingham, spoke to media before question time. He issued a “final warning” to four Islamic schools whose Commonwealth funding is under review, telling them they must clean up their act by April 11 or face being cut off.Rolling back slightly. The education minister, Simon Birmingham, spoke to media before question time. He issued a “final warning” to four Islamic schools whose Commonwealth funding is under review, telling them they must clean up their act by April 11 or face being cut off.
The four schools - in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth - are accused of not being properly accountable for public funds. All four are affiliated with the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (Afic). Another two Afic affiliated schools - in Sydney and Canberra - has already had its funding axed.The four schools - in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth - are accused of not being properly accountable for public funds. All four are affiliated with the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (Afic). Another two Afic affiliated schools - in Sydney and Canberra - has already had its funding axed.
Birmingham said the schools must clean up their act. “It is very clear that this is a last chance and a final warning that these four schools must ensure that they comply with the conditions that they have offered to the Commonwealth,” he said.Birmingham said the schools must clean up their act. “It is very clear that this is a last chance and a final warning that these four schools must ensure that they comply with the conditions that they have offered to the Commonwealth,” he said.
Afic has told Guardian Australia that it will appeal the decision to cut off funding for its Sydney and Canberra schools, but as of Wednesday afternoon, the Department of Education had not received any notices of appeal.Afic has told Guardian Australia that it will appeal the decision to cut off funding for its Sydney and Canberra schools, but as of Wednesday afternoon, the Department of Education had not received any notices of appeal.
5.31am GMT5.31am GMT
05:3105:31
Ben DohertyBen Doherty
Meanwhile, in the other chamber, the Greens have introduced a private member’s bill into the Senate that would prohibit offshore detention for children and limit the time under-18s can be held in immigration detention in Australia to 30 days.Meanwhile, in the other chamber, the Greens have introduced a private member’s bill into the Senate that would prohibit offshore detention for children and limit the time under-18s can be held in immigration detention in Australia to 30 days.
The ‘Migration Amendment (Free The Children) 2015’ Bill would also mandate that children currently held on Nauru be returned to Australia. Introducing the bill, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Senate “children do not belong in detention”.The ‘Migration Amendment (Free The Children) 2015’ Bill would also mandate that children currently held on Nauru be returned to Australia. Introducing the bill, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Senate “children do not belong in detention”.
“This bill will protect the children in Australia and on Nauru. It’s high time the government stopped locking up children and I appeal to my Senate colleagues to back this essential reform.”“This bill will protect the children in Australia and on Nauru. It’s high time the government stopped locking up children and I appeal to my Senate colleagues to back this essential reform.”
But the bill is not expected to win support from either Coalition or Labor Senators.But the bill is not expected to win support from either Coalition or Labor Senators.
Both major parties support the policy of mandatory detention of boat-borne asylum seekers arriving in Australia, including children.Both major parties support the policy of mandatory detention of boat-borne asylum seekers arriving in Australia, including children.
Mandatory detention was introduced by Labor in 1992, and originally had a time limit of 273 days detention for anybody. The time limit was abandoned in 1994.Mandatory detention was introduced by Labor in 1992, and originally had a time limit of 273 days detention for anybody. The time limit was abandoned in 1994.
Offshore processing began under the Howard government in 2001, and was reinstated by Julia Gillard in 2011.Offshore processing began under the Howard government in 2001, and was reinstated by Julia Gillard in 2011.
5.21am GMT5.21am GMT
05:2105:21
Proving that all is fair in love, war and suspensions of the standing orders.Proving that all is fair in love, war and suspensions of the standing orders.
5.16am GMT5.16am GMT
05:1605:16
Brilliant shot from Magic Mike. I’m sure Gray’s sidelining has absolutely nothing to do with the pitched battle that has riven Labor for months – with Gray on the side of reforming the Senate voting system, and Labor’s Senate leadership on the side of rejecting the government’s proposal. Nothing to do with that I’m sure.Brilliant shot from Magic Mike. I’m sure Gray’s sidelining has absolutely nothing to do with the pitched battle that has riven Labor for months – with Gray on the side of reforming the Senate voting system, and Labor’s Senate leadership on the side of rejecting the government’s proposal. Nothing to do with that I’m sure.
5.13am GMT5.13am GMT
05:1305:13
The Labor leader Bill Shorten announced just before question time that the former special minister of state, Gary Gray, had been relieved of his portfolio command. Gray will remain shadow minister for resources until he retires at the coming poll, but SMOS (my favourite acronym, SMOS) will now sit with Brendan O’Connor.The Labor leader Bill Shorten announced just before question time that the former special minister of state, Gary Gray, had been relieved of his portfolio command. Gray will remain shadow minister for resources until he retires at the coming poll, but SMOS (my favourite acronym, SMOS) will now sit with Brendan O’Connor.
(Who, him? Yes, me.)(Who, him? Yes, me.)
4.56am GMT4.56am GMT
04:5604:56
There’s a few things to catch up on. Give me a few minutes to survey the field and I’ll be back with the remainder of the political afternoon.There’s a few things to catch up on. Give me a few minutes to survey the field and I’ll be back with the remainder of the political afternoon.
4.55am GMT4.55am GMT
04:5504:55
The result of the division means we are not considering marriage equality this afternoon. Put up your hand if you are shocked?The result of the division means we are not considering marriage equality this afternoon. Put up your hand if you are shocked?
4.53am GMT4.53am GMT
04:5304:53
4.51am GMT
04:51
Labor’s point in this debate is Malcolm Turnbull has broken the hearts of all gay and lesbian people by not pressing ahead with marriage equality. If you believe in representative democracy then you’ve got to believe parliament can resolve marriage equality with a free vote, so let’s spare the public an expensive and divisive plebscite and bring on the resolution. Like, this arvo. Those arguments have been put by Terri Butler (pictured in the last post) and by Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek.
The government response, articulated by Christopher Pyne, was this is too serious an issue to be the subject of a political stunt. I, Christopher Pyne, will be campaigning for marriage equality because the time has come to sort this out. We have a process for sorting it out. And excuse me, isn’t Labor’s policy for a conscience vote now followed by a bound vote – and didn’t you just lose a senator (Joe Bullock) over that policy last night? Does that policy actually make sense to anyone? (No, was the Pyne view.) In any case, was his final contribution, if you want to actually do something, we could make sure we pass a bill ensuring that a yes vote in a plebiscite becomes a tick and flick issue after the next election. You, know, if you want to do something apart from posture.
That’s the summary. The House is dividing now.
4.41am GMT
04:41
4.37am GMT
04:37
Ok, back to present tense.
Here’s the motion that has just been moved by Labor MP Terri Butler. This is an attempt to force a free vote today on marriage equality, ahead of Mardi Gras this weekend.
I seek leave to move the following motion —
The House:
1. Notes:
a. The prime minister has previously said he supports a free vote on marriage equality;
b. Former prime minister John Howard supports a free vote on marriage equality;
c. Members of the prime minister’s own party have said that they would not respect the result of the prime minister’s plebiscite on marriage equality;
d. A plebiscite on marriage equality would cause a divisive national debate, which would harm community cohesion and give voice to extreme bigotry; and
e. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families are just as valued as every other member of the Australian community; and
2. Calls on the prime minister to be the prime minister that Australians hoped he would be and allow a free vote in the parliament on marriage equality; and
3. Suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent Private Members’ Business Order of the Day No. 1 in the Federation Chamber relating to the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, being returned to the House for further consideration, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6.30pm on Wednesday, 2 March 2016, with the question on the second reading being put immediately.
4.31am GMT
04:31
As escalations go, this one is pretty serious
A live blog requires you to keep moving, always. But it is equally important that we stop periodically to make sure things don’t get lost in the wash.
So today, this happened. A former prime minister Tony Abbott decided to defend his legacy in an interview with the The Australian newspaper. He, Tony Abbott told The Australian that he, Tony Abbott, would have built Australia’s new fleet of submarines sooner than the man who replaced him, Malcolm Turnbull. The Australian had copies of documents that seemed to bear out Abbott’s arguments, confidential NSC documents no less. As vanquished leader tantrums go, this was a good one, following on from foot stamping in the Coalition partyroom meeting on Tuesday on budget strategy.
Turnbull had two options today: ignore the provocation or double down and go to war. He’s chosen go to war of his two options. There is now a police investigation into the leak to The Australian. Turnbull also gave a different version of Abbott’s history to the House in the first and second questions in question time today, a version he was at pains to point out was backed by Australia’s defence chiefs.
Turnbull chose to greet Abbott’s provocation on Tuesday with obsequiousness. Not today. As escalations go, this one is pretty serious.
4.17am GMT
04:17
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper.
Labor is moving now in the House to stir the pot on marriage equality. I’ll keep an ear on that obviously, but I think it’s more important right now that I give you a quick summary of the implications of that question time session. Be back with that in a minute.
4.14am GMT
04:14
Labor’s Jenny Macklin, to the prime minister.
Q: Isn’t it the case that by not addressing what the treasurer calls excesses or enthusiasms in negative gearing the prime minister is choosing to protect tax breaks for people buying their seventh house instead of protecting older Australians from cutting to their pensions?
Turnbull says housing affordability is a big issue, but it’s predominantly a state issue because its about land release and zoning.
He insists Labor hasn’t thought through the consequences of its negative gearing policy.
The treasurer spoke earlier about the apartment developments. And the fact that most of the buyers for apartments in most of our cities, particularly in close to the city where the member for Sydney’s electorate is and where my electorate is, are investors, because the properties are typically rented out. They’re rental properties.
What the Opposition’s policy will do is have this very adverse effect. It will have this very adverse effect. The Opposition’s policy would mean that investors would be able to buy an apartment off the plan from Meriton or Mirvac or somebody like that, but then when they chose to sell that apartment they would not be able to sell it to an investor. Yet that is the market. So that would have the consequence of not only reducing the value of those apartments on the resale, but it would also start progressively reduce the stock of housing that was available for rental.
4.07am GMT
04:07
4.01am GMT
04:01
I missed excesses becoming enthusiasms in that press conference earlier today.
Neat-o.
Updated
at 4.02am GMT
3.59am GMT
03:59
A Dorothy Dixer on cyber security.
Bowen is back on negative gearing. Given the treasurer today has redefined “excesses” of negative gearing as “enthusiasms” – will the treasurer now outline what the enthusiasms are?
Scott Morrison says he spoke today about distributions in negative gearing.
I said you can call them excesses, you can call them enthusiasms, you can call them whatever you like. They can refer to it however they wish. I simply made the point that across the income spectrum different Australians engage with negative gearing at different levels of activity. There’s no great shock about that.
3.54am GMT
03:54
Chris Bowen has asked the treasurer whether or not he knows what negative gearing is given earlier he described it as an “entirely legitimate practice to offset the cost of earning an income against that income.” (He did, actually. A slight swerve into incoherence.)
Q: Is the treasurer aware that that is not negative gearing? Does the treasurer know what negative gearing is?
The treasurer thinks people aren’t interested in school boy debating tricks, they are interested in real developments in the economy.