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.
Malcolm Turnbull avoids Medicare freeze pledge as Labor focuses on health – question time live
Malcolm Turnbull avoids Medicare freeze pledge as Labor focuses on health – politics live
(35 minutes later)
5.44am BST
05:44
COAG will hold a National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children in Brisbane next week #auspol pic.twitter.com/u4mVu6RfF8
5.39am BST
05:39
Katharine Murphy reports that Bob Day’s chief of staff Rikki Lambert intends to put his name forward to fill the vacancy. She has a full story on the Day development here.
5.35am BST
05:35
Wong vs. Brandis + Paterson #characteristicallydishonest #estimates #auspol pic.twitter.com/EC1fCTaxLa
5.32am BST
05:32
Jenny Mcallister and Penny Wong are asking about Malcolm Turnbull's food choices for overseas travel #esimates
5.25am BST
05:25
Stay...awake...stay...awake...zzzz
5.23am BST
05:23
Death stare Olympics
5.19am BST
05:19
Ministers emoticons
5.16am BST
05:16
5.14am BST
05:14
All very well in the Bar common room
5.12am BST
05:12
Talk to the back.
5.10am BST
5.10am BST
05:10
05:10
Turnbull to Dreyfus: hold your nose and talk to George
Turnbull to Dreyfus: hold your nose and talk to George
Dreyfus to Turnbull: I again refer to reports the Government is preparing to strip a dual national of Australian citizenship for the first time and that it expects the legislation to be challenged in the High Court. Given this is the same legislation where a letter the Attorney-General provided to the intelligence committee incorrectly represented advice from the Solicitor-General, what are the risks to national security in the event of a successful legal challenge? What is the reason for the Government misrepresenting the advice of the Solicitor-General?
Dreyfus to Turnbull: I again refer to reports the government is preparing to strip a dual national of Australian citizenship for the first time and that it expects the legislation to be challenged in the high court. Given this is the same legislation where a letter the attorney general provided to the intelligence committee incorrectly represented advice from the solicitor general, what are the risks to national security in the event of a successful legal challenge? What is the reason for the government misrepresenting the advice of the solicitor general?
Turnbull says he does not comment on the government’s legal advice. He also says if he has concerns he should raise it in the joint committee and talk to the attorney general.
Turnbull says he does not comment on the government’s legal advice. He also says if he has concerns he should raise it in the joint committee and talk to the attorney general.
If he has those concerns, I would suggest he holds his nose and does the unspeakable thing of talking to the attorney. I’d suggest he does that. I suggest he puts his personal animosity aside and speaks to the attorney-general if he has real concerns. He’s got to get over these petty personal animosities and get on our team, get on Australia’s team, to ensure that we have the right legislation.
If he has those concerns, I would suggest he holds his nose and does the unspeakable thing of talking to the attorney. I’d suggest he does that. I suggest he puts his personal animosity aside and speaks to the attorney general if he has real concerns. He’s got to get over these petty personal animosities and get on our team, get on Australia’s team, to ensure that we have the right legislation.
Updated
at 5.23am BST
5.06am BST
5.06am BST
05:06
05:06
Brandis: I don't know if the PM is lining up a job for me
Brandis: I don't know if the PM is lining up a job for me
In the finance committee:
In the finance committee:
Penny Wong has asked George Brandis if the prime minister has had any conversations with cabinet members about potential diplomatic or other appointments for Brandis.
Penny Wong has asked George Brandis if the prime minister has had any conversations with cabinet members about potential diplomatic or other appointments for Brandis.
The attorney general replied:
The attorney general replied:
Not that I’m aware ... and as you know conversations between ministers on such matters are never an appropriate matter for public discussion.”
Not that I’m aware … and as you know conversations between ministers on such matters are never an appropriate matter for public discussion.”
Brandis then said he was not aware of former Howard minister Alexander Downer’s feelings after reports the government could offer the attorney-general Downer’s job as high commissioner in London as a way of resolving the dispute between Brandis and the solicitor general Justin Gleeson.
Brandis then said he was not aware of former Howard minister Alexander Downer’s feelings after reports the government could offer the attorney general Downer’s job as high commissioner in London as a way of resolving the dispute between Brandis and the solicitor general Justin Gleeson.
Updated
at 5.23am BST
5.04am BST
5.04am BST
05:04
05:04
Health minister Sussan Ley gets a Dixer question on Medicare and drugs on the PBS list - in response to the current Labor attack.
Health minister Sussan Ley gets a Dixer question on Medicare and drugs on the PBS list – in response to the current Labor attack.
5.03am BST
05:03
Dreyfus to Turnbull: I refer to reports the government is preparing to strip a dual national of Australian citizenship for the first time and that it expects the legislation to be challenged in the High Court. Is this the same legislation where a letter the Attorney-General provided to the joint committee on intelligence and security incorrectly represented advice from the Solicitor-General?
Turnbull takes the mickey out of both Dreyfus and Brandis by the sound of it. Don’t take my word for it.
All of us understand that the ShadowAttorney-General likes to engage in a sort of Guthrie Featherstone QC MP versus Rumpole with the debate of the Attorney-General. I think we know those two learned gentlemen do not see eye to eye. There is from time to time what can be best described as a disturbance in the Bar Common Room and the less erudite members of the parliament are happy to let these great advocates get on with it.
But Turnbull goes on to suggest that Dreyfus is threatening national security with his question.
There is nothing more important that the shadow attorney-general gets over his spat with the attorney-general and focuses on the real issue which is not the dispute in the bar, which is ensuring that our laws keep us safe and give our police and our intelligence services and our ministers the powers to keep us safe.
We have seen him today stirring up an issue about the powers to revoke citizenship from terrorists. This is a very important power. He sat on the Parliamentary joint committee. He brought his legal eminence to that committee. If he has a concern, he should be raising it within that committee or, if he can bear to speak to him, raising it with the attorney-general or the minister.
4.57am BST
04:57
Financial services minister Kelly O’Dwyer gets a question on financial advisors.
4.55am BST
04:55
Shorten to Turnbull: In newspaper reports today, the Member for Warringah says that the existing protections against racist hate speech under s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act are “getting completely out o fhand”. Does the Prime Minister agree with the views of his predecessor? Do these views reflect government policy?
Turnbull:
The honourableMember for Warringah is, like all honourable members, free to express his views on the issues of the day but as we recall when the honourable member was the prime minister, my distinguished predecessor, the decision was taken by the government not to proceed with changes to section 18C. That decision has not been reviewed or altered.
4.53am BST
04:53
Next Dixer question is to justice minister Michael Keenan. Again, unions. This time Kathy Jackson and Kimberly Kitching.
4.50am BST
04:50
Dreyfus to Turnbull: I refer to the prime minister’s answer just now and ask again. Can the prime minister advise the House whether he donated $2 million or more than $2 million to the Liberal Party during the election? The prime minister knows the answer, why won’t he tell us?
Christopher Pyne says the question is a red herring and is not within the prime minister’s responsibilities.
Speaker Smith rules the second question is order because it refers to a previous question. Again, this is Labor’s procedural knowledge coming to the fore.
Turnbull is forced to answer.
I have been scrupulous in disclosures of donations and receipts of donations under the electoral Act. I don’t wish to make a big point of it but the honourable member opposite, of course, overlooked a donation for eight years.
Now what the honourable member is asking me to do is to make a disclosure in advance of it being disclosed under the Act. Any disclosures I make were made in accordance with law and to the Electoral Commission and are then disclosed by the AEC at the normal time. I comply scrupulously with the law and the honourable member would be well advised to look to his own party to ensure that they do so too.
Updated
Updated
at 4.50am BST
at 5.24am BST
4.45am BST
04:45
Peter Dutton gets a question purporting to be about cancelling visas but it is on Bill Shorten’s links to the CFMEU.
This goes to the registered orgs bill, which is due in the parliament on Wednesday.
4.43am BST
04:43
Back to the House question time.
Mark Dreyfus for Labor to Turnbull: I refer to the reports the prime minister donated $2m to the Liberal party during the election. Given the deadline for lodging AEC returns has now passed, what donations has the prime minister disclosed to the AEC?
Turnbull:
All will become clear when donations are revealed in accordance with the act.
Updated
at 4.53am BST
4.34am BST
04:34
Elizabeth Kelly says while DPMC staff had seen the Coalition agreement between Turnbull and former National party leader Warren Truss, she was not aware whether anyone had seen the Turnbull-Joyce agreement.
Updated
at 4.37am BST
4.32am BST
04:32
Paul Karp
Labor MPs have asked Malcolm Turnbull to repeat a promise he made on Channel Seven the day before the election that patients would not pay more to see a doctor because of the Medicare freeze.
Turnbull sticks to the government’s strengths on health, including that the number of bulk-billed services has increased and its record listing drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. He stops short of repeating the promise.
Malcolm Turnbull would rather call 000 here than repeat his election promise that Australians won't pay more to see the GP #qt
The next question is to health minister Sussan Ley on a similar point says that “one part of the health system connects to the others”. She suggests that cost savings from the GP freeze go towards other benefits like drugs being listed.
Coalition MPs have all asked Dorothy Dixers about union governance in general and the construction industry.
Updated
at 4.52am BST
4.31am BST
04:31
The estimates committee is onto the Coalition agreement under questioning from Penny Wong. This is a result of the return of those pesky supplementary questions this morning.
We learn that the Agreement is in the fiscal branch of economic division of the DPMC.
This is the Agreement between the Nationals and the Liberals for Coalition.
As I have written before, the Agreement is like a unicorn - often cited, rarely seen. The supplementary questions say that one officer had the document and it was delivered to the fiscal branch.
The government has refused to release the Agreement on the grounds its a private document between the two leaders rather than a government document. Wong says she has asked for it before as well as under freedom-of-information rules. It has not been forthcoming.
Wong says it is more than a private document if it governs things like the plebiscite. And why would the fiscal branch need a private document?
