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 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2017/feb/15/coalition-threatens-to-raise-taxes-if-savings-are-not-passed-politics-live

The article has changed 19 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Crossbench push for entitlement rorts to go to police voted down – politics live Crossbench push for entitlement rorts to go to police voted down – politics live
(35 minutes later)
1.30am GMT
01:30
Drain the swamp
Katharine Murphy
With the entitlements bill now passing the lower house, eyes will switch to the Senate.
Newly minted Australian Conservatives senator Cory Bernardi is warming his jets for a little intervention in the red place on this legislative package.
He has three amendments on the boil. They would do a couple of things: Bernardi wants to implement a qualifying period for all prime ministers to access their benefits post service.
The other change would involve restricting the access the parliamentarians to the very generous defined benefits superannuation scheme that covers MPs elected before 2004.
Bernardi wants to prevent all current and former parliamentarians from accessing their defined benefits pension before they turn 60.
Once people wrap their minds round this little sortie, it will go off like a little hydrogen bomb in political circles, because the proposed amendments would affect current superannuants.
Bernardi has told Politics Live: “If the government maintains retrospective legislation is in the public interest for parliamentary entitlements then the area that arouses the most ire from the public is the annual unfunded pension payment that applies to some politicians respective of their age.
“Does anyone think it is reasonable for a politician to retire in their 30s and remain on the public purse for the rest of their lives?
“If the government is serious about cleaning up Canberra, then they can start here.”
Updated
at 1.33am GMT
1.26am GMT
01:26
A number of members have referenced the lack of clarity around claiming travel expenses. Adam Bandt is one who has asked the finance department if a proposed travel claim was in the rules. The department advises the member must make the decision themselves.
Bandt says the authority has no teeth because it does not include anything about compliance. There is also no clear distinction regarding misuse versus a slip-up such as filling out a form wrongly.
Bandt says the Greens will move in the Senate to give the entitlements authority some teeth.
We’ve got to make sure this is a watchdog, not a lapdog.
Updated
at 1.34am GMT
1.21am GMT
01:21
There are no government members speaking on the entitlements bill. Odd.
1.21am GMT
01:21
Labor MP Tony Zappia is speaking to the entitlements bill. He says the public humiliation involved when members are caught out misusing their entitlements more than the 25% penalty contained in the reforms.
The costs of oversight may be be higher than the savings made but then that is the cost of transparency.
But Zappia also says members cannot fulfil their role as parliamentarians if they are not properly supported with proper allowances. He says Labor supports the reforms because,
if nothing else it will add to the transparency and oversight which the public have been calling for for sometime.
1.16am GMT
01:16
On entitlements, Cathy McGowan says the increasing vote going to independents and minor parties coalesces around these sorts of issues of trust.
It’s not that you can’t trust parliamentarians ... there are clearly some people whom you can trust. Look at that last vote. People are getting that the major parties are not properly representing them.
Updated
at 1.18am GMT
1.07am GMT
01:07
Backs to the wall.
Here is a clearer shot of the vote, lost by the independents and minors, for tougher penalties for wrongly claiming entitlements.
Note, most the major parties members are hiding up the back, which made it harder for Bowers to record the chamber. It is never a good look to vote down tougher penalties for politicians wrongly claiming work expenses.
Updated
at 1.12am GMT
12.49am GMT12.49am GMT
00:4900:49
Entitlements will go to the senate so I best clarify the parts of the sum. Entitlements will go to the Senate so I best clarify the parts of the sum.
The previous bill contained the guts of the rule changes.The previous bill contained the guts of the rule changes.
That bill adds the 25% penalty if politicians claim wrongly and it also lowers the age for children’s travel entitlements from below 25 and below 18 and below. Senior officers are ministers, prime minister, opposition leader and speaker and senate president. That bill adds the 25% penalty if politicians claim wrongly and it also lowers the age for children’s travel entitlements from below 25 and below 18 and below. Senior officers are ministers, prime minister, opposition leader and speaker and Senate president.
The bill changes the name of the entitlement from the Life Gold Pass to the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement, and reduce, remove, and reform benefits under the entitlement. This is the text: The bill changes the name of the entitlement from the Life Gold Pass to the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement, and reduce, remove and reform benefits under the entitlement. This is the text:
imposes time limits, after which a person’s ability to access travel under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires, including that the entitlement of all persons (other than a former Prime Minister) expire at the commencement of this Bill; Imposes time limits, after which a person’s ability to access travel under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement expires, including that the entitlement of all persons (other than a former prime minister) expire at the commencement of this bill;
imposes additional limits on access to the entitlement, closing it to people who had not met the qualifying periods before 14 May 2014 and mandating that no person who retires after the commencement of this Bill can access benefits under the scheme, unless they are the Prime Minister or a former Prime Minister when they retire; Imposes additional limits on access to the entitlement, closing it to people who had not met the qualifying periods before 14 May 2014 and mandating that no person who retires after the commencement of this bill can access benefits under the scheme, unless they are the prime minister or a former prime minister when they retire;
provides for future Prime Ministers who had not entered or re-entered the Parliament before 6 March 2012 to become a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; Provides for future prime ministers who had not entered or re-entered the parliament before 6 March 2012 to become a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement;
reduces the number of trips available per financial year under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; Reduces the number of trips available per financial year under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement;
removes the ability of spouses or de facto partners, other than those of a retired former Prime Minster, to access travel under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; and Removes the ability of spouses or de facto partners, other than those of a retired former prime minster, to access travel under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement; and
requires that travel under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement be for a purpose that is for the public benefit and not for a commercial purpose or a private purpose.requires that travel under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement be for a purpose that is for the public benefit and not for a commercial purpose or a private purpose.
It also removes the travel entitlements for the spouse or de facto partners of the prime ministers or a sitting former prime ministers.It also removes the travel entitlements for the spouse or de facto partners of the prime ministers or a sitting former prime ministers.
This bill has passed the lower house.This bill has passed the lower house.
Now the chamber is onto the bill that sets up the independent expenses authority. Now the chamber is on to the bill that sets up the independent expenses authority.
Updated
at 1.02am GMT
12.36am GMT12.36am GMT
00:3600:36
The lonely road.The lonely road.
Cross bench calls for tougher penalties for breaches of entitlements-voted down by govt. & opposition @gabriellechan pic.twitter.com/pyrJvToF0CCross bench calls for tougher penalties for breaches of entitlements-voted down by govt. & opposition @gabriellechan pic.twitter.com/pyrJvToF0C
12.27am GMT12.27am GMT
00:2700:27
Be it on your heads, minor parties warn the majors on entitlements.Be it on your heads, minor parties warn the majors on entitlements.
UpdatedUpdated
at 12.29am GMTat 12.29am GMT
12.22am GMT12.22am GMT
00:2200:22
The House is now voting on the NXT amendment for tougher penalties for members who break the rules on entitlements.The House is now voting on the NXT amendment for tougher penalties for members who break the rules on entitlements.
Here we will see the Coalition and Labor lining up on one side and four lonely minors/independents on the other.Here we will see the Coalition and Labor lining up on one side and four lonely minors/independents on the other.
Not suprisingly, the major parties win the vote.Not suprisingly, the major parties win the vote.
UpdatedUpdated
at 12.25am GMTat 12.25am GMT
12.17am GMT12.17am GMT
00:1700:17
Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie also wants to toughen penalties for politicians who rort the entitlements system. The independents are supporting a 200% penalty for first-time/rare offenders and 400% for repeat offenders.Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie also wants to toughen penalties for politicians who rort the entitlements system. The independents are supporting a 200% penalty for first-time/rare offenders and 400% for repeat offenders.
The recipient is liable to pay the commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the current contravention), an amount equal to:The recipient is liable to pay the commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 7A (the current contravention), an amount equal to:
(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made — 200% of the amount to which this section applies; and(a) if the recipient has not contravened that section, or has contravened that section once, during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made — 200% of the amount to which this section applies; and
(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made — 400% of the amount to which this section applies.(b) if the recipient has contravened that section 2 or more times during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the day on which the claim to which the current contravention relates is made — 400% of the amount to which this section applies.
The proposed bill – supported by the Coalition and Labor would require that “if an adjustment to certain travel claims is made or required”, a loading of 25% in addition to the full amount of the adjustment will apply.The proposed bill – supported by the Coalition and Labor would require that “if an adjustment to certain travel claims is made or required”, a loading of 25% in addition to the full amount of the adjustment will apply.
UpdatedUpdated
at 12.23am GMTat 12.23am GMT
12.14am GMT12.14am GMT
00:1400:14
Independents and Greens push for police referrals for repeated entitlement rortsIndependents and Greens push for police referrals for repeated entitlement rorts
Independent Andrew Wilkie, NXT Rebekha Sharkie, Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent Cathy McGowan have all spoken forcefully in favour of tougher penalties for MPs and senators who misuse parliamentary entitlements.Independent Andrew Wilkie, NXT Rebekha Sharkie, Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent Cathy McGowan have all spoken forcefully in favour of tougher penalties for MPs and senators who misuse parliamentary entitlements.
The motion would provide for:The motion would provide for:
(a) an audit of all members’ and senators’ travel claims during this and the previous Parliament;(a) an audit of all members’ and senators’ travel claims during this and the previous Parliament;
(b) real-time online reporting of entitlement expenses and the requirement for more detail of the substantive reason for the expenditure; and(b) real-time online reporting of entitlement expenses and the requirement for more detail of the substantive reason for the expenditure; and
(c) provisions to refer misuse which forms a pattern of misbehaviour to the Australian federal police.(c) provisions to refer misuse which forms a pattern of misbehaviour to the Australian federal police.
Wilkie makes the point that if the person in the street stole money, they are dealt with by the police. Why should politicians be treated differently?Wilkie makes the point that if the person in the street stole money, they are dealt with by the police. Why should politicians be treated differently?
Michael Sukkar, representing the government, said to suggest that a member of parliament should be subjected criminal provisions was:Michael Sukkar, representing the government, said to suggest that a member of parliament should be subjected criminal provisions was:
nothing more than a stunt.nothing more than a stunt.
He said the government is not going to change the laws “for a headline for the crossbenchers”.He said the government is not going to change the laws “for a headline for the crossbenchers”.
Adam Bandt says none of the crossbenchers were suggesting anyone should go to jail for a slip-up.Adam Bandt says none of the crossbenchers were suggesting anyone should go to jail for a slip-up.
None of us are saying that ... But if you deliberately go out and flout them then surely you have to be held to a higher standard than if you just slip up by filling out the form wrong ... Don’t build up a straw man.None of us are saying that ... But if you deliberately go out and flout them then surely you have to be held to a higher standard than if you just slip up by filling out the form wrong ... Don’t build up a straw man.
Sukkar quips:Sukkar quips:
As I passed [Bandt] in business class as I walked down to economy on the way back to Melbourne, I didn’t realise he was such a bastion of virtue.As I passed [Bandt] in business class as I walked down to economy on the way back to Melbourne, I didn’t realise he was such a bastion of virtue.
Wilkie tells Sukkar it was cheap shot.Wilkie tells Sukkar it was cheap shot.
It’s not about the rules or whether former health minister was inside the rules or outside the rules, its about whether we were acting ethically.It’s not about the rules or whether former health minister was inside the rules or outside the rules, its about whether we were acting ethically.
If the community had confidence that we are good members and work hard, they will probably forgive us if some of us sit at the front of the plane or not. But confidence is at rock bottom now ... it’s about right or wrong.If the community had confidence that we are good members and work hard, they will probably forgive us if some of us sit at the front of the plane or not. But confidence is at rock bottom now ... it’s about right or wrong.
UpdatedUpdated
at 12.24am GMTat 12.24am GMT
11.49pm GMT11.49pm GMT
23:4923:49
In the Senate is Derryn Hinch, who backflipped on the start date for the building code in the Australian Building Construction Commission (ABCC) laws which passed late last year. After insisting on a later date, Hinch wanted to bring forward the date.In the Senate is Derryn Hinch, who backflipped on the start date for the building code in the Australian Building Construction Commission (ABCC) laws which passed late last year. After insisting on a later date, Hinch wanted to bring forward the date.
Hinch says:Hinch says:
I changed my mind ... I got some new facts ... I contacted the PM ... I did not horse trade ... I did not hold out for any favour in return ... If you are involved in something that is hurting people, then man up.I changed my mind ... I got some new facts ... I contacted the PM ... I did not horse trade ... I did not hold out for any favour in return ... If you are involved in something that is hurting people, then man up.
Labor are opposing the amendment. Xenophon are expected to support the Hinch change which would see the building code start in nine months instead of two years.Labor are opposing the amendment. Xenophon are expected to support the Hinch change which would see the building code start in nine months instead of two years.
The government are attempting to push it through and move on to the parliamentary entitlements bill, assuming it passes the lower house.The government are attempting to push it through and move on to the parliamentary entitlements bill, assuming it passes the lower house.
Once that entitlements bill comes into the Senate, we are expecting to see some amendments from Cory Bernardi, LNP senator Ian Macdonald and the Greens.Once that entitlements bill comes into the Senate, we are expecting to see some amendments from Cory Bernardi, LNP senator Ian Macdonald and the Greens.
UpdatedUpdated
at 11.57pm GMTat 11.57pm GMT
11.31pm GMT
23:31
In the lower house, the parliamentary debate continues on parliamentary entitlements. This dumps the lifetime free travel gold pass for longer-serving MPs, senators and prime ministers. LNP MP Warren Entsch, who opposed the retrospective nature of the bill, spoke against it. He said it is not a matter of snouts in the trough, it is that it is retrospective. He reminds the parliament that he also opposed retrospective changes to superannuation under the government’s reforms.
Updated
at 11.57pm GMT
11.26pm GMT
23:26
The social services minister, Christian Porter, has rejected Shorten’s claim that Labor ever fully costed the NDIS. He says, we all know about the Medicare levy but the other savings were nebulous. He says the document Labor uses to prove they fully costed the NDIS when in government was not a budget document but a “glossy” (which are the marketing documents which explain the budget).
The problem has always been that these mysterious “other savings” of about $2.4bn in 2019-20 (the first full year of operation of the NDIS) were never identified in any meaningful way nor identified in any budget paper that linked them in any way to the NDIS.
When that issue was raised in Senate estimates in June 2013, Treasury’s response, when asked whether these “other savings” measures could be listed in detail; was, “the short answer is no”.
Labor at the time also variously claimed that savings made from superannuation and private health insurance changes (which was supposed to part-pay for the NDIS) would be used for budget repair or to fund dental health measures.
Updated
at 11.33pm GMT
11.09pm GMT
23:09
Chris Bowen came out a moment ago, referencing Michelle Grattan’s story in the Conversation. Grattan reported that the prime minister’s office were unhappy with the treasurer linking the omnibus bill to the NDIS.
Grattan reports:
[The linking] was soon portrayed as a reprehensible use of the disabled as a bargaining chip. As the NXT said in its Tuesday statement, it was considered to be “‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ and viewed in the same way as holding childcare reforms hostage to family tax benefit cuts”.
“As a negotiating tactic, this is as subtle as a sledgehammer,” Nick Xenophon said.
[Christian] Porter wore much of the public odium. But the hypothecation idea had come from Morrison.
Interestingly, there had been some resistance from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to the timing of announcing it.
The PMO urged caution. It was felt that the government’s selling of the childcare package was going well – so why introduce this new element now? But Morrison, for whatever reason, was insistent.
Chris Bowen calls the omnibus bill a slow-motion train wreck.
It is an extraordinary thing. Does the prime minister have confidence in Scott Morrison? I wouldn’t blame him if he has lost confidence, but if he has lost confidence, he should say so. His office, Malcolm Turnbull’s office, briefing backgrounding, undermining the treasurer, says it all about this government.
Updated
at 11.14pm GMT
10.58pm GMT
22:58
This morning, with Sabra Lane, Bill Shorten was repeatedly pressed over how much the renewable energy targets would cost. He mentioned a market trading scheme, an emissions trading scheme, looking at the rate of land clearing and further investment in in solar power. But he did not answer the question on cost.
For me the answer to the question about cost is that there is a cost in not acting.
Sabra Lane: Consumers are entitled to know how much it will cost them.
Well, consumers are already voting with their feet with the expansion of solar panels.
Lane: And they’re entitled to know how much a 50%, you know, a 50% target will cost them?
Our answer is very, very straightforward. We think the cost of not acting is far greater. We don’t think we could sustain the cost as the Liberals are saying, of building new coal-fired power generation on the scale which Mr Turnbull is saying and we don’t think that from insurance to drought to extreme weather events, that we can simply go business as usual.
Turnbull used the press conference with the Sri Lankan prime minister to attack Shorten.
You saw Mr Shorten this morning in what must have been a real – a triple train wreck of an interview. He was unable to say how the NDIS would be paid for – this is our big national disability insurance scheme – and he acknowledged he had no way of paying for that.
He acknowledged he had no idea what his reckless renewable energy target would cost, or what its consequences would be, so he confirmed precisely the criticism that we’ve made about Mr Shorten, that he is literally clueless on this subject, mindless, just like South Australia has been.
Updated
at 11.02pm GMT
10.46pm GMT
22:46
Apologies readers. Having terrible tech difficulties this morning. More content coming shortly, including remainder of PM’s press conference and Labor’s Chris Bowen.
10.40pm GMT
22:40
Malcolm Turnbull says the treasurer’s suggestion of tax increases if the savings measures fail was a statement of the obvious.
The point that the treasurer is making is what my father-in-law would describe as a penetrating glimpse of the obvious, is that those who oppose savings measures by definition are supporting tax increases – if you assume that they want to bring the budget back into balance.
Updated
at 10.44pm GMT
10.37pm GMT
22:37
Wickremesinghe says it is quite safe for Sri Lankan asylum seekers to return.
It is quite safe in Sri Lanka. We just started a missing persons office. It is quite safe for them to come back. Some of them have left from places where conflict didn’t even take place. All of them are not even Tamils and even we want all the Tamils to come back. We should not make a mess of ourselves like they’ve gone and done in Europe and the Middle East.
Updated
at 10.39pm GMT
10.33pm GMT
22:33
Sri Lankan prime minister: asylum seekers can come back but they broke the law
Q: What about people who have already gone and have been turned away and have been sent to these island camps and there have been certain human rights allegations as well?
Wickremesinghe:
Well, they left Sri Lanka illegally. They are welcome to return to Sri Lanka and we won’t prosecute them, so they can come back to Sri Lanka, and we will have them, but remember, they broke the law in coming to Australia, attempting to come to Australia.
10.31pm GMT
22:31
First off the bat, Wickremesinghe is asked whether there have been talks on asylum seekers, given many refugees have come from Sri Lanka.
We are looking at investment to further develop Sri Lanka. There are no need for people to be coming in here.
10.27pm GMT
22:27
The prime minister is speaking now with the prime minister of Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe.
Turnbull mentions the links in education, sport and other areas.
Wickremesinghe says Australia and Sri Lanka have signed two agreements.
We signed two important agreements today, one on economic development, but that was not complete without the one on sports. So, Sri Lanka and Australia have shared a common past. There are many values we inherited from the British empire to which we added our own values, and Australia today is one of the leading members of the Asia-Pacific region.
Updated
at 10.38pm GMT