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/2018/mar/27/politics-live-turnbull-shorten-coalition-labor-tax
The article has changed 19 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 11 | Version 12 |
|---|---|
| Question time: Coalition and Labor trade blows over tax cuts – politics live | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Just for anyone feeling nostalgic for Senate question time: | |
| A few lols in #senateqt today, with Wacka Williams complaining of a "Scottish echo" in his left ear. #auspol @AuSenate pic.twitter.com/7nbPYLcZyv | |
| Just a question - can you be a declared intelligence officer, and if so, doesn’t that make you kinda bad at your job? | |
| Or just Sterling Archer? | |
| The Coalition party room had a lot of ra-ra about Labor’s dividend imputation policy and opposition to company tax cuts. | |
| One interesting flashpoint was on Liddell. Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce asked why the government did not attempt to facilitate a sale of the plant to Chinese group Shandong Ruyi. | |
| The energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, has just addressed the issue on Sky News. Essentially, AGL owns Liddell and the government can’t make it sell the plant to anyone any more than it can make it stay open. | |
| Another point of interest is that seven backbenchers spoke up about South African farmers, warning about the violence against white farmers and defending Peter Dutton against claims of racism for wanting to give them “special attention”. These included Andrew Hastie, Andrew Laming, Craig Kelly, Jim Molan and Luke Howarth. | |
| Kelly suggested everybody, including Coalition leaders, should have done more to defend Dutton. Laming expressed concern that the trickle of information out of South Africa made it difficult to substantiate reports of increased violence. | |
| There was concern the fact that white South African farmers could move to cities and be free of persecution might nullify claims to refugee status. Responses from Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Dutton allayed these concerns - because Australia has two streams and can grant humanitarian visas even if people don’t qualify as refugees. | |
| Bishop stressed the consistency of her stance with Dutton’s because both agree that South Africans would qualify under existing visa rules. | |
| The Russian embassy has published this statement on its website: | |
| It is regrettable that by virtue of the notorious Anglo-Saxon and Euro-Atlantic solidarity the relatively small but substantial positive asset in our relationship, which we had managed to create by a joint effort during the last two years, was jeopardized. It is astonishing how easily the allies of Great Britain follow it blindly contrary to the norms of civilized bilateral dialogue and international relations, and against the common sense. The modern world is not in a stage when it is possible to dictate anything to anybody, regardless of the nostalgia for past grandeur in certain capitals. | |
| Neither the Russian side, attempt on which citizens’ life was made, nor other states possess impartial exhaustive information about the ‘Skripal case’. The denial to investigate the circumstances of the case indicates the longing of Great Britain for a foregone conclusion the achievement of which can be hampered by an unbiased inquiry. It is categorically unacceptable to expose Russia as a threat to international peace as well as to attribute some kind of “recklessness and irresponsibility” to our foreign policy in a groundless and unsubstantiated way. | |
| Nowadays it is more than ever important to provide the rule of international law with a maximum use of mechanisms in the area of disarmament that have been elaborated over decades and have proved to be successful. Unfortunately, all that we can see today is a step in the exact opposite direction. Such flagrant and primitive campaigns as the ‘Skripal case’ that are crudely orchestrated by London, could only trigger further erosion of international relations architecture on which peace and security in the whole world during the post-war period were rested. | |
| It’s not exactly the Darkest Hour, but Mathias Cormann has invoked Winston Churchill when defending the government against Labor’s attacks on the company tax cuts during Senate question time: | |
| The Labor party get their numbers all muddled up. First it’s a $65m giveaway to big business; then it’s a $65bn giveaway to big business; and, in the Labor party talking points, it is a $65 giveaway to big business. | |
| The first point I would make is that, clearly for the Labor party, every business is a big business. If you have got one employee, you’re big business. If you’ve got two employees, you’re big business. If you have $2m in turnover, you’re big business under the Labor party. | |
| When they talk about the $65bn cost to the budget bottom line of business tax cuts, the Labor party know that $30bn of that represents tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $50m. You know what; you could have knocked me over with a feather. | |
| Having fought it on the trenches, having fought it on the beaches, having fought it in the air ... | |
| Senator @KKeneally will give her first speech in the #Senate today at approximately 5pmLive broadcast available here: https://t.co/9Lgw5iXAcZ | |
| Sarah Hanson-Young has responded to the news she is going to face a pre-selection battle: | |
| It’s terrific that we have passionate Greens members who are keen to put their hand up and participate in our democratic party processes. The wonderful thing about our party is that any and every member has the opportunity to throw their hat in the ring for preselection and it is our members who vote for our elected representatives. Our members are the heart and soul of our party. | |
| I will be seeking their support to recontest the Senate race and represent them at the next election. | |
| I’m proud of the work we have done together in fighting to protect the environment and our renewable energy industry, securing more water for the Murray, standing up for fairness for refugees, and advocating for equality for members of our community often left behind by big business and weak politicians. | |
| I feel privileged that as a woman and a mum, the SA Greens have backed me to stand strong for the rights of our children and future generations to a clean and safe environment, where equality and respect for each other and our planet underlines our values and actions. | |
| Our work is now more important than ever; and as populist politicians and conservative politics offer false hope, conviction and genuine leadership is needed. | |
| Preselection contests are the way that members ensure their senators are not just working hard, but working hard on the issues that matter to them to ensure we remain the home for progressive voters in South Australia. | |
| Greens members know I stand up for our state, our environment and our community. I will always stand up for and with them. | |
| Meanwhile, in Queensland, Larissa Waters challenger Ben Pennings has some ideas of his own about the direction the party should go in: | |
| Should The #Greens embrace being 'Watermelons', use it to replace #Labor even? Check our my latest article for @newmatilda. #auspol #StopAdani https://t.co/fBEb3rKKcV pic.twitter.com/lDzAWchUBV | |
| Mike Bowers sat through that so you didn’t have to: | Mike Bowers sat through that so you didn’t have to: |
| Statement from the British high commissioner, Menna Rawlings, on the Australian government’s response to the Salisbury attack: | |
| Thank you to Australia for your unwavering support, as set out today by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and foreign minister Julie Bishop. The use of a nerve agent on British soil demands concerted diplomatic action. We are grateful to have Australia and other countries with us. | Thank you to Australia for your unwavering support, as set out today by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and foreign minister Julie Bishop. The use of a nerve agent on British soil demands concerted diplomatic action. We are grateful to have Australia and other countries with us. |
| What happened in the UK could happen in any country. It was an attack not just on the UK but on international security and the rules-based order. It is part of a pattern of reckless Russian behaviour from cyber attacks to flouting international law in Ukraine. That is why we welcome this strong action from Australia and are resolved to continue working with our allies and partners to confront such actions wherever they threaten our security, at home and abroad. | What happened in the UK could happen in any country. It was an attack not just on the UK but on international security and the rules-based order. It is part of a pattern of reckless Russian behaviour from cyber attacks to flouting international law in Ukraine. That is why we welcome this strong action from Australia and are resolved to continue working with our allies and partners to confront such actions wherever they threaten our security, at home and abroad. |
| For the latest updates on the UK government’s response to the Salisbury attack, see here: www.gov.uk/government/news/novichok-nerve-agent-use-in-salisbury-uk-government-response | For the latest updates on the UK government’s response to the Salisbury attack, see here: www.gov.uk/government/news/novichok-nerve-agent-use-in-salisbury-uk-government-response |
| Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull: | Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| Today the former prime minister, the member for Warringah, has declared the only way the Coalition can win the next election is to harness [Pauline] Hanson preferences. Is that what the prime minister meant when he said last year that parties would reach preference deals to maximise success and is this why the big banks got a$65bn handout? | Today the former prime minister, the member for Warringah, has declared the only way the Coalition can win the next election is to harness [Pauline] Hanson preferences. Is that what the prime minister meant when he said last year that parties would reach preference deals to maximise success and is this why the big banks got a$65bn handout? |
| Christopher Pyne: | Christopher Pyne: |
| That question is a longbow trying to draw the prime minister’s response. They have no recollection with each other at all, those two issues, that the manager of the opposition business draws a connection between those two issues. There’s never been a suggestion they have, in fact it is a smear, but it’s not the prime minister’s responsibility and therefore he can’t be asked of that. He didn’t even ask the person who the question was directed to. | That question is a longbow trying to draw the prime minister’s response. They have no recollection with each other at all, those two issues, that the manager of the opposition business draws a connection between those two issues. There’s never been a suggestion they have, in fact it is a smear, but it’s not the prime minister’s responsibility and therefore he can’t be asked of that. He didn’t even ask the person who the question was directed to. |
| Tony Smith: | Tony Smith: |
| The leader of the House is quite right, I mean, there’s a number of problems with the question, I’ll hear from the manager of the opposition business and well, the first problem with the question was it wasn’t a question to anyone. That leaves the problem of who the question is to. That leaves the problem ... the practice is clear on this. The prime minister is responsible for the statements of private members and he is not responsible for decisions of parties. I’m struggling. I’m a reasonable person. I can’t find a single word that’s relevant yet but I’ll let you have a go. Do you want to give it up?” | The leader of the House is quite right, I mean, there’s a number of problems with the question, I’ll hear from the manager of the opposition business and well, the first problem with the question was it wasn’t a question to anyone. That leaves the problem of who the question is to. That leaves the problem ... the practice is clear on this. The prime minister is responsible for the statements of private members and he is not responsible for decisions of parties. I’m struggling. I’m a reasonable person. I can’t find a single word that’s relevant yet but I’ll let you have a go. Do you want to give it up?” |
| Burke gives the question up. | Burke gives the question up. |
| The government’s dixers have moved on from Alans - we now have poor Bruce, who has served in the military for 20 years and will retire in May and may have to deal with Labor’s tax plan. | The government’s dixers have moved on from Alans - we now have poor Bruce, who has served in the military for 20 years and will retire in May and may have to deal with Labor’s tax plan. |
| And with poor Bruce on all our minds, question time ends. | And with poor Bruce on all our minds, question time ends. |
| We go on another circuit of the company tax merry-go-round. There is nothing new in the question or the answer. Here’s the short version. | We go on another circuit of the company tax merry-go-round. There is nothing new in the question or the answer. Here’s the short version. |
| Q: Why are you helping the big end of town with these cuts? | Q: Why are you helping the big end of town with these cuts? |
| A: We think it will flow down to people and you used to think so too. | A: We think it will flow down to people and you used to think so too. |
| AND REPEAT | AND REPEAT |
| We then move on to the next #deathtodixer, before getting back to Jenny Macklin, who has a question for Dan Tehan (and it is much shorter this time, so no time issues). | We then move on to the next #deathtodixer, before getting back to Jenny Macklin, who has a question for Dan Tehan (and it is much shorter this time, so no time issues). |
| Macklin: | Macklin: |
| My question is to the minister for social services. How many Australians will be affected by this government’s plan to increase the pension age to 70? | My question is to the minister for social services. How many Australians will be affected by this government’s plan to increase the pension age to 70? |
| Tehan (with written notes): | Tehan (with written notes): |
| When the aged pension was introduced, the average male life expectancy was 55. To insure the pension was sustainable, [a former] Labor government moved to the higher pension age of 67. Now, we supported that, we supported that and you know why? Because as the member for Lilley said at the time, and the member for Jaga Jaga, increasing the age pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians. | When the aged pension was introduced, the average male life expectancy was 55. To insure the pension was sustainable, [a former] Labor government moved to the higher pension age of 67. Now, we supported that, we supported that and you know why? Because as the member for Lilley said at the time, and the member for Jaga Jaga, increasing the age pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians. |
| Australia must move towards a higher pension age over the next decade. And guess what the member for Fenner said? A better approach would be to index upper age limit. How would age indexation operate in practice? One approach would be to mandate that all elderly age limits should increase by three months every year, every year. | Australia must move towards a higher pension age over the next decade. And guess what the member for Fenner said? A better approach would be to index upper age limit. How would age indexation operate in practice? One approach would be to mandate that all elderly age limits should increase by three months every year, every year. |
| Now, we won’t be lectured by you on that side about what we will do for pensioners because we want to make sure the pension payments go up. We don’t want to raid them. We don’t want to raid the pensioners. We don’t want to raid the pensioners. We don’t want to go after grannies with a cash grab. We want to do everything we can to ensure pensioners get fortnightly payments, which increase twice a year. | Now, we won’t be lectured by you on that side about what we will do for pensioners because we want to make sure the pension payments go up. We don’t want to raid them. We don’t want to raid the pensioners. We don’t want to raid the pensioners. We don’t want to go after grannies with a cash grab. We want to do everything we can to ensure pensioners get fortnightly payments, which increase twice a year. |
| The sighs are long and loud this question time, readers. LOOOOONNNNG and loud. | The sighs are long and loud this question time, readers. LOOOOONNNNG and loud. |
| The shadow finance minister, Jim Chalmers: | The shadow finance minister, Jim Chalmers: |
| Less than a week ago the prime minister told Australians, and I quote, ‘there is no question you will see a rise in wages under a company tax cut’. But 18% of new businesses have ruled out increasing wages because of the $65bn big business handout. When the prime minister said there will be a rise in wages, was he referring to a rise in wages for senior executives and CEOs? | Less than a week ago the prime minister told Australians, and I quote, ‘there is no question you will see a rise in wages under a company tax cut’. But 18% of new businesses have ruled out increasing wages because of the $65bn big business handout. When the prime minister said there will be a rise in wages, was he referring to a rise in wages for senior executives and CEOs? |
| Malcolm Turnbull: | Malcolm Turnbull: |
| I will invite the treasurer to respond to that, but before he does, Mr Speaker, talking about things that were said a week ago, the honourable member was asked by Kieran Gilbert, ‘is Labor considering a top-up payment to help those retirees and investors adversely affected by your dividend changes?’ ‘Good morning, Kieran,’ he says ... | I will invite the treasurer to respond to that, but before he does, Mr Speaker, talking about things that were said a week ago, the honourable member was asked by Kieran Gilbert, ‘is Labor considering a top-up payment to help those retirees and investors adversely affected by your dividend changes?’ ‘Good morning, Kieran,’ he says ... |
| The Speaker, Tony Smith: | The Speaker, Tony Smith: |
| The prime minister will resume his seat. The manager for opposition business will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will cease interjecting. I just say to the prime minister ... I just ... No, before I call anybody, if members can cease interjecting, I just say to the prime minister that part of the answer was not relevant in any way to the question that was asked. The treasurer now has the call. | The prime minister will resume his seat. The manager for opposition business will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will cease interjecting. I just say to the prime minister ... I just ... No, before I call anybody, if members can cease interjecting, I just say to the prime minister that part of the answer was not relevant in any way to the question that was asked. The treasurer now has the call. |
| Scott Morrison: | Scott Morrison: |
| Mr Speaker, he refers to what was said last week. What was said last week, if I recall rightly, from the question that he posed, well, what I remember was said last week, the shadow treasurer in relation to his completely discredited Labor retiree tax, is that we stand by the policy. It is very important policy. That is what he said last week, Mr Speaker. Just last week. | Mr Speaker, he refers to what was said last week. What was said last week, if I recall rightly, from the question that he posed, well, what I remember was said last week, the shadow treasurer in relation to his completely discredited Labor retiree tax, is that we stand by the policy. It is very important policy. That is what he said last week, Mr Speaker. Just last week. |
| Smith: | Smith: |
| The treasurer can resume his seat. The manager for opposition business can resume his seat – and I am doing that for a particular reason. So I haven’t accepted a point of order yet. I am making it very clear answers need to be relevant to the question. Picking out one phrase about a week ago and then trying to use that as a way to talk about any other policy area is several bridges too far, and I am saying now I won’t be upset about it, I just won’t put up with it. So the treasurer can address the substance of the question, which is about company taxes and wages. The treasurer has the call. | The treasurer can resume his seat. The manager for opposition business can resume his seat – and I am doing that for a particular reason. So I haven’t accepted a point of order yet. I am making it very clear answers need to be relevant to the question. Picking out one phrase about a week ago and then trying to use that as a way to talk about any other policy area is several bridges too far, and I am saying now I won’t be upset about it, I just won’t put up with it. So the treasurer can address the substance of the question, which is about company taxes and wages. The treasurer has the call. |
| Morrison: | Morrison: |
| I am happy to address the question also about business taxes, because earlier today, this is what the leader of the opposition said in relation to the government’s enterprise tax plan. He said Labor, regardless of what legislation has passed this week, Labor will repeal, and this is what he says, this corporate tax giveaway of $65bn to the biggest companies in Australia, the banks and the multinationals. | I am happy to address the question also about business taxes, because earlier today, this is what the leader of the opposition said in relation to the government’s enterprise tax plan. He said Labor, regardless of what legislation has passed this week, Labor will repeal, and this is what he says, this corporate tax giveaway of $65bn to the biggest companies in Australia, the banks and the multinationals. |
| So what the leader of the opposition has confirmed today is that he will reverse the tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses, already legislated, some $30bn of tax cuts already legislated for small businesses. I am quoting the leader of the opposition, if I am quoting him incorrectly, he said quite specifically he was reversing the $65bn in tax cuts. Now, that is the same thing that the economic champion, the deputy leader of the opposition, also has referred to, which he is out there promising to spend money all over the place. | So what the leader of the opposition has confirmed today is that he will reverse the tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses, already legislated, some $30bn of tax cuts already legislated for small businesses. I am quoting the leader of the opposition, if I am quoting him incorrectly, he said quite specifically he was reversing the $65bn in tax cuts. Now, that is the same thing that the economic champion, the deputy leader of the opposition, also has referred to, which he is out there promising to spend money all over the place. |
| But the other thing I wanted to make reference to was this: he refers to a tax cut as a giveaway, Mr Speaker. And this is the thing the Labor party do not understand. They think a tax cut is a welfare payment, Mr Speaker. They think all the money in the economy belongs to the Labor party when they are in government, and they just get to decide how much you get to keep. What we have seen from this Labor party is a total disrespect for the hard work and earnings of Australians and they dare to ask questions about wages. The only thing they are interested in wages about, Mr Speaker, is how they can tax them more. | But the other thing I wanted to make reference to was this: he refers to a tax cut as a giveaway, Mr Speaker. And this is the thing the Labor party do not understand. They think a tax cut is a welfare payment, Mr Speaker. They think all the money in the economy belongs to the Labor party when they are in government, and they just get to decide how much you get to keep. What we have seen from this Labor party is a total disrespect for the hard work and earnings of Australians and they dare to ask questions about wages. The only thing they are interested in wages about, Mr Speaker, is how they can tax them more. |