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/may/24/tax-liberal-coalition-labor-politics-live

The article has changed 17 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Derryn Hinch: One Nation pressured me to support company tax cuts – politics live Derryn Hinch: One Nation pressured me to support company tax cuts – politics live
(35 minutes later)
BREAKING: Christopher Pyne still hates unions. #deathtodixers
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull:
“They claim they support lower taxes but why did they all vote against Labor’s plan for lower income taxes to 10 million Australians, a tax cut of up to $928 a year last night. That’s what they did. How can the Australian people believe anything this prime minister says when last night, he voted against bigger tax cuts.”
Turnbull:
“Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the only tax reform that was voted for last night was the government’s reform for personal income tax.
“The Labor Party voted for it. The reality is that the Labor party is threatening Australians with over $200bn of new taxes and most shamefully of all, $5bn a year raised by raiding the savings of older Australians, raised by raiding the savings of grandparents, self-funded retirees, going after their tax refunds from franking credits, to which they are entitled.
“Both in law and injustice and what they’re doing is yet again discriminating against hard-working Australians who have saved for their retirement and want to have the dignity of some independence in retirement.
“As much as they hate the enterprise of hard-working Australian businesses encouraged by our tax cuts, and are already in operation, and seeing record jobs growth across Australia. Labor is the party of higher taxes, less investment and fewer jobs.”
Peter Dutton has some fun with the Linda Burney transcript issue. Burney continues reading her papers and then Chris Bowen wants to know whether Malcolm Turnbull remembered walking back into the chamber to vote against Labor’s amendments on the income tax bill.
He punts it to Scott Morrison, and Tony Burke objects:
Unless the treasurer has the authority to say he was equally unaware, only the prime minister can answer that question. But the standing orders say the PM can get anyone he wants to answer the question and we are all gifted another few minutes of the best of Scott Morrison.
Just a small break to remind you that Ian Macdonald is proving once again, why he is the greatest gift to the Senate estimates process, since the iPad timer:
Ian MacDonald was quizzing Justice SC Derrington about why she is a "Senior Counsel" instead of a "Queen's Counsel". Justice Derrington: "those are my initials" #auspol #estimates
For the record, the justice’s name is Sarah Catherine.
The culture wars, as Paul just joked, are now coming for your initials. NOTHING IS SAFE
Julie Bishop says Australia is working with Indonesia following the terror attacks recently, which saw children used as suicide bombers.
“The Australian government stands in absolute solidarity with the Indonesian government. We sent messages of support and condolence. The Indonesian government and the Indonesian people are our most important partners when it comes to combating terrorism in our region and we are working closely with Indonesia, noting as they have that Australia has also suffered attempted terrorist attacks and we are working together to locate foreign terrorist fighters returning from Iraq and Syria. We are seeking to track terrorists and their associates and equipment and resources,” she said.
“... I am sure I am joined with all members of this house as I confirm that the Australian government will dedicate the resources and the energy and political will to keeping Australians as safe as possible at home and abroad.”
Bill Shorten gives the government Labor’s support:
“I just seek to associate the opposition with the foreign minister’s remarks,” he says.
“Surabaya is a marvellous city, Indonesia’s second-largest, it’s a remarkable cosmopolitan city, it does not deserve this evil and the government can count on the opposition standing with their remarks.”
What we just saw was a dixer used for good - updating the house on an actual issue.
I miss the beginning of Bill Shorten’s next question to Malcolm Turnbull, but it is essentially asking why did the government vote against Labor’s tax plan.
I think we already know the answer, but here it is anyway:
“The leader of the opposition has really lost the plot. Last night, the house debated and voted on the tax legislation. That’s what’s heading up to the Senate now. You know what, Mr Speaker? And we want to thank them, thank them from their support. They had the opportunity to vote against them. The personal income ... tax reform now is going to encourage the investment. It is going to encourage aspiration of work. It’s getting to make it fairer ... simpler and as progressive as it is today in terms of those on the highest incomes paying the highest share.
“And we were pleased to see that the treasurer and my colleagues were able to persuade the Labor Party to vote with it but it seems their enthusiasm was short-lived. They went home, went to bed and turned up here today now they have regrets.
“It’s too late, and I say to the leader of the opposition, it’s been passed through the house. The reality is, you cannot rewrite the history of last night’s debate. It’s not like a transcript from the member for Barton. It isn’t. You can’t edit the votes and proceedings. It’s not like the way the leader of the opposition’s office edited, and when I say edited, doctored and falsified the transcript of the member for Barton’s interview, 1800 words it was. 1800 words. And apparently, she said, an unintentional error resulted in 800 words vanishing. That is quite a slip. That really is quite a slip. Mr Speaker, it’s no mistake that the falsification of the transcript was designed to do one thing and one thing only, cover up the fact that inside the Labor party, there is the deepest opposition to the government’s border protection policies.
“And what is designed to obscure the fact that the honourable member and so many of those colleagues want to roll out the welcome mat to the people smugglers and make all of those mistakes that Kevin Rudd made years ago, make them all again, so there will be more drownings at sea, more unauthorised arrivals and more children in detention. That is what Labor will be seeking to do if they were ever to occupy the [government] bench.”
Anthony Albanese to Michael McCormack:
“Is the deputy prime minister considering abandoning his support for the government’s $80bn handout to big business so that he can actually allocate funds for the construction of the Western Sydney rail project, which the government failed to fund in the budget?”
McCormack:
“One thing I’ll say about the Nationals is when we say something we put our names to it and I get ... We put our names to it. We’re backing the tax plan of the government. The Liberal and National Party, the Turnbull-McCormack government is backing the tax plan of the government.
“I’ll tell you why, Mr Speaker, I’ll tell you why, because it’s a blueprint for our economic future. It’s a10-year enterprise tax plan, just like we’ve got a 10-year infrastructure investment pipeline. $75bn, $75bn investing in the infrastructure that this country needs, that Australians want, demand, expect and deserve.
“That’s what we’re doing. I’ll just go back to his little point about the newspaper article today and I’ll say again that at least when National Party members make a comment to the press, they put their name to it, because I tell you what ... we often hear shadow ministers, Labor source, left source, making comments about the leadership of the man opposite, leadership of the member for Maribyrnong, and I tell you why, because he is on borrowed time.
“The member who asked the question knows it because he’s going to be the biggest beneficiary when the member for Maribyrnong falls over, he’s going to be ... But I say again that the Nationals and the Liberals are in lockstep with the tax plan, are in lockstep with ...”
He gives up, because lines are not his greatest strength, before giving it another go, but it’s pretty much what we just heard.
He gets a second time to trip over his words when another Queensland backbencher’s constituency is suddenly unable to go another second without knowing about the government’s 10-year infrastructure plan.
Adam Bandt has the crossbench question for today:
On Tuesday morning, Salim, a Rohingya refugee on Manus Island died on your watch and by Tuesday afternoon the government leaked information to the press about this man and negative stories appeared.
“By late Wednesday afternoon you hadn’t notified his wife about his death and when someone from the asylum seeker resource centre called to comfort her, it turned out she was unaware of it.
“Minister, is it government policy to leak to the media about the death of someone in your care and not notify next of kin? And does this fundamental lack of human decency show there’s no line you will not cross?”
Peter Dutton:
“I’m not going to take a morals lecture from the Greens when it comes to border protection policy.
“We can only look to his track record when he was in coalition with the Labor Party. The fact is, Mr Speaker ... Tragically, 1200 people drowned at sea when Labor and the Greens unwound John Howard’s policies, and that was a tragedy, and, in the current debate going on with the civil war in the Labor party, it seems they want to tragically return to those days. Mr Speaker, there were 8000 children put into detention and we’ve got those children out of detention. Under the plan, Mr Speaker, proposed by Labor and the Greens, there was no plan ...
“This government, not the government you were in coalition with, the Rudd and Gillard governments, this government has brokered a deal to get 1200 people off Manus and Nauru, Mr Speaker, so if you don’t mind I’m not going to take a moral lesson from you.
“You are responsible for the deaths of more than you realise, that’s the reality for the Greens, they can moralise all they want but I find it unacceptable, Mr Speaker.”
Wayne Swan then says something, which the microphone for the broadcast does not pick up and Dutton asks for it to be withdrawn. He admits he said something unparliamentary and does.
Scott Morrison is back, because every coalition’s backbencher constituency is just desperate to hear about the government’s economic plan and whether there is any alternative plan.
Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull:Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull:
“What is the point of this prime minister and his government, given his signature tax policy, to give $80 billion to big business, appears doomed. Is the prime minister’s big business tax cut as doomed as his colleagues are claiming?” “What is the point of this prime minister and his government, given his signature tax policy, to give $80bn to big business, appears doomed. Is the prime minister’s big business tax cut as doomed as his colleagues are claiming?”
Turnbull punts the question to Scott Morrison, because there is no such thing as too much Scott Morrison:Turnbull punts the question to Scott Morrison, because there is no such thing as too much Scott Morrison:
“Our side of the house, the government believes lower, simpler, fairer and more competitive taxes is good for the economy and a reward for effort and grows the economy. As I said yesterday, when the Member for Fenner who gave us the benefit of his behavioural impacts on the tax treatment of mammals in his own references to these matters, Mr Speaker, I was mistaken to think the Labor Party supported low and further fairer taxes but I found the reason for the apparent contradiction in their view because it seems the Member for Fenner is familiar with the work of Ross Gittens. This was brought to our attention in 2005 when a book was written, Happiness, lessons from new science, and drawing on studies of monkeys, Mr Speaker, he concludes we need to keep the tax rates high to discourage people from working to make them happier. “Our side of the house, the government believes lower, simpler, fairer and more competitive taxes are good for the economy and a reward for effort and grow the economy. As I said yesterday, when the member for Fenner, who gave us the benefit of his behavioural impacts on the tax treatment of mammals in his own references to these matters, Mr Speaker, I was mistaken to think the Labor Party supported low and further fairer taxes, but I found the reason for the apparent contradiction in their view is because it seems the member for Fenner is familiar with the work of Ross Gittens. This was brought to our attention in 2005 when a book was written, Happiness, lessons from new science, and drawing on studies of monkeys, Mr Speaker, he concludes we need to keep the tax rates high to discourage people from working to make them happier.
Eureka! The Member for Fenner must have said ‘I’ve finally seen the light,higher taxes is good for people and they’ve decided to go down that path’ Eureka! The Member for Fenner must have said ‘I’ve finally seen the light, higher taxes are good for people and they’ve decided to go down that path.’
“I’ve got some advice for the Member for Fenner, stop listening to monkeys when you set tax policies.”“I’ve got some advice for the Member for Fenner, stop listening to monkeys when you set tax policies.”
Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull:Tony Burke to Malcolm Turnbull:
“A decade ago, the prime minister said he was not willing to lead a party that was not as committed to action on climate change as he was so now, is the prime minister willing to lead a government that is not as committed to big business tax cuts as he is?”“A decade ago, the prime minister said he was not willing to lead a party that was not as committed to action on climate change as he was so now, is the prime minister willing to lead a government that is not as committed to big business tax cuts as he is?”
Turnbull (his glasses are off and in his hand, so you know he’s serious):Turnbull (his glasses are off and in his hand, so you know he’s serious):
“I thank the honourable member for Watson to his question. I just remind him that he, like the member for McMahon, who are studied imitators of the great Paul Keating, would know very well that their master, their great mentor, PJK, he was the one who stood here like the leader of the opposition did in government and said cutting company tax delivers more investment, more jobs and better paid jobs and underlined the need to be competitive so Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the only Labor leader that has abandoned that economic common sense in just another one of his numerous backflips to make Australians realise he cannot be trusted, is the leader of the opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, the unbelieva-Bill leader of the opposition.”“I thank the honourable member for Watson to his question. I just remind him that he, like the member for McMahon, who are studied imitators of the great Paul Keating, would know very well that their master, their great mentor, PJK, he was the one who stood here like the leader of the opposition did in government and said cutting company tax delivers more investment, more jobs and better paid jobs and underlined the need to be competitive so Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, the only Labor leader that has abandoned that economic common sense in just another one of his numerous backflips to make Australians realise he cannot be trusted, is the leader of the opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, the unbelieva-Bill leader of the opposition.”
Before Tony Burke can even open his mouth, Tony Smith pulls Turnbull up on the “unbelieva-Bill” line:Before Tony Burke can even open his mouth, Tony Smith pulls Turnbull up on the “unbelieva-Bill” line:
This started with the treasurer. I’ve had cause to read today the origin of it but it’s not coming in here. I’m making it very clear. I’d like the prime minister just to withdraw.”This started with the treasurer. I’ve had cause to read today the origin of it but it’s not coming in here. I’m making it very clear. I’d like the prime minister just to withdraw.”
The prime minister does, making Scott Morrison use his “I have now read my order out to you five times, OMG, how can you not get that I don’t want onions” voice in a dixer.The prime minister does, making Scott Morrison use his “I have now read my order out to you five times, OMG, how can you not get that I don’t want onions” voice in a dixer.
Another Queensland MP is given the first dixer. This week IS a time loop.Another Queensland MP is given the first dixer. This week IS a time loop.
We open with company tax.We open with company tax.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
“Now it is reported The Nationals have lost faith in the prime minister’s ability to deliver his economic plans. Will the prime minister tell the entire parliament including The Nationals that he won’t give up on his core belief and signature tax policy, to give $80bn to big business?”“Now it is reported The Nationals have lost faith in the prime minister’s ability to deliver his economic plans. Will the prime minister tell the entire parliament including The Nationals that he won’t give up on his core belief and signature tax policy, to give $80bn to big business?”
Turnbull:Turnbull:
“I assume the honourable member is referring to the government’s enterprise tax plan which involves reducing company tax to 25%. That of course was described by the member for McMahon as a Labor thing and a great objective it was. It was described by the leader of the opposition’s [predecessor that] cutting company tax, increasing investment and productivity, resulting in more jobs and better paid jobs and Labour leaders before him has supported reducing company tax because they know it delivers more jobs and greater investment and Mr Speaker, that is what we have been seeing.“I assume the honourable member is referring to the government’s enterprise tax plan which involves reducing company tax to 25%. That of course was described by the member for McMahon as a Labor thing and a great objective it was. It was described by the leader of the opposition’s [predecessor that] cutting company tax, increasing investment and productivity, resulting in more jobs and better paid jobs and Labour leaders before him has supported reducing company tax because they know it delivers more jobs and greater investment and Mr Speaker, that is what we have been seeing.
“We have, in the last calendar year, the largest jobs growth in our history, the largest jobs growth in our history and since the Coalition was elected under the leadership of the member for Warringah in 2013, 13,600 jobs created. So the Labor Party say that the government’s economic plan is not delivering but it’s delivering record jobs growth. I remember when Labor leaders going right back to Neville Wran, great leaders in the Labor arty, used to stand up and say it was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. Not any more.“We have, in the last calendar year, the largest jobs growth in our history, the largest jobs growth in our history and since the Coalition was elected under the leadership of the member for Warringah in 2013, 13,600 jobs created. So the Labor Party say that the government’s economic plan is not delivering but it’s delivering record jobs growth. I remember when Labor leaders going right back to Neville Wran, great leaders in the Labor arty, used to stand up and say it was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. Not any more.
“What a clown, Mr Speaker. Seriously. What an embarrassing clown. What an embarrassing clown. Here we are with record jobs growth, record jobs growth and all he wants to do is catcall, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, he has got as much chance of getting away with his jobs destroying, against business, against job creating policies as he does of doctoring transcripts.“What a clown, Mr Speaker. Seriously. What an embarrassing clown. What an embarrassing clown. Here we are with record jobs growth, record jobs growth and all he wants to do is catcall, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, he has got as much chance of getting away with his jobs destroying, against business, against job creating policies as he does of doctoring transcripts.
Bob Katter is campaigning with Rebekha Sharkie, his former crossbench colleague currently fighting for the seat of Mayo after being made to stand down because of section 44 issues.Bob Katter is campaigning with Rebekha Sharkie, his former crossbench colleague currently fighting for the seat of Mayo after being made to stand down because of section 44 issues.
He was asked about the Liberal candidate Georgina Downer - and said he found her too right wing.He was asked about the Liberal candidate Georgina Downer - and said he found her too right wing.
Yes, you read that correctly - Bob Katter thinks Georgina Downer is too right wing.Yes, you read that correctly - Bob Katter thinks Georgina Downer is too right wing.
Let a thousand blossoms bloom.Let a thousand blossoms bloom.
Oh - and just a reminder, it is Reconciliation Day on Monday, so there is no parliament sitting.
And no blog. But we will be back as normal, on Tuesday.
We are sliding towards question time ... hit us up with your predictions.
Derryn Hinch says he will support all three parts of the government’s income tax plan, and if someone wants to negate the stage three later, they can.
“I think I am going to support the government, all three, send me a plan and we’ll go for it,” he told Sky.
“Put it through and if another government comes through next year, and it will be next year, Labor comes through next year, they can negate it.”
He also opened up about One Nation’s lobbying of him two weekends ago, to get his support for the government’s company tax cut.
Two weeks ago, One Nation was heavying me in extraordinary long texts to tell me that I must support the government 100% on the government tax cuts.
One of them even said, ‘you had a transplant to extend your life and save your life, the government and Australia needs a transplant to save the economy. That’s how hard they were going.”
Derryn Hinch believes that the discrepancies in the Linda Burney transcript were, in his view, done on purpose:
“This was not a mistake, this was deliberate censorship, this was something which was done to clean up something which could damage the party and the national conference down the track,” he told Sky.
Labor has been probing whether the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has enough funding to prosecute financial crimes.
The Commonwealth DPP, Sarah McNaughton, tells Senate estimates it has $3.7m for the 2018-19 financial year from the serious financial crimes taskforce funding, a commitment of $127.6m over four years that the Coalition made in the 2015 budget.
Asked by Labor’s Murray Watt if it’s due to expire, McNaughton confirms, “that’s as I understand it”. She says the DPP has had discussions amongst itself about asking for an extension of funding, but hasn’t requested it from the Attorney General’s Department or the attorney.
Watt asks whether the DPP will need extra funding to prosecute wrongdoing uncovered by the banking royal commission.
McNaughton: “It’s so theoretical at this point, we don’t have any need to have the discussion [of extra funding]. There’s no request to make.”
Michaelia Cash says the government will consider the need for extra funding when the royal commission hands down its report.
Labor leaps on this as evidence of a funding cliff:
The Commonwealth Public Prosecutor has just revealed that the government is cutting funding for the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce in June next year. In the middle of the #BankingRC. Astonishing. #Estimates
The Australian Kitsch account, which is well worth a follow if you haven’t already, has dug up this gem from the Sydney Morning Herald in 1972, of ABC bosses dealing with accusations of being “biased”.
ABC bosses to journalists: it's not your job to interpret the newsPic: @smh 1972#auspol #estimates #thisdaytonight #tdt @MikeCarlton01 pic.twitter.com/skLEnz9WtL
I wasn’t called to #Estimates today but had I been there I would have reassured senators that you can have a Race Discrimination Commissioner AND Johnathan Thurston https://t.co/lWj0AVmJ17 pic.twitter.com/9vGMLuDXkh
The debate on the National Redress Scheme is seeing quite a few members break down.
Ann Sudmalis also got emotional, as she said she believed we were still failing children.
As police fear to follow up, charge the offenders and pursue their own action because they believe the court system will not record a charge or it may not be successful, I fear we are opening a Pandora’s box of bad behaviour which is totally unacceptable.
Surely it is not too much trouble to set the dignity and safety of a child above the inconvenience of bringing the issue of the attention to the court. I know exactly of such an incident and I am greatly concerned of the consequences that could evolve from the lack of action, or action that is non-protective or action which pushes the decision making responsibility back onto the child.
How can this be? Rape of a 12-year-old child is rape. Whether inflicted by a physical instrument or biologically inflicted, it is wrong.
And inside I weep that in this day and age we still don’t fully understand the term child sexual abuse.
Mike Bowers has been out and about this morning. Here is some of what he saw:
Grandmothers against removal is a group working to stop what they say is the mass removal of children from their families by child protection agencies and the authorities - including police and detention centres.
Craig Kelly, who is facing a very strong preselection challenge for Hughes, seems to be enjoying himself this morning.
Over in the Federation Chamber (where overflow speeches go, and where, you may note Andrew Hastie made his speech on Tuesday night) Andrew Leigh was talking about the need for Australia to do more to combat discrimination of the LGBTI community around the world.
From his speech:
During my lifetime we in Australia have decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults. We have removed many forms of institutionalised discrimination against LGBT+ Australians. And we have belatedly legislated same-sex marriage.
There is more to be done in Australia, but there is much more to be done around the world. According to the ILGA’s 2017 report, as of May 2017, 72 states continue to criminalise same-sex consensual activity — that is, more than one-third of the world’s nations. There are currently eight nations in which the death penalty is imposed as a punishment for same-sex consensual sexual acts.
Let me go to some examples. This month in Malaysia we saw the release of Anwar Ibrahim, but it is a reminder that Malaysia continues to make sodomy illegal under section 377 of the Penal Code, which prohibits ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. In Bangladesh in the capital Dhaka, Xulhaz Mannan, the founder of Bangladesh’s first and only LGBT magazine, was brutally hacked to death as punishment for his activism on behalf of same-sex-attracted Bangladeshis. In Tunisia, Bouhdid Belhedi, a campaigner for LGBT rights, was assaulted by Islamic extremists and beaten by a mob outside his house in Tunis as a policeman watched.
In Ecuador, gay people are forced to undergo conversion therapy in secret clinics, where they are raped and beaten even though homosexuality is legal. Since the 2013 military intervention in Egypt, at least 250 LGBT+ people have been arrested. In Aceh, the Indonesian police recently arrested 12 transgender people. In Iran, gay men are sometimes hanged. In Russia, homophobic violence is on the rise. In Syria, there are media reports of LGBT individuals being thrown from tall buildings head first and then stoned by bystanders. And although homosexuality is legal in Turkey, it has one of the worst records of human rights violations against LGBT+ people in Europe.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Being transgender is not a lifestyle. Equality is indivisible. Human rights are universal. It doesn’t matter whether you approach politics from the standpoint of freedom or from the standpoint of equality. As individuals, as civil society, as government, Australians must do more to stand up for LGBT+ rights around the globe.
Can we ever trust transcripts again?
(To be clear, most of us in the press gallery take our own recordings and transcribe from there, or double check the transcript with our recording.)
Transcripts came up in the February estimates hearings, after Jenny McAllister wanted to know from Mathias Cormann why the official PMO transcript showed Malcolm Turnbull thanking Donald Trump during their meeting just once, while the White House official transcript included a much more generous four thank-yous. THE SCANDAL.
From that estimates’ Hansard transcript (page 134 of the February 26 hearing):
Senator McAllister: In the transcript issued by the prime minister, Mr Turnbull thanks President Trump twice, but in the version of the transcript issued by the White House Mr Turnbull’s very effusive. He says, ‘Thank you,’ and, ‘I just say thank you to you and Melania for your hospitality and your friendship,’ and then he goes on to say thank you again. I think we get ‘thank you’, ‘thank you so much’, ‘thank you’ and ‘thank you’. So he was very effusive.
Chair: Senator McAllister, you’ve uncovered thankyou-gate.
Senator Cormann: I’m really pleased that we are dealing with a major issue.
Senator McAllister: I’m just curious: how does it come about that it gets edited down, that the thank-yous are so much less prominent in the one issued by the prime minister?
I think he’s just being a very thankful guest in the United States.
Chair: You might be too, Senator McAllister, if you were in the Oval Office.
Senator McAllister: But is the PMO’s office in some way trying to downplay how effusive Mr Turnbull has been on this occasion?
Senator Cormann: Sorry, what are you suggesting?
Senator McAllister: I’m asking: is this deliberate or is this just an accident of transcription? Are they trying to downplay how effusive Mr Turnbull was?
Senator Cormann: I haven’t had a conversation with the prime minister about the transcripts of his relevant remarks, but now that you’ve asked the question I will undertake an investigation as to how the transcript that you’ve referenced has been so edited. It’s not unusual—in the context of Hansard transcription, for example — to remove any repetition of things that are said in the verbal communication that don’t necessarily add anything when you read a written transcript. I think that that is precisely the way Hansard does it. You’ve got Hansard people at the back here, and I think you’ll find that those of us in politics from time to time, for effect — particularly, a non-partisan statement, when you’re in opposition; I may have done the same when I was in opposition — repeat a particular sentence. You’ll find that Hansard will remove any such repetition and only provide what looks like a very eloquent, concise presentation of the point that you wanted to make.