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/jun/19/coalition-labor-abc-tax-politics-live
The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 9 | Version 10 |
|---|---|
| Taxpayers will 'assist' with Michaelia Cash's subpoena fight bill – politics live | Taxpayers will 'assist' with Michaelia Cash's subpoena fight bill – politics live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull: | |
| Can the government confirm that it is unwilling to have a parliament vote on the legislation which only deals with the July first tax cuts even though it would pass both houses today. Lower middle income earners will get nothing now. | |
| Turnbull: | |
| “We have compared his personal income tax plan. A comprehensive plan for reform. The Leader of the Opposition voted for it in the House of Representatives.All of them, they all voted for it.They would vote for it again in the Senate. They are filled with confidence about their prospects at the next election, they could sweep back into government and they could amend it and repeal it. Why do they do that? It is open to them. The only people that are standing in the way of tax relief Australians on July one other members opposite.” | |
| Greg Hunt, after all but yelling his dixer answer yesterday, today reverts back to ‘very disappointed university lecturer tone’ | |
| Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull: | |
| “How can the prime minister possibly justify spending $25bn a year on stage three of the government’s personal income tax scheme and on its big tax cut, when under this prime minister, gross debt has reached half $1tn for the first time in Australian history?” | |
| Turnbull: | |
| “Of course, we have seen a net debt peaking. We are turning the corner of the debt that he and his colleagues and the Labor party created. Turning the corner on debt and, Mr Speaker, I noticed the honourable member referred to a reduction in tax as spending. You can’t spend money that is not your own, you know. That is the Labor party thing. The Labor party think that every dollar every person earns and every business to the government so if you reduce tax, it is spending. It is their money, that’s the difference. And you know what? They have an aspiration keep more of it.” | |
| Also worth noting, because I forgot yesterday, but Michael McCormack referred to the Liberal-National government yesterday, instead of the Turnbull-McCormack government, which had been his habit. | |
| Had someone had a little chat to him about the proper terminology – or did he just give up on making “fetch” happen? | |
| Michael McCormack is giving the impression of someone who cares about infrastructure and totally understands what he is talking about, or at least he is giving it a red hot go. #deathtodixers | |
| Mark Dreyfus to Malcolm Turnbull: | |
| “When the prime minister met with the prime minister of the Solomon Islands last week did they agree to provide environmental [compensation] after the logging practices on the Solomon Islands were described as amongst the worst in the world? And given the prime minister was chair of Axiom at the time, is the prime minister providing any advice about the delivery of this Australian government aid?” | |
| Turnbull: | |
| “The prime minister of the Solomon Islands and I talked about many matters that did not include the matters brought up by the member.” | |
| Mark Dreyfus to Malcolm Turnbull: | |
| “Is the PM aware that racist hate speech was hurled during a violent brawl at a Liberal party meeting last night, with a witness reporting ‘they started bashing him, they took him outside and started kicking him, I thought he was going to die’. Will these people be referred to the Human Rights Commission under the Racial Discrimination Act, notwithstanding the PM’s personal objection to that section?” | |
| Christopher Pyne jumps in: | |
| “There are many things within the PM’s responsibility, but this is not one of them. It is a serious matter that has been raised, it has been referred to the police and that is the appropriate place in which it should be dealt with, and it is not the responsibility of the PM. | |
| Tony Smith: | |
| “I am happy to hear from the deputy manager of opposition business, but I think the responsibilities of ministers and the PM are very clear. We have been over this ground many times, the PM is not responsible for party matters. Actually, the leader of the opposition is not either. I don’t think the question is in order. I am happy to hear the case from the deputy manager of opposition business, but …” | |
| Dreyfus: | |
| “Mr Speaker, it goes directly to the Racial Discrimination Act, section 18C, and the possibility of a referral of any Australian citizen who has used racist hate speech to the Human Rights Commission. It is something on which the PM has often spoken, and indeed supported attempts to repeal this section of the racial discrimination act. That is what the question goes to.” | |
| Turnbull: | |
| “The attorney just past me a note advising that only an aggrieved party can refer matters to the Australian Human Rights Commission, so that is the first point. I would say also in terms of the incident, the statement that the Liberal party of New South Wales has put says as follows – ‘The Liberal party has been made aware of an incident that allegedly occurred at a meeting this evening. The party will fully co-operate with the police, an internal investigation will also be undertaken and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. The Liberal party strongly condemns the kind of behaviour that is alleged to have occurred.’ And I entirely concur in that condemnation by the New South Wales Liberal party, and look forward to their providing full cooperation with the police in their inquiries.” | |
| Peter Dixon takes a dixer from Craig Kelly (keeping it in the factional family, so to speak) so Dutton can give his usual Labor will allow the boats back speech. | |
| He says this: | |
| “I see some interesting words from the Labor candidate for Longman, where Ms Lamb was quoted as saying ‘at this point it is not Labor’s policy to resettle people in Australia’. | |
| “Which I guess is the point though. I said this yesterday, but it bears repeating – there have been no changes to Labor’s policies, because the national conference which decides those things has not been held. So a policy idea, from Labor MPs at the moment, has as much power as, I don’t know, a Liberal national council motion vote to sell the ABC.” | |
| “A non-binding motion from the Liberal party council has as much power as a policy change idea in the Labor party before the vote has been held – not a lot.” | |
| Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull: | |
| I ... refer to the PM’s earlier answer when he said his government rewards aspiration. Under this PM, should a 60-year-old aged care worker from Burnie aspire to be an investment banker, so that with a $10 tax cut they can get the PM’s $7,000 a year tax cut for investment bankers?” | |
| Turnbull: (after a LOT of loud noises) | |
| The honourable member calls out sit down, that is what he’s saying to any one who wants to get ahead. That is what he is saying to every Australian who wants to get ahead. Sit down, he says. He says I am a snob. Honestly, that is what he said. This is the man who sucked up and grovelled to Dick Pratt like there was no tomorrow. | |
| He took three trips overseas, he drank the champagne, he sucked up to the big end of town. He sold out to workers, he sold out the workers and you know what, Mr Speaker? I had seen a lot of wealthy people in my days, and I have never seen anybody more sycophantic in the presence of a billionaire than a Labor politician, and none more so than this sycophant, this groveller, this man who abandoned workers while he tucked his knees under the table and sucked up to Dick Pratt right up until it was no longer useful for him to do it. No integrity, no consistency, no loyalty.” | |
| Christopher Pyne is asked a dixer on, I don’t know, how much he hates unions, probably, but he starts with this: | |
| “I hate to contradict any of my colleagues on the frontbench but some of them have said today that not one member of the Labor party knows anything about aspiration of Australians. There is one, actually. There is one, Mr Speaker. There is one with quite a lot of aspiration, while I don’t like to contradict the minister for revenue,she said that not one member of the Labor party knows anything about aspiration, our friend over here [Anthony Albanese] has quite a lot of aspiration. | |
| “A few people have been saying that the member for North Sydney might keep him at the post. But I think after this morning he has already got rid of her under the chariot wheels, he only has one more to go. | |
| “Our friend over here, the leader of the opposition. If I was you I would be getting my suit dry cleaned, Anthony, because you might get there faster than you think. Your aspiration is well known to us all. That is the introduction to my answer. My answer is actually … | |
| Tony Smith interrupts him to say: if he could hit his pause button for a second. “I was about to say, story time is over. You are not reading it very well now.” | |
| Normal proceedings resume. | |
| Jim Chalmers to Malcolm Turnbull: | Jim Chalmers to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| “Can this arrogant and out of touch prime minister confirmed that under his government’s tax policies, an investment banker from Woollahra earning $1m per year will get a tax cut of $7,000 a year, the bank will get a company tax cuts, but a shop assistant from Caboolture will only get a tax cut of $10 per week and that is before they lose up to $77 in penalty rates?” | |
| Turnbull: (after some very loud noises) | Turnbull: (after some very loud noises) |
| “No wonder Paul Keating is disgusted by the failure of the modern Labor party to connect to Australians’ aspirations. We know Australians want to get ahead. We know they are encouraged by the stronger economy to get ahead and we will constantly remind them that the greatest threat to that stronger economy is the modern Labor party apparatchiks with its denial of aspiration, denials of self advancement that workers to generations used to deliver through the efforts of labour representatives. This Labor party is a disgrace to all the labour history and labour leaders of the past.” | |
| That’s the second time we have heard apparatchiks this question time from the PM – someone has found a new favourite word! | |
| But seriously – it has been a while since we have had the “aspirational” debate – I think the last serious one we had was during the Howard era. The election is going to be very interesting (and very nasty) indeed. | |
| Kelly O’Dwyer in a dixer from Trevor Evans, the Member for Brisbane, said she hopes “Big Trev” will join “Little Trev” in the chamber. | |
| That would be Trevor Ruthernberg the LNP candidate for Longman, who the coalition have taken to calling “Big Trev” after Malcolm Turnbull pointed out he had Donald Trump-level proportions. | |
| LNP sources tell me its also because the former Newman government MP is having a little trouble in the name recognition stakes in Longman, hence the rebrand to “Big Trev”. | |
| Andrew Wilkie has the independent’s question (they are provided in advance to the government, so they can give an actual answer) | Andrew Wilkie has the independent’s question (they are provided in advance to the government, so they can give an actual answer) |
| “A whistleblower tells me that from July 1, Centrelink is backdating payments to the intention-to-claim date. | |
| “This is unacceptable because people needing it for a week can initially be in crisis and unable to lodge the paperwork immediately. For example, women fleeing domestic violence. And when they do, it can be convoluted, the process. This process also may appear to be illegal because section 13 of the Social Security Act 1999, clearly intends that a person is taken to have made a claim when they first contact Centrelink. Prime minister, will you stop this unfair, unlawful and sneaky attack on the most vulnerable members of our community?” | |
| Malcolm Turnbull: | Malcolm Turnbull: |
| “I thank the honorable member for his question. The government is committed to ensuring more Australian people find jobs. However, for those unable to find work, we have strong social welfare safety net and the only reason we can continue to guarantee that into the future is because we had a strong economy. | “I thank the honorable member for his question. The government is committed to ensuring more Australian people find jobs. However, for those unable to find work, we have strong social welfare safety net and the only reason we can continue to guarantee that into the future is because we had a strong economy. |
| “The honourable member from Tasmania understands well how much stronger the Tasmanian economy has become because of the great Liberal leadership of Will Hodgman, supported by our Coalition government in Canberra. | |
| “The honourable member describes this change at unlawful and sneaky. The honourable member would recall that it was a policy change which was part of the social services legislative amendment welfare reform bill which was debated and passed by the parliament in March this year. | |
| “The honourable member didn’t speak in the debate that he did vote against it. The changes made in schedule 11 of the bill so it is both lawful and very transparent and the rationale for the amendments, and I am quoting from the bill which is available to everybody, the provisions were introduced at a time when things were returned to Centrelink by mail with the progressive roll-out of online claiming and those provisions are no longer necessary. Therefore, the debate that the honourable member voted in, would have therefore paid attention to the change that was made. | |
| Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull: | Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| “Why won’t the prime minister support Labor’s plan to give 70% of working Australians are bigger, better, fairer tax cut, compare two stages one, two and three of the government’s scheme.” | |
| Turnbull: (who sounds like he is addressing a Donald Trump cheer rally he is straining those vocal chords so much) | Turnbull: (who sounds like he is addressing a Donald Trump cheer rally he is straining those vocal chords so much) |
| “The government’s personal income tax plan rewards aspiration, it encourages Australians to get on and have a go. It gets rid of bracket creep. Ninety-four per cent of Australians won’t have to pay more than 32.5 cents in any extra dollar. I will give three additional reasons why Labor’s plan lets down hard-working Australians on middle incomes. | |
| “A police sergeant in Queensland could be working in Longman, perhaps, would pay under Labor’s alternative $1,253 more tax. | |
| “Or a school principal in Tasmania, it might be in Braddon, would pay an extra $3,500 more tax. Or a police inspector in South Australia would pay $4,050 more tax. | |
| “The Labor party talks about millionaires and billionaires, paying no little attention to the reality that everything they are doing is patronising and seeking to hold back hard-working Australians who want to get ahead. Only the most arrogant and out of touch deputy leader of the opposition would say aspiration was a mystery. | |
| “I tell you what, Mr Speaker, how out of touch or do you have to be to be mystified by aspiration? | |
| “How smug in your big government salaries do you have to be to say you are mystified by aspiration? I tell you what, we understand aspiration drives the nation forward. It is the powerhouse, it is the ambition that we seek to support and enable and Labor’s seeks to hold back.” | “How smug in your big government salaries do you have to be to say you are mystified by aspiration? I tell you what, we understand aspiration drives the nation forward. It is the powerhouse, it is the ambition that we seek to support and enable and Labor’s seeks to hold back.” |
| Just another reminder, and I would do this for anyone, because taking people out of context is cheap, bullshit politics (which both sides are guilty of at times), here is what Tanya Plibersek actually said: | |
| Honestly this aspiration term, it mystifies me. As if someone on $40,000 a year isn’t going to want to earn $100,000 a year because they’re going to pay a bit more tax. They’re going to get a lot more income, they’re going to pay a bit more tax. I think it’s just an excuse and a cover for a Government that is determined to give the biggest tax cuts to people like them, people that they want to look after at the big end of town. How is it fair that a surgeon on five times the income of a nurse gets a 16 times larger tax cut. Is that fair?” | Honestly this aspiration term, it mystifies me. As if someone on $40,000 a year isn’t going to want to earn $100,000 a year because they’re going to pay a bit more tax. They’re going to get a lot more income, they’re going to pay a bit more tax. I think it’s just an excuse and a cover for a Government that is determined to give the biggest tax cuts to people like them, people that they want to look after at the big end of town. How is it fair that a surgeon on five times the income of a nurse gets a 16 times larger tax cut. Is that fair?” |
| Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull: | Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull: |
| “Treasury has confirmed the entire third stage of the government’s personal income scheme goes to the top 20% of income earners at a cost of $42bn. Forty-two billion. How was it fair that under this arrogant and out of touch PM a property developer in Arncliffe earning $1m will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, while a worker in a charcoal chicken shop in the same suburb will only get a tax cut of 10 ...” | “Treasury has confirmed the entire third stage of the government’s personal income scheme goes to the top 20% of income earners at a cost of $42bn. Forty-two billion. How was it fair that under this arrogant and out of touch PM a property developer in Arncliffe earning $1m will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, while a worker in a charcoal chicken shop in the same suburb will only get a tax cut of 10 ...” |
| (lols to the Arncliffe chicken shop reference – grade-A trolling) | (lols to the Arncliffe chicken shop reference – grade-A trolling) |
| Turnbull: | Turnbull: |
| “I am glad the honourable member is giving the residents of Point Piper a rest today and has decided to have a go at the property developers in Arncliffe. | “I am glad the honourable member is giving the residents of Point Piper a rest today and has decided to have a go at the property developers in Arncliffe. |
| “The fact ofthe matter is this. Under the current tax regime in 2015-16, for example, the taxpayers earning over $180,000 pay 30% of the total personal tax take to the government, and they represent 4% of taxpayers. | “The fact ofthe matter is this. Under the current tax regime in 2015-16, for example, the taxpayers earning over $180,000 pay 30% of the total personal tax take to the government, and they represent 4% of taxpayers. |
| “Under our plan in 24-25, there will be 36% of the total tax receipts from personal income tax. Our plan rewards aspiration, encourages investment, encourages employment, and it is thoroughly progressive, and as is the case now, but more so those on the highest incomes pay the most tax.” | “Under our plan in 24-25, there will be 36% of the total tax receipts from personal income tax. Our plan rewards aspiration, encourages investment, encourages employment, and it is thoroughly progressive, and as is the case now, but more so those on the highest incomes pay the most tax.” |
| Scott Morrison, missing half of his voice because of what can only be some Little Mermaid spell shenanigans, takes the floor for the next dixer. (It’s either a sea-witch spell or a cold. I just give you the facts, you decide) | Scott Morrison, missing half of his voice because of what can only be some Little Mermaid spell shenanigans, takes the floor for the next dixer. (It’s either a sea-witch spell or a cold. I just give you the facts, you decide) |
| Warren Entsch gets the first dixer. | Warren Entsch gets the first dixer. |
| From Malcolm Turnbull’s performance so far, I think it is clear that at some point over the last couple of weeks he contacted Ursula the Sea Witch and received Scott Morrison’s voice. Which explains why the treasurer was so, for him, quiet yesterday. | From Malcolm Turnbull’s performance so far, I think it is clear that at some point over the last couple of weeks he contacted Ursula the Sea Witch and received Scott Morrison’s voice. Which explains why the treasurer was so, for him, quiet yesterday. |
| Bill Shorten is barely out of the blocks with his first question when Tony Smith has to caution the chamber over the noise. | Bill Shorten is barely out of the blocks with his first question when Tony Smith has to caution the chamber over the noise. |
| “Under Labor’s tax plan, anyone earning under $125,000 will get a bigger, a, fairer tax cut compared to stage one of the government’s scheme. Why won’t the PM support Labor’s plan to give 10 million Australians a tax cut of $928 per year, almost double the tax cut they will get from his government?” | “Under Labor’s tax plan, anyone earning under $125,000 will get a bigger, a, fairer tax cut compared to stage one of the government’s scheme. Why won’t the PM support Labor’s plan to give 10 million Australians a tax cut of $928 per year, almost double the tax cut they will get from his government?” |
| Malcolm Turnbull: | Malcolm Turnbull: |
| “We are a government that believes in Australians’ enterprise and their aspiration. We believe Australians should be entitled to aspire to get ahead, to get a better job, to invest in their business, to make some real economic progress in their lives. Aspiration is at the very heart of everything we are doing. Seeking to support Australians to realise their dreams. | “We are a government that believes in Australians’ enterprise and their aspiration. We believe Australians should be entitled to aspire to get ahead, to get a better job, to invest in their business, to make some real economic progress in their lives. Aspiration is at the very heart of everything we are doing. Seeking to support Australians to realise their dreams. |
| “Mr Speaker, it is in the very DNA of our parties, the Liberal party and the National party, we believe the government’s job is to enable you to do your best, to realise your dreams, to aspire and to get ahead. You would think that is pretty straight forward. You would think that every Australian would embrace that, Mr Speaker, but not the leader of the opposition. | “Mr Speaker, it is in the very DNA of our parties, the Liberal party and the National party, we believe the government’s job is to enable you to do your best, to realise your dreams, to aspire and to get ahead. You would think that is pretty straight forward. You would think that every Australian would embrace that, Mr Speaker, but not the leader of the opposition. |
| “Today, the deputy leader of the opposition said, ‘this aspiration term, it mystifies me’.” | “Today, the deputy leader of the opposition said, ‘this aspiration term, it mystifies me’.” |
| Tanya Plibersek stands up to table a document – and is denied on the grounds you can’t do that during an answer. | Tanya Plibersek stands up to table a document – and is denied on the grounds you can’t do that during an answer. |
| Turnbull continues – and he gets so into it that tension veins pop up on his forehead. | Turnbull continues – and he gets so into it that tension veins pop up on his forehead. |
| “Imagine how her great hero Paul Keating, would feel now. Keating said only a couple of years ago, he said the Labor party has lost the ability to speak aspirationally to people and to fashion policies to meet those aspirations. | “Imagine how her great hero Paul Keating, would feel now. Keating said only a couple of years ago, he said the Labor party has lost the ability to speak aspirationally to people and to fashion policies to meet those aspirations. |
| “There is no reason – no doubt why they have lost the ability to do so, because it is all a mystery. It is all a mystery. From the hard streets of Rosebery, with a household income of just under $1m, the deputy leader of the opposition says aspiration is a mystery. | “There is no reason – no doubt why they have lost the ability to do so, because it is all a mystery. It is all a mystery. From the hard streets of Rosebery, with a household income of just under $1m, the deputy leader of the opposition says aspiration is a mystery. |
| “I tell you what, we believe that every Australian is entitled to aspire to have great ambitions, and high hopes to seek to do their best, to seek to get the best job, the biggest business, to realise their dreams – that is what we stand for. It is what Labor used to stand for, but no more. This privileged elite opposite, they want to keep the workers in their place. | “I tell you what, we believe that every Australian is entitled to aspire to have great ambitions, and high hopes to seek to do their best, to seek to get the best job, the biggest business, to realise their dreams – that is what we stand for. It is what Labor used to stand for, but no more. This privileged elite opposite, they want to keep the workers in their place. |
| “I remember when the Labor party had members that had really worked. I look at this group of university-educated apparatchiks and I don’t see any Jack Fergusons, I see an educated privileged class that wants to keep the ladder out so that others can’t realise their dreams.” | “I remember when the Labor party had members that had really worked. I look at this group of university-educated apparatchiks and I don’t see any Jack Fergusons, I see an educated privileged class that wants to keep the ladder out so that others can’t realise their dreams.” |
| Plibersek tries to table the transcript of the whole interview and is denied leave to do so. | Plibersek tries to table the transcript of the whole interview and is denied leave to do so. |
| She is then thrown out of the chamber for objecting. | She is then thrown out of the chamber for objecting. |
| For the record, here is the whole Tanya Plibersek quote: | For the record, here is the whole Tanya Plibersek quote: |
| Honestly this aspiration term, it mystifies me. As if someone on $40,000 a year isn’t going to want to earn $100,000 a year because they’re going to pay a bit more tax. They’re going to get a lot more income, they’re going to pay a bit more tax. I think it’s just an excuse and a cover for a government that is determined to give the biggest tax cuts to people like them, people that they want to look after at the big end of town. How is it fair that a surgeon on five times the income of a nurse gets a 16 times larger tax cut. Is that fair?” | Honestly this aspiration term, it mystifies me. As if someone on $40,000 a year isn’t going to want to earn $100,000 a year because they’re going to pay a bit more tax. They’re going to get a lot more income, they’re going to pay a bit more tax. I think it’s just an excuse and a cover for a government that is determined to give the biggest tax cuts to people like them, people that they want to look after at the big end of town. How is it fair that a surgeon on five times the income of a nurse gets a 16 times larger tax cut. Is that fair?” |
| It is almost question time (sad yayayayayayayayayayayay) – hit us up with your predictions in the comments | It is almost question time (sad yayayayayayayayayayayay) – hit us up with your predictions in the comments |