Scott Morrison says government 'not for the big end of town' – politics live

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/jun/25/coalition-polls-tax-hanson-politics-live

Version 7 of 15.

Mark Dreyfus is speaking on the foreign interference bill – he says that Labor feels it has worked for safeguards and tightening up of definitions – and will be supporting it, meaning it will sail through the parliament later this week.

While the division was going on, Doug Cameron and Pauline Hanson were having a little tete-a-tete across the chamber.

Cameron said she was ‘just another Lib’ always ‘doing what Mathias told her’ while Hanson called back that she would be ‘glad to see the back of him’ (Cameron is retiring), to which he replied ‘not as pleased as many others who want to see the back’ of Hanson.

So, good times.

Division

Ayes 32

Noes 36

Business resumes as usual.

Centre Alliance has also said no to supporting the suspension of standing orders – but Rex Patrick says they won’t be supporting tax cuts.

Penny Wong could be heard yelling ‘you’re a disgrace’ across the chamber, so I think emotions might still be raw from last week.

Pauline Hanson just spoke on the motion... and I think she was against it. It was hard to tell, because she didn’t actually say. Just spoke about Labor and Greens “bullies”

“Senator Wong accuses me of... it seems to come down to One Nation and her words, grubby deals that are being done.

“I have made my stance quite clear, that I will not be supporting the corproate tax cuts with my, with my, senator Peter Georgiou is actually also indicated no support for this.

“If you think that bullying is going to change my opinion about this, it is not going to happen.

“It has nothing to do with shutting down the chamber. The last time I looked, excuse me, I think the numbers in this chamber is, the government has the numbers and they are, they will determine, they will have their say about how this chamber is run. But if you think that you will sit there and bully me into making a decision on how I vote on this to bring a debate - no I’m not. No I’m not, alright?

“When this is opened up, and it is on the floor of the parliament for this to be debated, fair enough. Now, as I have just supported, the Greens amendment to do with raising it, lowering it to $50m for accountability, for those in business, I have just supported that.

“So I look at the legislation based on what is right for the country and for the people, not because I am going to be bullied into it.

“And I will make my case quite clear. Whether I support the corporate tax cuts or not has got nothing to do with the seat of Longman, because that is only one part of Australia. We are talking about the whole benefit to all Australians. The same as, the same as backing, you know the personal tax cuts.

“Now, when you talk about grubby deals, let me remind the Greens when they supported the government’s backpacker tax, the $100 m grubby deal they did there. Isn’t it lovely, everyone wants to throw around the word grubby deals, you are not concentrating on the job that the people have elected to do in this parliament.

“You have all done it. Even the Labor party, when you were in government, you all do your grubby deals, you all come knocking on the door.

“So let’s get some accountability and honesty on to the floor of this parliament, because I tell you what, the public are actually sick and tired of it. You are throwing these innuendos across the chamber, anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

“Base it on debate, base it on what the people of Australia want. They are all watching you. They tell me all the time. It is like a sandpit in this place because the public is sick and tired of it.

“Why do you have to lie to the public. Why do you have to put out false robocalls in Longman.

“Has it been a wake up call to the Labor party what happened in WA on the weekend? That people are tired of where you’ve got htis country headed.

“So the same with senator Murray Watt, all his lies that he puts out all the time, and Chisholm with regards to One Nation, the people will judge me on my performance and what I have achieved in this chamber, if there is good legislation put up by the government, I will support it.

“As I have supported other legislation put up by the Greens or by the other minor political parties, or independent senators in this chamber, or even the Labor party, I will support good legislation.”

It goes on, but you get the drift.

Christian Porter is looking forward to passing the foreign interference laws:

The attorney general, Christian Porter, welcomed the release today of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security’s (PJCIS) report on the government’s foreign influence transparency scheme bill 2017.

“The committee report is a critical step in securing the passage of this crucial legislation to help protect Australia’s democratic systems and institutions,” the attorney general said.

“Most importantly, the committee report recommends the bill be passed, reflecting a continuation of the bipartisan approach to national security legislation.

“The Turnbull government’s number one priority is to keep Australians safe and this bill, along with the espionage and foreign interference bill, which the PJCIS reported on two weeks ago and also recommended be passed, are critical elements of achieving that objective.

“The government intends to accept all of the committee’s recommendations for amendments to the bill, with a view to debating and passing both bills into parliament this week.

“The foreign influence transparency scheme bill creates a register for individuals or entities which are undertaking activities on behalf of foreign principals. This will provide transparency for the Australian government and the Australian community about foreign influence in Australia.

“We don’t seek to restrict those activities through this bill; rather to ensure such activity is undertaken in a lawful, open and transparent way.”

Two weeks ago the government presented the committee with a series of drafted amendments which addressed key issues of concern to stakeholders.

The committee has made 52 recommendations, the majority of which represent minor and technical drafting amendments.

Of the significant amendments recommended by the PJCIS, more than 20 relate to the amendments previously drafted and submitted by the attorney general.

The most significant remaining recommendations relate to the creation of new exemptions for charities and arts groups in limited circumstances and extending requirements on former cabinet ministers and public servants.

The attorney general said the government would consider those recommendations and was aiming to have any necessary amendments drafted ahead of introduction of the bill this week.

“I thank the PJCIS and the co-operative approach of the opposition to bring this inquiry to a conclusion and the delivery of today’s report,” the attorney general said.

Labor has distributed the transcript of Bill Shorten’s speech on the penalty rates bill. This bit lays out where I think you’ll see the election campaign going:

Now of course what we’ve seen from the government propaganda machine is they say that Labor supports cutting penalty rates because we endorse enterprise bargaining.

There is a world of difference between workers consenting and bargaining for improvements in their overall rates of pay and arbitrary penalty rate cutting with no compensation any hour of the day, any day of the week.

This government has never – and when we listen to their ministers carry on, always remember when you hear their ministers and their prime minister and they talk about workers – reality is they need to get the microscope out, they have no knowledge of how people really construct their lives.

Ask them next time: have you ever negotiated a pay rise for a worker? Have you ever sat there and bargained – constructively with business – but always on the side of workers? Have you ever stood up to improve their redundancy pay? Have you ever stood up to give them a greater say in their rosters and their shifts? Of course not.

This is a government who loves to talk about life experience – no life experience ever representing workers and getting them a better, safer, more reliable and secure job in their lives.

And of course, though, we’ll hear the other argument about penalty rates. They have a second argument, which is: we’re now in a seven-24 economy.

Somehow penalty rates are a thing of the past because somehow we now live 24 hours a day, seven days a week – as if we never did before penalty rates.

But the point about it is that if we want to have a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour economy, there’s always a worker making that happen.

And we do believe and we make no apology for saying, when you’re on 40 and 50 and 60 and 100,000 dollars a year – we actually want to see you do better. And we appreciate the work that you put in for our economy.

But fundamentally, this legislation about penalty rates goes to the heart of the national priorities of this parliament and the values of the two competing parties and movements who seek to form a government in this country.

We think that if you earn penalty rates, you’re not selfish or greedy. You’re not an inconvenience to the business. You’re not just another loaf of bread, which we should try and find the lowest unit price, as the prime minister once famously said in the exchange of labour for pay.

Richard Di Natale is speaking in support of the Labor motion. He says it is the biggest change of the corporate tax structure the nation has ever seen and deserves to be debated.

Greens and Labor staffers are also lolling at Mathias Cormann argument that the standing orders should not be suspended, because of due process and order – because of the gag order that was put on the income tax debate last week.

“Here is an opportunity through the week to debate corproate tax,” Di Natale says.

“Not to have it locked in for debate late at night ... To have it rammed through for a vote in the early hours of the morning, outside of scrutiny.”

Mathias Cormann is speaking against Penny Wong’s attempts to suspend standing orders to bring on the corporate tax debate. He says no, but only because the government is concerned with the proper and orderly order of things.

I just switched over to catch this:

Bill Shorten’s approach to this is un-Australian. Bill Shorten’s approach to this is un-Australian.

Sigh. The sooner we put to bed the “un-Australian” debate, when it’s not being used for irony purposes, the better.

Clive Palmer, who last week claimed that 20,000 people had contacted his office about joining his party in less than 24 hours, is offering free membership to United Australia, if that is your thing.

He’s also accused Pauline Hanson of stealing his GST policy. From his website:

The United Australia Party called out senator Pauline Hanson today for copying one its policies introduced in Western Australia by senator Dio Wang of the Palmer United Party.

United Australia Party federal leader Clive Palmer slammed the behaviour today, saying Senator Hanson was devoid of new ideas.

“She is stooping to plagiarising our party policies to maintain the relevance of her last remaining parliamentary colleague Peter Georgiou in Western Australia. She has no relevance left. Her party is dissolving before her eyes,” Mr Palmer said.

The copied policy was originally presented by Palmer United Party senator Dio Wang back in April 2014.

Senator Wang’s policy sought to keep 100% of the GST earned in WA to stay and be spent in WA.

At the time Senator Wang stated: “WA must see its full share of GST returned to the state to ensure our ageing schools and hospitals are upgraded, to ensure our regional communities, industries and people are supported to the best of our ability.”

Clive Palmer said One Nation would cease to exist by the next election.

“Party members are deserting Pauline Hanson and it’s easy to see why,” Mr Palmer said.

Oxfam is also in town – and campaigning against the corporate tax cuts. From the statement by Oxfam Australia’s economic policy adviser, Joy Kyriacou:

The proposed $65bn hand-out for big business would make Australia the latest country to join the global race to the bottom on corporate tax rates.

Slashing the corporate tax rate would undermine attempts to tackle inequality and poverty, both in Australia and around the world. When governments enter a race to the bottom on corporate tax rates, everyday people lose.

It is utterly inconceivable that the federal government wants to push ahead with slashing the corporate tax rate when Australian Taxation Office data shows that more than one in three large Australian companies paid no tax at all in Australia for the past three years of reporting.

Passing the corporate tax cut for large companies would be a further step in unravelling the fairness of our tax system.

Right now, the use of tax havens and other loopholes by Australian multinationals is ripping billions of dollars from public coffers in developing countries, as well as in Australia.

Oxfam estimates around $5-6bn is lost to Australia’s public purse through the tax avoidance practices of multinationals – and global estimates are that the poorest countries lose well over $100bn annually.

This is money that should be spent on the things everyday people need: schools, hospitals, roads and public infrastructure.

It would also be completely nonsensical to promise a crackdown on multinationals that are avoiding paying their fair share of tax in exchange for rewarding big business with these tax cuts.

And the stubborn push for these tax cuts comes with little evidence of benefits to the economy and community – and in exchange for no more than a ‘pinky promise’ that big business will invest more in jobs and wage growth.

What Australia should be doing is cracking down further on tax avoidance, including by introducing public country-by-country reporting that requires large companies to declare details of income, taxes paid and profits around the world.

Oxfam calls on senators to support the Australian people this week, not further profits for large companies. The corporate tax cuts for large businesses should be rejected.