Labor targets Turnbull over penalty rates as Shorten defends union record – politics live

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

Version 11 of 15.

Question time aspiration count:

20.

(22 if you count aspire.)

We all get put out of our misery when the prime minister calls time on QT.

Bill Shorten stands up to make a personal explanation, over what Malcolm Turnbull said about his record as a union leader:

“I am proud to be a workers rep, proud to have improved the paying conditions of thousands of middle and working class Australians.

“Proud to have protected workers from corporate collapse like the kind that the prime minister was dragged to a royal commission on. Proud to have fought for the rights of asbestos victims, while government ministers fought for the perpetrators. I’ll always stand up for the workers, while my opponent will always stand up for the top end of town.”

Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:

Under this prime minister gross debt has crashed through a record $500bn. Does the prime minister agree that Australia has high levels of debt and high asset prices, and does the prime minister agree this is the number one domestic risk to our economy? And isn’t this the worst possible time to lock in a 10-year $80bn business tax giveaway, fuelling national debt?

(The national debt is $530.8bn for anyone wanting an exact figure.)

Turnbull:

“The government, under the member for Warringah, inherited a shocking debt situation from Labor in 2014. We inherited a structural deficit which it has taken years to turn around. Net debt is peaking this financial year... it will peak as a share of GDP in this current financial year and then decline, year-on-year, over the following decade, to under 4% of GDP.

“We have turned the corner on debt. Now, the honourable member referred to asset prices. Let me remind the honourable member that one of the many economic threats he poses to the Australian public and to Australian families is his attack on the savings of retirees.

“A shocking, shameful assault, which is going to force so many of them to sell out of their investments to avoid having the franking credits snatched away from them. That is not to speak of his campaign against property investment. He is going to increase capital gains tax and abolish negative gearing. Well, the largest single asset class in Australia is residential property. It is already softening. Many people would say that is a correction that was due. Well, everything is good in moderation, I suppose. But what do we think the impact of a ban on negative gearing is going to have on softening residential property markets?

“The Labor party will smash the savings of Australians. It will smash into the value of the largest single asset class. And do you know what, Mr Speaker? That is their avowed intention. The Labor party is a massive threat to the savings, the futures, the prosperity of all Australians.”

(Just for the record, the debt in 2012/13, when Labor was last in power, was $257.4 billion.)

It’s Mike Bowers time:

Chris Bowen had a question which basically asked – how can the government guarantee it won’t cut services again, to pay for its tax plan, if the world economy turns (which there are warnings of).

Scott Morrison: Strong economy.

And we are back to alternative approaches dixers and I want to stab myself with a butter knife.

Peter Dutton had some things to say.

Moving on.

Amanda Rishworth to Malcolm Turnbull:

“The government’s unfair child-care changes start on Monday. Why is this prime minister cutting child-care payments to 279,000 families on Monday, including over 2,200 families in Longman, while giving $17bn to the big banks?”

Josh Frydenberg, on behalf of Simon Birmingham, takes this one:

“I can inform the house that when the Labor party was last in office, child-care fees went up 53%! 53%!

“...How many did they deliver? Just 38, the double drop-off, and what about compliance checks, they also went down significantly when Labor was last in office and now the Turnbull government’s child-care reforms will see nearly one million families better off, Mr Speaker, one million families better off, and those opposite have tried to obstruct it all along! Even though in the member’s electorate, 4,800 families will be better off, Mr Speaker, and what about in the member for Kingston’s electorate, over 6,000 families will be better off, Mr Speaker!

“We will increase the subsidy for 370,000 families whose income is just over $67,000 a year will increase the subsidy from 72 to 85%, Mr Speaker, will encourage more than 200,000 families to re-enter the workforce or to take greater workforce participation, Mr Speaker.”

Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:

“In the last month, the Commonwealth bank was fined $700 million for repeated breaches of anti money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws. So why is the prime minister this week trying to cut a deal with the One Nation political party to reward the same big banks with a $17bn handout?”

Turnbull:

“The major bank levy of course demonstrated in last year’s budget demonstrated the government’s commitment to ensuring that the banks paid a fair contribution to the protection they have to the implicit guarantee they get from government. And that is a very substantial charge on them. The case for reducing company tax is a case for Australian workers. Every other Labor leave including the honourable member opposite has understood this.

“The member for McMahon has written a whole book about it but the fundamental question is one of competitiveness, do you want Australian businesses to be competitive? If they are not competitive, they will not be successful. In order to be competitive they have to have a competitive tax rate, the United States has moved down to 21%, France has gone to 25%, the UK is below 20%, are we seriously going to maintain the proposition that Australian businesses will be competitive in the global environment with the highest company tax in the OECD?

“Plainly every other Labor leader has recognised that. Paul Keating, the former prime minister, said himself and I will just conclude with this quote from his 1993 policy speech, he said ‘we lowered the company tax rate from 39 to 33%, providing Australian industry with a business tax system competitive with any in the world,’ as it was at the time. He went on to say: ‘This is where the energy will come from and we will do everything we can to stimulate it and where necessary provide strategic support.’

“That was the Labor party of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, the Labor party of the member for Maribyrnong is one denying economic reality, built on the politics of envy and trying to divide Australians rather than unite them. Successful Labor leaders have united Australia and have done so on the basis of optimism and aspiration. They have not sought to divide them on the basis of envy.”

Christopher Pyne, asked about job investment, gives an answer about Anthony Albanese:

He is the lieutenant of the Labor party caucus, Mr Speaker. He is refusing to accept that the Hawke-Keating legacy has been abandoned by the Labor party. He is darting from one ALP event to another, between rubber chicken and party pies, giving a speech here, dropping a column here, trailing his coattails as the Labor party know they have an option in the member for Grayndler.

“Mr Speaker, using the traditional tactics of the guerrilla jungle warrior, Mr Speaker, appearing and then disappearing again. It is OK, we’re not going to let him disappear from view, we are going to make sure the member for Grayndler stays front and centre, Mr Speaker, like a ninja warrior.

“We are going to make sure that he gets every opportunity to promote his aspirational agenda for the Labor party, so to speak. Unfortunately, I have bad news for the member for Grayndler. The bad news is that the leader of the opposition is not interested in this alternative agenda. He has decided he wants to have a war on business, he wants the CFMEU to be at the cabinet table in a future Labor government. He wants to reject the aspirations of Australians and reject the Hawke-Keating legacy. He scoffs at aspiration. I think it is going to be a long and cold winter for the member for Grayndler and I table this speech, this bloodied dagger masquerading as an address.”

Barnaby Joyce is back in the chamber. He extended his leave last week, following the death of his younger brother, Tim. Tim was just 42, and passed away after a battle with cancer.

Ed Husic to Malcolm Turnbull: (it’s been a while since we have had a question from Husic, probably because he has been kept busy crisscrossing the country for byelection campaigning)

“Last week the government told 8,000 workers losing their jobs at Telstra that ‘These things happen’, and this week the prime minister is doing everything he can to give big businesses, including Telstra and the banks, an $80bn tax handout, a week after they sacked 8,000 workers and in the middle of the banking royal commission. Why is the prime minister awarding Telstra and the big banks and punishing workers?”

Turnbull:

“Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth, and leads to more jobs and higher wages – the member for Maribyrnong, Tuesday, August 23, 2011.

“As Australia is buffeted by economic events overseas we understand that lowering corporate tax assists the creation of jobs. What could be more important in this country than the creation of jobs?” – the Member for Maribyrnong, Wednesday, March 14, 2012.

“We recognise that in a world of mobile capital, if we have higher company tax rates, our companies will not get the investment they need to grow employment and boost wages” – the Member for Fenner, October 23 2011.

“If you are helping economic growth, then you are helping the wages of working people. Good for businesses, good for growth, good for jobs, and good for wages. That is what a cut in company tax is”. Julia Gillard, March 15, 2012.

“Really! Mr Speaker, the Labor party, the Labor party has now decided that there is no connection between lower company taxes and jobs. Every single Labor party leader, including the gentleman opposite, has said precisely that. Lower company taxes means more investment, more jobs, higher wages and stronger economic growth. Paul Keating set that out in his policy speech in 1993.

“And it was the leader of the opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, who 20 years later described Paul Keating as an economic genius for the way he took on the realities of the economy and was prepared in the manner outlined by the member for Grayndler to embrace business and recognise that business is the engine room for jobs.

“The leader of the opposition and the Labor party of today, much to the dismay of the member for Grayndler and so many others has abandoned the very people it was founded to protect.”

Mark Dreyfus to Malcolm Turnbull:

“I refer to reports that the prime minister will personally benefit from his $80bn handout to big business through his investments in dozens of businesses. Can the prime minister confirm that through at least 15 of his 39 managed funds, he invests in 18 businesses which have a turnover of more than $50m and an additional 14 businesses which have a turnover of more than $1bn per year? Can the prime minister confirm how much these dozens of businesses will benefit from his big business tax handout?”

Turnbull:

“As I have described to honorable members before, Australians know my life story. It is hardly a secret. Now, over the course of my life Lucy and I have worked hard. We’ve had good fortune. And we have paid tax, we have paid a lot of tax. We have given back to the community. And we have been able... we have been able to achieve greatly. There was a time when the Labor party would have certainly welcomed that. Many Australians seek to work hard. A vast majority of Australians seek to work hard and get ahead. And when they do they pay their taxes and contribute to society.

“Historically, both sides of politics have welcomed that. Apparently not any longer. The honorable members asked about my investments, which are set out in the members’ interest disclosure, as honourable members would be aware of. And I have explained why I have done this in the past. The funds are managed by an external financial adviser.

“They are the liquid investments in securities, and they are overwhelmingly held in managed funds. They are almost entirely offshore managed funds. For the reason, the reason for the outcome is so as to avoid conflicts of interest in Australian shares. So, that is the situation. If the honourable members opposite want to start a politics of envy campaign about it, I don’t think they will be telling people anything they don’t know.

But I would just remind honourable members opposite that virtually every member of this House who has interests in Australian superannuation funds, and I particularly note Australian Super being one that is very well supported or patronised by members opposite, has investments in all of the big multinationals, all of the big companies and banks and so forth.

“So the idea that the honourable member wants to create that somehow my wife and I are in a special unique position in terms of our shareholdings is absolutely wrong. Now, by all means the honourable members opposite should go ahead with this if they wish, but I have to say that the politics of envy is one that has failed in the past. Labor leaders, with success, have united Australians, and have called on Australians to be optimistic and ambitious, to look forward and to aspire. Australian Labor leaders who have been successful have talked about the values that the member for Grayndler has...”

He runs out of time.

Michael McCormack takes a dixer where he again just says Turnbull government instead of Turnbull-McCormack government, so yup, I think we can say that decree has officially gone out.

In other news, ministers should really work at enunciating ‘Turnbull’ government, because Tveeder is picking it up as ‘terrible’ government, and well, that’s just one of the reasons my father was constantly at me for making sure I rounded out all my vowels.

Adam Bandt has the crossbench question - and it’s to Josh Frydenberg:

“Huge advances in renewable energy and storage technology mean that the electricity sector can more easily cut pollution in agriculture or transport, yet despite demanding that states and territories compromise and agree to your national energy guarantee, you yourself have refused to compromise on the paltry emissions reduction targets on electricity. In fact you even want to lock it in and tie the hands of future governments for 10 years. Given your refusal to negotiate in good faith on the pollution target...can you now tell the house; what are the government’s emissions reductions targets now for agriculture and transport?”

Frydenberg:

“We will not take a lecture from the Greens who call senator Jim Molan a war criminal, Mr Speaker. It won’t take a lecture from the Greens who have [been] celebrating when people’s houses have burnt down and blame it on climate change, Mr Speaker! Now the reality is that emissions on a per capita and GDP basis are now their lowest in 28 years...”

He goes on to blame Labor for some stuff and is pulled up by Tony Smith after Bandt raises a point of order and finishes with this:

“In relation to the landscape of the emissions target has reduced emissions and contracted emissions for 190 million tonnes, at an average cost of around $13 a tonne, a very effective pressure, that reform Mr Speaker. An effective policy. When it comes to the transport sector we have invested to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in electric vehicles and the roll-out of emissions there but Mr Speaker what it comes to at the end of the day to reducing emissions, we shall also ensure the affordability and stability of our energy system. We have committed to 26-28% and just as we achieve, overachieving, on our 2020 target will meet our 2030 target too.”

In Senate question time, the Labor senator Anthony Chisholm has asked finance minister Mathias Cormann whether it is true that just three businesses will benefit from the big business tax cut in Longman.

Cormann responds that it is “not true – the business tax cuts will benefit every company”. He launches into a case study of Qantas, and how it buys from other suppliers who will benefit from its improved performance.

This prompts a chorus of interjections from Labor senators, including Jacinta Collins suggesting this is part of the “fairy tale” of trickle down economics. She sings “trickle trickle little star” to the tune of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

The supplementary question suggests just 10 businesses in Braddon will benefit, so obviously Labor is very focused on the 28 July byelections.

Gai Brodtmann to Malcolm Turnbull:

“Company profits increased by 5.8% over the year, nearly three times as much as wages. So why does the government support cutting the penalty rates of nearly 70,000 working Australian by up to $77 a week while he is giving an $80bn handout to big business? Or is the prime minister telling hard-working Australians, including those who made his coffee this morning, to just get a better job too?”

Not surprisingly, the variation of a question we have already heard is given an answer we have already heard.

Turnbull ends with this:

No wonder the member for Grayndler is disgusted with this turn of events. No wonder the member for Grayndler has set out his challenge, a return to the values of the Labor party in challenging the pathetic class war and hypocrisy of the leader of the opposition.

We may have just heard the worst dixer this year:

Will the treasurer update the house on the importance of encouraging and rewarding aspiration through the government’s personal income tax cuts and is the treasurer aware of any alternative view that would undermine aspiration.

ANY ALTERNATIVE VIEW THAT WOULD UNDERMINE ASPIRATION.

What. Does. That. Even. Mean.

Dixers are terrible. We know this. But if this is where we are headed with them, just put them out of their misery. Honestly. WTAF does ‘any alternative view that would undermine aspiration’ actually mean in the real world?