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/2019/jul/04/government-gets-tax-cut-numbers-politics-live

The article has changed 21 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 15 Version 16
PM says Alek Sigley is safe and well – politics live Labor to wave through income tax cuts despite arguing they are irresponsible – politics live
(32 minutes later)
Looks like Labor has come to a position on what to do with the tax cuts (it’s just a political decision at this point) On Samantha Maiden’s New Daily story about John Setka attempt to take the ALP to court over his forthcoming expulsion, Anthony Albanese says:
Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese will speak to the media in about 10 minutes “He won’t be advocating as a member of the Labor party after July 15.”
The Greens will call for a division on this vote, because it will want it on the record that Labor voted for this tax package.
“Our first priority we have said very clear, is to ensure more money gets in the hands of workers,” Anthony Albanese says, on why Labor will vote for the whole package, even though it doesn’t agree with the final stage.
“What we are saying is we will examine, just as the government will...[stage three]”
Anthony Albanese says.
He thinks they are irresponsible, at this point, but won’t make a formal decision on any part of stage three (there is a bit already legislated) for another three years.
Anthony Albanese says Labor is saying “very clearly” that at this stage, it is against stage three, but the party will make a final decision on its position on that 2024 stage closer to the next election (in three years time).
So Labor is saying it will pass this whole package - even the bits it doesn’t like - but reserves the right to possibly repeal the last stage.
Meanwhile, the Law Council of Australia has welcomed some of the amendments the government will make to the temporary exclusion order legislation, at the behest of the intelligence committee. But wants the bill reviewed again. From Arthur Moses:
The TEO Bill has made some substantial amendments relating to the process for the making, varying and revoking of either a TEO or a Return Permit and in relation to the process of review through the establishment of a reviewing authority to review the making of a temporary exclusion order.
Given the significance of these amendments, including around questions of possible constitutional validity of the new reviewing authority process, the Law Council calls on the Parliament to refer the amended Bill to the PJCIS for inquiry and report.
This would help mitigate the chance of unintended consequences that could arise from the Bill in its current form.
There are also several instances where PJCIS recommendations have either not been implemented or only partly implemented and the amendments need to be carefully scrutinised by the PJCIS regarding their adequacy to meet the initial concerns by the Committee.
The official statement on that has just dropped:
Labor’s highest priority throughout this tax cut debate has been to get more money into the hands of more workers, sooner, to boost an economy which is floundering under the Liberals.
We took to the election bigger, fairer tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes and after the election we proposed amendments which were all about passing the first two stages, bringing forward part of Stage Two, and removing Stage Three from the Bill.
We fought hard for these responsible, sensible changes but ultimately they weren’t supported in either House. The Government even voted against their own tax cuts being delivered sooner.
When it became impossible to get everything we wanted, we had to prioritise what matters most.
We will not oppose the passage of the legislation because we want to make sure Australians receive their tax cut now and that the benefits of the first stage start circulating through the economy and aren’t further delayed.
The Government’s highest priority was to commit to a $95 billion tax cut in five years without revealing what they will cut to pay for it or knowing what the Budget and economy will look like at that point.
We have argued that it is irresponsible to commit to Stage Three five years out, and that remains our view.
A Government which has already broken its core election promise to introduce tax cuts by 1 July can hardly guarantee it will deliver more expensive tax cuts five years and five Budgets from now.
We will review Stage Three closer to the next election and propose our own policies which take into account the economic and budget conditions at the time.
So the short version of that – Labor will let the whole tax package go through when the amendments fail, so that the first two stages are legislated immediately.
They will vote for it.
Anthony Albanese began by talking about the amendments Labor wants on the tax bill – bringing stage two (already legislated) forward, bring forward infrastructure spending (a lot of it is happening in the forwards and beyonds) and delaying the third tranche of this part of the tax package (30% flat tax for those earning between $45,000 and $200,000 from 2024).
Those amendments won’t be going anywhere, because the crossbench has already come on board.
And so, Albanese says, if not successful, Labor will “not oppose the package”.
It looks like Labor has come to a position on what to do with the tax cuts (it’s just a political decision at this point).
Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese will speak to the media in about 10 minutes.
So if it’s not a deal, what is it?So if it’s not a deal, what is it?
Rex Patrick:Rex Patrick:
We are now quite satisfied that the government is moving in a really good direction in relation to gas prices. That’s the status of things. There is no written agreement that says, ‘You do this, and we will support tax cuts.’ I can absolutely assure you of that. There is a dialogue that’s taken place, and there have been emails exchanged. There’s a draft policy document, but, once again, it would be irresponsible to table something that is a draft and is not fully considered.We are now quite satisfied that the government is moving in a really good direction in relation to gas prices. That’s the status of things. There is no written agreement that says, ‘You do this, and we will support tax cuts.’ I can absolutely assure you of that. There is a dialogue that’s taken place, and there have been emails exchanged. There’s a draft policy document, but, once again, it would be irresponsible to table something that is a draft and is not fully considered.
Rex Patrick returned to the Senate chamber to try to explain what understanding Centre Alliance has struck with the government, given Mathias Cormann’s insistence there was no written deal:Rex Patrick returned to the Senate chamber to try to explain what understanding Centre Alliance has struck with the government, given Mathias Cormann’s insistence there was no written deal:
I have heard what’s been said in the chamber over the last 10 or 15 minutes. I’ll just explain to you what has happened. Senator Cormann came down to Adelaide a few weeks ago and had a bit of a chat to us about things that were of concern to us. We raised a number of issues, one of which was energy prices. That won’t be surprising to Senator Wong; she knows that electricity prices in South Australia are the highest in the country. Senator Cormann then invited me to come across to Western Australia to sit down with Senator Canavan, which I did, and we started talking about ways in which gas prices in this country could be brought down. Senator Canavan brought to the table a whole range of things that he was already working on. We talked about a number of things that we thought would be useful. We’ve had a dialogue backwards and forwards. It turns out some of the things that we thought might be useful can’t be implemented because it wouldn’t be lawful to do so, and some of the things that we have suggested be done can’t technically be achieved; they don’t actually give you the outcome that you want. So we’ve had a running dialogue with the government over the last three or four weeks, going backwards and forwards, having conversations about the details. At the moment – and I’m sure Senator Cormann will confirm this – they have a draft outline of how they want to approach things. It’s not fully developed. As Senator Wong would know, having been a minister in government, tabling something or producing something that is not completed can actually be harmful. The government is still working through a whole range of options and it needs to do a whole bunch of checking-off on those options.I have heard what’s been said in the chamber over the last 10 or 15 minutes. I’ll just explain to you what has happened. Senator Cormann came down to Adelaide a few weeks ago and had a bit of a chat to us about things that were of concern to us. We raised a number of issues, one of which was energy prices. That won’t be surprising to Senator Wong; she knows that electricity prices in South Australia are the highest in the country. Senator Cormann then invited me to come across to Western Australia to sit down with Senator Canavan, which I did, and we started talking about ways in which gas prices in this country could be brought down. Senator Canavan brought to the table a whole range of things that he was already working on. We talked about a number of things that we thought would be useful. We’ve had a dialogue backwards and forwards. It turns out some of the things that we thought might be useful can’t be implemented because it wouldn’t be lawful to do so, and some of the things that we have suggested be done can’t technically be achieved; they don’t actually give you the outcome that you want. So we’ve had a running dialogue with the government over the last three or four weeks, going backwards and forwards, having conversations about the details. At the moment – and I’m sure Senator Cormann will confirm this – they have a draft outline of how they want to approach things. It’s not fully developed. As Senator Wong would know, having been a minister in government, tabling something or producing something that is not completed can actually be harmful. The government is still working through a whole range of options and it needs to do a whole bunch of checking-off on those options.
So back on the Senate tax debate, it seems that Jacqui Lambie is counting on good faith that something will happen, and Centre Alliance has been given some sort of draft ‘we’ll do something’ from the government, but there are no guarantees and no official deals.
Samantha Maiden at the New Daily published this just a short time ago:
Union leader John Setka has commenced court action to quash Anthony Albanese’s attempt to expel him from the Labor Party, claiming it is illegal.
Mr Setka claims the Labor leader’s public statements confirming he will be expelled denied him due process and natural justice. He says they pre-judged the outcome of the expulsion process.
The New Daily has confirmed the CFMMEU leader issued legal proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court on Thursday.
Setka was to be expelled tomorrow when Labor’s national executive met, but he asked for a delay – and was granted 10 days. So Labor won’t consider this until 15 July.
The tax debate has resumed in the Senate. It will go until it’s passed, today.
The many moods of question time, as performed by Anthony Albanese:
There’s been a bit of excitement over Cory Bernardi telling the ABC that “that is a safe bet” in response to a question about him being unlikely to see out his Senate term.
Bernardi has said repeatedly he would leave the Senate when he is 50. He turns 50 at the end of the year.
He also confirmed what we reported yesterday – that his Senate spot would be likely to go to the Liberals. That’s because he was elected as a Liberal. When he steps down, it goes back to them. The SA parliament technically sends the senator, but it’s only been Joh Bjelke-Petersen who has ignored the will of the party. Shocking, I know.
Scott Morrison told the chamber that Alek Sigley is now inside the Australian embassy in Beijing, effectively meaning he is on Australian soil.
Question time ends.
The Australian reported this:
Centre Alliance has received a written guarantee outlining the Morrison government’s gas policy, which the key minor party demanded in exchange for its support for the $158 billion personal income tax cuts package.
The copy of the draft gas policy, which has been signed by the government, was given to Centre Alliance senators last night ahead of a crucial vote in the Senate today on the tax cut.
Which Murray Watt just asked about in Senate question time:
My question is to the minister representing the prime minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to breaking reports from The Australian that Centre Alliance has received a written guarantee outlining the Morrison government’s gas policy. Does the written guarantee provide a guarantee that the price of gas will be reduced to $7 a gigajoule, as promised this morning by Senator Patrick? If so, will the minister be upfront with the Senate and undertake to table a copy of the written guarantee in this place?
And Mathias Cormann denied:
I think it’s always prudent not to believe everything you read in the newspaper.
Over in the Senate, Kimberley Kitching has been asking Mathias Cormann about when the prime minister decided to write to his head of department over Christopher Pyne’s new job:
KK: My question is to the minister representing the prime minister, Senator Cormann. Former minister for defence Christopher Pyne announced he had taken a position with EY stating that he was ‘looking forward to providing strategic advice to Ernst & Young as the firm looks forward to expanding its footprint in the defence industry’. In response, the minister for trade, tourism and investment, Senator Birmingham, warned that everybody should adhere to that code of conduct, and that includes Christopher.
I note the statement made by a minister, and to the Senate earlier today. When did the prime minister write to his secretary asking him to investigate Mr Pyne’s employment with Ernst and Young?
MC: As Senator Kitching has quite rightly outlined, the prime minister has written to Dr Parkinson in the terms I advised to the chamber earlier. In fact, he wrote to him on 3 July.
KK: Senator Abbott has said: people do expect a standard from the ministers, and then former ministers, to ensure that that which they have learnt and gleaned from their ministerial roles are not imported into other roles on which they can potentially gain financially.
Has the prime minister or his office discussed Mr Pyne’s employment with EY with Mr Pyne? If so, when and with whom did the discussion take place?
MC: I am aware of a public statement that former Minister Pyne issued in relation to some of these other matters. But I will take them on notice. But, as I have indicated to the Senate, the prime minister has written to Dr Parkinson seeking advice on these matters, as appropriate. And, as I have indicated to the chamber, we will provide an update on these matters in due course.
KK: The Liberal member for Barker, Tony Pasin, has said: what I do know is the fact we are talking about it is indicative that it just doesn’t pass the pump test.
While the prime minister’s secretary is investigating Mr Pyne’s employment with Ernst & Young, what arrangements are in place to ensure Mr Pyne does not take advantage of information obtained due to his former ministerial responsibilities?
MC: There is absolutely no indication that former minister Christopher Pyne has or is acting in breach of the statement of ministerial standards, but the prime minister has sought advice in relation to these matters, as I have indicated to the chamber –
KK: My question was not whether there had been a breach. My question was in relation to what arrangements are in place to ensure that there isn’t one.
MC: As I have indicated to the chamber, the prime minister sought advice from Dr Parkinson and I’ll provide an update at the appropriate time. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
The government tries to take the question after Sharkie’s, but the Speaker, Tony Smith, says he isn’t interested in those games and hands it back to the leader of the opposition.
Anthony Albanese:
Why has the national economy fallen from the eighth fastest growing economy in the OECD when they were elected in 2013 to the 20th today?
Morrison:
I am pleased to see the leader of the opposition is being very inclusive with his new team today, very inclusive. Apparently they are a team of one on that side. A team of one. I suspect that speaks volumes about the support that the leader of the opposition.
Mr Speaker, GDP growth, the growth of the economy today is stronger than every G7 economy except the United States. We are in the 28th year of uninterrupted growth. Our economy, when I was recently at the G20, is the economy that other world leaders want to know more about because of its success, and one of the reasons they want to know that is because 1.4 million jobs have been created on the watch of this government since we were first elected in 2013.
Albanese interrupts with a point of order, but Smith says he believes the prime minister is in order – that there can be more than one reason.
Morrison moves on to the Labor party being obsessed with tax.
Tony Burke gets up for his first challenge of a ruling.
Smith says he believes Morrison is in order. Morrison continues:
The Australian people have had their say on the economy, and they voted with the Coalition.