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/29/barnaby-joyce-struggling-on-backbenchers-salary-politics-live

The article has changed 20 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 11 Version 12
Angus Taylor addresses questions over grasslands saga – question time live Angus Taylor grilled over grasslands saga after making statement – question time live
(32 minutes later)
Paul Fletcher is STILL ON YOUR SIDE.
But really, his delivery is so...ravishingly engaging, it’s hard to pay attention to the words.
But trust us. HE IS ON YOUR SIDE
Angus Taylor on the question of whether he received any correspondence from any constituents about the grasslands listing:
“Whilst the question may not be identical, I have clearly answered the question in my previous answer. And I said in my statement earlier today, late 2016-17 I spoke with a series of farmers across my electorate and elsewhere about the concerns they had. And they pointed me...to the 2014 submission from the National Farmers’ Federation. And I go on, on this submission. This submission is very important because it captured the concerns of the farmers. It said, ‘Based on the information provided in the NFF’s view it is highly unlikely that an individual farmer would be able to assess their responsibilities under the EPBC.”
So this is a listing where the farmers were in a situation, where they were not able to assess whether efficient pasture improvement and weed management could indeed be compliant. That is a very real concern for people who farm, and we understand farming on this side of the House.
But I think what those opposite are actually suggesting... should be named and there is a very important piece of legislation going in front of this Parliament in the coming weeks where there is an opportunity for you to decide whether naming farmers, naming farmers, in the face of activism, should be permitted.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to the minister’s earlier answers. Did the minister receive a single letter from any constituent about the grasslands listing prior to his meeting with the Department of Environment in March 2017?
Christian Porter:
The member is relying on previous answers to ask that question, and the minister has just noted that in his answers and statement there is no reference to correspondent which is what the seeking to have tabled or answered.
Tony Smith:
I have to say to the Leader of the House whilst he may well be factually right, that doesn’t prevent the question being asked. It’s not an identical question. The only problem it would have would be if it was an identical question, and it’s not.
Don’t look back in anger
Fletch is like a champagne supernova in the sky of #qt.Dazzling.
Another dixer on finding out how the Morrison government is ON YOUR SIDE.
Seriously. If the parliamentary procedures committee doesn’t come back with a DEATH TO DIXERS rule, you’ll be able to hear my scream in Cairns.
Angus Taylor:
In my statement earlier today in the House, I said that in late 2016 and early 2017 I spoke with farmers … in Goulburn in my electorate and Yass, which had been in Hume until mid-2016, about this listing and their concerns about the listing.
... On 21 February 2017 I spoke with a farmer near Yass who expressed strong and detailed concerns about the revised listing, pointing out that it had occurred despite the concerns of the National Farmers’ Federation and the New South Wales Farmers Federation and with little consultation with the farmers themselves.
And referring back to the letter from the National Farmers’ Federation to the department back in 2014, they laid out very clearly that the proposed adjustment to the listing typifies the frustration of the farm sector in relation to the listings under the EPBBC and they made it very clear that the evidence supporting the listing is not sufficiently robust.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to the minister’s earlier answers. Will the minister table any correspondence about the grasslands listing from constituents received prior to his meeting with the Department of Environment and energy in March 2017?
Taylor:
I have already made a comprehensive and detailed statement in the House earlier today. And I tell you that the frustration of the farmers with this listing was clear. In 2014, in a table that I documented earlier today as part of that comprehensive statement, the national farmers federation ...
Anthony Albanese interrupts to say the question was about constituent correspondence, not the 2014 NFF submission.
Tony Smith says it has only been 30 seconds.
Christian Porter says any letters from constituents is not relevant to his current portfolio. Tony Burke points out that Taylor brought up the letters himself. Porter says he hasn’t heard any reference to those letters.
Smith:
Really, the ... point the manager of opposition business made is right. Once a – and I have ruled that way several times. Once a – a minister can’t be questioned about any of their previous portfolio responsibilities until such time as they address them, and once that’s been done, and that’s why questions do refer to the minister’s previous answers, and I have ruled numerous times in accordance with those precedents. So, I think it’s fine for the question to be asked but obviously the manner in which it’s been asked, it’s a matter for the minister how he seeks to deal with that.
Angus Taylor is also on your side.
And also on the side of big sticks. Or maybe toothpicks. It is hard to keep up with where that landed before the election.
Either way, sticks are back.
I’m pleased to say that we will be bringing forward later this year the big-stick legislation that those opposite have voted against 13 times in this parliament.
Mr Speaker, this legislation is vital to ensuring that we have another tool in the toolkit to maintain supply in the market and drive prices down, because we saw in 2016, as a result of the reckless targets of the Victorian Labor government, the exit of the Hazelwood power station, and the mere announcement of that exit saw a doubling of wholesale prices in Victoria.
Since then we have seen in Victoria, as a result of the exit of Hazelwood, prices hiking and lights going out. 200,000 Victorian households and businesses lost their power last summer. And despite the clear failure of that policy, and a similar policy from the previous South Australian Labor government, Mr Speaker, those opposite want to role this policy out nationally, Mr Speaker, nationally.
During the last election we saw independent modelling telling us that doing so would double wholesale prices of electricity and triple the price of gas. We on this side of the House sit on the side of a fair deal for the hard-working small businesses and households of Australia.
Senator Cory Bernardi asks if the Senate can "add a happy birthday to the former prime minister" John Howard to senator Malcolm Roberts' invective against Howard-era land clearing laws (alleging acquisition without just compensation) masquerading as a question.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to the minister’s earlier answer claiming that a letter from farm organisations dated 3 October 2017 proves he was making constituent representations when he sought a meeting with the Department of the Environment and Energy six months prior. How did the minister seek a meeting as a result of a letter that didn’t exist until six months later?
Taylor:
I have already made a comprehensive and detailed statement on this matter covering exactly this issue to the House earlier today and in that statement I made clear that through discussions with farmers in late 2016 and 2017, they demonstrated deep concerns about the impact of this listing on their farming operation.
And they pointed me to a National Farmers’ Federation submission made in 2014 expressing those concerns. 2014.
Expressing those concerns about the impact of this listing on our farmers. But let’s be clear.
Let’s be clear.
... Let’s be clear about what this is about. Those opposite just want to smear farmers and those who represent farmers in this place because they are completely out of touch with farmers.
We saw at the last election those opposite take policies to that election which would mean rolling out the draconian native vegetation laws in Queensland as state laws across Australia and in the process undermine the productivity and success of one of the great industries that has been the backbone of this country for so long, Mr Speaker. I will speak up for farmers every day in this place. That’s what we do on this side of the House.
Michael Sukkar is giving a lesson in merit in this next dixer.
Jim Chalmers to Josh Frydenberg:
How many of the 76 recommendations from the banking royal commission has the government fully implemented?
Frydenberg:
I can inform the House that we have already legislated recommendation 3.6, which will prohibit superannuation funds inducing employees. We have recommended and legislated through this place recommendation 3.7, which introduces civil penalties for trustees and directors of super funds.
We have already introduced and passed regulations which extend Apra’s remit for financial comments to 2008.
We have passed regulations to ensure greater cooperation with Apra is legislated ... we have with the states and territories to develop a national approach.
We announced a ... review into Apra and we have accepted the recommendations from that Apra review.
Mr Speaker, we have announced in the budget $649 million extra funding for Asic and Apra, which is 25 % to 30% increase.
We’re extending the jurisdictions of the federal court to include criminal jurisdiction, and the list goes on.
Now, Mr Speaker ... There were 76 recommendations. Mr Speaker, the other side are a complete joke. The other side are a complete joke. They took 22 days to respond. We took four days.
And we’re getting on with the job of legislating past regulations, doing it carefully so no mistakes are made. This is a critically important area. When it comes to an organisation like Apra, in Labor’s last year in office, funding actually decreased not increased.
... We have passed legislation, passed regulations and are getting on with the job of protecting Australian consumers.
Labor is probing the Angus Taylor grassland issue in Senate question time, asking if there is only one “compliance action” for breaching environmental rules on grasslands in the region – and whether it relates to land owned by Taylor.
Simon Birmingham, representing Taylor in the Senate, points to the statement the energy and emissions reduction minister made in the lower house.
Birmingham:
“[Taylor] has not engaged in discussions about compliance actions, he has represented his electorate in matters brought to him by constituents ... If there is information about further compliance matters, I will bring it to the attention of the chamber.”Wong notes this appears to confirm there was only one compliance action. There follows several points of order on relevance, and Wong passively aggressively calls Birmo “mate”.
Birmingham says the ownership structure of Taylor’s interests is “on the public record”. “Through you Mr President – mate – he’s been very clear about its ownership.”
Josh Frydenberg is also on your side.
Adam Bandt has the independent question today:
Reports have emerged that a wanted criminal wasn’t arrested when he first landed in Australia and his plane was recently searched on the tarmac but allowed to leave the country, even though an Interpol notice was in forced.
It’s also been reported that he got money and special treatment from Crown casino and ministers have lobbied Home Affairs to ensure high rollers can fly into the country, drive to Crown casino with a minimal amount of clearances.
Can you assure none of your [ministers] lobbied … which would breach your ministerial Code of Conduct. Can you also guarantee no Home Affairs officials have acted improperly in those matters?
Scott Morrison:
I thank the Member for Melbourne for his question. It is a very serious topic and deals with the integrity not only of our gaming industry but issues that go to law enforcement and border protection. And I welcome the Member for Melbourne’s interest in this topic.
Our government takes allegations of illegal activity very seriously. Everyone is required to abide by Australian law, including casino operators, public officials, all visitors to our country. Our law enforcement agencies are working hard to disrupt criminal groups [involved in] financially motivated crime.
While I can’t go into the details of that for obvious reasons which would be known to the member, these investigations are ongoing and will continue. In relation to the specific matters that were raised by the member, there has been nothing presented to me that would indicate there are any matters there for me to address.
Anthony Albanese to Josh Frydenberg:Anthony Albanese to Josh Frydenberg:
I refer to his previous answer. Is annual wages growth now better or worse than when his government came to office?I refer to his previous answer. Is annual wages growth now better or worse than when his government came to office?
Frydenberg:Frydenberg:
Growth is 2.3 % and wages continue to go up.Growth is 2.3 % and wages continue to go up.
Llew O’Brien summons Michael McCormack to the despatch box.
Moving on.
Peter Dutton is not in the chamber – he’s in the UK for a meeting with the Five Eyes partners.
That leaves Christian Porter to deliver the JUST HOW SAFE YOU ARE segment today.
Jim Rankin to Josh Frydenberg:
Why does the government support cutting penalty rates when the Reserve Bank says that stagnant wages are a key contributor to slowing growth in the economy?
Frydenberg:
We don’t support cutting penalty rates but we do support an independent arbitor, and it’s taken 53 questions from those opposite for the member for Rankin to get a question to the treasurer.
“Tell us about wages growth,” someone from Labor yells out.
“Labor, Labor, Labor, Labor,” Ed Husic yells, as Frydenberg talks about when Labor was last in office. That was six years ago.
Labor leader in the Senate Penny Wong has just accused the government of filibustering an obscure bill about the East Timor maritime sea boundary, despite ministers Marise Payne and Matt Canavan asking Labor to help secure “speedy passage” of the bill.Wong cites the addition to the speaking list of Dean Smith, Slade Brockman, Andrew Bragg and Paul Scarr. Labor thinks the government is stalling because it risks running out of business or faces hostile Jacqui Lambie amendments to a veterans bill.Wong:
“With all due respect to the senator, [Dean] Smith, because he is very well spoken and can speak at short notice, but it is very clear the government is seeking to delay the passage of this bill before question time. [The ministers] owe the Senate an explanation why we were asked to facility speedy passage and you’re now filibustering it.”
Senator Jane Hume insists there has been “no delay”, it’s just the government senators have something “significant” to say.Smith then argues it is important for every senator to make a contribution if they wish. Smith then refers to himself in the third person, explaining that “Senator Smith’s” state of Western Australia shares a maritime boundary with East Timor. We’re now into question time.
Scott Morrison takes the first dixer. He’s super on your side.
Labor and the Greens, along with the Senate crossbench, have voted to investigate how much Newstart should be increased by and how much that would cost.
Scott Morrison:
The best form of welfare is a job, that’s what those on this side of the House believe and I believe Australians believe and I want to commend all those Australians who are on Newstart and looking for a job.
Our government won’t rest until we get them all into jobs. That’s the pledge we made at the last [election] … 1.25 million new jobs over the last few years and that’s on the … over 1 million jobs created since we came to government.
I’m asked about the rate of Newstart, $555 a fortnight. But on average an additional $153.50 is paid a fortnight to recipients and some 99%, I am advised, receive payments over and above Newstart.
But what I tell you, what I won’t do when it comes to Newstart in this place, I will not engage in the unfunded empathy of the Labor party.
I will not go out as the Labor party did at the last election, pretending they’re going to do something about Newstart, but they won’t tell Australians how much they’re going to increase it by, how much is that going to cost and how are they going to pay for it.
I won’t do that. Our government has set priorities on investing in health, in schools, on education, on mental health, on combating the terrible curse of suicide in our country, supporting our veterans.
We have made those choices about priorities rather than increasing the size of the welfare budget.
At the last election the Labor party came up with $387 billion of higher taxes and they still didn’t come up with a way to fund an increase in the Newstart allowance.
I will not allow this Labor opposition to go out and make all sorts of promises to Australians about Newstart when they have no intention of funding it and no intention of backing it up with a real policy.
Sharon Bird to Scott Morrison:
My question is to the prime minister. Could the prime minister live on the Newstart rate of $40 a day?
“Of course he couldn’t,” calls out Anne Aly.
Morrison:
I thank the member for her question and, like all of those who are on Newstart or many of the other welfare payments that are provided to them by the taxpayer, those payments are certainly modest, Mr Speaker. And those payments are indexed every six months, along with every other welfare payment, and the Australian public provides that support. But the most important support that is provided by this government is to ensure that people can get off welfare and work, and this government has, and this government has set records both for youth unemployment, getting people into jobs, people across the spectrum, older Australians, younger, female Australians, getting them into work, because the best form of welfare is ...
Tony Burke calls a point of order on relevance.
Tony Smith says he has reviewed direct relevance, and he is relying on Harry Jenkins’s ruling on a Julia Gillard answer ruling:
‘So far I believe she’s been directly relevant if not giving a direct answer. And they are different things. The standing orders demand direct relevance’, and he then went on, I think, as the leader of the opposition would remember, to say if there’s going to be any other changes the procedure committee needed to look at it, etc, etc. But I think that’s the principle I’m sticking with.
So he’ll listen to Morrison and make sure he remains relevant, but it is not for him to say how he answers the question.
Scott Morrison has entered the chamber with Angus Taylor.
That’s a deliberate statement.
Perhaps the prime minister is ambitious for Taylor.
The government appears to be adding speakers to the maritime boundaries legislation.
Senators, of course, are able to speak on whatever legislation they would like, as are MPs. But adding MPs to this one, given its support, has Labor smelling a filibuster.
Why? Well, it’s discuss legislation, or move on to the Governor-Address-In-Reply, which is what happens when the Senate runs out of legislation to discuss.
The union bill probably won’t make it to the Senate today, because Labor will most likely hold it up in the House by adding as many speakers as it can to the list – one, because Labor is against it, and two, because it gives Labor an opportunity to point out the lack of legislation in the Senate.