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 12 Version 13
Angus Taylor grilled over grasslands saga after making statement – question time live Angus Taylor grilled over grasslands saga after making statement – politics live
(32 minutes later)
Russell Broadbent just delivered a statement to the House, claiming to have been misrepresented.
He has not called for an increase to the Newstart allowance. Just so you know.
Scott Morrison walks over to Angus Taylor on the bench and gives him a nod to walk out with him.
Subtle.
Scott Morrison nods to David Littleproud, letting him know that he will get the last dixer and then stacks his papers, the international signal that question time is about to end.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I again refer to his earlier answers and to the letter from farm organisations dated 3 October 2017. Given the minister refused to answer, I ask again, is the single alleged EPBCC breach in that letter the alleged poisoning of critically endangered grass on his lands?
Angus Taylor:
That is the same question and it gets the same answer.
Rebekha Sharkie to Sussan Ley:
On 26 October 2018 I joined local conservation groups in writing to the secretariat of the UN convention on the wetlands of international importance about the lower lakes site. Our letter constituted an article 3.2 notification and requires the government to respond within three months to a detailed questionnaire and what measures have been put in place to rectify the deterioration. Would the minister please advise the House of the government’s response?
Ley:
Can I thank the member for Mayo for her question and her keen interest in the [site] which is a vital part of her electorate, and indicate the letter she refers to was received before I was sworn in as environment minister. The convention, as she notes, is an international convention on the conservation of wetlands, particularly when it comes to the habitat of water birds. I’m very happy to follow up where that information is and get back to the member.
And that, is how dixers SHOULD be used.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to his earlier answers and the letters from farm organisations dated 3 October 2017. Is the single alleged EPBCC breach referenced in that letter alleging poisoning of critically endangered grassland on the minister’s land?
Taylor:
The environment is not my portfolio responsibility. I have no idea how you expect me to answer that question.
This is the ongoing contempt and disdain you show for the farmers of this country.
Scott Morrison’s papers are not stacked. Which means we have some dixers to get through.
Labor is asking Senate questions about “lawbreaking Liberal construction boss Gerry Hanssen”, citing breaches by his company for “exploiting migrant workers” and a fine of Hanssen personally for refusing union officials entry to a work site.
Labor senator Louise Pratt asks why the Liberal party won’t eject him as a member. The finance minister Mathias Cormann says that the government “condemns all breaches of workplace laws” – by employers or unions – and Hanssen was “appropriately subject to court proceedings”.
Cormann accuses Labor of attempting to suggest “an equivalence of the actions of Hansen with John Setka to distract from their failure to eject him from the Labor party”.
Labor senators interject – asking if the government will push to deregister his companies.
Christian Porter with your daily dose of just how safe you are: unions are terrible is up now.
Tony Burke to Angus Taylor:
Can the minister confirm that his statements to the parliament now offer three reasons for why he held a meeting with the Department of the Environment in 2017. One, somebody wrote a letter six months after the meeting that was addressed to somebody else. Two, somebody wrote a letter three years before the meeting that was addressed to somebody else and, three, he had a conversation with a bloke in Yass. Isn’t the only consistent interest here his own?
Angus Taylor:
That question shows the disdain that those opposite have for the farmers of Australia. The contempt they have for the farmers of Australia. Well, I’ll always back our farmers. I will always back our farmers.
I do it every day, Mr Speaker, and I refer to the comments that I made in my comprehensive and detailed statement earlier today.
Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:
I refer to the minister’s previous answers. Is it just a coincidence that the consultant who gave the go-ahead to spray critically endangered grasslands on the minister’s land also advised the authors of the letter about so-called problems with the listing?
Taylor:
I have already made a comprehensive and detailed statement to the House earlier today, where I made clear that my focus in my work as the member for Hume … was the technical aspects of the listing and ensuring that farmers get a fair deal under this listing.
That was my focus.
And that remains my focus and that is my job. Because there are only two people in this parliament who have regions covered by this, and only one was ever gonna advocate for the farmers across that region and that was me, Mr Speaker.
But the question is ... the question ... the question I want to know is, what have those opposite got against hard-working farmers?
What have they got against hard-working farmers? Because we have seen in this place now a targeted and deliberate approach from those opposite not just to demonise them but to fail to support them when it counts. Just last week they voted against the government’s drought fund which would help farmers when they’re doing it tough. This is a vital fund.
(Labor voted for the fund)
Paul Fletcher is STILL ON YOUR SIDE.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 really, his delivery is so...ravishingly engaging, it’s hard to pay attention to the words.
But trust us. HE IS ON YOUR SIDEBut 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: 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.” 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.
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. 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.’
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. 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: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?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: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. 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 correspondence, which is what [they are] seeking to have tabled or answered.
Tony Smith: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. 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 angerDon’t look back in anger
Fletch is like a champagne supernova in the sky of #qt.Dazzling.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.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.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: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.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.... 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.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:
I refer to his previous answer. Is annual wages growth now better or worse than when his government came to office?
Frydenberg:
Growth is 2.3 % and wages continue to go up.