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/oct/14/coalition-labor-morrison-albanese-lambie-politics-live
The article has changed 22 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 13 | Version 14 |
|---|---|
| One Nation members fundraise to attend AGM to oust Hanson as president for life – question time live | One Nation members fundraise to attend AGM to oust Hanson as president for life – question time live |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| We finish up with a dixer from Greg Hunt on health spending. | |
| The folders are stacked though, so we are done. | |
| Lisa Chesters to Scott Morrison: | |
| Why does the Prime Minister’s talking points say that the government recognises how tough drought is when he is withdrawing Farm Household Allowance from hundreds of drought-stricken farm families? | |
| Morrison: | |
| I thank the member for her question. She may be interested to know that, in the year 2017, the amount paid out under the Farm Household ... Allowance was $33,735,000. In the numbers we received this morning, the number was $114,00155,000. | |
| Since since the drought summit of last year, as I referred to in an earlier answer today, we have made some very significant changes to the Farm Household Allowance. And we didn’t make those changes unilaterally. The Minister for Drought, then Minister for Agriculture, commissioned a review of the Farm Household Allowance and went out and spoke directly to all those affected in the sector through that independent review process. | |
| That independent review process recommended that we go from three years to four years - and for that four years to be four in every 10. Four in every 10. I remind the member that, when the Labor Party was in power, it was three years only - for life, Mr Speaker. Three years for life. The member for Hunter. | |
| We increased that to four years in 10, and we are now, in this year most recently completed, we have put $114.2 million to support those families and to ease up on the compliance requirements and the assessment requirements that has enabled more of those families - some 6,000 now - which, when Labor was in, numbered only around 300 or thereabouts, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I hear before that the drought had just started. | |
| ...We learnt in Queensland today, in the Minister for Drought’s electorate, it’s been going for eight years. It’s been going for eight years, Mr Speaker. | |
| So in all of that period of time, what we have done - and what we have most recently done through the National Drought Summit - has been to increase access to that payment. And we will continue to consult closely with the community when it comes to making any further changes if they are considered necessary. | |
| But we’re acting in accordance with the advice, Mr Speaker, and the head of the farmers in Queensland has been very, very clear about the need to maintain those arrangements as they’ve been set. | |
| So we’re going to listen to the farmers and listen to the rural communities, and that’s why, in just the last few weeks, since we sat in this place, we’ve put - together with the New South Wales government - over $1 billion into new dams and upgraded dams. | |
| We’ve put, Mr Speaker, over $60 million into additional farm household assistance just since we have come back to this parliament. On top of that, we’ve put an additional $14 million into drought-affected local government areas to ensure that we can keep those local economies moving. Mr Speaker, we will continue to respond to the drought as and when and each and every day as we need to, and that will go on into the future with our full support. | |
| We get a bipartisan note with both David Littleproud and Anthony Albanese mourning the couple who died in the NSW bushfires, and praising the firefighters who have worked to keep the fires as contained as possible. | |
| Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison: | |
| Today, the prime minister has refused to give a straight answer to questions about record household debt, about record-low wage growth, and about whether he tried to invite Brian Houston to the White House. Why won’t the prime minister just give straight answers, whether it’s here or in media interviews? | |
| Morrison: | |
| Mr Speaker, once again, the leader of the opposition comes to the dispatch box and he casts a whole range of aspersions across the table, Mr Speaker, without being able to back them up. The problem is, the leader of the opposition doesn’t like the answers to the questions, Mr Speaker. He doesn’t like the fact that, when it comes to our economy, we continue to be one of the strongest-growing developed countries in the world, that we’re continually providing jobs for Australians, and that 1.4 million Australians have been able to find work, that our AAA credit rating has been maintained, that taxes have been reduced, Mr Speaker, under our government, and that we continue to provide support to the farmers and rural and regional communities of this country, including protecting those very farmers from those who would seek, Mr Speaker, to go and invade their farms and create even further anxiety and insult at a time when they are under greatest pressure. | |
| Morrison moves into a bunch of government talking points, concluding before there can be a Tony Burke point of order. | |
| Labor has also been focusing on Scott Morrison’s Lowy speech in Senate question time, asking whether he was referring to the UN when he warned of an “unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy”.Foreign minister Marise Payne took the opportunity to read extensive quotes from before the offending phrase in the speech, more generic sections about threats in the strategic environment. Labor raised multiple points of order on relevance, but president Scott Ryan agreed with the minister that the content of the speech was all relevant. | |
| Labor’s Penny Wong suggested the prime minister had “humiliated” Payne and Julie Bishop “would’ve stood up and fought” against the talking points. | |
| Payne responded that Labor was selectively quoting the speech. She said that the world suffered from “peak commentary” – presumably international institutions lecturing Australia – and the PM was “trying to navigate a path through that in the national interest. | |
| Asked about the related warning of “negative globalism”, Payne said Morrison was seeking “an approach to globalism that facilitates/aligns rather than directs and centralises” which she said was “not provocative, [but] considered”. | |
| Peter Dutton does his usual LABOR IS TERRIBLE ON BORDER SECURITY but it is not as firey as usual. | |
| Richard Marles to Scott Morrison: | |
| I refer to reports in the Wall Street Journal that the prime minister was determined to bring Brian Houston to the White House, with several rounds of discussions between Canberra and Washington before the White House vetoed the idea. Why won’t the prime minister give a straight answer to this question: “Did the prime minister or his office seek to have Brian Houston invited to the White House?” | |
| Morrison: | |
| Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I refer the member to my previous answer about how invitations are issued, Mr Speaker. It is not my practice to go around commenting on the unsourced reports, Mr Speaker, and just respond to the rumours that go around this place. The member opposite might want to engage in that but, if the member opposite wants to make comments about the individual in question ... | |
| Anthony Albanese gets up on relevance: | |
| It is Question Time for a reason – there’s questions and there’s answers. The prime minister has just said ... My point of order goes to relevance. The prime minister can’t say “I’m just not answering.” He’s got to actually answer questions in this place. That’s what it’s for. | |
| Tony Smith rules the answer in order. | |
| Morrison continues: | |
| I responded to the question, Mr Speaker, but I do ask, Mr Speaker, in the way that the question has been put to this House, that if they are suggesting anything serious or casting any aspersions on the individual which is the subject of the question, then perhaps I suggest they go and attend that church and they explain their concerns directly to their parishioners. | |
| Albanese is not happy with that. NOT AT ALL. The pair, who attended and had a laugh together at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, continue to argue across the table. Morrison turns his back on Albanese, but turns back, to answer something else. That is fairly unusual – the pair usually leave the politics to the despatch box. | |
| It has to be said, although I know that the PMO will disagree, but Morrison was a little nervous before getting up to answer those questions. He does this thing where he shakes the paper a little, and continually folds over the same spot when he is nervous. The hands were moving like crazy in that answer. | |
| Richard Marles to Scott Morrison: | |
| Did the prime minister or his office seek to have Brian Houston invited to the White House? | |
| Morrison: | |
| As the member knows, the invitations were handled by the White House, so that’s a matter for the White House. I think the Australian people are more interested in who Jamie Clements was inviting to dinner, and how much cash was in the wine bag. | |
| He’s pulled up on relevance, but Morrison has already concluded his answer. | |
| Paul Fletcher got very worked up in his lickspittle. Something about no one having moved from welfare to work under Labor. | |
| Weird flex, but OK | |
| It pains me to say I missed an interjection during the prime minister’s answer on which multilateral institutions were pushing us towards negative globalism. | |
| Ed Husic wanted the prime minister to refer to the Illuminati or Agenda 21. | |
| As an agent of the deep state, I can assure you agents are already on the mention of the Illuminati and Beyoncé is being notified as we speak. | |
| Paul Fletcher is now basically reading from the government’s talking points on welfare. | |
| Richard Marles to Scott Morrison: | |
| Which multilateral institutions was the prime minister talking about when he warned about the dangers of negative globalism? | |
| Morrison (with a lot of shouting): | |
| I thank the member for his questions about my speech to the Lowy Institute which I understand he doesn’t share my views that Australia’s national interests should always come first and take priority over the agendas of global institutions, Mr Speaker ... | |
| I’m surprised that the member opposite thinks that global institutions should be telling the Australian public about what should be happening in this parliament, Mr Speaker. And I make reference to a number, Mr Speaker, about policy positions that the Australian government has been urged to change. I’m happy to name them, leader of the opposition. | |
| There are those who are overseas who think that our commitment to 26% reduction emissions by 2030 should be changed. And it should be higher, Mr Speaker. And we don’t agree. And neither do the Australian people. ‘Cause we took it to an election, Mr Speaker. And the Australian people said – and supported – the re-election of our government, Mr Speaker, on the basis of us going forward with a commitment to 26% reduction of emissions. The other thing we recently had some correspondence from the UN, Mr Speaker – from the UN – we had some correspondence ... | |
| Anthony Albanese jumps up to ask about relevance. | |
| Morrison continues: | |
| I was making reference, as I was about to, on border protection issues, Mr Speaker, where we have been written to by the UN saying we should change our policies. I can remember when the UNHCR used to write to us and say we should change our policies. We don’t agree. Does the Labor party agree that we should be changing our border protection rules to comply with the international issues, whether it’s the UNHCR or any other organisations, when it’s in conflict with the express policies of the Australian people taking to election, Mr Speaker? | |
| But I return to the issue of emissions reduction. We are in no doubt about our policy on this side of the House. 26% reduction in emissions by 2030. But on that side of the House, the member, Mr Speaker, for Hunter – he actually agrees with us. He thinks it should be 26%, Mr Speaker. | |
| (The government benches go nuts) | |
| Not only that, but the deputy thinks it as well. There’s a lot of support for the member for Hunter’s ideas, but sadly not from the member for Sydney. | |
| She reserves her right to perfectly disagree with the member for Hunter, so she’s still for the 45% target, Mr Speaker. Then we can go across to the member for Kingsford Smith – I should say, the member for Wills – who says he doesn’t know. He says, “We don’t have the answers right now,” Mr Speaker. Then there’s another position which was put forward ...” | |
| Tony Smith pulls him on relevance and for straying from the question. Morrison says he was responding to an interjection, but Smith says he didn’t hear one. We eventually come to the end with this: | |
| While you may not have heard any interjections from your left, I can assure you the member for Hunter does. The Labor party is riven with division on climate change. | |
| #welldoneJoel | |
| Apparently our space program is another example of how we are helping our farmers, according to Karen Andrews. | Apparently our space program is another example of how we are helping our farmers, according to Karen Andrews. |
| I think we are getting to the link here somewhere (and I’m hoping its not we are going to mine an asteroid for water, because I have seen that movie and it doesn’t end well). | |
| Oh, nope, there we go. | Oh, nope, there we go. |
| Satellites. Satellites help farmers. | Satellites. Satellites help farmers. |
| Also, something about Mars. | Also, something about Mars. |
| Labor’s Katy Gallagher has asked finance minister Mathias Cormann about the Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates to 0.75%. But she’s done it with a twist, quoting Cormann’s own words when he warned of interest rates at “emergency levels” under Labor, when he argued the RBA had “not cut rates because the economy is doing well”. | Labor’s Katy Gallagher has asked finance minister Mathias Cormann about the Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates to 0.75%. But she’s done it with a twist, quoting Cormann’s own words when he warned of interest rates at “emergency levels” under Labor, when he argued the RBA had “not cut rates because the economy is doing well”. |
| Cormann responded that the RBA had responded to the “international context”, and particularly the need to cut because of low global interest rates. | Cormann responded that the RBA had responded to the “international context”, and particularly the need to cut because of low global interest rates. |
| Funny, he didn’t mention anything about household spending. This is what the RBA said on that subject: | Funny, he didn’t mention anything about household spending. This is what the RBA said on that subject: |
| “The main domestic uncertainty continues to be the outlook for consumption, with the sustained period of only modest increases in household disposable income continuing to weigh on consumer spending.” | “The main domestic uncertainty continues to be the outlook for consumption, with the sustained period of only modest increases in household disposable income continuing to weigh on consumer spending.” |
| But there are plenty of good stats for Cormann to deploy: 28 years of continuous economic growth, 1.4m new jobs, and Australia’s AAA credit rating. Cormann adds that RBA governor Phil Lowe “expects the economy to gradually strengthen” due to income tax cuts, infrastructure spending and the stabilisation of the property market. | But there are plenty of good stats for Cormann to deploy: 28 years of continuous economic growth, 1.4m new jobs, and Australia’s AAA credit rating. Cormann adds that RBA governor Phil Lowe “expects the economy to gradually strengthen” due to income tax cuts, infrastructure spending and the stabilisation of the property market. |
| Rob Mitchell gets booted for asking Dan Tehan to table the document he was talking from, as there is no mention of education in the talking points. | Rob Mitchell gets booted for asking Dan Tehan to table the document he was talking from, as there is no mention of education in the talking points. |
| Worth it. | Worth it. |