What we learned: Tuesday 26 March
That’s where we’re leaving the blog for today – let’s recap the main events:
A Smith Family report found the government must invest in more careers advice and targeted early intervention support to reverse school absenteeism.
The peak union body is pushing for a 5% pay rise for the millions of Australians on minimum and award wages.
An education summit heard Australia’s inequitable school funding system is undermining choice, not upholding it.
Australia joined the UK in condemning China-backed cyber attacks.
Labor briefed the opposition on urgent legislation around uncooperative detainees, before introducing the amended detention legislation bill.
Victoria’s gambling regulator ruled Crown casino Melbourne was permitted to retain its licence.
The Tasmanian Labor leader Rebecca White announced her resignation as leader.
Fuel efficiency standards bill to be more lenient on some four-wheel drives, Catherine King said before defending the government’s secrecy.
Catholic schools said they were ‘concerned’ as Labor opens door to working with Greens on religious discrimination bill.
James Paterson criticised the ‘shockingly rushed’ Labor deportation bill despite the Coalition backing in lower house.
The Northern Territory corruption commissioner urged police to come forward in racism investigation.
Amy will be back with you early tomorrow morning for what will be the last sitting day until budget week in May.
Corruption commissioner urges NT police to come forward in racism investigation
Michael Riches, the Northern Territory’s independent commissioner against corruption, has issued an extraordinary statement urging current or serving NT police officers to assist in an investigation into racism within the force.
Riches is investigating allegations of improper conduct within the Territory Response Group (TRG), an elite tactical police unit, after revelations made by former NT police officer Zachary Rolfe at an inquest into the death of Kumanjayi Walker.
Rolfe said the TRG issued a series of racist mock awards to its members, and provided the inquest with several certificates he said were related to the awards.
Riches said on Tuesday that current or former officers who voluntarily provided truthful information to ICAC would not be subject to an adverse finding under the ICAC Act, would not be referred to NT police for potential disciplinary action, and would not be named in a public statement or report “for which I am responsible”.
He added:
The above does not extend to current or former officers ... whose conduct may amount to criminal conduct [or] who may have deleted documents or information from NT police systems that relate to the subject matter of this investigation.
Riches said he was briefed that morning on the evidence collected by the ICAC and NT police in relation to the investigation to date. He noted he was “not resourced” to be able to conduct the investigation without police assistance.
He said:
That evidence further supports the allegation that, in past years, awards have been issued within the Territory Response Group that are racist towards First Nations people. I have formed that view based upon the material I have been shown and the language used in that material. I express no view about who participated in those awards and who had knowledge of them. It is premature to do so.
He urged anyone with information to come forward by 5 April.
Updated
Greens call on Labor to share proposed changes to discrimination bills
The Greens received their briefing on Labor’s proposed religious discrimination changes shortly before question time but it seems we are no closer to finding out much else.
The party’s senator, David Shoebridge, said the federal government refused to share the draft bills and was intent on “handing Peter Dutton the veto” on changes to protect LGBTQI+ kids in schools.
Earlier, Anthony Albanese told his party room in a caucus meeting on Tuesday morning the Greens were an alternative pathway to passing the bills but said it could only choose this option if the minor party was “willing to support” the rights of people to practise their faith.
The two bills include one amending the Sex Discrimination Act, presumably to tweak or remove blanket exemptions allowing religious schools to discriminate while the other would offer people of faith more protection to practise their beliefs.
Shoebridge said:
We again call upon the Labor government to work with the progressive majority in this parliament to share the legislation with us and with the rest of the Australian community so that we can legislate to protect trans and queer kids at school, to ensure that schools that receive billions of dollars in public funding are not also entitled to continue this cruel discrimination.
As flagged earlier, the National Catholic Education said a Labor-Greens religious discrimination bill would not be “positive” for the sector.
The peak Catholic education body’s executive director, Jacinta Collins, said the Greens had shown “antipathy” towards religious schools in the past.
How could we expect a fair balance of protected rights if the Greens are ideologically opposed to religious schools?
Updated
States urge delay on NDIS bill
As mentioned earlier by Amy, there’s somewhat of a kerfuffle over an expected NDIS announcement on Wednesday.
If you cast your memory back to December, Anthony Albanese emerged from a national cabinet meeting feeling triumphant after landing a $10.5bn deal with the states and territories on NDIS.
Essentially, the commonwealth agreed to split the cost of disability services outside the NDIS with the states and territories in return for granting them a further three years of GST funding.
But in the days leading up to the leaders’ meeting, there were rumbles and grumbles about whether some states were getting more of the pie than others, while there were also concerns about the level of detail being revealed.
Now, with legislation expected to be introduced tomorrow cementing some of these agreements, the rumbles and grumbles are back.
A Victorian government spokesperson earlier today said “adequate consultation” hadn’t been undertaken and urged the government to delay the bill until it’s sorted out.
The spokesperson said:
In addition to this, the changes that are now being proposed go further than what was agreed by national cabinet and we believe will have a damaging impact on the NDIS and those who rely on it. We urge the commonwealth to delay the introduction of this bill and work in partnership with states and territories to ensure that we are getting the best outcomes for people living with disability.
Meanwhile, the NSW premier, Chris Minns, said there was a “unanimous” feeling among state and territory leaders that any federal government reform on NDIS could mean “less of a say for the states but more responsibility”.
And, importantly, it will cost the states and territories more money. Minns said:
If at the end of the day, the commonwealth charges full steam ahead, a lot of people will be off the NDIS programs and they will be tumbled into state services. I want to make sure that we catch them, and we can only do that if we can quantify how much this will ultimately cost.
Updated
Thanks Amy! A very good afternoon to everyone.
Natasha May will take you through the rest of the afternoon, but politics live will be back with you from early tomorrow morning, for what will be the last sitting day until budget week in May.
A very big thank you to everyone who followed along with us today – Paul Karp has his eye on the Senate, so check back to see how the passage of the deportation bill is going and stay tuned for all the other updates Natasha will bring you.
Until tomorrow, take care of you Ax
Updated
Fuel efficiency standard – what actually is it?
Given Josh Butler taking one for all the teams out there by a) fronting up to that press conference and b) trying to get an answer on what evidence the Coalition are basing their IT’S A TAX! line on, it might be worth looking at the definition of a fuel efficiency standard:
A new vehicle efficiency standard (or fuel efficiency standard), incentivises car companies to supply new cars that use less fuel per kilometre. Under a New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, each vehicle manufacturer has a set average CO2 target for the vehicles they produce, which they must meet or beat.
Over time, the CO2 target is lowered and in order to continue to meet or beat the target, companies must provide more choices of fuel-efficient, low or zero emissions vehicles.
The target is applied nationally on average. Suppliers can still sell any vehicle type they choose but they’ll need to sell more fuel-efficient models to offset any less efficient models they sell. If suppliers meet or beat their target, they’ll receive credits. If they sell more polluting cars than their target, they can either trade credits with a different supplier, make it up over the next two years, or pay a penalty.
For example, if a supplier generates debits in 2025, it will be able work in 2026 to generate credits to offset those debits.
So it is an incentive for car companies to have more efficient vehicles. Which the rest of the world are already receiving. And why are those more efficient vehicles cheaper in the rest of the world than they are here? Because car companies have not had the same incentives to make those vehicles cheaper, as they can dump all their old-tech vehicles here.
But because everything old is new again, the coalition is banking on, once again, people not taking in the detail and just hearing ‘tax’. Worked for the carbon levy, worked for $100 lamb roasts, and they are hoping it will work here too.
Updated
Coalition yet to see fuel efficiency standard bill but plan to vote against it
(continued from previous post)
Asked why they kept saying it was a tax, when Toyota says it isn’t, McKenzie pointed to some of Callachor’s other remarks - where he didn’t guarantee against price rises in Toyota cars as a result of the policy (which, we have to remind you, also still isn’t a tax).
“When he was asked the question about the impact on price, he refused to answer, and that’s because he knows prices are going to go up,” McKenzie claimed.
She went on to raise concerns about other Toyota vehicles, such as the HiLux and RAV4, and what she claimed was a “tax” - even as the boss of that company, we must remind you again – said “no” when asked if he thought it was a tax.
McKenzie admitted the opposition had not seen the legislation that she and O’Brien repeatedly called a tax - but that the Coalition planned to vote against it anyway.
“This remains a tax, today changes nothing in that regard,” O’Brien claimed.
“This was a tax on the family car, this is a tax on the family car, and it will be a tax on the family car,” the pair claimed in a written release.
Updated
Peak automotive body backs vehicle emissions standards
Despite the boss of Toyota flatly saying the new vehicle emissions standards are not a car tax, the opposition is still desperately clinging to that claim – despite support for the move from motoring groups and car makers.
As we brought you earlier, Toyota president and CEO Matthew Callachor joined Chris Bowen and Catherine King at their press conference, after being a previous vocal critic of the policy.
Asked if the fuel emissions standards were a “ute tax”, Callachor said there was still a “challenge” in the vehicle sector - pressed again “is this a tax”, Callachor replied “no”.
But shortly after question time, shadow infrastructure minister Bridget McKenzie and shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien repeatedly claimed it was a car tax.
At the exact time O’Brien and McKenzie were giving a press conference, the Motor Trades Association of Australia - the peak automotive retail body representing over 15,000 Australian automotive retailers - released a statement saying it “welcomes the draft New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) legislation”.
The MTAA said:
In totality, the changes should benefit the Australian consumer – reducing the very real risk of price rises and reduced access to the vehicles they want and need – while placing the country on a CO2 trajectory similar to other comparable nations.
Updated
MP criticises government’s use of NDAs on NDIS legislation
Meanwhile, there has been a lot of buzz about NDIS legislation which is supposed to be introduced into the parliament by Bill Shorten tomorrow.
There have been calls for delays, but at the moment, it seems on track for tomorrow.
Why buzz? Well because those who have seen it have apparently been made to sign non-disclosure agreements about it. It’s like a Justin Bieber party – leave your phone at the door and sign this legal contract please. Just with people’s lives.
Greens senator Jordon Steele-John is not impressed, saying in a statement:
This NDIS Legislation has been done behind closed doors, with non-disclosure agreements abound. Making advocates sign non-disclosure agreements is not genuine co-design.
The question on my mind is why has the Labor Government prepared NDIS legislation behind closed doors? What have they got to hide?
Let’s be very clear; there should be no changes to the principle of choice and control that underpins our NDIS. Disabled people should continue to have choice and control over the people who are paid to support them.
Today, we have seen premiers, chief ministers and the federal government bickering at the 11th hour over the future of disability supports in this country. The time for bickering is over, and the time for ensuring these supports work for disabled people is now.
No disabled person should be pushed by abled-bodied politicians from the NDIS into the vast gaping hole that is non-NDIS disability supports in this country.
Updated
James Paterson criticises ‘shockingly rushed’ Labor deportation bill despite Coalition backing in lower house
So far, the Coalition is supporting Labor’s desire to rush the deportation bill through the house. If the Coalition wasn’t supporting it, then it would get stuck in the Senate, where the government doesn’t have the numbers.
But so far, it is on board.
James Paterson, the shadow home affairs minister, continues to criticise the bill, which his party is supporting.
He tells Afternoon Briefing that Andrew Giles hasn’t been upfront:
No press conference, no interviews no, nothing. We have a 20-minute briefing this morning. Now we’re seeing if there can be a short two-hour hearing with the department to ask questions and establish the constitutional validity, so whether we can understand the scheme shown passed now or not. This is a shockingly rushed process by the government. To do this ahead of this upcoming ruling of the high court. That is, they could have brought the opposition into their confidence and told us what they were thinking, but instead a bill they agreed to on Friday, they have presented to us this morning and want us to pass it in 36 hours.
And yet, the Coalition voted for it in the house. So is Paterson saying the Coalition don’t know what they are voting for?
Updated
The Greens opposed that vote, as did many in the crossbench. David Pocock also attempted to amend the bill and set a reporting date in May, which was backed by the crossbench, but shut down by the major parties, Paul Karp reports.
The Senate has voted for a quick one-day hearing into the deportation bill. Labor and the Coalition voted together passing this:
That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing on 26 March 2024, of not less than two hours, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (removals and other measures) bill 2024.
Updated
Deportation bill generates more criticism
The deportation bill is going to reach the Senate this afternoon, where no doubt there will be another mess of procedure worthy of a Sunnydale High school dance.
Meanwhile the criticism from outside parliament continues to roll in.
Asylum Seekers Centre CEO Frances Rush said:
The Albanese government’s attempt to rush through new legislation to increase its powers to deport people seeking asylum and exclude people from coming to Australia based on their nationality is a draconian and inhumane move to criminalise and punish refugees seeking safety.
These laws put Australia at risk of breaching its international obligations by forcibly removing refugees to places where they face persecution and harm.
This bill must be stopped in its tracks and the Albanese government must end its harmful pattern of knee-jerk draconian legislation, de-escalate rhetoric, and prioritise a humane approach to refugees and people seeking asylum.
But with the Coalition supporting it, there is not a lot the crossbench can do, leaving the law to be challenged in the courts.
Updated
Catholic schools ‘concerned’ as Labor opens door to working with Greens on religious discrimination bill
You may have seen from Sarah Basford Canales post on the Labor caucus briefing that after yeah, nah-ing working with the Greens on religious discrimination if the Coalition and Labor can’t find common ground, Anthony Albanese has now opened the door to it being a possibility.
That has raised the ire of the National Catholic Education Commission who are very much against the idea.
National Catholic Education executive director Jacinta Collins said a Labor-Greens religious discrimination bill would not be “positive” for the sector:
We are concerned by reports from caucus today that the prime minister might negotiate with the Greens who have shown antipathy towards faith-based schools in the past, including seeking to remove school funding.
The Greens platform at the last election was to strip funding from any non-government school that preferences students or staff on the basis of a religious background.
How could we expect a fair balance of protected rights if the Greens are ideologically opposed to religious schools?
Updated
The LNP MP for Dawson gets to his feet, but Anthony Albanese is ambling over to the despatch box to free us all from this purgatory which in olden days would have been described as withering the bloom on a youngen’s cheeks. (Or maybe that was just my grandmother.)
Albanese:
I’m not sure who he is. Is he a member?
Question time ends.
Updated
Anthony Albanese has let question time drag on enough for Michael Sukkar to ask the same question he has asked all week:
Over eight of the last 10 years the number of homes built in Australia has matched the number of migrants coming in. But in last two years of your government, twice as many people are coming as houses are being built. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families who are already struggling with your cost-of-living crisis?
Albanese:
He, of course, in referring to the last 10 years ignored the fact that during this thing called the pandemic - and you’ll remember that - the borders were closed.
The borders were closed. So no one was coming in.
No one was coming. They missed that. They missed that. No one was coming in. And when the pandemic ended, their leadership – including the leader of the opposition – called for more migration, not less.
Sukkar gets up for a point of order, but Albanese decides not even he has the energy to go through all of this again, so he concludes his answer.
We move on to a dixer, which is hopefully the last one of the session.
Updated
The Liberal MP for Hughes, Jenny Ware asks Chris Bowen:
64,000 households are in electricity hardship in New South Wales. New South Wales households on hardship have increased by 82% under Labor’s watch. That’s nearly 366 households added to electricity hardship in New South Wales every week under Labor. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families who are already struggling to cope with Labor’s cost-of-living crisis?
Bowen gives a variation of the same answer we have heard for weeks:
He has it down to a pretty concise answer now:
I thank the honourable member for her question, but feel obliged to remind her that she voted against bill relief, Mr Speaker.
She voted against providing rebates to people paying energy bills as small businesses, Mr Speaker.
So instead of coming in here and asking questions about it, it might have been better she voted to support those constituencies. They might have been realistic support she could have given to her constituents. She could have actually extended a hand of friendship to the government that was introducing those coal and gas caps which have been effective, Mr Speaker, and the rebates as well. Instead, Mr Speaker, the honourable member is a member of a party which is proposing to introduce the most expensive form of energy available at $84bn for one nuclear reactor and we very much look forward to that debate.
Updated
It has just been pointed out to me that the member for Spence, Matt Burnell has been booted out of the chamber on the same day his predecessor, Nick Champion is in the chamber on a visit.
Champion was one of, if not the record holder, for 94A transgressions. He was once booted out 105 times in one term.
(That was under Bronwyn Bishop who holds the record for ejecting the most MPs – 400)
Updated
Melissa McIntosh asks Chris Bowen:
The Australian Energy Market Operator warned Australia faces a gas shortage which could emerge by next winter in the east coast market will be in supply deficit by 2028. A CEO said the gas market is a mess and, quote, ‘Something needs to change and quickly’ before large industries battle for survival and the lights go out. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families who are already struggling with Labor’s cost-of-living crisis?
Chris Bowen:
I thank the honourable member for her question and congratulate her on elevation to the frontbench and she’s asked me several questions already and she’s already the most effective shadow minister I have is faced this term, Mr Speaker.
Bowen then goes into how many times the AEMO had warned of gas shortages under the previous government (a lot) and then ends with:
Now, we inherited the situation of ongoing gas shortages and what we have done is introduce policies to alleviate the situation. That is what we have done. That’s what those opposite failed to do.
Updated
From Fallout Boy to Radioactive Man …
There has been an update from the Labor backbenches – “Hiroshima Ted” (in reference to Ted O’Brien, because he did a pro-nuclear video at the Hiroshima Peace Park) has apparently morphed into “Fallout Boy” in reference to a Simpson’s comic book character sidekick.
Which has led to Peter Dutton being referred to as Fallout Boy’s leader – “Radioactive Man”.
You are up to date on your gen X political ‘humour’ references.
Updated
Sussan Ley gets booted from the chamber after interjection as Milton Dick was warning her against interjections.
Bold, but Ley is not in the ‘find out’ times, outside the chamber.
Barnaby Joyce gets a question. Bless.
Can the minister confirm that even after the prime minister’s personal intervention to fix the mess of Labor’s new family car and ute tax, families who buy one of Australia’s most popular vehicles the Toyota Land Cruiser still be facing a tax making it more $10,000 more expensive than it is today?
It is not a tax, but at this point, there is more point just screaming into the abyss.
Chris Bowen:
I’m not sure who he think makes the Hilux. Lamborghini maybe?
Because the chief executive of Toyota was at a press conference with me … expressly disagreeing with the position just brought by the member for New England.
Who should we believe? Who should we believe about Toyota?
The member for New England or the chief executive of Toyota?
Maybe the member for New England knows more about impact on Toyota than the chief executive of Toyota?
The chief executive of Toyota said and I quote: ‘It is really been Toyota’s position for some time that we wanted a standard to basically help us with long-term product planning and where we are going and we wanted an emission standard that is basically ambitious but also brings people on a journey and does not leave people behind and that is where we are’.
And he was asked explicitly whether he agreed with the Coalition’s description of our policy (as a tax) and the honourable member guess what he said? No, Mr Speaker. Why don’t you tell us more about the position of Toyota?
Updated
Bob Katter demands government action on supermarkets
Bob Katter once again defeats the transcription service, with question on what will the government do about the supermarket duopoly.
The crossbench can’t help but smile as Katter begins his dramatic oration. Allegra Spender’s smile takes over her entire face as she follows Katter’s performance.
A farmer farms and fights disease, irrigates fertiliser, cleans and delivers to stores, Coles and Worthless (sic) pay the farmer 49c a potato, put it on the shelf and charges customers $4.50, an 800% markup.
As CEOs get tens of million dollars a year, the vanishing check-out chick gets $50,000 and in 1990, they had 50.1% market share. In 2001, that is 70.1. Add 2% a year, they have over 80%.
PM, if divestiture would be like Roosevelt, would you have your face carved on Mt Remarkable with …. (I lose it there)
One of the best, Milton Dick says.
Anthony Albanese is prepared (some on the crossbench give their questions in advance to the government, so that ministers can give an actual answer)
There is a lot of flattering of Katter, a bit of a description of the issue and then:
So what we will do, the member for Kennedy, is certainly, respond to any recommendations that are made including recommendations by the ACCC, I want to continue to work with the member for Kennedy, not sure I will continue to work on some of his creative suggestions that he has made to the landscape of far north Queensland up there.
Updated
The Labor MP for Spence, Matt Burnell gets booted during this question and answer back and forth between Sussan Ley and Anthony Albanese:
If the government energy policy is working, why are 500 families a week going onto energy hardship arrangements?
Albanese:
It was the deputy leader who was of course, one of those people who opposed our energy price relief plan.
… The fact is, what we’re doing is getting on with the job of making a difference, which is what our intervention into the gas and coal market.
… It was not something that was anticipated, because Australia, like the rest of the world, was in not anticipating the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s, since what occurred under OAPEC [Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries] way back in 1974. As a direct result, governments around the world have had to take unprecedented actions, and have the courage to do so. Which is why we intervene in conjunction with both the Labor party and coalition governments at the state level to make a difference, it would prices so as to limit those price rises but then as well, to provide relief via state and federal governments to households and to businesses.
Updated
Anthony Albanese continues:
I am surprised that they don’t want to hear that Australia has faster economic growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. Because they don’t hear about that.
But we have a lower unemployment rate than Canada, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States.
That we have faster employment growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the US and the UK. All G7 countries. We have faster employment growth.
And what we saw last week with their questions, of course, was when the figure came in at 3.7%, with record employment growth under this government now, totalling more than 3/4 of a million Australians in work.
They hated it. They talk it down. They continue to talk down the Australian economy. I am not surprised that they continue to talk down the Australian economy, because they have absolutely nothing positive to say.
Updated
Anthony Albanese answers that:
I think that shadow treasurer for his question. And for his constant talking down of the Australian economy. Constant talking down of the Australian economy.
Because he is quite upset because the comparison of Australia with the G7 or the comparison with the former government as well, shows that here in Australia, we have an economy that continues to grow. We have wages that are growing, including real wages. We have inflation which is continuing to moderate.
We have productivity that is increasing, and we have a budget that has gone from a $78,000,000,000 deficit under that mob, into a $22,000,000,000 surplus. If you compare that with other economies, in the region. We have a higher economic growth, and Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK. Not higher than the US, must be said. But higher than six of the G7 nations. We have employment growth that is higher than all of the G7 nations.
Angus Taylor jumps in because he wants an answer dammit! It was a tight question! What is the definition! (You get the idea.)
Headmaster Dugald looks like he would rather be at the dentist as he explains for the third time this week that as long as the minister is being relevant to the subject of the question, they are being relevant within the standing orders and he can not force a particular answer (in this case, the definition).
Updated
Angus Taylor asks Anthony Albanese:
Given Australia is in a GDP capital recession can the prime minister define what a GDP per capita recession is?
A per capita recession is when you take the economic output and divide it by the number of people in the economy – if that number goes backwards for two consecutive quarters, you are in a per capita recession.
So Australia nosed over into growth territory in the last quarter (I think it was 0.4%) and that was mostly thanks to population growth. So it probably feels like a recession to most of you, despite the ‘official’ definition of a recession not having been met.
Albanese has an economics degree. Taylor is a Rhodes scholar. Both of them know what’s going on, but they are coming from it from different political angles, so they are both playing dumb.
Updated
Minister defends government secrecy on fuel efficiency standards
Infrastructure minister Catherine King has defended the secrecy under which the government formulated its fuel efficiency standards, saying they needed the car industry to share “highly confidential” data with the government in order for the policy to come together.
The Labor government is coming under increased attention over its practice of asking stakeholders and those brought into policy discussions to sign confidentiality agreements. It’s a trend we’ve seen in the religious discrimination bill, NDIS consultations, and King was asked about the government’s dealings on the emissions standards today.
We’ve had to engage directly with manufacturers because the data that they have, about the models they have, the models they’re bringing to market, what their intentions are in terms of the Australian market – is highly confidential and it’s not something they all share with each other.
Many of them were very reluctant to share it with us and that’s why it was really important we kept that confidence. But we needed that data in order to make sure that we had the model right for the Australian market.
Toyota boss Matthew Callachor stopped short of confirming what pressure the EV changes could have on the prices of more traditional cars. Asked at the press conference if car prices would go up, Callachor responded that it “remains a significant challenge”.
We want to actually be able to offer people, and bring them on this carbon reduction journey over a period of time and basically not compromise them on the areas of purchase.
Australia is an extremely competitive marketplace in which we exist. You cannot afford to be mispriced. Otherwise, you’re basically not going very well at all. So from our perspective, we want vehicles to be basically practical, capable, and affordable.
Updated
Ted O’Brien, who has earned the nickname ‘Hiroshima Ted’ from government types after he filmed pro-nuclear videos at the Hiroshima Peace Park asks Chris Bowen:
My question goes to the minister for climate change and energy. The last week alone we learnt that Labor has officially broken its promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills by up to $1000. Over 500 families a week are going on energy hardship arrangements and the east coast gas market is facing material shortfalls for next year. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families already struggling to cope with Labor’s cost-of-living crisis.
Again, for a man probably better known to the public as looking like someone drew Scott Morrison from memory, he is certainly getting his time in the opposition sun.
Wait – he is booted out under 94A before Bowen gets past his first line.
Paul Karp hears him shout: “$275 - start there, minister” but Milton Dick has his headmaster Dugald hat on today, and he sends O’Brien out of the chamber.
O’Brien doesn’t miss much – the answer is the same one we have heard for the past two weeks.
Updated
Independent MP Kylea Tink asks Andrew Giles:
The refugee migration sector hold serious concerns about the impact of the migration amendment (removals and other measures) bill 2024 will have on children.
… What has the government done to ensure this legislation does not violate the foundation principle of international human rights law in relation to the best interests of the child?
Giles says:
I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and for her constructive and considered engagement on this issue and indeed on many issues relevant to the immigration portfolio, particularly those affecting refugees.
I would say in respect of her question a few things, firstly she would appreciate there is a safeguard expressly in the act which has just been passed through this house which deals with children.
I would also direct her more broadly to the more statement of compatibility of human rights which accompanies the bill which makes clear that this is a piece of legislation that is consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations.
What we’re doing with this piece of legislation, this important piece of legislation, is to fill a very significant loophole, loophole that a small cohort of people have no basis upon which to remain in Australia who are refusing to cooperate with efforts to affect their removal. Importantly as I believe the member knows and the member should know, these people are not refugees.
Updated
Peter Dutton is back, this time with a question for Richard Marles:
Can the deputy prime minister advise the House that following the government’s $5,000,000 order for nuclear reactors from Rolls-Royce, that our submariners are in the submarines with the nuclear reactor?
This is the same technique, just on a different topic – trying to get the government to say it is safe, and therefore, that all nuclear is safe.
Apart from the fact that not all nuclear reactors are the same, this is also not what the issue is. The issue has been around what the market considers to be the cheapest form of energy and nuclear isn’t in that equation.
The defence minister says:
I thank the leader of the opposition for his sneaky, gotcha question about the nuclear reactors that were being constructed at Rolls-Royce and can I just say, we are talking about sealed nuclear reactors that will never be refuelled, that are of the size to power one machine, that are not designed to power cities that will need to be disposed of for the first occasion in the early 2050s, where those opposite are talking about establishing a civil, nuclear industry which will not have any impact on the economy.
But let me make one other point - yes, the nuclear reactors will be safe for both the submariners as they will for those are on HMAS Stirling. Why? Because we are spending an enormous amount of money to make sure that they are secure.
… If you take the cost that is being spent to ensure the safety of those reactors in the nuclear-powered submarines, and you apply the cost to civil, nuclear reactors which those opposite are suggesting, what you end up with is the single most expensive source of power that can be purchased in the world in this country today.
And that is what those opposite are seeking to put before the Australian people.
The idea that you would try and draw some equivalent between small nuclear reactors which are powering a single machine with what those opposite are trying to suggest about nuclear reactors which are designed to power cities is patently ridiculous and it is the kind of analysis which underpins the ridiculous thought that those opposite are trying to put on the Australian people.
Updated
There is an attempt at a point of order, which is not a point of order. Anthony Albanese finishes with:
I suggest if the leader of the opposition wants us to go down the nuclear road, he should stop having meltdowns, Mr Speaker. He should stop having meltdowns.
He is consistently angry. Hopeless on energy but always obsessed with power.
Updated
Anthony Albanese:
… When we talk about the approaches there, we could take an approach that have taken. They have taken the nuclear road. And the leader of the opposition has said that that is where they want to go, down that road, in contravention of where the market would take us.
He says that once they are fixed for outstanding issues, safety, disposal, cost and location, then they will be right down that road.
The shadow minister came up with less impediments than the leader, to be fair.
He says there are only three issues that they need to solve. Technical feasibility, financial feasibility and community acceptability.
Apart from that, it is all good. The climate is changing but the Liberal party never will, Mr Speaker.
We saw it on Nemesis that the now leader of the opposition who used the National Energy Guarantee put forward by the former shadow treasurer to try and take the leadership and the prime ministership.
Not through a vote of the people, but through the backing of the hard right of the Liberal party.
Updated
Question time begins
OK, let’s get into question time.
Peter Dutton:
The renewables-only obsession is causing Australians energy bills to skyrocket, pushing 500 families a week into energy poverty. The National Energy Regulator is now ordered that 90% of Australians is accepting baseload energy, will leave the grid by 2034 but within the next decade. Other country will struggle to keep the lights on. Why is Albanese government making life harder for Australian families are already struggling to cope with labour’s cost crisis?
It is worth paying attention to this. Because for those who have been watching, the climate denialism has made way for climate delay-ism. The Coalition is not denying climate change is occurring any longer, they are just pushing back against the established science on how to address it, and are attempting to delay that action, by throwing doubt on whether it is the best way forward. At its core, that is what the nuclear ‘debate’ is about. It is sometimes called the ‘Gish Gallop’ which is a term created in the 1990s by someone explaining the success an American creationist had in muddying the waters when it came to explaining evolution. Steve Bannon took it to the next level by ‘flooding the zone with shit’ but essentially, it’s a technique to put forward arguments designed to overwhelm the space, regardless of accuracy or intent
Updated
Fuel efficiency standards ‘not a car tax’, Toyota CEO says
The car industry seems to have come to a somewhat amicable agreement with the government on its fuel efficiency standards, with the Toyota boss Matthew Callachor saying the changes are not a “car tax”.
Energy minister Chris Bowen crowed that the government was joined by Tesla and Toyota to announce the changes in Parliament House today. Toyota had raised concerns about the standards going too far and affecting popular models like utes and family cars, while electric vehicle maker Tesla said the standard should go further.
Bowen called the changes “sensible but long overdue”.
Not everybody here has got everything they’ve asked for; some people wanted us to go harder, faster, some had concerns and wanted us to slow,” the minister said.
Callachor said Toyota appreciated the opportunity to consult with government, saying they now supported the amended scheme, what he called “a positive step forward”.
We shouldn’t be under any illusions that there still remains a very big challenge in achieving those ambitious numbers ... but the reality is we just simply need to get on with it now,” he said.
A representative from Tesla told the press conference there had been “compromise between all the folks you see up here on stage”.
As Mr Bowen said, nobody has left with everything they wanted. This is a very moderate standard that takes Australia from being really last place in this transition to the middle of the pack, and it will save motorists thousands of dollars in petrol.
Australia has the best reserves for electric vehicles anywhere in the world.
Updated
The video team have watched some of that aforementioned mess and come up with the main objections from the 12 crossbench MPs were the only ones standing against the bill.
You can watch it here:
Updated
The bill has been read a third time.
Adam Bandt is back – because this whole thing has basically been the voting version of a Minnesota salad.
Milton Dick will report back on the point Bandt raised (it’s a question over the timing) but it is time for question time.
Updated
The House of Representatives is dividing on the third reading of the deportation bill.
Various crossbench members including Zali Steggall and Kate Chaney are trying to move amendments. The speaker is not allowing it because the division has already been called.
Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said although there had been “a debate management motion, a gag”, the resolution passed by the house had an “explicit provision to allow crossbench to move amendments”.
Bandt said “the government is breaching its own resolution, which allowed the crossbench to move amendments”.
The leader of the house, Tony Burke, said that standing orders were suspended so many of the rules the crossbench are quoting don’t apply.
The speaker confirms he will complete the division and then move to question time.
The chamber is in complete disarray.
The crossbench want to be able to move motions to try and have the deportation bill considered in more detail (which will be a moot point, but important to have the discussion).
But Milton Dick has called for the third reading vote.
There is a lot of back and forth and lots of people putting pieces of paper on their head (an old fashion call back to when MPs would put on their hat to attract the Speakers attention so they could speak on an issue)
That only happens when things are a bit of a mess.
Milton Dick calls the vote (as he had already called the division) and says he will speak to MPs individually later, after question time, which has been delayed because of the mess around this rushed vote.
Deportation bill being voted on
The deportation bill, which was only introduced a few hours ago, and on which the Human Rights Law Centre has released a highly alarming explanatory note, is being voted on in the chamber.
The standing orders were suspended to allow for the immediate vote.
The crossbench is trying to move amendments ahead of the third reading to hold up the bill to have it considered in detail.
But even if it is allowed (which it doesn’t seem it will be because of the standing orders) there is no chance of it passing
93 members are in favour of it passing (Labor and the Coalition) and the crossbench – 12 Greens, teals and independents – are the sole dissenters.
Updated
Coalition demands Senate inquiry into vaping legislation
Back to the Coalition joint party room for a moment – the Coalition is also demanding a Senate inquiry into the government’s legislation to ban non-therapeutic vapes and won’t indicate whether or not it will support it becoming law until that inquiry has occurred.
The Coalition party room decided it would back the bill in the House of Representatives but would reserve its ultimate position pending that inquiry, arguing there has been no inquiry into the issues around vaping for four years.
It wants to hear expert evidence on the likely impact on smoking rates, health outcomes and the operation of the black market on vapes and e-cigarettes and to understand implications for Customs and border protection.
It also wants to know how the government will measure the policy’s success or failure.
Updated
Deportation bill will criminalise refugees, HRLC says
The Human Rights Law Centre concludes this bill will criminalise refugees, who may never have had their claims for protection correctly assessed in the first place, will compound indefinite detention, by creating a ‘roundabout’ regime to imprison people first under this law, and then into detention because they will have committed a crime and can not be settled.
The HRLC also finds the bill imposes a travel ban and circumvents existing protection findings under Australian law, will seperate families (deliberately so) as the minister can order someone’s removal, regardless of the impact on their spouse, children or families. It will stop people from designated countries applying for visas, including those fleeing conflict and war.
And the human rights legal minds also see it as significantly expanding the powers of the minister, with no adequate safeguards. It’s what we call the ‘god’ powers, which the courts have been pushing back against.
You can see why the Coalition likes it. But it is a Labor government which has drafted and introduced this.
Updated
The Human Rights Law Centre continues:
The bill also prohibits a valid visa application from a person who is outside Australia and who is a national of a “removal concern country”. The minister may personally designate a country as a “removal concern country” if the minister thinks it is in the national interest to do so. The minister must first consult with the prime minister and the minister administering the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (Cth) (ordinarily, the minister for foreign affairs). A copy of the designation must be laid before the parliament with a statement of the minister’s reasons.
The rules of natural justice do not apply to the designation of a country.
The new prohibition on visa applications does not apply if the visa applicant:
is a national of a country that is not a removal concern country and holds a current passport for that other country;
is the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child of an Australian citizen, permanent visa holder or person who is usually resident in Australia with their continued presence not subject to limitation as to time imposed by law;
is the parent of a child in Australia who is under 18 years;
is applying for a Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) visa; or
the person is included in a class of persons, or the application is for a class of visas, determined by the minister.
In addition, the minister may personally determine that the prohibition on visa applications does not apply to a person if the minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so. However, the minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise this power in respect of any particular visa applicant, even if requested to do so.
Updated
What is the government’s deportation bill?
The Human Rights Law Centre has very quickly written up an explainer on the government’s latest deportation bill which can only be explained as ‘big yikes’.
Under the bill, the minister may direct a “removal pathway non-citizen” to do a thing, or not do a thing, if the minister is satisfied it is reasonably necessary to determine whether there is a real prospect of the person’s removal becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future or to facilitate the person’s removal.
The minister may also direct the person to:
complete, sign and submit an application for a passport, travel-related document or foreign travel document;
complete, sign and submit any other document or form required to facilitate travel;
provide documents or information to an officer or another person;
attend an interview or appointment with an officer or another person; and
report in person to an officer or another person.
Updated
Not a tax, says Toyota CEO
The boss of Toyota Australia, Matthew Callachor, is at this fuel efficiency press conference and is asked whether Toyota will still be offering the same vehicles Australians are used to (Hilux etc) or change it up because of this standard and says:
I think key to this, we’re looking for something that was ambitious but also we bring Australians along in the journey. As I said, that does leave a challenge. A significant challenge.
But I think basically from our perspective is we want to continue to be able to provide vehicles that people actually see fit for purpose and in conjunction with that, involve the technology developments over this journey, over the next years coming.
And it is a journey as we get there. You know, in summary, we basically as Toyota want to be able to offer practical capable and affordable vehicles.
Asked if it is a tax, Callachor says no.
Updated
Chris Bowen gets his time on the stage:
I’m also announcing $60m of support for Australian car dealers on charging. We recognise, not just in terms of Australian car dealers, making the very big transition to EVs and hybrids, having the chargers able to charge their stock, but providing a charging option for their customers going forward.
That $60m will be available in a competitive process and we’ll encourage and have weighting towards the dealers that make the charging available to consumers and motorists more broadly.
Updated
Fuel efficiency standards bill to be more lenient on some four-wheel drives
So what is in and out?
Catherine King:
We have responded to practical suggestions and a limited number, as I said, have responded to practical suggestions and they are, a limited number of four-wheel drives, such as the Toyota Landcruiser, great vehicle, Ford Everest will move from the passenger car to light commercial.
The new vehicle efficiency standard targets for passenger vehicles catch up to comparable economies by the end of the decade. We’re adjust what is known as the break point, recognising that heavier vehicles emit more, that means that EVs can also earn more credits.
The standard itself will begin on 1 January 2025, but the credits and penalties system won’t start until 1 July next year, and that’s to help my department with the implementation.
Updated
Labor modifies fuel efficiency standards bill
Catherine King and Chris Bowen are holding their fuel efficiency standards press conference – along with representatives from Toyota, Hyundai, the Motor Traders Association and the Dealers association, the Electric Vehicle Council, and also Tesla.
So industry is in favour of these standards. Take from that what you will.
King:
You will still be able to buy the vehicles you know and love. But there will be more options of more efficient vehicles available in the Australian market.
With no action, we know that transport emissions are expected to become Australia’s largest source of direct emissions by 2030, 60% of transport emissions come from the cars that we drive. We are proposing to reduce those emissions by half.
This is an Australian standard for Australian consumers and Australian conditions. We have consulted widely and for some time to get the model right for Australia, one that does increase choice, it reduces emissions, is sustainable, and effective, and realises fuel savings for consumers.
Updated
Peter Dutton also spoke in the party room about the proposed fuel efficiency standards that the government is about to unveil and said Labor’s “new car tax” was specifically designed to push up the price of utes and SUV’s. He said this, too, had been rushed and badly designed and emphasised that the coalition was in favour of emissions reduction but not at the expense of those who can’t afford to upgrade their vehicles and have no choice about the cars they buy.
A Coalition party room discussion on the Greens’ proposed anti-monopolies divestment legislation also covered corporate behaviour generally – especially by banks, airlines and supermarkets. Peter Dutton said Nationals leader David Littleproud and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor had established a process through shadow cabinet to address the monopolies issue.
“It will come as no surprise that it is a principle of our party not to look to the Greens for leadership on how to manage the economy,” Dutton is understood to have said. “While this is an issue of interest, it is not one on which we should be lending them any legitimacy.”
Updated
Opposition refuses to reveal position on proposed detention bill
The opposition is demanding an urgent Senate committee hearing on the government’s new bill on detainees and won’t reveal its position on the legislation itself until it gets an answer to that request.
It’s understood officials from the Department of Home Affairs will be called to appear, if it goes ahead.
In the weekly joint-parties meeting this morning, opposition leader Peter Dutton spoke about the proposed bill and suggested the government had been developing it last week and deliberately held it back until now.
On this – and on religious discrimination – he accused the government of failing to properly consult in contrast to pre-election promises of openness and transparency.
“Clearly the government is in panic mode,” Dutton is understood to have told his colleagues.
Coalition MPs received briefings from the shadow attorney general, Michaelia Cash, and the shadow immigration minister, Dan Tehan, on the religious discrimination and detention bills respectively and both criticised the way they were being handled.
Cash told her colleagues she could not find anyone who had been shown the discrimination bills in their entirety – that instead people were being given bits and pieces and told not to discuss them more widely.
Tehan told the party room that the legislation was being unnecessarily rushed.
“Let’s hope the courts know what they are doing because minister Giles does not,” he is believed to have said.
Updated
Tink says deportation bill ‘does our country and citizenry a disservice’
The independent MP Kylea Tink has told the House of Representatives that the “key weakness” of the deportation bill is its breadth.
She said:
While it seems to deal with the NZYQ cohort and the pending litigation before the high court about people who are refusing to cooperate [with deportation], the bill goes far beyond by targeting anyone on a removal pathway.
Earlier, Andrew Giles said these included “unlawful non citizens, people without any visa including those in immigration detention, bridging removal pending visa holders”, and those who hold a general bridging visa to make “acceptable arrangements to depart Australia”.
Tinks said that there is a power to use regulations to designate “any non-citizens” that can be subject to orders to facilitate deportation. She argued the bill should be changed to affect only those in the NZYQ, who were released as a result of the high court’s order that indefinite detention is unlawful if not possible to deport the person.
Tink noted this section of the bill:
It is not a reasonable excuse that the person: (a) has a genuine fear of suffering persecution or significant 4 harm if the person were removed to a particular country; or (b) is, or claims to be, a person in respect of whom Australia has 6 non-refoulement obligations.
Tink said that “even where we have a non-refoulement obligation, that’s not a reasonable excuse for non compliance”. She concluded the bill “does our country and citizenry a disservice”.
Updated
Greens and independents vote against deportation bill
On the other side to that division that Andrew Giles, Dan Tehan and their respective political parties were voting on in the deportation bill, was this image – the Greens, teals and independents voting against it.
They are outraged at this bill being rushed through given its potential impact not just on people in detention (who still have rights) but on those outside of detention as well.
Updated
Mike Bowers was also in the chamber as Andrew Giles introduced his “urgent” deportation bill.
The Coalition don’t seem to have an issue with the substance of the bill – mostly because, as Paul Karp has been covering, they would have done a very similar thing if they were in government.
Dan Tehan and Giles both seem THRILLED to be working together on this.
Updated
‘Fund our schools’ hangs over Canberra … briefly
Here is the skywriting message Caitlin Cassidy was reporting on earlier, that the Australian Education Union organised.
It says “fund our schools, PM” but as is wont with skywriting, the message doesn’t always get across.
Updated
We were expecting to hear what the government was planning to do with fuel efficiency standards at 1pm, but reporter Josh Butler says that has been pushed back to 1.30pm.
Still before question time, but cuts down on the amount of time journalists can ask questions for before the ministers (Chris Bowen and Catherine King) leave for the chamber.
Handy, that.
Updated
Private schools a “leech” on public education, Greens say
The party’s spokesperson for schools Penny Allman-Payne made the comments at a conference in Canberra.
The Australia Secondary Principals Association (Aspa) conference is being attended by dozens of educators, the Australian Education Union and the education minister, Jason Clare.
Allman-Payne used her address to point to the overfunding of private schools, including Cranbrook, which banked $650m in the decade to 2022 – 10% of which was funding from state and federal governments.
The Australian private school system is a leech on public education … it doesn’t ‘provide choice’, it leaves parents with no choice, forcing them to decide between sending their kids to an underfunded public school with decaying buildings and staff shortages, or stretching the family budget to put them in a private school.And they get to play by their own rules, whether it’s picking and choosing which students they enrol, or hiring and firing teachers on the basis of their sexuality or marital status.”
The education minister, Jason Clare, also confirmed at the conference that there will be legislation before the end of the year to raise the (somewhat arbitrary) cap of Commonwealth funding to public schools, which was previously 20%.
Labor expects the Coalition will oppose it.
Updated
Migration Amendment to affect 130 people in immigration detention
We’ve been trying to get our head around the Migration Amendment (removals and other measures) bill, which gives the immigration minister the power to direct a non-citizen who is due to be deported “to do specified things necessary to facilitate their removal”.
We’ve discovered based on briefings to the opposition, Greens, and cross-bench that the bill will affect hundreds of people in total including 130 in immigration detention, and more in the community. The cross-bench were told that “less than 1,000” in total are affected and can be subject to directions.
The bill requires non-citizens “to cooperate in efforts to ensure their prompt and lawful removal”, creating criminal penalties that could apply to a class of detainees that includes two plaintiffs before the high court challenging the legality of the detention of people who refuse to cooperate with deportation.
On Tuesday the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, introduced the bill, and the government moved to limit debate to pass the bill in the House of Representatives by question time on Tuesday, a move blasted by the Greens and cross-bench.
The leader of the house, Tony Burke, said this was due to the “strong national interest” and “time sensitivity” involved.
Giles told the House of Representatives those in scope for orders to facilitate deportation include “unlawful non citizens, people without any visa including those in immigration detention, bridging removal pending visa holders, and those who hold a general bridging visa to make “acceptable arrangements to depart Australia”.
Failure to comply with a direction without a reasonable excuse will be a criminal offence carrying a mandatory minimum of 12 months in prison, a maximum of five years, a $93,900 fine, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Updated
Labor leader sees two avenues to passing religious discrimination bill
Anthony Albanese has told his party room meeting this morning there are two pathways forward on religious discrimination either with the Coalition or the Greens.
A party spokesperson said an MP raised the issue in the Tuesday caucus, praising Albanese for liaising with the opposition on the matter but feeling concerned about the pathway forward for LGBTQ+ children.
Labor has said it has drafted two bills – one amending the Sex Discrimination Act, presumably to tweak or remove blanket exemptions allowing religious schools to discriminate and another to offer people of faith more protection to practise their beliefs.
Without the Coalition’s support, however, Albanese has said it will dump its plans to move forward with the proposals.
When asked about concerns for kids within the LGBTQI+ community, Albanese told his party room:
We are concerned about all forms of discrimination. If the Greens are willing to support the rights of people to practise their faith, then that would be a way forward but we don’t currently have that … I do not want to see a rancorous debate without achieving an outcome.”
Albanese said he did not want to see a woman in Bankstown having a hijab removed, a Jewish student being harassed or a student discriminated against for who they are.
Another party member said there were a “whole array of issues that need to be addressed” and that Labor was right to reject discrimination in all its forms.
As my colleague, Paul Karp, mentioned earlier, the Greens have yet to see the religious discrimination bill, but are pushing the government to follow the Australian Law Reform Commission report and legislate protection for queer students and teachers. They’re expecting a briefing later today.
Updated
Rebecca White will be staying on in the parliament as the state member for Lyons
Labor fell well short of the majority needed to govern on its own in Tasmania (18 seats are needed and Labor looks like winning 10) and given the support for Greens and independents it is questionable whether Labor will ever see majority government in the Apple Isle anytime in the future.
But it has also, so far, ruled out any alliance with the Greens. That has left the Liberals, who also fell short of the majority needed (by three or four seats) to form a voting coalition with the cross-bench, most likely the Jacqui Lambie Network and independents. Jeremy Rockliff called the election because he was finding it increasingly difficult to work with two former Liberals who defected to the cross-bench, but now seems to have a harder job on his hands. It seems unlikely the Liberals will see majority government in the future, either, given Tasmania’s voting trends.
It’s an interesting microcosm of what we are starting to see federally (without the Hare Clark system) so it is always worth paying attention to Tasmanian politics.
Updated
Rebecca White quits as leader of Tasmanian Labor party
Tasmanian Labor leader Rebecca White is announcing her resignation as leader:
There’s a great opportunity for whoever steps forward as the next leader of the Labor party to take it to the government. They’ve lost a lot in this election campaign, not just in terms of support across the electorate, but I think credibility too and the Labor party has an opportunity to take it to them and they’re in a good position to take it to the next election.
I’ll stay on in parliament, providing support to my colleagues and to whoever the next leader is and I’ll work beside them to make sure we can bring about the change that I know Tasmania deserves to have a Labor government elected. I’ll do everything we can to support that outcome.
Updated
Would you look at that – it seems conservatives aren’t against all fact checks, after all.
With amongst the world’s largest uranium reserves, it’s baffling that Australia is lagging internationally on nuclear energy. Ben Fordham and Ontario's Energy Minister highlight the flaws in Chris Bowen's recent comments on the cost of nuclear power. https://t.co/O443creGsc
— Tony Abbott (@HonTonyAbbott) March 26, 2024
The parliament session is now officially under way
First cab off the legislation rank – the deportation bill Paul Karp broke news on and has been updating all morning.
Updated
Regulator addresses banking summit
Another of the speakers at that AFR banking summit in Sydney was John Lonsdale, chair of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (who has the reassuring if rather grey accountant’s demeanour you probably want for someone in such a role).
APRA, anyway, has begun planning its first financial system stress test – which seems a bit overdue, given GFC, pandemic panics and so forth.
Banks, though, have already had similar test runs, including assuming supply shocks, higher inflation for longer, weaker global growth and so on.
For the domestic scene, inflation is expected to rise to 8.6%, GDP to shrink 4% and the jobless rate to roughly triple to 10%. Property prices would fall 35% over three years. (That’s just a scenario, mind.)
Overall, we found the results encouraging,” Lonsdale said. “All [or the 11 tested] had significant capital to survive the downturn” and had enough in reserve to support the recovery.
Phew.
Lonsdale listed a few other risks (eg a commercial property downturn) before he got to climate threats. Lonsdale noted that the “declining affordability and accessibility” of securing property insurance in many parts of Australia “isn’t only a bad thing for those communities”.
It also impacts the ability of households to get credit to rebuild after disasters, or to repay loans,” he said.
We’re already seeing that in soaring premiums if you live near areas that have flooded of late, or been hit by bushfires. And, given the way we seem determined to energise the atmosphere by loading it with greenhouse gases, we’re likely to get a lot more stress tests, banking and otherwise, in a hotter world.
Updated
David Pocock condemns Labor’s actions on deportation bill
The independent senator has commented on the government’s bill to require immigration detainees and other unlawful non-citizens to cooperate with deportation.
Pocock said:
I’ve got serious concerns about the way Labor is going about this, to give the cross-bench a briefing at 8:45am and say we want this through the parliament in the next day or two.
How are you meant to get across it and consult?
These are important debates, important issues. You want to way up community safety and orderly borders with human rights. It’s so disappointing to see Labor government going down this path. They criticised the Morrison government over a lack of transparency, a lack of process and here we are, they’re doing the exact same thing. So incredibly disappointing.”
Updated
Greens senator Janet Rice’s valedictory speech will be this evening
Rice has been in the Senate since 2013 and says a decade on, she believes the time is right to pass the baton on to a younger generation.
I entered the Senate with a mandate to represent Victorians who want to see urgent action on the climate crisis, and who want to see politics work for people, not billionaires and big corporations. Those fights are far from over.
What does it say that in a wealthy country like ours, we are dooming millions of our citizens to debilitating financial stress, poverty and starvation?
Right now, many Australians with full-time work are barely scraping by in this cost-of-living crisis, and it’s far worse for those on Centrelink poverty-payments like Jobseeker and Youth Allowance.
Especially in this last term of government, the Greens have secured some significant wins for renters, the environment, and combating climate change. But as I conclude my time in the Senate, I see so much more work that needs doing, and on a larger scale and faster timeline to effectively tackle the cost-of living, housing and climate crises.
Rice says she leaves politics believing in representative democracy – but that people have to make it work for them.
Updated
Swift declaration
Greens leader Adam Bandt is the latest federal MP to declare free tickets to Taylor Swift’s Australian concert tour. The Melbourne MP declared four tickets to Swift’s Melbourne concert “at MCG from Frontier Touring” – His update to the register was dated Monday 25 March, and uploaded to the register of interests on Tuesday, after the publication of Guardian Australia’s article on Monday evening.
We reported earlier that PM Anthony Albanese, sports minister Anika Wells and Labor MP Alison Byrnes have also declared receiving tickets to the pop star’s concerts last month.
Updated
So coming up we have:
The fuel efficiency standards announcement.
The Coalition reaction to the fuel efficiency standards announcement.
Tasmanian Labor leader Rebecca White’s expected resignation.
The Coalition decision on the Nationals’ supermarket divestiture bill.
Labor’s introduction of its latest deportation bill, which the Coalition is not arguing with on merit (as an idea of its likely support).
Question time.
And all in the next couple of hours! What. a. Treat.
Updated
Sky-high hopes for increased school funding
If Anthony Albanese dips out for a breath of fresh air today he may be struck by skywriting reading ‘FUND OUR SCHOOLS PM’ above Parliament House.
The skywriting has been organised by the Australian Education Union, who have travelled to Canberra to renew their push for the full funding of public schools.
The education minister, Jason Clare, has struck deals with Western Australia and the NT to reach 100% of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) by 2026 and 2029 respectively, however remaining states (excluding the ACT, the only jurisdiction to have reached the target) are holding out.
They want the commonwealth to front a 5% increase in public school funding, double the 2.5% offered to WA. The AEU has backed them in, with all state presidents joining Correna Haythorpe, the federal head, to admire the skywriting on the parliament lawns.
Updated
Tasmanian Labor leader to address media
Rebecca White has announced a press conference in just under an hour.
White is expected to announce she is stepping down as leader.
Adam Morton tells me Dean Winter from the right and Josh Willie from the left are the most likely candidates to take her place.
We’ll keep you posted.
Updated
A crisis of note?
Are we about to run out of cash? Not if the big four banks, the duopolistic supermarkets, Wesfarmers (DYI monopoly?) and Australia Post (sign here) have anything to do with it.
The AFR today “splashed” in its print edition about a “last-minute lifeline” being extended by the above Great Eight (we added that bit) to rescue the Lindsay Fox-owned cash transport firm Armaguard.
The article suggested the bucks will stop here if Armaguard doesn’t get “tens of millions of dollars to allow it to deliver cash until the second half of the year”. Since we’re about 13 weeks or so until 30 June, that rate of losses suggests those cash trucks need to retain a bit of their load for themselves.
The prominence of the article might have had something to do with the AFR holding its annual banking summit in Sydney.
Anyway, Anna Bligh, the chief executive of the Australian Bankers Association, was happily among the first speakers at the event.
As it happens, negotiations are still continuing and are “getting to the pointy end”. The aim is to “effectively buy some time for us” until the consortium can work out what’s needed to make cash dispersal across the nation “sustainable over the next three, five or 10 years”.
Bligh described it as “a pretty ugly picture” since we’re all going to need “significantly less cash” in the future but we still need to take the notes (and coins) “to some of the most remote places on Earth”.
“We need to stabilise the cash-in-transit business while we do that hard thinking,” she said.
You’d have to think the government will be asked to intervene at some point - can some kind of nationalisation be that far off?
Updated
Liberal senator weighs in on deportation bill
James Paterson has waded into the deportation bill commentary, and like Paul noted with Dan Tehan, doesn’t seem to be able to criticise the bill (because it seems like something the Coalition would have put forward itself) so goes after the ‘urgency’ aspect.
Which doesn’t make sense, as the Coalition had previously been attacking the government for not moving fast enough to get ahead of the NZYQ decision, which kicked all of this off.
(It’s almost as if nothing will actually stop the Coalition’s political attacks!)
It feels like Groundhog Day. Another day, another rushed, patch up job from a panicked government when it comes to border protection, national security and community safety.
This is now the fourth piece of legislation that the Albanese government has dropped on the opposition and the cross-bench in the parliament and asked us to pass in as little as 36 hours to deal with the rolling crisis of immigration detention and the harm some of those former detainees are now doing now that they are released into the community.
They have asked us to do so without so much as a Senate inquiry. They have given us just an hour or so notice of their intention to introduce this into the House and to seek passage through the house this morning.
And they are expecting the parliament to pass it through the Senate tomorrow, so this legislation can receive royal assent and be law. This is shocking process. Perhaps if it was only done once, that would be OK. Perhaps if it was in response to a genuine and urgent crisis, that would be okay. But Murray Watt had publicly announced eight days ago that this legislation would be coming forward. We now know it was finalised on Friday.
It apparently went through a Labor caucus committee last night, and the opposition has only been told of it this morning. That’s an extraordinary demand on the parliament, on all of us. We think there should be a Senate inquiry. And frankly, we think the government should stand up and explain this morning what this legislation does and why it’s necessary. Where is the Minister for Home Affairs? Where is the Minister for immigration? When will they stand up and explain what is in this legislation and why is it necessary?
What is in the legislation?
Paterson:
That’s for the government to explain.
Updated
Greens party room update
In the Greens party room, the deportation bill was discussed in addition to the offshore gas bill.
The Greens may support a Coalition push for a Senate inquiry into the deportation bill, but this wasn’t resolved.
The party seems confident that the gas bill will now not be brought on for a vote in the Senate this week, both because it has agreement for the government on that, and because the immigration bill will take precedence. They are worried that a slate of government bills – including abolishing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, creating digital ID and on multinational tax – will be further delayed.
The Greens have not yet seen the religious discrimination bill, but are pushing the government to follow the Australian Law Reform Commission report and legislate protections for queer students and teachers. They’re expecting a briefing later today.
The Greens divestiture (supermarket) bill will be debated tomorrow.
Senator Janet Rice is retiring and will give her valedictory tonight. Penny Allman Payne is the new party room chair.
Updated
Greens says new Labor detention bill ‘trying to outflank the Coalition to the right’
The Green’s new immigration spokesperson, David Shoebridge, has slammed Labor’s new bill creating criminal penalties for refusing to cooperate with deportation.
Shoebridge said:
This is part of an ongoing cruelty agenda from Labor, in this case literally trying to out flank the Coalition to the right by coming up with new and novel ways to be cruel particularly to refugees and asylum seekers.
The Greens are concerned that the new powers to direct people to cooperate with deportation extend not just to those in immigration detention, but to hundreds more in the community on bridging visas; and that non-citizens will be required to do such things as apply for a passport from the country they are claiming protection from such as Russia or China.
Updated
Everything we know about the emergency immigration bill
You can read more about the bill Labor will be rushing through to get ahead of a coming high court decision involving immigration detainees, here:
Immigration detainees are being threatened with a minimum of one year in prison if they refuse to co-operate with efforts to deport them, under an urgent Labor bill to be introduced on Tuesday.
The bill requires non-citizens “to cooperate in efforts to ensure their prompt and lawful removal”, creating criminal penalties that could apply to a class of detainees that includes two plaintiffs before the high court challenging the legality of the detention of people who refuse to co-operate with deportation.
ASF17, a man who says he fears for his life if he is deported to Iran because he is bisexual, has sued the commonwealth in a case to be heard in April that could result in more than 170 people being released from detention.
Updated
Crossbench joins forces with advocates to push to scrap activity test from childcare subsidies
The push for the government to remove the activity test from the child care subsidy (the amount of subsidy you receive is contingent on income and your “activity” (work and study, mostly) has once again begun in earnest, with the crossbench joining with advocates to call on the government to scrap the measure.
Updated
Cyclone evacuees call for review of emergency measures in wake of Tropical Cyclone Megan
The Northern Land Council has met with Borroloola flood evacuees in Darwin and heard about the failings in the emergency management and evacuation process for the remote community in the lead up to Tropical Cyclone Megan’s devastating impact.
The NLC said the response to the severe flooding in the community, which is 970km south-west of Darwin, “has again revealed the inadequacy of emergency response measures”.
The NLC and the community want an urgent review of emergency communications, evacuation procedures and its future preparedness, given the increased risk of these events, because of a changing climate.
On the Friday, March 15, the NLC was already fielding alarmed calls from Borroloola residents who were being severely impacted by pre-cyclone flooding. People were having difficulties reaching emergency services, including being redirected to interstate call centres which were unaware of Borroloola’s location.
Evacuation flights were unable to land at first, forcing the town’s 700 residents to try and bunker down in the local police station, health centre and some homes which were cyclone graded, meaning many were stranded in unsuitable premises.
The community believe there should have been an earlier evacuation call and want the government (territory and federal) to review its procedures for these events.
Updated
Lidia Thorpe moves Senate order to release legal funding report
Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has moved an order in the Senate for the government to produce the independent review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership (NLAP), prepared by Dr Warren Mundy, which was handed to Mark Dreyfus two weeks ago but has not yet been released.
The report outlines the state of legal assistance funding. Anyone paying attention knows that legal support centres are underfunded and struggling to keep up. Thorpe wants the report made public, so people can see what is actually occurring.
From her release:
The NLAP includes funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, legal aid commissions and community legal centres.
With the current NLAP due to expire in 2025, the independent review considered how future arrangements could better provide access to justice for all who need it.
The legal assistance sector, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family violence prevention legal services, remain critically underfunded.
Legal assistance service demand has increased by up to 100% since 2018, with government funding failing to maintain service delivery.
Updated
Party room press briefings to be held shortly
There has been a slight lull while the party room meetings finish up – we will be hearing the Greens briefing very soon.
The party room meetings are confidential, but the parties hold background briefings following their conclusion where they read out the minutes of the meeting to journalists.
It is all deidentified (except for the messages from the leaders the parties want out – for example you’ll hear how Anthony Albanese said “this opposition is hopeless and we have to keep showing how hopeless they are through good government” or Peter Dutton told the room “this government is hopeless and we have to keep showing how hopeless they are …” yadda, yadda, yadda).
Updated
Gambling commission says if Crown makes any regressions ‘full extent of the law will be brought against them’
Fran Thorn says the commission will continue to hold Crown Melbourne to account:
Crown themselves have changed … If there is any regression to old Crown, one that lied, obfuscated, used legal power to bully, Crown can be assured the full extent of the law will be brought against them.
Updated
Crown casino Melbourne permitted to retain licence, regulator rules
Crown Resorts will be allowed to retain the state’s sole license to run the lucrative Melbourne casino, the state’s gambling watchdog has ruled.
Fran Thorn, the chair of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, says it is in the public interest for Crown to retain its license:
We have observed a very different Crown emerging with a clear understanding of the privilege and obligations of holding the license.
Thorn says the commission is satisfied that the “systemic failings of Crown Melbourne are a thing of the past.”
A Victorian royal commission in 2021 found Crown’s conduct was “illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative” but did not recommend the government strip its casino license. It was given two years to reform under a special monitor before the commission determined if it was suitable to hold its license.
Updated
Bowen and King call press conference on Labor’s fuel efficiency standards
Looks like we are about to get the information on the fuel efficiency standards the government will be putting forward – Chris Bowen and Catherine King have called a press conference for 1pm (just ahead of question time)
The US backdown on stronger standards has led to reports (which look correct, from the chats I’ve had) that Australia won’t be going as hard as first planned.
It’s not a tax though, whatever the Coalition call it.
Updated
Decision imminent on Melbourne Crown casino licence
We are waiting on the decision this morning to learn whether Crown casino has done enough to appease the Victorian regulator and keep its gaming licence for Melbourne.
The regulator had given Crown two years to change up its operations following a royal commission into its operations.
Here is a quick catch up:
Updated
Emergency bill would give power to bar new visa applications from nations named as a ‘removal concern country’
Back to Labor’s urgent legislation being introduced today – the bill also creates a power for the government to designate another country as a “removal concern country”, which will impose a bar on new visa applications from non-citizens outside Australia who are nationals of a country that does not accept removals from Australia.
The power that could affect applicants hoping to leave countries including Iran, Iraq and Sudan. The memorandum said this was “an appropriate and proportionate measure” to “slow down that entry pipeline into Australia and reduce growth in the cohort of potentially intractable removals over time”.
Updated
Coalition party room to meet on Nationals supermarket legislation; will not support Greens on similar bill
The Coalition joint party room will be discussing the Nationals push to bring the supermarket duopoly to heel, which is seperate from the Greens push to do the same thing (which will be debated today in the Senate).
At one point, the Greens and the Nationals looked like teaming up on the issue – which happens once in a blue moon, and usually over consumer issues; the last time was the banking royal commission (which the Liberals opposed for quite some time).
Simon Birmingham said the Liberals will look at the Nationals pitch, but won’t be supporting the Greens:
We won’t be supporting or considering or taking economic policy from the Australian Greens. Ultimately, we want to ensure we have a competitive environment in Australia. An environment that also has profitable businesses that are necessary for the strength of our economy and the superannuation returns of many Australians
Updated
Ask Amy: what are explanatory memoranda?
Explanatory memoranda are the parts of the legislation which explains a bills aims and content in normal language (non-legalese).
The purpose of the explanatory memoranda is for the public to understand the intent of what a piece of legislation would do. But it also helps legislators understand the intent of the bill. A lot of times, legislation is so technical that unless you are an expert in every part of the law (I’ve yet to meet one), understanding what a particular bill will do is virtually impossible.
They didn’t become standard practice in federal parliament until 1982 – there were statements which would often accompany a bill once passed, but they weren’t indexed, could be hard to find, and didn’t apply to every piece of legislation.
The first explanatory memorandum published in commonwealth parliament was in 1905, when the copyright legislation was submitted – it was decided that because of the technical nature of the bill, it would assist parliamentarians to understand in plain English everything that was being changed. It was considered a “very useful paper” and was used off and on before the early 1980s when it became part of creating legislation itself.
Updated
New immigration bill to create offence for failing to comply with deportation
Just returning to the urgent legislation bill Labor will introduce today: the new immigration bill creates an offence of failing to cooperate with deportation.
Further details on the bill from the explanatory memorandum:
The new powers in this bill will enable the minister to give a direction to a removal pathway non-citizen to do specified things necessary to facilitate their removal.
Failure to comply with a direction, without a reasonable excuse, will be a criminal offence carrying a mandatory minimum of 12 months in prison, a maximum of five years, 300 penalty units of both.
The explanatory memorandum sets out a number of safeguards including that the minister must not give a direction if the non-citizen has applied for a protection visa. The non-citizen “cannot be direct to interact with or be removed to a country in respect of which the non-citizen has been found to engage Australia’s protection obligations”; however, they may otherwise be given a direction to do certain things necessary to facilitate their removal to a safe third country”.
Updated
Birmingham calls for government transparency on proposed religious discrimination bill
On the upcoming meeting between Mark Dreyfus and Michaelia Cash on the religious discrimination legislation, Simon Birmingham says:
I think the government needs to be transparent in its approaches here. I still haven’t seen that bill, nor, of course, have basically hardly any of the Members of Parliament across this building. And of course, the stakeholders have been engaged on it, have rarely, if any, seen the totality of the bill and not been able to talk freely with their constituents about it. So, there needs to be some transparency to this if it is to be resolved sensibly.
(The government has said it will not go ahead without bipartisan support, and is so far ignoring entreaties from the Greens to work with them on the legislation.)
Updated
Birmingham echoes ‘serious concerns’ over Chinese-backed hacking
Liberal senator Simon Birmingham has spoken on the international statements (UK, US among them, and Australia has also released a statement on this) in regard to cyber attacks in their countries. He echoes Penny Wong and Clare O’Neil’s “serious concerns”:
In particular, we’ve seen attribution to Chinese entities of attacks on the UK electoral system of attacks targeting particularly UK politicians as well as in the US attribution of Chinese entities targeting many numbers of Americans.
These are deeply troubling instances. They are a reminder of the seriousness of the security environment that we all face.
It is a situation where the government needs to continue to invest in relation to Australia’s cyber protections, and particularly the protection of our electoral systems, to ensure that Australians can have absolute confidence that our systems are robust and protected from the types of malicious cyber activity that we see targeting democracies around the world.
Updated
Labor to introduce amended detention legislation bill today
OK, we now have a copy of the migration amendment (removal and other measures) bill, the urgent bill Labor will introduce today.
According to the explanatory memorandum:
The bill strengthens the integrity of the migration system by requiring non-citizens who are on a removal pathway and have exhausted all avenues to remain in Australia to cooperate in efforts to ensure their prompt and lawful removal. The amendments in the bill are necessary to address circumstances where non-citizens who have no valid reason to remain in Australia and who have not left voluntarily as expected, are not cooperating with appropriate and lawful efforts to remove them.
The bill amends the Migration Act to set out a clear legislative expectations in relation to the behaviour of non-citizens who are on a removal pathway.
There are currently two immigration detainees, ASF17 and AZC20, who are before the high court, and a key part of their case is that there is no obligation on detainees to cooperate with deportation.
It looks like the government is legislating to create such an obligation to weaken their case. Despite the commonwealth claiming in internal documents we revealed last week that they are confident of winning, the government is further strengthening its hand.
No wonder Dan Tehan had no criticism of the substance of the bill.
Updated
Dan Tehan says Labor approach to immigration detention ‘lacks transparency’
The shadow immigration minister, Dan Tehan, has held a press conference complaining that the government’s approach to immigration detention is “chaotic” and “lacks transparency”.
Despite that criticism, Tehan would not say what is in Labor’s bill. Instead, he criticised that Labor only offered a 20 minute briefing at 8am, but the legislation appears to have been drafted on Friday.
The opposition wants an urgent inquiry hearing on Tuesday evening to probe the bill and check for “unintended consequences”.
We’re still working out what’s in the bill - and how it might boost deportation powers.
Updated
The party room meetings are being held this morning, so the parliament won’t sit until midday.
We’ll have news of what went on in the party rooms between 10am and 11.30am (which is usually when the briefings are held)
Shadow immigration minister refuses to answer questions on what is in new urgent legislation
Dan Tehan is holding a door stop (quick press conference) following the news the Coalition has been briefed on urgent legislation to deal with a new cohort of people considered to be “uncooperative detainees”.
He doesn’t seem to be budging from the script:
Shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan refuses to answer questions about what's in the legislation - just criticises govt for not telling opposition sooner, and asks for urgent inquiry hearing tonight.
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) March 25, 2024
Updated
Immigration minister responds to news on urgent legislation
A spokesperson for the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, has responded to Paul Karp’s breaking news (in the post below) about the urgent legislation:
The Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will further strengthen our immigration detention network by providing extra tools to deport individuals from Australia.
Updated
Labor briefs opposition on urgent legislation around uncooperative detainees
Guardian Australia understands that Labor has briefed the opposition on urgent legislation to deal with ASF17, the high court case about uncooperative detainees.
Last week we revealed via a leaked document that more than 170 people might have to be freed if the government loses this case.
These include:
More than 110 “involuntary individuals”, whose home countries will not issue a travel document or facilitate removal;
More than 40 who could fall into scope who have not yet lodged protection visa applications; and
More than 20 who have asked to be deported – which enlivens a statutory obligation for them to be removed – but their cases have not been referred to Australian Border Force.
Updated
Nationals say they are working with the Liberals on supermarket power safeguard legislation
There is a lot of attention on the big supermarkets from the Greens, the Nationals and members of the crossbench like Bob Katter, Andrew Wilkie and Andrew Gee, with a couple of competing pieces of legislation released which ultimately seek to do the same thing – stop the supermarkets from having so much power.
The government hasn’t exactly leapt to support any of the legislation – it has a committee process underway, and is using that as a “wait and see” (there are, across the nation, six inquiries into the major supermarket duopoly)
Without government support, all of these private members bills are moot, because they can’t get through the House, where the government holds the numbers.
But there isn’t a lot of cross-party/independent support for the seperate bills either. The Greens and Nationals have been in talks (and the last time those two parties teamed up, the banking royal commission was established, so it’s not as strange as it seems), but it seems like Nationals leader David Littleproud is now looking to his Coalition partner (the Liberals) for support.
He told Sunrise:
Obviously while we agree with the intent of what the Greens are trying to achieve here, in principle there’s some design flaws in their legislation that we haven’t agreed to yet.
And we’ll struggle to in the current design. What I can tell you is that I’ve struck an agreement with the Liberal party about us designing, and constructing what will go to the heart of making sure that there are is proper safeguards around it, particularly things like where there’s real estate banking by big supermarkets, to protect small independents and to grow competition.
But also scaling penalties. Punitive penalties into the tens of millions of dollars as well as looking at cheap independent arbiters for supplies.
And making sure that we have a ACCC that is agile enough to not only look at the supermarket but things like Bunnings for our nurseries. The Liberals and the Nationals have got to that agreement. We want to work through that. That’s something we have to take to the party room this morning. They see the need for some action as well, but the bill that the Greens put in place, was deficient in design.
Updated
Australian Chamber of Commerce pushes for 2% minimum pay rise
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has put forward its submission to the Fair Work Commission on the minimum wage increase – and has landed on 2%.
The ACTU has gone with 5%. The government has said it doesn’t want workers to go backwards. Inflation is at 4%.
The ACCI says that wage costs are impacting businesses, that last year’s increase (5.75%) overestimated inflation and that another, similar increase will put business against the wall.
In terms of business against the wall – that’s pretty similar to what they said last year. And the year before. And yet, so far, businesses are not closing at the rate the ACCI warned they would. So why should anyone listen to those same warnings this year?
Chief executive Andrew McKellar told ABC radio:
I think there’s a number of factors that have to be taken into account here … last year we put forward a higher recommendation than we are this year.
The commission last year, granted a very big increase. So in terms of the minimum wage, last year, it was around 8.6%, well above the rate of inflation and … we’re seeing data we released with Westpac’s industrial trends survey for the March quarter, just yesterday, that shows that business conditions have got markedly tougher since the December quarter last year.
We’re seeing orders dropping away. We’re seeing investment moving sideways, we’re seeing a real sense of pessimism for many in business and importantly, labour demand is also starting to drop away.
So when you put those things together, when you put that together with the fact that inflation is coming off 4.1% in the last figures is expected to go lower.
When we get the March quarter figures next month. Productivity has been incredibly weak over the past 12 months, in fact, possibly negative. When you put all of that together, then we think that an increase of not more than 2% is the right outcome.
Updated
Paul Karp has covered the latest Essential poll here:
After the Coalition took the lead against Labor in February for the first time since the Albanese government’s election, the opposition appears to have retained an edge in two-party preferred terms with 50% of voters planning to vote for the Coalition versus 44% for Labor while 6% remain undecided.
Excluding undecided voters, the Coalition leads Labor 53% to 47%, up from 50-50 earlier in March, indicating the results are volatile but trending in the opposition’s direction.
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton’s approval ratings are largely unchanged. Both have a -3% net favourability rating, with 35% of people polled giving Albanese a negative rating of between 0 and 3 on a 10 point scale, and 32% a positive rating of 7 to 10. For Dutton, 34% rated him negatively and 31% positively.
Updated
Australia joins UK in condemning China-backed cyber attacks
Penny Wong and Clare O’Neil have released a joint statement joining with the United Kingdom “in expressing serious concerns about malicious cyber activities by China state-backed actors targeting UK democratic institutions and parliamentarians”.
That is in response to this story:
The persistent targeting of democratic institutions and processes has implications for democratic and open societies like Australia. This behaviour is unacceptable and must stop.
Australia calls on all states to act responsibly in cyberspace.
Australia’s electoral systems were not compromised by the cyber campaigns targeting the UK. Australia remains well positioned to continue to resist and address threats to our electoral roll. This is critical to maintaining public trust in our democracy.
Australia will continue to cooperate with our international partners to promote international law and the agreed framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace and call out states if they act contrary to these international obligations and expectations.
The ministers say the Australian Electoral Commission has strong measures in place to protect the electoral roll information.
This includes working closely with members of the electoral integrity assurance taskforce to ensure Australia’s systems are protected from the threat of foreign interference.
Updated
Greens question if Labor will keep its election promise on discrimination
That leads to a what Adam Bandt thinks of the government’s position on religious discrimination – that it will only move forward if it has bipartisan support with the Coalition.
The Greens have offered to work with the government to pass legislation in this space, which, on the numbers, would pass the legislation in the senate without the Coalition’s support (the government would only need the support of a couple of the crossbench independent senators, and given the progressive nature of the Senate, it would be in a good position to receive that on this issue).
The government however, is putting the ball in the Coalition’s court, saying it won’t move without their support. Which so far, is not happening, as Labor and the Coalition are at cross purposes over what the bill should contain.
Bandt says:
We want to know whether Labor’s intending to keep its election promise – it went to the election very clearly saying that it would protect people from discrimination protect teachers and students from discrimination, while also taking steps to present prevent religious victimisation.
We want to know whether they are intending to keep their promises. We want to see legislation and we were promised a briefing. We’re getting a briefing, whether we’ll see the legislation or not, I don’t know.
I think legislation should be released. But the primary question is does the government intend to keep an election promise?
Or does Peter Dutton get a veto now over government election promises is there an asterisk on everything that Labor says that it’s Labor promises to do something, but only if Peter Dutton agrees?
We want to see what the legislation is we’re prepared to work with the government on this, and we want to see more protections for people in this country.
But the starting point is we’re not yet clear where the Labor wants to keep the election commitment at made to people in this country.
Updated
Bandt: Labor has to choose who they want to work with on climate
So is it linked?
Adam Bandt:
We’re saying to the government, they’ve got to choose who they want to work with on climate.
They want to work with us, we’re prepared to pass the legislation.
If they want to work with the climate deniers in Peter Dutton to lift pollution by fast-tracking gas projects in the middle of the climate crisis, then they can go and work with him for the rest of this year, including on their other legislation.
Pressed on that, Bandt says:
We’re saying to the government very, very clearly, that if Labor presses ahead with their plan to open up these massive new climate bombs in the middle of a climate crisis, then we’re going to reconsider our approach to the remainder of the legislation.
Why should the Greens help Labor with legislation to cut pollution on Monday, if Labor is going to turn around and work with Peter Dutton on Tuesday to lift pollution even more by opening new gas mines?
… I thought when we came to this parliament we’d be having a discussion with Labor about how quickly we cut pollution and get out of coal and gas.
I didn’t imagine Labor would be working with the climate deniers and Peter Dutton to fast track the opening of new gas projects by bypassing First Nations people and existing environment laws. So Labor needs to choose who they want to work with here.
Updated
Bandt confirms they will pass fuel efficiency standards if Labor drops gas deal with Coalition
So will the Greens hold up support for the fuel efficiency standards (which the Coalition do not support) if the government does a deal with the Coalition on gas?
Adam Bandt:
We’d like to say tougher vehicle emission standards so that we make electric cars cheaper and get more of them on the road quicker.
We want to say a target for example, in 2030, where you’re only buying electrical zero emissions vehicles.
We’ve made an offer to Labor that nonetheless, we would pass the legislation that they’ve announced up to date – if they weaken it, then we’re going to have to reconsider our position. But we’ve said to Labor, we’ll pass your legislation even though we’d like it to go further.
That sounds like the Greens will not link it to gas then.
Bandt:
That’s what I was about to say – we’ve offered to Labor, that we will pass your legislation even though we’d like it to go further. But you’ve got to drop this fast-track[ed] gas deal with the Coalition.
Updated
Bandt frustrated with Labor’s strategy of working with Liberals and tuning out crossbench
Greens leader Adam Bandt is speaking to ABC radio RN Breakfast about the government’s new gas bill which has created tension between the crossbench and Labor.
The Coalition appear to be supporting the government in this, which means the government doesn’t need to negotiate with the Greens or independents, a position which Labor is increasingly favouring when it comes to legislation.
Anthony Albanese has been very public about his “middle-of-the-road” strategy, which he believes will see Labor re-elected by appealing to voters put off by progressive politics (or on the other side, overly conservative politics). Labor is also fighting perceptions of a Labor-Greens alliance, meaning it is turning to the Coalition for legislative support, rather than going through the trouble of negotiating with the Greens.
It’s frustrating Bandt, who said he thought he’d be entering a much different parliament.
Labor is now working with the Liberals to fast-track gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.
Labor are climate con artists, they say that they want to cut emissions one day, and then they turn up to parliament the next and work with Peter Dutton and pass laws to fast track climate-destroying gas projects on emissions.
Updated
McManus welcomes ‘needed’ migration but says training in trades needs investment too
In the never ending push and pull over migration, building groups have joined the call to increase the number of tradies being brought into Australia through its migration programs to increase the housing supply.
To meet the goal of building 1.2m new homes every year, builders lobby groups say the nation will need 90,000 new workers in the next quarter (everyone is working to the new financial year here).
Peter Dutton called for an increase in skilled trades people being brought in late last year (but overall he still wants to see the numbers of migration drop).
This is not a new problem and it hasn’t happened in a vacuum overnight – it’s something which has been building over the last decade, both in terms of not enough new builds and not enough people being trained. The Coalition were in government for almost a decade and didn’t address this, so it is going to take more than just yelling from the sidelines to find a solution.
Sally McManus says:
The first has to be investing on training our people for apprentices, and so there’s been a lot of effort put there in terms of encouraging people and women, too, into the trades, to do that. So we should always be thinking about that.
Part of the reason why we’re in this trouble at the moment is because we didn’t invest for so long. And so now we don’t have enough skilled workers and where we’re going to bring in skilled migration - we’ve got to make sure that there’s proper shortage.
So the good thing is that the government set up a process to make sure that it is not a dodgy process and if they’re genuinely needed, that you do bring people in and also give them a path to permanency as well. And that stops exploitation.
Updated
ACTU boss calls for 5% pay rise for workers
Sally McManus says 5% is fair, given inflation is running at 4% and workers shouldn’t go backwards. Who would it benefit the most?
The average award or minimum-wage worker is a 35-year-old woman. So, she is likely to be in places like – she might be a childcare worker for example, or she might work in the community sector, she might work for maybe a clerical worker in a business somewhere.
So obviously, she’s got to pay her rent, she’s got to pay her groceries and she’s not been keeping up. So that means cut back and that’s cutbacks too, for businesses, if their customers don’t have money to pay for what they would normally pay for.
Updated
Union boss: claims minimum-wage workers are overcompensated are ‘appalling’
On ABC TV News Breakfast, ACTU boss Sally McManus has responded to the chamber of commerce and industry claims that minimum wage workers were over compensated for inflation last year in the fair work commission decision.
McManus says:
I think it’s pretty sad, actually. Appalling, that they’re saying that people should have a 2% increase.
They’re saying that the lowest-paid workers in the country should go backwards even further. I think that they need to consider … that those workers are actually the customers of their businesses.
Businesses are actually doing very well, if you want to put it into perspective.
The profits of the Commonwealth Bank, they in one year, would pay for the whole 5% increase for 2.9 million workers and still be one of the most profitable companies in the country for small businesses.
They’re able to adjust their prices if things go up. So like if their products go up in costs, they can adjust the prices. The only time that workers can adjust their prices to keep up with all of the wages is in the annual wage review or the bargaining with the union members.
Updated
Renewed push to scrap activity level requirements for childcare subsidies
There was a lot of disappointment last budget when the government did not scrap the activity test as a way of making early child education more accessible and universal.
Your activity level as a parent, particularly the primary caregiver (usually mothers) impacts how much subsidy you receive for childcare. Your partner’s activity level counts, but Services Australia looks at the lower activity level when deciding the subsidy.
It means people who don’t work or study can’t access more than 36 hours of subsidy a fortnight, limiting the early child education they can receive. That impacts low income families particularly and can serve as a barrier to returning to work for parents who took time off to raise young children.
The government considered scrapping the test last year, but ultimately didn’t go through with it. Now, a new campaign is being launched to get the government to go all the way and scrap the test.
This morning, a group of women leaders will hold a press conference to renew the push, including:
Zoe Daniel MP, Member for Goldstein
Georgie Dent, the CEO of the Parenthood
Sam Page, the CEO of Early Childhood Australia
Kate Carnell, the former Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman and former ACT chief minister
Natalie Walker, the deputy chair of Goodstart Early Learning
Sue Morphett, a businesswoman and the former president of Chief Executive Women
Updated
Good morning
Hello and welcome to parliament Tuesday, where most of the chat is around legislation which hasn’t hit the chamber floor yet. And may not reach it.
It is still all about religious discrimination, cost of living and energy, which is a very 2016 flavour to 2024. The first eclipse of the year may have meant closure from an astrological point of view, but the Australian parliament keeps on keeping on with the same arguments it has been having for the better part of a decade.
If you are ever worried about the passage of time (I am still struggling to accept 2019 was five years ago) then just spend some time in Australian politics – it’ll make you feel like no time has passed at all.
Overnight the cabinet met, so we’ll learn more about the fuel efficiency standards the government will be presenting. But the fight over the gas bill (between the crossbench and Labor) will continue – not that it matters from a passage through the parliament point (because the Coalition appears to be in support). We’ll also see the religious discrimination issue continue to pop up, and the government attempt to get on top of cost-of-living issues which are still hitting Labor in the polls.
You’ll have Karen Middleton, Daniel Hurst, Josh Butler, Sarah Basford Canales and Paul Karp to guide you through all that and more, and me – Amy Remeikis – on the blog. Ready?
Let’s get into it.
Updated
Concern over poor mental health of school students
Poor mental health among young people is at historically high levels and won’t improve unless the disparate funding system is interrogated, a policy brief has found.
The brief, prepared by 12 mental health organisations to analyse wellbeing programs in schools, will be launched by independent member for North Sydney Kylea Tink in Canberra today.
Lead author and researcher at the Matilda Centre Dr Louise Birrell said better coordination, evidence and measurement on the mental health of students was needed.
The brief has made eight recommendations, including national guidelines and transparent reporting on the half a billion that goes towards school-based mental health programs Australia-wide.
Tink said schools were “ideal settings” for preventative mental health interventions, yet policymakers were flying blind in the current system.
With rates of anxiety, depression and psychological distress increasing, we need to have the very best evidence-informed care available to build resilience in Australia’s young people, prevent mental health concerns and act early to provide treatment to those who need it. There is so much potential here to have a long-lasting impact, for generations to come.
Updated
School funding system is undermining choice, summit will hear
Australia’s inequitable school funding system is undermining choice, not upholding it, a leading policy expert will tell politicians at an education summit today.
The National Education Summit is being held at Parliament House, to be attended by education minister, Jason Clare, Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne, shadow minister for education Sarah Henderson, the Australian Education Union and dozens of principals.
Writer and teacher Tom Greenwell will tell the summit current funding arrangements are behind Australia’s unusually segregated school system, arguing that concentration of disadvantage must be reversed to improve student achievement:
A priority for the National School Resource Agreement (NSRA), now being negotiated, is for improved measurement and reporting on the socioeconomic diversity in schools, and its impacts on wellbeing and achievement.
He will urge the federal government to commit to an independent expert review into existing policy settings, including annual reporting for all schools detailing overfunding of the private system comparative to government schools.
Updated
Government to introduce amendments to digital ID bill
The federal government will introduce amendments to its digital ID bill this week that, if passed, will ensure take-up is voluntary, restrict the holding of data and include mandatory reporting on any law enforcement use.
Identity verification services are used by government departments and businesses to combat fraud and identity theft.
Legislation to allow the services was abandoned by the former Morrison government after a parliamentary committee raised concerns over insufficient privacy safeguards. But the service began operating, with the Albanese government pushing its new legislation in the House of Representatives.
The proposed changes, to be announced today, come in response to an inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which raised further issues regarding its legality.
Key amendments include annual reporting from any law enforcement that accesses, or seeks to access personal information, a phased roll-out to the private sector, restrictions on data retention and a voluntary opt-out system.
The minister for finance, Senator Katy Gallagher, said Labor was “taking the time to get this economy-wide reform right”.
“The Coalition started this work while in government but in classic style didn’t finish the job. Now, they have an opportunity to back the Albanese government in delivering a scheme which is safe, voluntary and will protect Australians in an increasingly online world.”
Updated
Russian government calls on Australian embassy to delete social media post
Russian authorities say they have summoned a diplomat from the Australian embassy in Moscow over a social media post that criticised the holding of Russian presidential elections in occupied parts of Ukraine, AAP and Reuters report.
The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement that an Australian embassy post on Telegram questioned “the territorial integrity of the Russian federation” and contained “knowingly false information about the voting in a number of Russian regions during the election of the president” on 15-17 March.
Australia’s chargé d’affaires was told the online post was regarded as interfering in the country’s internal affairs, the Russian statement said, demanding he remove the message and take measures to ensure such incidents do not happen again.
The Australian embassy posted a Russian-language message on Telegram on 19 March saying Australia is “aware that the Russian government conducted sham elections in Ukrainian territories, which reflects its continuing efforts to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence”.
The post continued: “Australia rejects the outcome of these sham elections and again calls on Russia to immediately withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory.”
The Russian presidential election, which electoral authorities stated President Vladimir Putin won with more than 87% of the vote, was conducted in parts of Ukraine that Russia says it has annexed including Crimea and parts of four regions it it seized after its 2022 invasion.
Updated
More from Caitlin on that Smith Family report.
The Smith Family report also found school leavers were significantly less likely to be in work of any form than their counterparts.
Three in four young people surveyed who completed year 12 were in work and/or study in 2023, compared with only two in three of those who failed to graduate.
Head of research and advocacy at The Smith Family, Anne Hampshire, said there was a role for businesses, universities, wraparound services and the federal government to play in maintaining aspiration so students knew they had options to pursue career pathways.
Financial pressures also had a flow-on effect. Some surveyed flagged they couldn’t keep up with schoolwork as they didn’t have access to a laptop, and some didn’t pursue post-school study or left study because of financial pressures.
Hampshire said:
Students who are pushed out of school are more likely to have poorer pathways. It’s much better to have their support needs attended to earlier on. But it’s really hard for disadvantaged schools if they only have one careers advisor and limited financial resources.
The good news is we can do something about these early flags, and if we do, we’ll get more young people completing year 12. I’ve got no doubt.
ACTU push for 5% pay rise for those on minimum and award wages
The peak union body is shooting for a 5% pay rise for the millions of Australians on minimum and award wages, Australian Associated Press reports.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions says inflation has left workers on awards more than $5000 worse off, even when accounting for their pay rises over the past three years.
The independent workplace relations umpire is undergoing its annual wage review this week and will hear from employers, unions and governments.
The federal government has recommended “real wages of Australia’s low-paid workers do not go backwards”.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has already advocated for an increase of no more than 2% for both minimum and award wage workers.
ACTU secretary Sally McManus said the lowest-paid workers were the hardest hit by inflation and businesses could afford the 5% increase.
“When inflation goes up businesses are able to adjust their prices to protect their margins, but workers’ pay does not move so easily,” she said.
The union boss also said the 5% increase would not be inflationary, with consumer prices moderating ahead of schedule even after the commission handed out the biggest minimum wage increase in four decades last year.
The decisions in the annual wage review affect about a quarter of Australian employees, including those on industry and business specific awards and a smaller cohort on the minimum rate of pay.
More careers advice needed to reverse school absenteeism, Smith Family report
The federal government must invest in careers advice and targeted early intervention support if it is to reverse the trend of school absenteeism and drop-out rates, a major study has found.
The study, published by the Smith Family today, followed 2,000 young people who were in year 10 in 2020 over a three-year period.
It found responding to early warning signs and providing better personalised careers advice was crucial to help more students finish year 12 and have better long-term outcomes.
While the commonwealth has ambitious plans to double the number of students attaining tertiary degrees by 2050, year 12 completion rates are on a steady decline, particularly among disadvantaged cohorts.
Head of research and advocacy at The Smith Family, Anne Hampshire, said achievement and attendance were the strongest predictors of whether young people would leave school early – more so than factors such as gender, background or location.
The survey data found six in 10 (57%) students with poor attendance in year 9 left school before graduating, while just under half (45%) of students who received poor marks also failed to graduate.
Four in 10 students (39%) who couldn’t remember receiving careers advice left school early, compared with just 13% who could. Other leaving factors included mental health struggles and bullying.
Welcome
Good morning and welcome to our rolling politics coverage. I’m Martin Farrer with the best of the overnight stories before handing over to our esteemed blogger Amy Remeikis.
Our lead story looks at a GP, opposed to the government’s vaping reforms, who runs education sessions at schools on vaping but in at least one case did not declare her financial support from a tobacco company.
Writing for Guardian Australia, Malcolm Turnbull criticises the Aukus submarine deal, arguing it depends on “US industrial development, military needs, politics – and possibly Trump. Australia has no agency or leverage over any of these”. The former prime minister says no one in Canberra appears to have a plan B for any delay which would leave Australia short of a submarine fleet. It comes as the UK company building the new boats, Rolls-Royce, said the extra $4.6bn funding announced last week would create 1,000 new jobs at its Derby factory.
The opposition appears to have retained an edge in two-party-preferred terms with 50% of voters planning to vote for the Coalition versus 44% for Labor while 6% remain undecided, according to the latest Guardian Essential poll today. Excluding undecided voters, the Coalition leads Labor 53% to 47%, up from 50-50 earlier in March, indicating the results are volatile but trending in the opposition’s direction. It also shows that less than a third of voters back increased public funding for political candidates to reduce reliance on donations in a blow for government hopes to reform the system.
And this week is the annual wage review at the Fair Work Commission, where the peak union body, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, will push for a 5% increase. More on that soon.
