Morrison's 'negative globalism' speech was 'disturbing', Penny Wong says – as it happened

And on that note, we will land the blog for the night.

We’ll be back early tomorrow morning – when it is party room bonanza. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that we will have been taken off the government talking point distribution list by then.

A massive thank you to Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy, Sarah Martin and Paul Karp. And to everyone you don’t see, who work behind the scenes keeping it all going.

Of course, the biggest thank you, as always, goes to you. Thank you for joining us today. We’ll be back soon. In the mean time – take care of you.

Zali Steggall on her inclusion on the (latest) family law inquiry:

I am very pleased to have been confirmed on the family law inquiry.

Relationship breakdowns are a highly emotional time and this inquiry needs to be balanced and handled sensitively to ensure our family law system works the best way possible in all areas, both in property and parenting disputes.

Pauline Hanson has been promised the deputy chair role in that family law inquiry.

Here is how she has been promoting her involvement:

The joint select committee into Australia’s family law system has just been announced – the House members anyway. They are:

Kevin Andrews

Llew O’Brien

Fiona Martin

Zali Steggall

For the Greens motion to be successful they would need both Centre Alliance and Jacqui Lambie to vote to shut the family law inquiry down.

At this stage Centre Alliance’s Rex Patrick is holding the line that Pauline Hanson’s public comments about domestic violence don’t invalidate the whole process.

He told Guardian Australia:

“I often strongly disagree* with remarks Pauline Hanson makes, but I respect that she is a member of the Senate and was voted for by a number of people. Her remarks taint her own reputation, they will have no effect on the committee itself, which is made up of 10 parliamentarians.”

*An earlier version of this post had an unfortunate typo. Rex Patrick often strongly disagrees with Pauline Hanson, not agrees, as I first had. Sorry.

We have a statement from the joint security and intelligence committee:

Today the Chair of the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee tabled its Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019.

The Chair of the Committee, Mr Andrew Hastie MP said “This Bill makes changes that are designed to keep Australians safe. It implements a COAG agreement to ensure a presumption that neither bail nor parole will be granted to those persons who have demonstrated support for, or who have links to, terrorist activity. This decision followed the terrorist attack in Brighton, Victoria in June 2017. The perpetrator of that attack was on parole for State offences, and had previously been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack.”

The Bill:

• amends the existing presumption against bail in section 15AA of the Crimes Act so that it covers persons charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence,
• amends section 19AG of the Crimes Act to require a court, when sentencing a terrorist offender who is under the age of 18, to fix a non-parole period of three-quarters of the head sentence unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify a shorter non-parole period, and
• provides that exculpatory material does not need to be included in a continuing detention order application where the material would be the subject of a claim for Public Interest Immunity.

The Committee has recommended amendments so that the onus is on the Australian Federal Police Minister to satisfy the Court that any excluded exculpatory information is protected by Public Interest Immunity. This addresses the concerns raised by submitters whilst ensuring that the intended aim of the amendment is achieved.

The Greens will be moving a motion to dissolve the Kevin Andrews chaired inquiry into the family law system.

From Larissa Waters:

The Greens will introduce a motion in the Senate today to dissolve the damaging Joint Select Committee Inquiry into Australia’s Family Law System, for vote tomorrow.

Greens co-deputy leader and spokesperson on women, Senator Larissa Waters, said the inquiry was already ramping up the risk to women and children.

‘Australia’s family law system has serious problems which need addressing, however this inquiry is politically motivated and should not go ahead,’ she said.

‘The Greens are in discussion with other parties and with Senators who may have changed their minds about supporting this inquiry, which is stacked with extremists that have pre-determined, non-expert opinions on violence against women and their children.

‘There are serious concerns from experts, service providers and women in the community that the inquiry will make women less safe, and that victims and survivors of family violence and abuse do not feel safe giving evidence to the inquiry.’

Speaking of the Senate, Arthur Sinodonos will deliver his Senate valedictory speech on Wednesday afternoon. He’s off to be our man in Washington.

Malcolm Roberts, the servant of Queensland and the nation, is now refusing to vote on government bills in the Senate, as part of a One Nation standoff to have the dairy industry regulated.

Roberts just said this in the Senate:

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to make comments on the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment bill 2019. Let me first say that in support of Senator Hanson’s decision to not vote on legislation, other than critical legislation, until the government has addressed the plight of dairy farmers, I will not be voting on this bill.

Pauline Hanson has announced the vote ban will apply to “non-critical legislation” but I guess PHON will decide what is critical and what is not.

To pass legislation Labor and the Greens disagree on, the government needs four of the six Senate crossbenchers to pass legislation. Usually that’s Cory Berardi and One Nation, and then either Centre Alliance or Jacqui Lambie.

Without One Nation, Centre Alliance AND Lambie become crucial.

But again, we don’t know what counts as non-critical legislation.

On Peter Dutton’s comments on the Chinese Communist party, Penny Wong says:

I would like to make a couple of points. We are different society to China under the Chinese Communist party. And I have made the point for quite a long time. And inevitably with our democracy [we] will have differences of views on a range of issues between us and China.

My question to Peter Dutton is – was [it] a thought-through plan? Was it part of the clear strategy or part of a political tactic because ...it’s very difficult to tell where the government’s strategy on China is.

If you accept that we are, as we are, an ally and partner of the US, and we have an important economic relationship with China, you want to make sure you have assessable strategy in dealing with [a] China which is much more assertive, but we are going to have differences of views on whether the relationship is more challenging.

... Scott Morrison appeared to downplay it so it does look from the outside like another tactically domestically focused press conference.

... Of course it matters how you handle the relationship as well as what decisions you make. This is not just about substance. That is important. But it’s also about how you handle rhetoric and advocacy.

But my concern is, we don’t appear to have a plan when it comes to dealing with an increasingly challenging relationship with China, which is becoming more assertive and more willing to present interests. There will be times when we our interests converge, and we will engage closely, but times where our interests are different.

On Scott Morrison’s visit to the United States, Penny Wong says:

What was interesting … is that [the prime minister] didn’t achieve anything through that trip when it came to the trade war between China and the US. And certainly there are a lot of other distractions that the prime minister chose to engage in, including discussion about China’s status at the WTO bank and he made that announcement in the US, but fundamentally I think it was to distract from the fact that we have a deep interest, both for stability reasons and for economic reasons, in the trade dispute being comfortably resolved.

Penny Wong is the guest on Afternoon Briefing today.

Wong tells Patricia Karvelas she believes Scott Morrison is very short sighted in his strategy on foreign policy:

My point is this, it’s a very challenging time in foreign policy, with a very challenging regional and global environment, and a very challenging time in our relationship with China.

It would be best if those issues were managed with very clear on the national interest and in a bipartisan manner. And what we have is a Prime Minister who does seek partisan advantage, who does it to manoeuvre and play tactical gains.

Paul Karp with a balloon update:

Just on Scott Morrison’s answer on negative globalisation, where he cited examples of times the UN has asked Australia to change its policy – I guess it’s positive globalisation when we do it? Because that’s a fairly common part of diplomacy and being part of the international stage. For instance, we have recently expressed our concerns to Turkey over its policy in north-eastern Syria. As we should.

We finish up with a dixer from Greg Hunt on health spending.

The folders are stacked though, so we are done.

Lisa Chesters to Scott Morrison:

Why does the prime minister’s talking points say that the government recognises how tough drought is when he is withdrawing Farm Household Allowance from hundreds of drought-stricken farm families?

Morrison:

I thank the member for her question. She may be interested to know that, in the year 2017, the amount paid out under the Farm Household ... Allowance was $33,735,000. In the numbers we received this morning, the number was $114,00155,000.

Since since the drought summit of last year, as I referred to in an earlier answer today, we have made some very significant changes to the Farm Household Allowance. And we didn’t make those changes unilaterally. The minister for drought, then minister for agriculture, commissioned a review of the Farm Household Allowance and went out and spoke directly to all those affected in the sector through that independent review process.

That independent review process recommended that we go from three years to four years - and for that four years to be four in every 10. Four in every 10. I remind the member that, when the Labor party was in power, it was three years only - for life, Mr Speaker. Three years for life. The member for Hunter.

We increased that to four years in 10, and we are now, in this year most recently completed, we have put $114.2 million to support those families and to ease up on the compliance requirements and the assessment requirements that has enabled more of those families – some 6,000 now – which, when Labor was in, numbered only around 300 or thereabouts, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I hear before that the drought had just started.

... We learnt in Queensland today, in the minister for drought’s electorate, it’s been going for eight years. It’s been going for eight years, Mr Speaker.

So in all of that period of time, what we have done – and what we have most recently done through the National Drought Summit – has been to increase access to that payment. And we will continue to consult closely with the community when it comes to making any further changes if they are considered necessary.

But we’re acting in accordance with the advice, Mr Speaker, and the head of the farmers in Queensland has been very, very clear about the need to maintain those arrangements as they’ve been set.

So we’re going to listen to the farmers and listen to the rural communities, and that’s why, in just the last few weeks, since we sat in this place, we’ve put – together with the New South Wales government – over $1 billion into new dams and upgraded dams.

We’ve put, Mr Speaker, over $60 million into additional farm household assistance just since we have come back to this parliament. On top of that, we’ve put an additional $14 million into drought-affected local government areas to ensure that we can keep those local economies moving. Mr Speaker, we will continue to respond to the drought as and when and each and every day as we need to, and that will go on into the future with our full support.

We get a bipartisan note, with both David Littleproud and Anthony Albanese mourning the couple who died in the NSW bushfires, and praising the firefighters who have worked to keep the fires as contained as possible.

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

Today, the prime minister has refused to give a straight answer to questions about record household debt, about record-low wage growth, and about whether he tried to invite Brian Houston to the White House. Why won’t the prime minister just give straight answers, whether it’s here or in media interviews?

Morrison:

Mr Speaker, once again, the leader of the opposition comes to the dispatch box and he casts a whole range of aspersions across the table, Mr Speaker, without being able to back them up. The problem is, the leader of the opposition doesn’t like the answers to the questions, Mr Speaker. He doesn’t like the fact that, when it comes to our economy, we continue to be one of the strongest-growing developed countries in the world, that we’re continually providing jobs for Australians, and that 1.4 million Australians have been able to find work, that our AAA credit rating has been maintained, that taxes have been reduced, Mr Speaker, under our government, and that we continue to provide support to the farmers and rural and regional communities of this country, including protecting those very farmers from those who would seek, Mr Speaker, to go and invade their farms and create even further anxiety and insult at a time when they are under greatest pressure.

Morrison moves into a bunch of government talking points, concluding before there can be a Tony Burke point of order.

Labor has also been focusing on Scott Morrison’s Lowy speech in Senate question time, asking whether he was referring to the UN when he warned of an “unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy”.

Foreign minister Marise Payne took the opportunity to read extensive quotes from before the offending phrase in the speech, more generic sections about threats in the strategic environment. Labor raised multiple points of order on relevance, but president Scott Ryan agreed with the minister that the content of the speech was all relevant.

Labor’s Penny Wong suggested the prime minister had “humiliated” Payne and Julie Bishop “would’ve stood up and fought” against the talking points.

Payne responded that Labor was selectively quoting the speech. She said that the world suffered from “peak commentary” – presumably international institutions lecturing Australia – and the PM was “trying to navigate a path through that in the national interest.

Asked about the related warning of “negative globalism”, Payne said Morrison was seeking “an approach to globalism that facilitates/aligns rather than directs and centralises” which she said was “not provocative, [but] considered”.

Peter Dutton does his usual LABOR IS TERRIBLE ON BORDER SECURITY but it is not as firey as usual.

Richard Marles to Scott Morrison:

I refer to reports in the Wall Street Journal that the prime minister was determined to bring Brian Houston to the White House, with several rounds of discussions between Canberra and Washington before the White House vetoed the idea. Why won’t the prime minister give a straight answer to this question: “Did the prime minister or his office seek to have Brian Houston invited to the White House?”

Morrison:

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I refer the member to my previous answer about how invitations are issued, Mr Speaker. It is not my practice to go around commenting on the unsourced reports, Mr Speaker, and just respond to the rumours that go around this place. The member opposite might want to engage in that but, if the member opposite wants to make comments about the individual in question ...

Anthony Albanese gets up on relevance:

It is Question Time for a reason – there’s questions and there’s answers. The prime minister has just said ... My point of order goes to relevance. The prime minister can’t say “I’m just not answering.” He’s got to actually answer questions in this place. That’s what it’s for.

Tony Smith rules the answer in order.

Morrison continues:

I responded to the question, Mr Speaker, but I do ask, Mr Speaker, in the way that the question has been put to this House, that if they are suggesting anything serious or casting any aspersions on the individual which is the subject of the question, then perhaps I suggest they go and attend that church and they explain their concerns directly to their parishioners.

Albanese is not happy with that. NOT AT ALL. The pair, who attended and had a laugh together at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, continue to argue across the table. Morrison turns his back on Albanese, but turns back, to answer something else. That is fairly unusual – the pair usually leave the politics to the despatch box.

It has to be said, although I know that the PMO will disagree, but Morrison was a little nervous before getting up to answer those questions. He does this thing where he shakes the paper a little, and continually folds over the same spot when he is nervous. The hands were moving like crazy in that answer.

Richard Marles to Scott Morrison:

Did the prime minister or his office seek to have Brian Houston invited to the White House?

Morrison:

As the member knows, the invitations were handled by the White House, so that’s a matter for the White House. I think the Australian people are more interested in who Jamie Clements was inviting to dinner, and how much cash was in the wine bag.

He’s pulled up on relevance, but Morrison has already concluded his answer.

Paul Fletcher got very worked up in his lickspittle. Something about no one having moved from welfare to work under Labor.

Weird flex, but OK

It pains me to say I missed an interjection during the prime minister’s answer on which multilateral institutions were pushing us towards negative globalism.

Ed Husic wanted the prime minister to refer to the Illuminati or Agenda 21.

As an agent of the deep state, I can assure you agents are already on the mention of the Illuminati and Beyoncé is being notified as we speak.

Paul Fletcher is now basically reading from the government’s talking points on welfare.

Richard Marles to Scott Morrison:

Which multilateral institutions was the prime minister talking about when he warned about the dangers of negative globalism?

Morrison (with a lot of shouting):

I thank the member for his questions about my speech to the Lowy Institute which I understand he doesn’t share my views that Australia’s national interests should always come first and take priority over the agendas of global institutions, Mr Speaker ...

I’m surprised that the member opposite thinks that global institutions should be telling the Australian public about what should be happening in this parliament, Mr Speaker. And I make reference to a number, Mr Speaker, about policy positions that the Australian government has been urged to change. I’m happy to name them, leader of the opposition.

There are those who are overseas who think that our commitment to 26% reduction emissions by 2030 should be changed. And it should be higher, Mr Speaker. And we don’t agree. And neither do the Australian people. ‘Cause we took it to an election, Mr Speaker. And the Australian people said – and supported – the re-election of our government, Mr Speaker, on the basis of us going forward with a commitment to 26% reduction of emissions. The other thing we recently had some correspondence from the UN, Mr Speaker – from the UN – we had some correspondence ...

Anthony Albanese jumps up to ask about relevance.

Morrison continues:

I was making reference, as I was about to, on border protection issues, Mr Speaker, where we have been written to by the UN saying we should change our policies. I can remember when the UNHCR used to write to us and say we should change our policies. We don’t agree. Does the Labor party agree that we should be changing our border protection rules to comply with the international issues, whether it’s the UNHCR or any other organisations, when it’s in conflict with the express policies of the Australian people taking to election, Mr Speaker?

But I return to the issue of emissions reduction. We are in no doubt about our policy on this side of the House. 26% reduction in emissions by 2030. But on that side of the House, the member, Mr Speaker, for Hunter – he actually agrees with us. He thinks it should be 26%, Mr Speaker.

(The government benches go nuts)

Not only that, but the deputy thinks it as well. There’s a lot of support for the member for Hunter’s ideas, but sadly not from the member for Sydney.

She reserves her right to perfectly disagree with the member for Hunter, so she’s still for the 45% target, Mr Speaker. Then we can go across to the member for Kingsford Smith – I should say, the member for Wills – who says he doesn’t know. He says, “We don’t have the answers right now,” Mr Speaker. Then there’s another position which was put forward ...”

Tony Smith pulls him on relevance and for straying from the question. Morrison says he was responding to an interjection, but Smith says he didn’t hear one. We eventually come to the end with this:

While you may not have heard any interjections from your left, I can assure you the member for Hunter does. The Labor party is riven with division on climate change.

#welldoneJoel

Apparently our space program is another example of how we are helping our farmers, according to Karen Andrews.

I think we are getting to the link here somewhere (and I’m hoping its not we are going to mine an asteroid for water, because I have seen that movie and it doesn’t end well).

Oh, nope, there we go.

Satellites. Satellites help farmers.

Also, something about Mars.

Labor’s Katy Gallagher has asked finance minister Mathias Cormann about the Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates to 0.75%. But she’s done it with a twist, quoting Cormann’s own words when he warned of interest rates at “emergency levels” under Labor, when he argued the RBA had “not cut rates because the economy is doing well”.

Cormann responded that the RBA had responded to the “international context”, and particularly the need to cut because of low global interest rates.

Funny, he didn’t mention anything about household spending. This is what the RBA said on that subject:

“The main domestic uncertainty continues to be the outlook for consumption, with the sustained period of only modest increases in household disposable income continuing to weigh on consumer spending.”

But there are plenty of good stats for Cormann to deploy: 28 years of continuous economic growth, 1.4m new jobs, and Australia’s AAA credit rating. Cormann adds that RBA governor Phil Lowe “expects the economy to gradually strengthen” due to income tax cuts, infrastructure spending and the stabilisation of the property market.

Rob Mitchell gets booted for asking Dan Tehan to table the document he was talking from, as there is no mention of education in the talking points.

Worth it.

Tanya Plibersek to Dan Tehan:

Isn’t it true that, under this government, the number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or a traineeship is lower than it was a decade ago? So why has this government cut $3 billion from Tafe and training?

Tehan:

LABOR CUT FUNDING

(this is not a quote, but it is the general vibe)

Meanwhile, no one is mentioning the Scott Cam contract, which I don’t know, doesn’t seem like the greatest way to appeal to teenagers. Not that we know how much the Cam contract has cost, because for some reason, that is being kept under wraps.

Cool, cool, cool (which Scott Cam is not, btw. I don’t make the rules.)

Peta Murphy has the next question for Scott Morrison:

Can the prime minister confirm that this Liberal government’s record on wages growth is worse than any previous government? Is this a contributing factor to record household debt?

Morrison:

I thank the member for her question and I’m pleased to inform the House - again - that in the most recent through-the-year figures in the national accounts, that real wages growth was running at 0.7% a year.

(“It’s a runaway train,” someone from Labor yells.)

Well, Mr Speaker, I note the interjections of those opposite who seem to think that 0.7% is not satisfactory. Then, what do they think about 0.5%, as we inherited from the Labor party when we came to office, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker, the Labor party condemns themselves from their own mouths, Mr Speaker, when it comes to their own track record, when it comes to managing the economy.

Maybe the member opposite wants to look up the size of the deficit when they left office, Mr Speaker, or all the other matters, Mr Speaker, in which Labor set fire to the budget when they were in office.

Mr Speaker, I’m also asked about household debt. I’m asked about household debt. And the treasurer gave, I think, a very good answer about the issues around household debt. But one of the things that I would also add to that is that households themselves are proving to be very effective in how they’re managing their own debt. The House may not know that there is a three-times coverage - three years in advance, that is, that people have been able to build offsets against their mortgages. And they’ve been doing that, Mr Speaker, in a very prudential way.

And one of the big differences between Australia’s household debt and household debt in other parts around the world is this: Australia’s rental housing market - 30% of the entire housing market - is owned by mums and dads who invest in investment properties.

And if those mums and dads didn’t invest in those investment properties, we would not have the rental stock that is available to people to rent today. And what was Labor’s policy when it came to rents at the last election? To whack a big, fat housing tax on mums and dads who were simply investing in the rental stock of Australians who are renting to put a roof over their heads. The Labor party has never understood the economy. They’ve never understood how to manage money. The economy and the country’s finances has never been safe in Labor’s hands, and the Australian people know it, Mr Speaker.

For anyone interested Paul Karp and Luke Henriques-Gomes have factchecked the government’s talking points for you

Dave Sharma has the next lickspittle question, on the ACCC inquiry.

“It’s page five,” Anthony Albanese tells his benches.

They all dutifully turn their pages to page five.

“This is word for word,” Jim Chalmers yells.

Labor MPs are now mouthing along with Josh Frydenberg as he gives his answer.

Graham Perrett appears to be having a particularly great time.

Anika Wells, who is not a previous treasurer, despite being the member for Lilley, has the next question:

Why won’t the prime minister confirm that household debt is now nearly double disposable income, higher than it has ever been?

Frydenberg:

The member for Lilley – who may not have learned any economics from her predecessor, Mr Speaker ... we hope not, we hope not ... The George Costanza, Mr Speaker... The value of household sector assets is five times greater than its debts. And importantly, around three-quarters of the debt is owed by households in the top 40% of the income distribution, Mr Speaker. And they’re generally at a higher capacity to make repayments and are less likely to go through a period of sustained unemployment, Mr Speaker.

And then it is just a bunch of yelling.

It’s not quite Fatman Scoop, but still.

Josh Frydenberg has just proven he knows how microphones work though. So there is that.

Meanwhile, politicians really should be banned from using Dorothea Mackellar’s poem as proof that Australia has been in drought before. WE GET IT

The government really, really, really wants to talk about what it is doing about the drought.

Helen Haines has the independents’ question and it is to David Littleproud:

The minister today wrote in an opinion piece, ‘Our drought strategy is clear.’ This morning, Fiona Simpson, president of the NFF, said, ‘Unfortunately, Australia remains without a national drought strategy.’ Like many farmers around the country, I’m bamboozled. Can the minister clarify – does the government actually have a drought strategy and is the strategy the minister referred to the one the NFF doesn’t agree exists – a strategy which was written in 1992 when the minister himself was 16 years old?

A bit of millennial shaming there, but that’s part of the game.

Littleproud:

(refer to the government talking point on drought for the answer)

Jim Chalmers to Scott Morrison:

Is the prime minister aware of any year when household debt was higher than it is now?

Morrison:

I thank the member for his question on household debt. Household debt does continue to trouble the government. And the pressure that it places on families. And that is one of the reasons why, Mr Speaker, we provided the tax relief - through this parliament - when we were re-elected on May 18 to ensure that we could be taking the pressure off families - particularly those on low- and middle-incomes - so they could be able to meet ... the ... increasing challenges that they do on their household budgets.

And of course, a big part of that, Mr Speaker, is the things that they owe. But the good thing in Australia is the times’ coverage when it comes to household debt – the treasurer will correct me if I’m wrong – but it’s about five times, five times, Mr Speaker, the asset coverage to the debt coverage, and it’s predominantly within the housing sector.

If the shadow treasurer thinks there is a significant issue in terms of the credit-worthiness of the Australian housing market, which underpins the credit position of Australians in this country, then he should say so. He should say that. But he won’t say that, because he knows it’s not true. The shadow treasurer once again is seeking to talk down the Australian economy and, Mr Speaker, talk down and create anxiety about issues, Mr Speaker, which are being well-managed by Australians - and conscientiously managed.

We really are back in 2016

Labor’s shadow foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, has started Senate question time by asking what Australia has done about the Turkish military operation in northern Syria.

Foreign minister Marise Payne said the operation will “certainly cause additional civilian suffering”, displacement of people, and risk the return of Daesh [Isis], a “serious threat” to regional security. She paints a picture of a full court press – with Australia engaging Turkish diplomats in Canberra, Ankara, talks with the US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, the French president Emanuel Macron, and talks with her Turkish counterpart.

Wong then asks about Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops. Payne responds that Turkey (not the US) is “totally responsible” for the decision it has made through the incursion, the “humanitarian suffering” and the “detention, custody and escape of any Daesh fighters”. She refuses to go into the content of talks with Pompeo.

Payne said Australia is “very concerned” about the possibility Daesh, despite its territorial defeat, could regain the capability for “violent extremist activity” in the Middle East and more broadly.

But it does give me an opportunity to watch Darren Chester attempt to crouch down to speak to the crossbench, and witness the seven circles of hell pass over his face.

Barnaby Joyce can add inflicting Michael McCormack on us to his list of sins.

He starts with this:

I don’t have my talking points – I think they went to the member for Hunter, because the member for Hunter is very much onboard with our climate policy ...

I don’t know what else he says because I have metaphysically thrown myself off the press gallery balcony.

Tony Burke tries to have the prime minister table his talking points, but Scott Morrison says he wasn’t quoting from anything.

Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:

Where in the prime minister’s talking points for today is the prime minister’s description of the banking royal commission as “hollow populist nonsense”, and how is this description consistent with his new inquiry announced today? Will he just say anything at any time when it’s convenient?

Morrison:

I thank the leader of the opposition for his question. As he may recall, I was the treasurer that initiated the banking royal commission, Mr Speaker ...[Labor dissolves into laughter]... I don’t recall a banking royal commission being initiated by the member for McMahon when he was treasurer, or the member for Lilley when he was treasurer. I don’t remember that at all, Mr Speaker.

I remember there was this government that took that action, and it’s now this government that is acting on the recommendations of the royal commission through the good work of the treasurer, Mr Speaker. And now is taking further steps – just as we were doing from when we came into government, Mr Speaker, and particularly even before the royal commission reported – we introduced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, we increased the resources for Asic and Apra, and we made sure they had the powers available to them to do the work they need to do, Mr Speaker. So we’re taking action.

And I’ll tell you who we’re taking action for when it comes to the banking sector, Mr Speaker – that’s for bank customers, Mr Speaker. That’s who needs the greater competition that we want to see in this sector – for small business lenders as well – that’s why we’ve put $2 billion into the Small Business Securitisation Fund to deepen and widen the pool of capital available for these new lenders to get their hands on, to provide even better business opportunities to small businesses. Mr Speaker, our government has a real plan, and is implementing a real plan to ensure we get greater competition, greater accountability and better outcomes out of our banking and financial system to support those who want to go and buy a home, for those who want to go and run a business, for those who need that support to sustain them through the drought they’re facing now.

That’s what we’re putting in place, Mr Speaker. When those opposite were in this place – when those opposite were in this place, Mr Speaker, when it came to the needs of those who were customers of the banking and financial sector, they just simply looked the other way.

Rowan Ramsey, who always looks like an extra in a Dickens novel to me, is the first lickspittle.

Please refer to the government talking points on the drought for Scott Morrison’s answer.

I expect Darren Chester might find it a little difficult jumping up and down during question time today, after he completed his first marathon over the weekend.

It took a little longer than two hours, but congrats to everyone who crosses that finish line. It’s more than I could ever do (I look like a drunk baby giraffe which has been crossed with a confused duck when I run).

This has prompted a lot of MPs to get their skin checks done – when was the last time you had yours?

The sincerest form of flattery?

We are in the chamber, where the member for Fairfax, Ted O’Brien, is today’s “Who’s that MP?”

It’s the downhill slide to question time – hit me up with your predictions!

The SBS political editor, Brett Mason, has followed up on his FOI request into how much Melissa Price’s recent overseas trip cost (the department came back with a total of $2,515 for 142 hours’ work processing the request) with a statement from the minister herself:

“The department arrived at the FOI cost estimate on its own and my office was not consulted,” Minister Price said in a statement to SBS News.

“I am more than happy for the costs of my official travel to the UK and Europe last month to be released under normal FOI processes.”

Anna Bligh, the spokesperson for the Australian Banking Association, has given the banks’ response to the ACCC inquiry.

She says it’s a “complicated” process, but that she hopes that it will show people what goes into the decisions.

I look forward to an inquiry that is genuinely and authentically focused on casting more light for the public on the many factors that go into making up our interest rates. I don’t want to pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry, but I do hope that, at the end of it, Australians will have a clear understanding of the many factors that determine their interest rates.

The One Nation members have so far raised just $240 of their $15,000 total.

The reason the members who created the PHON page want Pauline Hanson removed from the executive and James Ashby gone is:

1. To expel James Ashby from One Nation (Pauline Hanson’s One Nation), and all divisions, for life.

> The reason being for bringing One Nation into disrepute due to his actions over the past few years. Ie the American trip to the National Rifle Association with Steve Dickson (Senate candidate), the scuffle and fight with former One Nation Senator Brian Burston in Parliament House last year, the One Nation aeroplane saga and investigations that came with it and for other headlines that have hit the media.

2. To remove Pauline Hanson as President for Life of One Nation federal division.

>The reason being that One Nation should be democratic and members should be able to nominate for executive positions within the party. This is also for the better management of the party, which will in the future minimise any litigation that the party may encounter, due to any poor decisions. One Nation has been subjected to this in the past, with Pauline Hanson even being put in jail.

You may not be a supporter of Pauline Hanson or One Nation but One Nation is a political party that was intended to hold the major political parties to account. Without democracy in this party, this will never happen.

Once again: these are the words from PHON’s supporters.

Rod Simms is talking on the ACCC inquiry into banks not passing on the interest rate cuts:

This inquiry is going to help us understand what decisions banks make in relation to mortgage interest rates, how they make them, why they make them, what implications there are for consumers and for the community in general.

The banking sector that is a very important one. The mortgage rates that consumers pay are often the most important financial transactions that they make.

We want to make sure that the customers, consumers, community really understand exactly how banks make their decisions, why they make their decisions, there is often a lot of confusion amongst customers in relation to the big difference between the headline rate, the standard variable rate they see and what people actually pay.

It is important to understand why that behaviour happens. It is often quite confusing and frustrating for customers. So we are very interested in finding out what we can to inform customers, inform the community, see where we can improve competition in the banking sector, see where we can get consumers getting better deals under the interest rates.

For those looking for the grand plan of why the government’s talking points were released, may I direct you to the age-old adage of “cock-up over conspiracy”.

There is nothing in there we did not know. There is nothing in there that has not been made public before. It is interesting from a lol perspective, because these things aren’t supposed to be mass mailed out to the media, and interesting from a news perspective because it shows you what the government believes its vulnerabilities are and the lines it has come up with to counter it.

But there is no grand conspiracy.

Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Services says there is at least one obvious way the government could address Australia’s poverty statistics – increase Newstart:

The majority of the Senate, all lower house crossbenchers and the opposition all support an increase to Newstart, along with more than 70% of the community and a wide range of organisations, including the Council of Small Business Australia, the Business Council of Australia and the Country Women’s Association.

“We’ve also heard from members of the government that they also support raising Newstart, which has not had a real increase in 25 years, while living costs have gone through the roof.

This Anti-Poverty Week, it’s time for the government to get on board and finally fix the country’s major fairness failure.

By increasing Newstart, the government can act on poverty while providing much-needed economic stimulus, creating jobs, including in regional areas.

Raising the rate will get Newstart working by allowing people to focus on their futures rather than having to be totally consumed with their current situation of financial crisis.

We already know what the government is going to say though. It’s the same thing they have been saying since last year.

David Littleproud was on RN this morning, and was asked about the latest episode of fish kills in the Murray-Darling Basin:

DL: Yeah well look obviously after that horrific event last year, the federal government and the basin state governments came together to make sure that we had a strategy to work together to collaborate and to make sure that we minimise the impacts of these events. We’ve got to understand this isn’t the first of these fish death events; in fact there’s been over 600 in New South Wales alone in the past 30 years. But what we’ve got to do is equip our water managers with the tools to be able to manage the waterways and the natural environment better and that’s why we made an $80m response after the Vertessy report to make sure that these events are minimised into the future.

Question: Look, I’m sure listeners will be thinking why did it take a disaster and such a crisis for everyone to realise there was such terrific strains on the system. What is your answer ultimately?

DL: Well as I said, these – this isn’t a new event. Fish deaths happen from this, over the last the last 30 years we’ve had 600 of them. The reality is how do we equip our water managers better with the tools and that’s what we’ve looked at and made sure that with the science, $20m extra in science, to equip them with the understanding of how the water moves through the system.

What you’ve also got to understand is that the water that was released that many say caused this event, actually created the largest spawning event of Murray cod in our nation’s history. So the water that was released out of Menindee did have an environmental benefit. The water managers used the information they had in front of them at the time that conditions were going to be normal in the sense that rainfall may have come through to replenish it, but it didn’t and obviously that was where a lot of the issues came from so we’ve made sure that we’ve invested in the science and technology to equip them to make better decisions and also make sure that those water flows get through. With using even satellite technology, we’ve invested more than 20-odd million dollars into satellite and remote river sensing to make sure that the flows that are for the environment get through to the environment.

Question: You did say in a statement that it was a major wake-up call and with the drought still ongoing, isn’t it the case there are many options open in terms of water management? There’s virtually no environmental water left over for the northern area the moment.

DL: Well exactly right. Unfortunately until it rains, it hits the landscape and runs into the rivers. No one has been able to create water and the only way we can is from rain. And so what we need to do is prepare our water managers with the tools to be able to manage that and the community has a role to play, we all have a role to play. There’s reporting in making sure we understand where the hot spots are now and we’ve actually got an interactive map that community can be part of in identifying where they’re seeing water quality diminish and also the lack of water coming through. We’re making sure that we’re working with our state authorities and also making sure that we get this right through simple technology such as aerators, putting them into parts of the river that have stopped the flow to keep the oxygen moving so that we don’t get these fish death events to the extent we did last year.

I see in the comments there are some eyebrows being raised about the latest inquiry Labor has ordered (this time in NSW Labor, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons).

So you might find this article in the Australian interesting:

Jeff Kennett and Campbell Newman have called on governments to wrest back control from bureaucrats and take firm action on major decisions, as it emerged that the Morrison government had commissioned and endorsed 72 reviews in the past year.

Analysis of reviews and inquiries supported by the federal government since September last year reveals a range of decisions deferred to departments, agencies and commissions for consideration.

It is also anti-poverty week.

From Linda Burney’s office:

• 3 million or 13.2% of Australians live below the poverty line – when defined as 50% of median income;
• 739,000 children or more than one in six Australian children live below the poverty line;
• Those on Newstart and Youth Allowance experience poverty at the highest rates; and
• As many as one in five Australians have experienced food insecurity in the last year.

But hey – as Michael McCormack has told us, you can just drive to another town and get a job. SIMPLES.

This was bound to happen

Honestly - the government could save itself the hassle of releasing its talking points - it has Michael McCormack.

Exhibit A

“We want to build dams, we are building dams, we are getting on with the job.”

In other news, the coffee stain on my desk has suddenly taken on Daniel Craig levels of magnetism.

Annelise Nielsen from Sky News takes one for the nation and speaks to Michael McCormack, so you don’t have to.

He is very excited about the new dam which was announced over the weekend.

He is a walking talking point, and just as interesting.

This is also ticking away today.

I mean....

Penny Wong was also asked about Gladys Liu. She says the most telling part of the whole saga was that Scott Morrison, along with the rest of the government, were unwilling to stand up in parliament and say that Liu was a “fit and proper person” to sit in parliament.

Penny Wong on Scott Morrison’s speech to the UN (Wong is speaking at the Australian Institute of International Affairs):

I think the prime minister should explain what he meant in that speech. There are two points in that speech. The most and most important one, we are a trading nation. Australian jobs demand open, fair and transparent trading arrangements and that is why Australia and the Coalition have been supportive of the trade organisation. Scott Morrison wants, for domestic political purposes, to rail against globalism but he is pro free-trade. You cannot be pro free trade and go against globalism.

Rebekha Sharkie has introduced a private members’ bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Australia from 10 to 14, in line with international standards.

Here is what she had to say about it on Sunday, when she released her statement on the issue:

Our current laws are not consistent with the medical and social science evidence we have about the mental capacity of children who commit offences and the detrimental effects early contact with the justice system have on our children,” Sharkie said today.

We also know that our current laws have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous children with almost 70% of the young people in our youth jails being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

It’s been almost two years since the Northern Territory’s 2017 royal commission into the protection and detention of children recommended raising the age of criminal responsibility.

Meanwhile children as young as 10 continue to be arrested and detained for relatively minor offences when we should be looking at diversionary justice processes instead.

We need to acknowledge the evidence and we need to act so Centre Alliance is moving legislation for the government to consider and take up.”

One for the diary:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2019, Democracy 2025 will release a new report that explores the ways in which federal politicians would like to reform Australia’s democracy.

The report is the fifth in a series of reports developed by Democracy 2025 that examine how to strengthen democratic practice and bridge the trust divide in Australia.

The director of Democracy 2025, Professor Mark Evans, will present the report at a special event at Parliament House.

Wednesday, 16 October, 12pm – 1.30pm

Committee Room 2S3, Australian Parliament House

Panellists include:

· Professor Mark Evans, director of Democracy 2025 and co-author of the report

· Michelle Grattan AO, chief political editor at the Conversation

· Dr Helen Haines MP, member for Indi

· Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, member for Sydney

· Dave Sharma MP, member for Wentworth

· Professor Gerry Stoker, centenary professor of governance, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra and co-author of the report

The bells are ringing, and with them, a sense of pervading doom settles over us all.

The Greens will be pushing for the parliament to declare a climate emergency.

Adam Bandt spotted this on the way into Canberra

Someone in Labor has crunched the words on the government’s talking points, and found they mention Labor, or Anthony Albanese, about 40 times.

As the great Regina George would say “Why are you so obsessed with me?”

The National Prayer Breakfast was held this morning.

Seems the tea was hot.

Australian Associated Press is reporting the aged care royal commission chair Richard Tracey has died.

We will bring you more on that when we can.

The House and Senate are both about to sit:

The committee for the latest inquiry into the family law court will most likely be announced today. That’s the one Pauline Hanson has been elevated to deputy-chair on, despite her already having announced her (abhorrent and evidence-less) views going into it.

There has been a push on to have Zali Steggall – who has a background in family law – to sit on the committee. We’ll see if that pays off.

In brighter news, the annual “Girls Takeover Parliament” event is on this week.

It’s run by Jasiri Australia, which is a “youth-led, expert-guided social enterprise committed to seeing gender equality in our communities and in our leadership”.

The bipartisan event will see 60 young women paired up with MPs and senators. At the end of the event a charter will be presented to Scott Morrison.

Meanwhile, the parliamentary inquiry into the worst of all hours – question time – continues.

The parliament is looking at how it, and other parliamentary procedures, could be made better.

Question time is the one hour of parliament that is broadcast. Which means it is the one hour of parliamentary proceedings that most people see. And it’s a joke. It is an absolute farce, which does nothing to promote trust and faith in our democratic system. It is ridiculous theatre that leaves every person who takes part in it worse.

That’s just my opinion of course (DEATH TO DIXERS) but it seems, from the submissions the inquiry has received so far, to be a common opinion.

If you can’t be bothered putting in a submission, you can take this survey the committee has set up , which is open until 31 October.

And on the ACCC inquiry announced today by Josh Frydenberg, the government wants you to know:

ACCC BANK INQUIRY

• The government has directed the ACCC to undertake an inquiry into the pricing of residential mortgage products, particularly after the banks failed to pass on the RBA’s recent interest rate cuts in full.
• The Inquiry will focus on the period from 1 January 2019. Since this date, there have been three cuts (June, July and October) by the RBA to the official cash rate.
• Together these cuts have reduced the cash rate by 75 basis points, and the big four banks have passed on an average 57 basis points in owner-occupied home loan rates.
• The major banks have decided to put their profits before their customers, and that’s not a good outcome for their customers or the economy.
• As the Reserve Bank governor pointed out recently “lower interest rates put more money into the hands of the household sector and, at some point, this extra money gets spent and this helps the overall economy.”
• The inquiry will ensure the pricing practices of the banks are better understood and made more transparent by;
  • understanding how banks make pricing decisions for residential mortgages – which is particularly important in the current context of banks not passing on the RBA rate cuts in full.
  • assessing how prices differ for new and existing customers.
  • investigating barriers to switching.
• The inquiry will consider pricing across the entire residential mortgage market by major banks, smaller banks, and non-bank lenders. But the big four banks will be a key focus of this inquiry, given they hold around 75% of residential mortgage debt.
• The government is committed to increasing competition in banking and promoting good consumer outcomes in the mortgage market to ensure that consumers can get a better deal.
• The consumer data right provides consumers with greater access to their personal information giving them power to securely transfer their banking data to other providers to get a better deal. This is one of a number of policies the government is implementing to increase competition.

If asked how this differs to the royal commission and previous ACCC inquiries?

• The financial services royal commission specifically focused on misconduct rather than the way that banks are pricing their mortgages.
• The ACCC’s previous residential mortgage price inquiry specifically focused on whether the major bank levy affected the prices charged for residential mortgages.

The government has also decided to acknowledge the IMF climate report which said Australia would fail to meet its Paris target:

• We’re taking meaningful action to reduce global emissions with our $3.5bn climate solutions package that will deliver the 328 million tonnes of abatement needed to meet our 2030 Paris target.
• Our national target is achievable, balanced and responsible, and is part of coordinated global action to deliver a healthy environment for future generations while keeping our economy strong.
• In the electricity sector, we are reducing emissions while maintaining reliable and secure supply:
  • The latest official projections show the national electricity market (NEM) is on track to be 26% below 2005 levels by 2022, eight years early.
  • On the back of $25bn of committed investment in clean energy, Australia leads the world with more than double the per capita investment of countries like France, Germany and the UK:

If asked – IMF climate change report saying we will not meet our 2030 target:

• We’ll meet our target without introducing a carbon tax.
• When Labor were in government and introduced a carbon tax, energy prices went up and industry threatened to take jobs offshore.
• The IMF report does not take into account our $3.5bn package which maps out to the last tonne how we will deliver the 328mt of abatement needed to reduce emissions to 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2030.
• The report also states that under a $75 carbon tax, retail electricity prices would increase by 70-90% in Australia.
• That is not something we are going to do to Australian households and small businesses.

When asked about that on Friday, Josh Frydenberg seemed to miss the question and answered along the lines of “Who said that? Labor?” which is a standard response these days.

The government is also pretty into what the party who is not in government is doing. Joel Fitzgibbon has given them some extra steam here:

LABOR DIVISION ON ENERGY POLICY

• Joel Fitzgibbon has backflipped on his recent calls for a carbon tax and again presented yet another position on energy policy – this one driven by self-interest to save his own seat, following huge swings against him at the recent election.
• Meanwhile Bill Shorten and Penny Wong have recently said they are “proud” of Labor’s reckless 45% target and made the case to keep it.
• This follows calls by the assistant climate change spokesman Pat Conroy to scrap their 45% emissions reduction target but Labor change spokesman Mark Butler won’t commit to anything.
• Whether it’s “Chairman Swanny” calling for Labor to keep their $387bn tax and spend agenda or Fitzgibbon looking back to the future then doing a backflip, Labor haven’t learned the lessons from the election and want to rehash policies Australia has comprehensively rejected.
• We’re taking meaningful action to reduce global emissions with our $3.5bn climate solutions package that will deliver the 328 million tonnes of abatement needed to meet our 2030 Paris target.
• Under our government Australia leads the world with more than double the per capita investment of countries like the UK, France and Germany.

But the best thing about this one, is that the government actually admits that emissions have increased (at least through its notes). For the records, emissions have increased every year since 2014, when the carbon price was scrapped.

If asked: recent increases in emissions:

• Emissions fell 0.4% over the first quarter of 2019.
• Emissions for the year to March 2019 are up 0.6 % or 3.1 Mt. This small increase is due to an 18.8% increase in LNG exports. LNG production related emissions increased 4.7 Mt.
• Absent the increase in LNG exports, total emissions would have declined. Australia’s LNG exports for the year to March 2019 are estimated to be worth $47.8bn.
• While this industry’s success has increased Australia’s emissions, it has potentially reduced global emissions by up to 28% of Australia’s annual emissions by displacing coal generation in importing countries.
• We are nearly half way towards our 2030 Paris target – emissions are down 11.7% on 2005 levels and the emissions intensity of the economy and per capita are at their lowest levels in nearly three decades.
• We are also on track to overachieve on our 2020 target by 367 million tonnes.

And this talking note, on the drug-testing trial being extended, is actually a WTF moment:

DRUG-TESTING TRIAL

• The Morrison government’s drug -testing trials are part of our commitment to finding new and innovative ways to breaking down barriers unemployed Australians face and supporting them to get back into the workforce so they can take control of their own lives.
• The government wants to support unemployed Australians become job-ready and given more than 3.5 million Australians already undergo random drug testing as part of their employment, the drug-testing trial is seeking to ensure people entering Newstart and related payments can take advantage of every job offered to them.
• This measure is about identifying people with substance abuse issues who need our help and supporting them to seek treatment through a $10m treatment fund.
• Welfare recipients who test positive will not lose a single cent of their payment but will be placed on Income Management for a period of 24 months which will quarantine 80% of their welfare payment on to the Basics Card which prevents spending on drugs, alcohol and gambling. The remaining 20% will be deposited in their regular account.
• A second drug test will be scheduled within 25 working days of the positive result. After a second positive test, the job seeker will be referred to a medical professional who will assess their circumstances and identify treatment options which can count towards their mutual obligation activity requirements.
• The two-year drug-testing trial will be rolled out in three locations – Logan, Queensland, Canterbury-Bankstown, NSW and Mandurah, WA and will test about 5,000 people entering Newstart.

If asked why the government is trying to push through the testing when parliament has rejected it twice:

• There is clear community support for the trial as reports in the media today further show.
• The Labor party needs to explain to the Australian people why it wants to deny the government the opportunity to tackle a problem of drug addiction for people who are not in work.
• We hope that all parties support this legislation and will work respectfully with all parties to ensure the trial can take place and help as many people as possible.

If asked about claims there is no evidence it works:

• Evidence shows drug addiction prevents people from working. The 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (undertaken by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) shows that unemployed people were 3.1 times more likely to use meth/amphetamines and 1.5 times more likely to use cannabis than the employed.
• As the PM said: “This is a trial. We are trying to work out if this can work. I am really puzzled by the level of opposition to the Government trying to tackle a problem of drug addiction for people who are not in work and helping them get over it with referral to proper services and funding those services in those trial areas”.
• The trial will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation on whether drug testing is an effective way of identifying unemployed Australians whose substance abuse is a barrier to work and supporting those people to undertake treatment.
• The evaluation will be conducted in parallel with the trial to allow the Government to identify any unintended consequences so these can be addressed in real time.

If asked about the trial being likened to a Russian plan to send people who test positive for HIV to an island:

• It is disappointing to note the fear-mongering around the Government’s proposed drug testing trial which is a genuine attempt to help unemployed Australians overcome substance abuse which is a barrier to work.

The Newstart talking points makes my eye twitch a little:

• No one is saying it’s easy to get by without a job which is why the Morrison government is absolutely focused on helping unemployed Australians be work-ready and creating jobs so working age Australians have the opportunity to gain financial independence.
• We are delivering results with more than 1.4 million jobs being created since we were elected which is about 240,000 a year compared with just 155,000 on average under Labor.
• The lowest proportion of working age people on welfare in 30 years is proof that our policies are working.
• Newstart is a taxpayer funded allowance that provides a taxpayer-funded safety net for people while they look for a job. It is not a salary replacement.
• It is already increased twice a year, every year in line with CPI which is a widely accepted measure of changes to cost of living.
• Everyone who receives Newstart allowance is eligible for some form of additional assistance from the welfare system including rent assistance, family tax benefit or the energy supplement on top of the $559 base rate.
• About two-thirds of those granted Newstart get off the payment within 12 months.
• The government is focused on breaking down the barriers some Australians face in returning to the workforce which is why we are investing $96m in Try, Test and Learn which is trialling innovative pathways to work for those people at risk of long term welfare dependency.
• The cashless debit card is financial management tool helping unemployed Australians stabilise their personal circumstances while our proposed drug-testing trial will help identify welfare recipients struggling with substance abuse and provide them with support to get back on track.
• Welfare cost more than $172bn in 2018-19, representing more than one in three dollars or 35% of all spending by the government.
• It is the responsibility of government to ensure our social security and welfare system is sustainable into the future, so that it can continue to provide support to those most in need.
• The Labor party continues to play a cruel joke on Australians claiming to support an increase in the Newstart rate without naming the size of their supposed increase or how they would pay for it.
• Anthony Albanese wants to outsource decisions on how to spend more than a third of Government spending saying it is a “reasonable suggestion” for an independent tribunal to decide the rate of welfare payments. Not only is this irresponsible fiscal policy but it reveals the opposition leader is not ready to lead because governments are elected to make decisions not outsource the tough ones.

If asked could you live in $40 a day?

• No one is saying it would be easy and the government understands some Australians are doing it incredibly tough.
• Newstart is a safety net, it’s not meant to be a replacement for a salary.
• The focus of Newstart combined with our government’s additional supports and programs is to help people who find themselves on hard times and to support them to get back into the workforce.
• Whether it’s work for the dole, youth jobs PaTH or ParentsNext programs, we’re helping Australians get a job so they can earn a wage that creates a better future for themselves and their families.

If asked whether an increase to Newstart would stimulate the economy.

• This government is focused on policies like increasing productivity and moving people from welfare into work.
• Our policies like record infrastructure investment, tax relief and investment in schools and hospitals are creating the conditions for jobs growth across the economy and delivering services Australians rely on.

The government wants you to know that everything is totally fine with Gladys Liu. From the talking points:

• Ms Liu has spent a considerable amount of time over the last three weeks reviewing her association with all community organisations. With nearly 1000 Chinese organisations alone in Victoria alone it has been a lengthy task.
• Ms Liu has very clearly stated that she does not wish to be a member of any organisation that has not received her explicit consent. She has asked that she be removed from all organisations that have not received her consent.
• Ms Liu is confident that she is not linked to any organisations that may have inappropriate associations.

Barnaby Joyce, who was last incensed over toilet facilities at Sydney airport, was feeling reflective on his Twitter feed this morning:

The tweet before was about how monopoly ownership of Sydney airport was not healthy, with a shot of out-of-order urinals (save yourself and don’t look – what has been seen can not be unseen).

What was left out of the tweet was the Sydney airport was privatised in 2002 – under the Howard government.

As first reported by Rob Harris at Nine Newspapers, Barnaby Joyce is the latest person to speak out on behalf of Julian Assange. This is what Joyce had to say to reporters this morning:

I, in no way, shape or form, give a character recommendation about Mr Assange. That’s not the issue. The issue is the sovereignty of the laws. And the law is for those you both like or dislike, or have no opinion on. If a person commits a crime in Australia, then you’ll be judged by Australian law. If a person commits a crime in another country while they’re there, they should be judged by those laws. If a person is residing in Australia and commits a crime in another country, I don’t believe that that is a position for extradition. If they weren’t actually there, if they weren’t present there, that is a question for Australian law. We have to follow the principle, even if we don’t have regard for the person.

The first subject (after an election list of “priorities” was drought. What is most interesting about this one is that it highlights the parts the government knows it is vulnerable on – no actual national drought policy, issues with the farm household allowance and $5bn of that $7bn repeated total, going to a future fund.

SUPPORT FOR DROUGHT-AFFECTED AREAS

• Farmers and their communities will have access to more support with the Coalition Government announcing it will provide more funding, cut red tape and increase services.
• This week we announced an extra $13.2 million in support for further on-farm water infrastructure – more than 2000 farmers have already taken up the chance to improve their water access by building new bores, pipelines and desilting muddy dams and the rebate will now also be made available to farmers with permanent crops like fruit trees and vineyards.
• The support package we announced last week will deliver nearly $100 million to drought-hit communities, which is on top of more than $7 billion in drought support funding already provided by the Government.
• As the Prime Minister has said, supporting drought affected communities remains our Government’s most urgent priority. That is why he headed directly to drought affected Queensland after he arrives from the US.
• We are delivering $33 million to resume the Drought Community Support Initiative, which will deliver up to $3000 to eligible farming households experiencing hardship due to drought.
• We are providing a $13 million extension to the Drought Community Programme to deliver support at the local government level where it counts. Thirteen more Local Government Areas will be provided up to $1 million for local infrastructure and drought relief products. Those areas have been chosen based on Bureau of Meteorology data about current and future weather conditions.
• We’re also:
  • Delivering the $5 billion Future Drought Fund to help give our farmers tools to prepare for, manage and sustain their businesses through drought.
  • We’ve also been slashing the complexity of the forms to apply and expanding the eligibility of the program

If asked: calls for a national drought policy

• The federal government has a national drought policy and it was outlined following the national drought summit the Government convened last year
• It includes more than $7 billion worth of measures from supporting people’s mental health to additional assistance through the Farm Household Allowance, as well as our backing for 21 new water infrastructure projects
• Our response is strategic, comprehensive and focused on both the short-term immediacy needs of farming families and the longer-term future for agriculture in this country

None of these talking points are Watergate. We all know that MPs have talking notes – how else do you think they all say the same thing, over and over and over again?

And there is nothing new in any of them – we all know the government’s lines on these issues.

But it is interesting that the arguments have not shifted, despite the debates having moved on – the government is still pushing the same points it has been pushing since Scott Morrison came to power.

But we have come to expect that too. Everything Morrison doesn’t want to talk about is a “bubble” issue, or something he is “not getting into” or “I’ve already answered that” and we all know the issues with getting anything out of government departments.

This is just more of the same.

And on welfare, which is also an issue which is not going away (and nor should it) the government wants its members spreading these messages:

• Social services touches almost all Australians at some stage in their lives usually when people are at their most vulnerable which is why it is absolutely crucial that the system remains sustainable into the future so that we can continue to provide support to those most in need.
• In 2018-19 the government spent more than $170bn a year on social security and welfare, representing more than one in three dollars or 35% of all commonwealth spending. That amount equates to about 75% of the total amount paid in personal income tax
• As such the system it must be targeted, sustainable and in line with the expectations of the taxpayers who fund it.
• The government’s position on Newstart, and indeed the prime minister’s position, is very clear: The best form of welfare is a job, and the government is absolutely focused on getting people off of welfare and into work.
• It is a taxpayer funded allowance that provides a safety net for people while they look for a job and is increased twice a year, every year in line with CPI. It is not intended to be a wage replacement.
• The Morrison government is delivering the job opportunities with more than 1.4 million jobs created since the Coalition was elected. We are also providing pathways to jobs and breaking down barriers unemployed Australians face getting back into the workforce.
• Newstart allowance is just one element of our comprehensive social security and welfare system which include additional supplements and allowances, concessional access to healthcare, and targeted support through employment services all play a role in supporting people whilst they transition back into the workforce.
• Jobs growth and supporting jobseekers to fulfil mutual obligations with employment services and through activities designed to improve their job prospects has contributed to the improved lifetime cost of welfare as well as the significant reduction in people entering the welfare system and reduced persistency of payments.
• The proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years at 14.3%t. There are 230,000 fewer working age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2018.

If asked – 2018 Welfare Valuation Report

• The latest valuation shows a 10.1% reduction in the total future lifetime cost of welfare in Australia down to $5.7tn when compared to the re-based 30 June 2017 estimates, confirming the success of government welfare to work initiatives.
• Government initiatives have contributed to this improved lifetime cost of welfare including jobs growth and significant reductions in entries onto payments and decreases in persistency to payments.
• The full 2018 valuation will be released by government in due course.

If asked why do the PIA figures differ from those reported in past years:

• The 2018 Priority Investment Approach uses a 5% discount rate based on advice from the Australian Government Actuary in line with other government estimations. The government has updated the first three years of valuations in line with that decision so we are comparing apples with apples.
• Changing the Discount Rate from 6% to 5% is not an accounting trick – it brings the valuation in line with the Budget discount rate and other government publications, demonstrating a realistic and responsible government response to recent economic conditions.

Another big issue for the government – border protection – was also on its talking notes list.

Kristina Keneally was on Insiders on Sunday (here is some of what she had to say) but it’s Labor’s stance on people who overstay their visas who arrive by air that the government is focusing on. Here is the government line on that for this week:

PROTECTION CLAIMS BY MIGRANTS WHO ARRIVE BY AIR

• In the last three years that Labor was in office, 6,900 permanent protection visas were granted by Labor to people who arrived by air. In the last three years under this government, 4,780 visas have been granted – 3% less than under Labor.
• The government is focusing resources both on and offshore to prevent unmeritorious protection claims. This includes through enhancements to our intelligence systems and operational activity.
• Less than 0.25% of people who arrive lawfully in Australia apply for protection, and of them the vast majority are refused.
• And the numbers of those who do apply for protection are declining. In 2018-19, the number of onshore protection claims fell by 12 per cent, a result of the government’s focus on stopping unmeritorious claims.
• This number is continuing to decline at similar rate this program YTD.
• People who arrive by air, do so with valid travel and identity documents. We know who they are. They are not putting their lives at risk, or the lives of their children at risk, by getting on a boat.
• We won’t be taking any advice from Labor, whose mismanagement of our border was an absolute disgrace.
• Labor’s boat arrivals saw 50,000 people arrive unlawfully, 8,000 children were forcibly placed in detention, 1,200 people lost their lives, 17 detention centres were opened – all at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $17bn.

If asked about worker exploitation

• The exploitation of any worker in Australia is something we have zero tolerance for.
• We take a whole of government, multi-agency approach when it comes to the exploitation of foreign workers – this includes the Australian federal police, the Australian Border Force, state and territory police, the Australian Taxation Office and the fair work ombudsman.
• Labor claim to be concerned about worker exploitation, but when they were last in government they decimated the fair work ombudsman’s funding by more than $20m, cut their staff by 23% and had no policy to protect vulnerable workers.
• We have legislated to increase penalties for worker exploitation by up to tenfold, increased the powers of the fair work ombudsman to enforce the law, and increased their resources by over $50m and 60 new staff.

Labor’s border protection policies

• Abolish temporary protection visas.
• Abolish the fast-track assessment process for boat arrivals.
• Increase our permanent refugee intake by 71%t, cost of $6bn.
• Labor has already, through partnering with the Greens, passed a law that removes the government’s ability to determine who comes to Australia from Manus or Nauru.
• The leader of the opposition voted to ban boat turn-backs. The shadow immigration minister Andrew Giles moved the motion.
• Kristina Keneally has previously written in the Guardian to “bring the refugees to Australia”.
• Labor’s track record on border security is clear. They cannot be trusted.

And for why the medevac legislation is considered so important by medical bodies, you only need to return to this story from Katharine Murphy a little earlier this year.

The medical review panel is not overturning all of the minister’s decisions. We know that, because they have to report to the parliament.

In the June quarterly report, the panel, which is chosen by the government, agreed with the minister’s decision in nine of the 15 cases he rejected.

Australian medical facilities have not been overrun. Elective surgeries have not been subjected to widespread cancellations (which was actually a claim put forward at the time) and the boats have not restarted.

But people who need it, who are under our care, are getting the treatment doctors tell us they so desperately need.

On that bolded point in the last post, these are the actual facts, as reported by Katharine Murphy when the bill was still being discussed. The minister has not lost discretion when it comes to security reasons:

What discretion does the responsible minister have?

Ministerial discretion applies in three areas.

First, the minister can refuse the transfer if he or she disagrees with the clinical assessment.

The second grounds for refusal is if the minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security “within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act”.

Sticking with security, the transfer can also be knocked back if Asio advises the minister that transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security “and that threat cannot be mitigated”.

The third grounds for refusal is if the minister knows that the transferee has a substantial criminal record (I’ll give you some definitions on that in a minute) and the minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.

The decision needs to be made within 72 hours.

If the minister denies the transfer request on health grounds (as opposed to security or criminal grounds), then the issue goes to an Independent Health Advice Panel “as soon as practicable”.

The panel then conducts a second assessment and reports within 72 hours. If the panel reports the person should be transferred on health grounds, and the other vetoes I’ve mentioned are not in force, then the view of the panel prevails.

Here is what the government has to say about the medevac legislation. Which MP, you ask? Oh, any of them. This is what the PMO wants them to say, so expect to see varying examples of this throughout the week.

• Processes for medical transfer already exist and are effective.
• Section 198B of the Migration Act allows for a transitory person from a country or place outside Australia to come to Australia for a temporary purpose, for example medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment.
• There are currently over 1,000 transitory persons in Australia.
• The repeal of the Miscellaneous Measures Act does not remove the ability to medically transfer a transitory person to Australia.
• It is important to have a single, consistent, transparent medical transfer process with all the necessary protections for the Commonwealth and individuals in place.
• It is a misconception that the medical transfer provisions inserted by the Miscellaneous Measures Act introduced “doctors” into the medical transfer process.
• It did not. The Department has consistently relied on clinical advice from doctors to form decisions on whether to bring a person to Australia for medical.
• It is the Government’s position that it should determine who is allowed to enter Australia, and the terms and conditions to be imposed on that entry, as is the right of every sovereign nation*
• Medical services in Papua New Guinea and Nauru have improved over time to more effectively respond to transferee health needs and requirements.
• The need for medical transfers to third countries, including Australia, reduced as medical capacity and treatment options became more readily available in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.