Labor loses motion calling for Angus Taylor referral to Senate inquiry – as it happened

That’s it for Politics Live today, but we will be back tomorrow morning for the third last sitting day before the winter break kicks in.

The government still wants to talk unions, but who knows what the day will hold. It’s that sort of week.

It’s party room day (and caucus) so we will bring you what the parties are talking about.

And no doubt Angus Taylor will remain popular, at least from Labor’s point of view.

Thank you so much for joining us today. A big thank you to Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy and Paul Karp for keeping me fed and hydrated (it’s important to stay hydrated - so I don’t know who needs to hear this, but please drink some water).

We’ll all be back tomorrow morning. I hope you will be too. As always - take care of you.

The Senate passed the maritime boundary legislation a little bit ago, prompting this joint statement with four ministers names to it (Scott Morrison, Marise Payne, Josh Frydenberg and Matt Canavan)

Today, the Australian Parliament passed legislation to implement the treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Establishing their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea.

The treaty establishes permanent maritime boundaries between our two countries and a stable legal framework for the development of gas and oil resources in the Timor Sea.

It upholds Australia’s commitment to international rules and the peaceful resolution of disputes, and reflects our full commitment to the independence, sovereignty and economic sustainability of Timor-Leste.

Since the signing of the treaty on 6 March 2018, the Australian Government has worked with the Timor-Leste Government and offshore petroleum operators on transitional arrangements that provide commercial certainty and security for all the parties.

With the passage of the treaty’s implementing legislation today, Australia is now ready to partner with Timor-Leste to jointly develop the Greater Sunrise gas fields for the benefit of both countries.

Greater Sunrise will provide new opportunities for income, and commercial and industrial development in Timor-Leste, and is an important part of Timor-Leste’s economic future.

As Timor-Leste celebrates the 20^th anniversary of its independence as a sovereign nation this year, Australia remains steadfast in our support for Timor-Leste’s prosperity and role in the Indo-Pacific, and our friendship with the Timorese people.

There has not been nearly enough YASSSSSS minister jokes for my liking today, so thank you David Rowe

And the references for that fact check:

1. ‘Push to lift Newstart “erased” before election’, by Rob Harris. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 23, 2019

2. ‘Speers, Sky News TV’. July 24, 2019

3. ‘Older unemployed out of retirement review’, by Sophie Moore AAP. The Murray Valley Standard. July 26, 2019

4. ‘Kenny Report’. Sky News TV. July 24, 2019

5.‘BILLS - Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018 - Second Reading’, The Senate. Parliamentary Debates. Commonwealth of Australia. July, 22 2019

6. ‘Coalition puts surplus before Newstart rise’, by Phillip Coorey. Australian Financial Review. July 19, 2019

7. Senator Amanda Stoker. Verified Facebook page. May 11, 2019

8.‘Bill Shorten appears on Q&A after Scott Morrison’s 7.30 interview – as it happened’, by Amy Remeikis. The Guardian. May 7, 2019

9. ‘Coalition promises to support charities and the NDIS… but won’t budge on Newstart’, by Luke Michael. Pro Bono Australia. April 20, 2019

10.‘Newstart Allowance’. Department of Human Services

11. ‘Newstart Allowance - How much you can get’. Department of Human Services

12. ‘‘Utterly shameful’: Renewed push to raise unemployment benefit’, by Sam Clench and Jasmine Hines. News.com.au. July 22, 2019

13. ‘Newstart: Liberal MPs break ranks to join Nationals group calling for welfare increase’, by Sarah Martin. The Guardian Australia. July 22, 2019

14. ‘Two Libs join push to lift dole payments’, by Matt Coughlan. AAP. July 23, 2019

15. ‘Morrison government to prioritise pensioners over Newstart recipients’, by Rob Harris and Judith Ireland. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 24, 2019

16. ‘DSS Demographics December 2018. Two tabs. Tab 1: Payment Duration: Selected payment recipients by duration on payment and average duration, December 2018. Tab 2: Exists 12 months: Recipients who entered selected payments between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017’ and. Department of Social Services. March 22, 2019

17. ‘How long do people really stay on Newstart?’, by Peter Whiteford. Crikey. July 25, 2019

18. ‘One of the worst’: how Newstart compares to unemployment payments in rest of the world’, by Luke Henriques-Gomes. The Guardian Australia. July 23, 2019

19. ‘Are most people on the Newstart unemployment benefit for a short or long time?’, by Peter Whiteford. The Conversation. July 24, 2019

20. ‘Raise the Rate of Newstart fact check’. Australian Council of Social Services. July 22, 2019

That fact check continued:

The most recent Social Services department data, dated December 2018, captures the number of people receiving Newstart benefits. The “Payment Duration” table shows the average payment duration for all people on Newstart in December 2018 was 156 weeks or three years. [16]

The Payment Duration table shows that of all the 722,923 people getting Newstart in December 2018, 241,415 or 33% received it for under one year, almost 18% or 128,139 were on the payment for one to two years, 200,196 or 27% were on it for two to five years, just over 17% or 125,408 people had been on the benefit for between five and 10 years and 27,765 or just under 4% had been getting it for over 10 years. This table shows about 66% of people on Newstart were receiving the benefit for between one to 10 years. [16]

Another table in the same data document titled “Exits 12 months” shows the number of people who began receiving Newstart between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. This 2017 table shows there were 376,031 people who started receiving Newstart in 2017. Of this 2017 group, 236,530 exited within 12 months or 63 per cent. [16] This table supports the claim that two thirds of people on Newstart existed within 12 months but only for 2017.

A July 25, 2019 investigation by Crikey using Department of Social Services data found “the proportion of Newstart recipients on payments for more than a year climbed from 69% in 2014, to 73% in 2016 and to 76.5% in 2018. [17]

The Guardian Australia found on July 23 that the government was using select Newstart payment data between January-December 2017 to support its claim. [18]

The Conversation found on July 24, 2019, the contradiction between the government’s claim that most people who enter Newstart quickly leave compared to most people on Newstart who have been on it for a long time, was the difference between flow and stock. It found most Newstart recipients had to survive on Newstart long-term and “at any one time the overwhelming majority of the people” on Newstart had “been on it for more than a year”. [19]

The Australian Council of Social Service (Acoss) has also disputed the government’s claim stating: “two thirds of people receiving Newstart have received the payment for 12 months or more”. [20]

Based on this evidence AAP FactCheck found the claim that “two thirds of Newstart recipients end that payment within 12 months,” made by ministers McKenzie, Frydenberg, Dutton, Cormann and Fletcher, plus senators Askew and Stoker and Wentworth MP Dave Sharma, to be false.

The correct number of people who have ceased receiving Newstart within 12 months was one third, according to Department of Social Services’ ongoing data, not two thirds as government ministers claimed. The government’s claim is only true when referring to the number of people who started and exited Newstart in the 2017 calendar year.

The Verdict

• Mostly False - The checkable claim is mostly false, with one minor element of truth.

AAP has done a fact check on the claim that “two thirds of Newstart recipients end that payment within 12 months”, a statement made by Bridget McKenzie, Mathias Cormann, Dave Sharma, Wendy Askew, Peter Dutton, Amanda Stoker, Josh Frydenberg and Paul Fletcher.

AAP FactCheck examined Senator McKenzie’s claim that two thirds of people on Newstart end that payment within 12 months and found the exact same claim had been repeated by four other government ministers, two senators and a backbencher dating back to April 2019.

On July 26, 2019 finance minister Mathias Cormann was quoted as saying: “Two thirds of people on Newstart allowance are on it for less than a year, it is not designed to be an ongoing payment,” he said. [3]

The federal member for Wentworth, Dave Sharma, made the same claim on Sky TV on July 24, 2019 stating: “Two thirds of people who are on Newstart have often found employment within 12 months”. [4]

During a Senate debate on July 22, 2019, Tasmanian senator Wendy Askew said: “around two-thirds of jobseekers who are granted Newstart exit income support within 12 months”. [5] Home affairs minister Peter Dutton made the same claim on July 19, 2019, stating “two-thirds of people come off Newstart within 12 months”. [6]

In a Facebook post on May 11, 2019 addressing criticism the Newstart Allowance wasn’t increased in the budget, Senator Amanda Stoker stated “Around two thirds of those granted Newstart exit income support within 12 months”. [7]

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg repeated the same line on May 6, 2019, stating “the other thing about Newstart is two-thirds of the people come off within 12 months and go into a job”. [8]

Former social services minister, now communications minister Paul Fletcher, was quoted as saying “around two-thirds of those on Newstart exited income support within 12 months” on April 30, 2019. [9]

The Newstart Allowance is an income support payment for people aged from 22 but under Age Pension age who are actively looking for work. [10]

Singles with no children get a maximum of $278 per week/$555.70 per fortnight - or about $40 a day, while couples receive a maximum $251 each per week/$501.1 per fortnight. [11]

The payment has not increased in real terms for 25 years. [12]

Former prime minister John Howard, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, minister for resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan, Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos and a number of Coalition backbenchers have joined Labor and the Greens in calling for the government to raise the benefit. [13] [14]

Prime minister Scott Morrison has stated he’d rather give a welfare boost to pensioners than the unemployed. [15]

A spokesperson for Senator McKenzie advised AAP FactCheck the source of her claim was data.gov.au, the central source of Australian open government data.

Adam Bandt raised this in question time, but that is about as much as we have heard on this today. From Bandt’s office:

Greens Member for Melbourne Adam Bandt MP said today that the prime minister failed to assure the House that none of his ministers had lobbied on behalf of Crown casino, in breach of his Ministerial Code of Conduct, and that no Home Affairs officials had acted improperly.

Last night’s 60 Minutes report and recent reporting in The Age/Sydney Morning Herald has claimed a senior Home Affairs official was lobbied by several members of parliament, including two ministers, to help fast-track visas and airport entry for Crown high rollers.

“These reports are very concerning and the prime minister has refused to assure the House that none of his ministers acted improperly,” said Mr Bandt.

“The prime minister’s response is not good enough. He cannot wash his hands of this. He must to get to the bottom of whether his ministers and the Home Affairs Department have been involved in this scandal and report to the parliament about what action his government will take.”

Greens democracy spokesperson, Senator Larissa Waters, said:

“This is why we need an anti-corruption body. The ministerial standards are routinely ignored. The PM had a chance in both Houses of Parliament today to outline the investigations he is undertaking in relation to these latest alleged breaches and the answer was nothing. The PM refused to answer whether the ministers implicated are still in cabinet and confirmed that the Coalition has received almost $700,000 in donations from Crown since 2012.

“Public confidence in our democracy is being consistently eroded by the actions of this self-interested and greedy government. It’s time for an Icac now, with broad powers to investigate dodgy conduct including of ministers of the crown.”

The Senate has passed a motion criticising the government’s decision to include funding for couples counselling as part of $10 million program to tackle family violence.

Guardian Australia reported at the weekend that women’s safety groups had raised concerns about the Specialised Family Violence Services package, which was announced in the budget.

The Greens deputy leader, Larissa Waters, said the government had acted against the advice of experts in the field and the money should go to specialist domestic and family violence services, rather than faith-based family relationship services.

“Frontline services desperately need more funding,” she said.

The motion called on the government to “ensure [survivors are] not forced to undergo counselling with perpetrators”, a claim which the social services minister, Anne Ruston, said was “misleading”.

Ruston said providers did not force survivors to undergo counselling with perpetrators.

“The government believes we should provide a wide range of services to encourage women to come forward,” she said.

The Guardian found nearly half of the organisations invited to apply for the funding were religious-based.

Larissa Waters moved a motion for the production of documents related to this in the Senate:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister and Leader of the Government in the Senate, by 31 July 2019, the following documents:

1. any ‘constituent’ correspondence or other document sent to the Member for Hume, Mr Taylor, requesting action in relation to the listing of Natural Temperate Grassland of the South Eastern Highlands ecological community, as referred to by Senator Patrick in the Senate on 25 July 2019;
2. any correspondence between the Federal Government and Senator Patrick in relation to any proposed inquiry into the actions of Mr Taylor and Mr Frydenberg.

That did get up.

And the Senate has just passed Kristina Keneally’s motion, with the review due to be produced by Wednesday.

Remember that strategic review into Home Affairs we reported on a little bit ago? The one that was completed, but not released?

Kristina Keneally is trying to get a motion up in the Senate for the production of those documents.

Malcolm Roberts is complaining about the UN interfering with Australia’s sovereignty.

So situation normal in the Senate.

How Mike Bowers spent some of his time in the chamber.

Taking note of answers after question time, Labor has sent Penny Wong, Kim Carr and Deborah O’Neil into the attack against Angus Taylor.

Wong told the Senate that it appeared Taylor had used his ministerial position “to shore his investments up”:

He failed to declare a direct financial interest in a company, then used his position as a minister to defend that company’s interest after it was accused of breaking the law.

Earlier, in question time, Simon Birmingham gave an “emphatic no” to Wong’s suggestion that Taylor had sought special treatment and received it.

Wong said Taylor’s statement to parliament had failed to “provide any evidence he was representing anybody’s interests but himself”.

She dismissed a letter from a constituent three years prior to Taylor seeking a meeting with the environment department – because he didn’t act on it at the time – a letter that came six months after the meeting and “a conversation with a bloke from Yass”.

Taylor “magically, coincidentally” got a meeting with the environment department a day after the department met with Jam Land on the compliance matter, Wong said.

As we heard in question time, Taylor and the department maintain that the compliance matter was not raised at the meeting.

New senators National Susan McDonald and Liberal Claire Chandler were then sent in to defend Taylor.

McDonald accused Labor of acting “as if there is only one farmer in Australia” and defends Taylor’s explanation he was representing constituents by arguing there had been concern about the grass classification issue “for some time”.

The Senate still hasn’t voted on the Angus Taylor inquiry motion – that is coming up in just a bit, but it will be lost.

Russell Broadbent just delivered a statement to the House, claiming to have been misrepresented.

He has not called for an increase to the Newstart allowance. Just so you know.

Scott Morrison walks over to Angus Taylor on the bench and gives him a nod to walk out with him.

Subtle.

Scott Morrison nods to David Littleproud, letting him know that he will get the last dixer and then stacks his papers, the international signal that question time is about to end.

Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:

I again refer to his earlier answers and to the letter from farm organisations dated 3 October 2017. Given the minister refused to answer, I ask again, is the single alleged EPBCC breach in that letter the alleged poisoning of critically endangered grass on his lands?

Angus Taylor:

That is the same question and it gets the same answer.

Rebekha Sharkie to Sussan Ley:

On 26 October 2018 I joined local conservation groups in writing to the secretariat of the UN convention on the wetlands of international importance about the lower lakes site. Our letter constituted an article 3.2 notification and requires the government to respond within three months to a detailed questionnaire and what measures have been put in place to rectify the deterioration. Would the minister please advise the House of the government’s response?

Ley:

Can I thank the member for Mayo for her question and her keen interest in the [site] which is a vital part of her electorate, and indicate the letter she refers to was received before I was sworn in as environment minister. The convention, as she notes, is an international convention on the conservation of wetlands, particularly when it comes to the habitat of water birds. I’m very happy to follow up where that information is and get back to the member.

And that, is how dixers SHOULD be used.

Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:

I refer to his earlier answers and the letters from farm organisations dated 3 October 2017. Is the single alleged EPBCC breach referenced in that letter alleging poisoning of critically endangered grassland on the minister’s land?

Taylor:

The environment is not my portfolio responsibility. I have no idea how you expect me to answer that question.

This is the ongoing contempt and disdain you show for the farmers of this country.

Scott Morrison’s papers are not stacked. Which means we have some dixers to get through.

Labor is asking Senate questions about “lawbreaking Liberal construction boss Gerry Hanssen”, citing breaches by his company for “exploiting migrant workers” and a fine of Hanssen personally for refusing union officials entry to a work site.

Labor senator Louise Pratt asks why the Liberal party won’t eject him as a member.
The finance minister Mathias Cormann says that the government “condemns all breaches of workplace laws” – by employers or unions – and Hanssen was “appropriately subject to court proceedings”.

Cormann accuses Labor of attempting to suggest “an equivalence of the actions of Hansen with John Setka to distract from their failure to eject him from the Labor party”.

Labor senators interject – asking if the government will push to deregister his companies.

Christian Porter with your daily dose of just how safe you are: unions are terrible is up now.

Tony Burke to Angus Taylor:

Can the minister confirm that his statements to the parliament now offer three reasons for why he held a meeting with the Department of the Environment in 2017. One, somebody wrote a letter six months after the meeting that was addressed to somebody else. Two, somebody wrote a letter three years before the meeting that was addressed to somebody else and, three, he had a conversation with a bloke in Yass. Isn’t the only consistent interest here his own?

Angus Taylor:

That question shows the disdain that those opposite have for the farmers of Australia. The contempt they have for the farmers of Australia. Well, I’ll always back our farmers. I will always back our farmers.

I do it every day, Mr Speaker, and I refer to the comments that I made in my comprehensive and detailed statement earlier today.

Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:

I refer to the minister’s previous answers. Is it just a coincidence that the consultant who gave the go-ahead to spray critically endangered grasslands on the minister’s land also advised the authors of the letter about so-called problems with the listing?

Taylor:

I have already made a comprehensive and detailed statement to the House earlier today, where I made clear that my focus in my work as the member for Hume … was the technical aspects of the listing and ensuring that farmers get a fair deal under this listing.

That was my focus.

And that remains my focus and that is my job. Because there are only two people in this parliament who have regions covered by this, and only one was ever gonna advocate for the farmers across that region and that was me, Mr Speaker.

But the question is ... the question ... the question I want to know is, what have those opposite got against hard-working farmers?

What have they got against hard-working farmers? Because we have seen in this place now a targeted and deliberate approach from those opposite not just to demonise them but to fail to support them when it counts. Just last week they voted against the government’s drought fund which would help farmers when they’re doing it tough. This is a vital fund.

(Labor voted for the fund)

Paul Fletcher is STILL ON YOUR SIDE.

But really, his delivery is so...ravishingly engaging, it’s hard to pay attention to the words.

But trust us. HE IS ON YOUR SIDE

Angus Taylor, on the question of whether he received any correspondence from any constituents about the grasslands listing:

Whilst the question may not be identical, I have clearly answered the question in my previous answer. And I said in my statement earlier today, late 2016-17 I spoke with a series of farmers across my electorate and elsewhere about the concerns they had. And they pointed me ... to the 2014 submission from the National Farmers’ Federation.

And I go on, on this submission. This submission is very important because it captured the concerns of the farmers. It said, ‘Based on the information provided in the NFF’s view it is highly unlikely that an individual farmer would be able to assess their responsibilities under the EPBC.’

So this is a listing where the farmers were in a situation where they were not able to assess whether efficient pasture improvement and weed management could indeed be compliant. That is a very real concern for people who farm, and we understand farming on this side of the House.

But I think what those opposite are actually suggesting ... should be named and there is a very important piece of legislation going in front of this parliament in the coming weeks where there is an opportunity for you to decide whether naming farmers, naming farmers, in the face of activism, should be permitted.

Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:

I refer to the minister’s earlier answers. Did the minister receive a single letter from any constituent about the grasslands listing prior to his meeting with the Department of Environment in March 2017?

Christian Porter:

The member is relying on previous answers to ask that question, and the minister has just noted that in his answers and statement there is no reference to correspondence, which is what [they are] seeking to have tabled or answered.

Tony Smith:

I have to say to the leader of the house, whilst he may well be factually right, that doesn’t prevent the question being asked. It’s not an identical question. The only problem it would have would be if it was an identical question, and it’s not.

Don’t look back in anger

Another dixer on finding out how the Morrison government is ON YOUR SIDE.

Seriously. If the parliamentary procedures committee doesn’t come back with a DEATH TO DIXERS rule, you’ll be able to hear my scream in Cairns.

Angus Taylor:

In my statement earlier today in the House, I said that in late 2016 and early 2017 I spoke with farmers … in Goulburn in my electorate and Yass, which had been in Hume until mid-2016, about this listing and their concerns about the listing.

... On 21 February 2017 I spoke with a farmer near Yass who expressed strong and detailed concerns about the revised listing, pointing out that it had occurred despite the concerns of the National Farmers’ Federation and the New South Wales Farmers Federation and with little consultation with the farmers themselves.

And referring back to the letter from the National Farmers’ Federation to the department back in 2014, they laid out very clearly that the proposed adjustment to the listing typifies the frustration of the farm sector in relation to the listings under the EPBBC and they made it very clear that the evidence supporting the listing is not sufficiently robust.

Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:

I refer to the minister’s earlier answers. Will the minister table any correspondence about the grasslands listing from constituents received prior to his meeting with the Department of Environment and energy in March 2017?

Taylor:

I have already made a comprehensive and detailed statement in the House earlier today. And I tell you that the frustration of the farmers with this listing was clear. In 2014, in a table that I documented earlier today as part of that comprehensive statement, the national farmers federation ...

Anthony Albanese interrupts to say the question was about constituent correspondence, not the 2014 NFF submission.

Tony Smith says it has only been 30 seconds.

Christian Porter says any letters from constituents is not relevant to his current portfolio. Tony Burke points out that Taylor brought up the letters himself. Porter says he hasn’t heard any reference to those letters.

Smith:

Really, the ... point the manager of opposition business made is right. Once a – and I have ruled that way several times. Once a – a minister can’t be questioned about any of their previous portfolio responsibilities until such time as they address them, and once that’s been done, and that’s why questions do refer to the minister’s previous answers, and I have ruled numerous times in accordance with those precedents. So, I think it’s fine for the question to be asked but obviously the manner in which it’s been asked, it’s a matter for the minister how he seeks to deal with that.

Angus Taylor is also on your side.

And also on the side of big sticks. Or maybe toothpicks. It is hard to keep up with where that landed before the election.

Either way, sticks are back.

I’m pleased to say that we will be bringing forward later this year the big-stick legislation that those opposite have voted against 13 times in this parliament.

Mr Speaker, this legislation is vital to ensuring that we have another tool in the toolkit to maintain supply in the market and drive prices down, because we saw in 2016, as a result of the reckless targets of the Victorian Labor government, the exit of the Hazelwood power station, and the mere announcement of that exit saw a doubling of wholesale prices in Victoria.

Since then we have seen in Victoria, as a result of the exit of Hazelwood, prices hiking and lights going out. 200,000 Victorian households and businesses lost their power last summer. And despite the clear failure of that policy, and a similar policy from the previous South Australian Labor government, Mr Speaker, those opposite want to role this policy out nationally, Mr Speaker, nationally.

During the last election we saw independent modelling telling us that doing so would double wholesale prices of electricity and triple the price of gas. We on this side of the House sit on the side of a fair deal for the hard-working small businesses and households of Australia.

Terri Butler to Angus Taylor:

I refer to the minister’s earlier answer claiming that a letter from farm organisations dated 3 October 2017 proves he was making constituent representations when he sought a meeting with the Department of the Environment and Energy six months prior. How did the minister seek a meeting as a result of a letter that didn’t exist until six months later?

Taylor:

I have already made a comprehensive and detailed statement on this matter covering exactly this issue to the House earlier today and in that statement I made clear that through discussions with farmers in late 2016 and 2017, they demonstrated deep concerns about the impact of this listing on their farming operation.

And they pointed me to a National Farmers’ Federation submission made in 2014 expressing those concerns. 2014.

Expressing those concerns about the impact of this listing on our farmers. But let’s be clear.

Let’s be clear.

... Let’s be clear about what this is about. Those opposite just want to smear farmers and those who represent farmers in this place because they are completely out of touch with farmers.

We saw at the last election those opposite take policies to that election which would mean rolling out the draconian native vegetation laws in Queensland as state laws across Australia and in the process undermine the productivity and success of one of the great industries that has been the backbone of this country for so long, Mr Speaker. I will speak up for farmers every day in this place. That’s what we do on this side of the House.

Michael Sukkar is giving a lesson in merit in this next dixer.

Jim Chalmers to Josh Frydenberg:

How many of the 76 recommendations from the banking royal commission has the government fully implemented?

Frydenberg:

I can inform the House that we have already legislated recommendation 3.6, which will prohibit superannuation funds inducing employees. We have recommended and legislated through this place recommendation 3.7, which introduces civil penalties for trustees and directors of super funds.

We have already introduced and passed regulations which extend Apra’s remit for financial comments to 2008.

We have passed regulations to ensure greater cooperation with Apra is legislated ... we have with the states and territories to develop a national approach.

We announced a ... review into Apra and we have accepted the recommendations from that Apra review.

Mr Speaker, we have announced in the budget $649 million extra funding for Asic and Apra, which is 25 % to 30% increase.

We’re extending the jurisdictions of the federal court to include criminal jurisdiction, and the list goes on.

Now, Mr Speaker ... There were 76 recommendations. Mr Speaker, the other side are a complete joke. The other side are a complete joke. They took 22 days to respond. We took four days.

And we’re getting on with the job of legislating past regulations, doing it carefully so no mistakes are made. This is a critically important area. When it comes to an organisation like Apra, in Labor’s last year in office, funding actually decreased not increased.

... We have passed legislation, passed regulations and are getting on with the job of protecting Australian consumers.

Labor is probing the Angus Taylor grassland issue in Senate question time, asking if there is only one “compliance action” for breaching environmental rules on grasslands in the region – and whether it relates to land owned by Taylor.

Simon Birmingham, representing Taylor in the Senate, points to the statement the energy and emissions reduction minister made in the lower house.

Birmingham:

“[Taylor] has not engaged in discussions about compliance actions, he has represented his electorate in matters brought to him by constituents ... If there is information about further compliance matters, I will bring it to the attention of the chamber.”

Wong notes this appears to confirm there was only one compliance action. There follows several points of order on relevance, and Wong passively aggressively calls Birmo “mate”.

Birmingham says the ownership structure of Taylor’s interests is “on the public record”. “Through you Mr President – mate – he’s been very clear about its ownership.”

Josh Frydenberg is also on your side.

Adam Bandt has the independent question today:

Reports have emerged that a wanted criminal wasn’t arrested when he first landed in Australia and his plane was recently searched on the tarmac but allowed to leave the country, even though an Interpol notice was in forced.

It’s also been reported that he got money and special treatment from Crown casino and ministers have lobbied Home Affairs to ensure high rollers can fly into the country, drive to Crown casino with a minimal amount of clearances.

Can you assure none of your [ministers] lobbied … which would breach your ministerial Code of Conduct. Can you also guarantee no Home Affairs officials have acted improperly in those matters?

Scott Morrison:

I thank the Member for Melbourne for his question. It is a very serious topic and deals with the integrity not only of our gaming industry but issues that go to law enforcement and border protection. And I welcome the Member for Melbourne’s interest in this topic.

Our government takes allegations of illegal activity very seriously. Everyone is required to abide by Australian law, including casino operators, public officials, all visitors to our country. Our law enforcement agencies are working hard to disrupt criminal groups [involved in] financially motivated crime.

While I can’t go into the details of that for obvious reasons which would be known to the member, these investigations are ongoing and will continue. In relation to the specific matters that were raised by the member, there has been nothing presented to me that would indicate there are any matters there for me to address.

Anthony Albanese to Josh Frydenberg:

I refer to his previous answer. Is annual wages growth now better or worse than when his government came to office?

Frydenberg:

Growth is 2.3 % and wages continue to go up.

Llew O’Brien summons Michael McCormack to the despatch box.

Moving on.

Peter Dutton is not in the chamber – he’s in the UK for a meeting with the Five Eyes partners.

That leaves Christian Porter to deliver the JUST HOW SAFE YOU ARE segment today.

Jim Rankin to Josh Frydenberg:

Why does the government support cutting penalty rates when the Reserve Bank says that stagnant wages are a key contributor to slowing growth in the economy?

Frydenberg:

We don’t support cutting penalty rates but we do support an independent arbitor, and it’s taken 53 questions from those opposite for the member for Rankin to get a question to the treasurer.

“Tell us about wages growth,” someone from Labor yells out.

“Labor, Labor, Labor, Labor,” Ed Husic yells, as Frydenberg talks about when Labor was last in office. That was six years ago.

Labor leader in the Senate Penny Wong has just accused the government of filibustering an obscure bill about the East Timor maritime sea boundary, despite ministers Marise Payne and Matt Canavan asking Labor to help secure “speedy passage” of the bill.
Wong cites the addition to the speaking list of Dean Smith, Slade Brockman, Andrew Bragg and Paul Scarr. Labor thinks the government is stalling because it risks running out of business or faces hostile Jacqui Lambie amendments to a veterans bill.

Wong:

“With all due respect to the senator, [Dean] Smith, because he is very well spoken and can speak at short notice, but it is very clear the government is seeking to delay the passage of this bill before question time. [The ministers] owe the Senate an explanation why we were asked to facility speedy passage and you’re now filibustering it.”

Senator Jane Hume insists there has been “no delay”, it’s just the government senators have something “significant” to say.

Smith then argues it is important for every senator to make a contribution if they wish. Smith then refers to himself in the third person, explaining that “Senator Smith’s” state of Western Australia shares a maritime boundary with East Timor. We’re now into question time.

Scott Morrison takes the first dixer. He’s super on your side.

Labor and the Greens, along with the Senate crossbench, have voted to investigate how much Newstart should be increased by and how much that would cost.

Scott Morrison:

The best form of welfare is a job, that’s what those on this side of the House believe and I believe Australians believe and I want to commend all those Australians who are on Newstart and looking for a job.

Our government won’t rest until we get them all into jobs. That’s the pledge we made at the last [election] … 1.25 million new jobs over the last few years and that’s on the … over 1 million jobs created since we came to government.

I’m asked about the rate of Newstart, $555 a fortnight. But on average an additional $153.50 is paid a fortnight to recipients and some 99%, I am advised, receive payments over and above Newstart.

But what I tell you, what I won’t do when it comes to Newstart in this place, I will not engage in the unfunded empathy of the Labor party.

I will not go out as the Labor party did at the last election, pretending they’re going to do something about Newstart, but they won’t tell Australians how much they’re going to increase it by, how much is that going to cost and how are they going to pay for it.

I won’t do that. Our government has set priorities on investing in health, in schools, on education, on mental health, on combating the terrible curse of suicide in our country, supporting our veterans.

We have made those choices about priorities rather than increasing the size of the welfare budget.

At the last election the Labor party came up with $387 billion of higher taxes and they still didn’t come up with a way to fund an increase in the Newstart allowance.

I will not allow this Labor opposition to go out and make all sorts of promises to Australians about Newstart when they have no intention of funding it and no intention of backing it up with a real policy.

Scott Morrison has entered the chamber with Angus Taylor.

That’s a deliberate statement.

Perhaps the prime minister is ambitious for Taylor.

The government appears to be adding speakers to the maritime boundaries legislation.

Senators, of course, are able to speak on whatever legislation they would like, as are MPs. But adding MPs to this one, given its support, has Labor smelling a filibuster.

Why? Well, it’s discuss legislation, or move on to the Governor-Address-In-Reply, which is what happens when the Senate runs out of legislation to discuss.

The union bill probably won’t make it to the Senate today, because Labor will most likely hold it up in the House by adding as many speakers as it can to the list – one, because Labor is against it, and two, because it gives Labor an opportunity to point out the lack of legislation in the Senate.

Who is that MP?

It was Ted O’Brien.

It’s the downhill slide into question time.

Angus Taylor has attempted to get in ahead with his statement. Will it work? Hit me up with your predictions.

And the beginning of the statement, which I originally missed:

First, Mr Speaker, I want to address the matter of my declaration of interests.

I am required by the rules of this place to disclose my shareholdings.

My Register of Member’s Interests discloses my shareholdings in my family company, Gufee Pty Ltd.

I am required by the rules of this place to disclose any partnerships I am part of.

My Register of Member’s Interests discloses Gufee’s interest in Farm Partnerships Australia.

This is a legal partnership set up with my three brothers and a business associate over twenty years ago to farm across this region, close to where I stand now, via leased, managed and owned farms.

We originally set it up to work with ageing and absentee farmers, to allow them to continue to living on, and owning their farms, beyond their ability to farm themselves.

This farming partnership – a common legal structure for rural holdings – has in recent years held a one third interest in a farm near Delegate in South Eastern NSW

If the Register of Interests were required to record minority, non-controlling interests held at three levels down in a family company structure, this would be a major change to the current practice.

For instance, investments made by public companies held by members would need to be disclosed.

It would require changes in disclosures for many in this place, including for those opposite.

I therefore have fully met my obligations to declare my interests in Gufee and Farm Partnerships Australia.

Mr Speaker, I turn to the revised EPBC listing, the natural temperate grasslands of the Southern Tablelands Ecological Community.

In late 2016 and early 2017 I spoke with farmers from Boorowa and Goulburn in my electorate, and Yass which had been in Hume until mid 2016, about this listing and their concerns with the listing. On 21 February 2017, I spoke with a farmer near Yass who expressed strong and detailed concerns about the revised listing, pointing out that it had occurred despite the concerns of the National Farmers’ Federation and NSW Farmers, and with little consultation with farmers themselves. All of these farmers were completely disconnected from our family farming operations.

Angus Taylor continues:

Officials in attendance were determined by the department.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the facts are clear and straightforward:

· My interests have been declared in complete adherence to the rules.

· I have had no association with the events leading to the compliance action that has been the subject of these allegations, and I have never made a representation in relation to it. I never would. All available information supports my repeated statements that the compliance action was never raised.

· My focus was advocating for the interests of the farmers in my electorate and across the region. This is my job as the elected representative for Hume with a large farming population and agriculture sector

Mr Speaker, I am proud to represent the interests of farmers - the backbone of so many regional communities. I will continue to do this at every opportunity.

Angus Taylor:

There has been strong antagonism expressed by the farming community about federal and state native vegetation regulation for some time. The concern was very serious. The revised listing requires farmers to assess whether there is 50% native vegetation down to parcels of one-tenth of a hectare and highly unfavourable times of year, because clover, an introduced species, must be excluded from the assessment.

The revised listing extends beyond most of my electorate’s farming country, both pre and post the 2016 redistribution, as well as much of Eden-Monaro. It goes well beyond NSW regulations, and is costly and unmanageable, as it is difficult or impossible to be sure that routine pasture improvement, or weed management, is compliant.

The revised listing would ultimately halt pasture improvement and efficient weed control across the southern tablelands and Monaro. It has the potential to do untold damage to agriculture productivity throughout the region, undermining the livelihoods of 2500 people who work in agriculture in my electorate.

On the 21st of February 2017, at the suggestion of the Yass farmer, I contacted the policy director of the NSW Farmers’ Association, who provided me with their June 2014 submission to the then department of environment, expressing serious concerns about the proposed revised listing. On the basis of these concerns, I sought a briefing on the revised listing from the then-ministers office, which I made clear was not to include any discussion of compliance matters.

This has already been confirmed by departmental documents released to journalists under FOI in which an official writes in internal correspondence, that the meeting with me was, and I quote ‘to answer questions on the technical aspects of the listing outcome and highlights that they would stay out of completely any compliance action under way’.

The official also writes, and I quote, ‘we will confine discussion to the EPBC Act listing process’.

On the 20th March 2017, I attended the meeting. At no time during this meeting was any compliance matter or any personal interest of mine discussed. At that meeting we discussed precisely what the departmental official said we would discuss.

Christian Porter is attempting to have this dealt with tomorrow, while Adam Bandt is asking the House to deal with it immediately.

The government has the numbers.

He says all the available information backs up what he is saying, and he has never been involved in the compliance action.

Angus Taylor is making a statement in the House about the grasslands issue.

So far, the government is not budging, in terms of policy, on raising Newstart.

This was Scott Morrison on July 18:

It’s about getting people into jobs. The latest jobs figures show 20,000 additional full-time jobs. That’s good news, that’s great news, more jobs. How good are jobs.

At the moment, Newstart is only slated to rise by the usual indexation increase.

The Senate is getting down to the government business of the day:

That’s pretty definitive, but will also be used by Pauline Hanson to gain support from her supporters.

Just the standard Cornelian dilemma thrown up by the Senate

This is very interesting:

On ensuring integrity:

Barnaby Joyce on Sunrise this morning:

I wouldn’t have picked the headline ‘I’m skint’. I would have said, you know, I have a greater empathy for what people are going through on Newstart. Someone has got to speak up for them and so often, Nat, if you say, you know, we have to do a better deal for these people and people say, “How would you know? You’re a politician.” A lot of people, I suppose, hate to really talk about it but I have to because of the front page. In a marriage breakdown you go from supporting one family to supporting two, in many instances.

And here are his comments in the Courier-Mail, which kickstarted all of this:

I’m just saying these circumstances have made me more vastly attuned … it’s just a great exercise in humility going from deputy prime minister to watching every dollar you get.

A politician [renting a duplex without a dishwasher] for 415 bucks a week, he’s not living high on the hog, is he? There is a reason for that and that’s basically what I can afford. You do become a lot more mindful.

So the big thrill of the day, to be honest, is a cup of coffee. We [he and Vikki] rarely, if ever, go out for dinner.

Because 2019 is the new 2004, Pauline Hanson wants to make the next election about immigration numbers.

Let’s look at the numbers, shall we?

The government has announced an immigration target of 160,000. That is no change from what is actually happening, because in the last year, despite a high ceiling of 190,000, just 162,000 permanent residents were accepted in Australia.

Over that same period, Australia’s economy grew by just 1.8%. Low, but growth is growth. Of that, about 94% of growth was attributed to population growth – our economy grew because of the extra people in it. Total per capita growth was 0.1%.

Without migrants, Australia’s economy goes backwards. The government knows that. It’s why it dances a line between cutting immigration and just keeping things at the status quo.

But hey – it gets breakfast TV headlines, so let’s dance.

The Australian is reporting that #deathtodixers is gathering steam.

OK, it is not that specific. But Greg Brown has some detail on the parliamentary procedures committee:

The conduct of federal parliament’s question time — including Dorothy Dixers, the behaviour of MPs and arcane standing orders — will be the subject of an ­inquiry, amid warnings from across the political spectrum that it diminishes the reputation of politicians.

Coalition and Labor MPs on the parliament’s procedures committee will this week finalise the terms of an inquiry of how question time can be reformed, with submissions to be sought from the public.

Liberal National MP Ross Vasta and Labor MP Milton Dick, the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee, said the community was “fed up” with the spectacle of question time, which is the only part of parliament that is televised every sitting day. The inquiry will examine whether Dixers — prearranged questions from government backbenchers to ministers — should be axed.

The government’s big push this week, ahead of the five-week break, will be unions, with the ensuring integrity bill to dominate much of the debate.

So far, the numbers are not there in the Senate. One Nation has concerns, Centre Alliance wants to expand the definition of organisation to include the private sector and Jackie Lambie isn’t thrilled with John Setka, but hasn’t landed on a final position as yet.

Christian Porter spoke to RN this morning about it.

The bells are ringing – parliament is about to begin.

This is the last sitting before the winter break. Come Thursday, parliament will rise and not return until 9 September. There are five joint sitting weeks left in the year, plus one separate House and Senate sitting.

Oh, and as my lovely eyes and ears have pointed out, Barnaby Joyce is also a committee chair (he heads up the employment, education and training committee) which means he gets about an extra $30,000 a year on top of his $211,000. Again, this is without entitlements, including his electorate allowance of $46,000, which he gets to decide how is spent, his travel allowance, or his entitlements.

That’s, conservatively, $250,000 a year.

Here’s Joyce speaking this morning about his “incredibly good salary” and empathy for those trying to survive on Newstart.

Both Labor and the Greens will try to get a motion up in the Senate to launch an inquiry into Angus Taylor over the grasslands issue.

You’ll find some context for that here.

As Paul Karp reported, Centre Alliance will now back the inquiry, but it is still a few votes short:

Labor will continue to target the energy minister, Angus Taylor, as the government’s weak link, citing power price rises since 2015 and renewing its push to set up a Senate inquiry into his meetings with the environment department over endangered grasslands.

On Sunday the mooted inquiry took a step forward with Rex Patrick reversing Centre Alliance’s position and pledging to support the move, although Labor and the Greens still need Cory Bernardi or One Nation’s votes to succeed.

Pauline Hanson told Sky News this morning she would not support the inquiry:

Cory Bernardi is unlikely too.

So, unless something major changes, that is dead in the water.

And also, let’s not let this story just disappear.

Rob Harris’s report in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age that Paul Fletcher, then social services minister, intervened to remove an “increase Newstart” recommendation in a joint-parliamentary committee was fantastic reporting:

A bipartisan call to increase the Newstart allowance was removed from a parliamentary report at the direction of the Morrison government on the eve of the federal election.

As prime minister Scott Morrison stares down growing demands by Coalition MPs to lift the unemployment benefit for the first time since 1994, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age can reveal former social services minister Paul Fletcher intervened in an inquiry to erase a major recommendation that would have turbocharged the sensitive issue.

And under questioning from Annabel Crabb on Insiders yesterday, Fletcher did not deny it. As Paul Karp reported:

Paul Fletcher has repeatedly dodged questions about whether he intervened as social services minister to strike out a committee recommendation to raise the rate of Newstart.

On Sunday Fletcher told ABC’s Insiders that the final committee report recommending a review of unemployment benefits was signed off by its members, but did not deny that he caused a stronger call for an increase to be removed.

It comes as the deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, stares down a push within the Nationals to overturn government policy by commissioning modelling on the economic impact of lifting Newstart.

And yes, it is great that politicians (Labor party included) are slowly coming around to the fact that Newstart needs to be increased. But I have a pretty big problem with people who only realise something is a problem when they have their version of a direct experience with it.

Barnaby Joyce saying he gets it because he is doing it tough on a great wage like $200,000 is one thing. But that is a figure most of us can only dream of receiving. His life has been one of privilege and his circumstances one of choice. Advocate to raise Newstart. It’s beyond time. It has been more than 20 years since its last real increase and no one can live on $270 a week in this society.

Barnaby Joyce also receives $288 a day while he is in Canberra, on top of his wage. Saying he understands, because he too is struggling on his grand wage – one of the lowest he has received in 14 years in parliament – and only now that he is struggling, is an insult to those who have only ever known struggle and have never had a chance to rise above their circumstances, because our system is actually built that way.

You can have your heart in the right place and still be a shit ally. Like people who say they don’t see colour or gender. That’s something only people who haven’t had colour or gender matter say. Or well-meaning straight LGBTIQ allies who throw “coming out” straight parties in an attempt to normalise coming out, without considering that it is a lifelong process (it is never a one and done experience) and, for many, terrifying, with far-reaching consequences.

So great, advocate for the more vulnerable. But maybe, just maybe, don’t make it about you while you’re doing it. Because more often than not, it isn’t and never has been.

And for a comparison, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age did an excellent interactive on what your profession’s median wage is not so long ago.

You can also see the Australian Bureau of Statistics report on median earnings here.

Let’s just break down some numbers here, as we take in that one of the most privileged men in Australia says he is doing it tough, because he is supporting a child through boarding school, as well as his estranged wife and the family he left, and his new partner and their two infants on *just* $211,000 a year (not counting allowances).

As a senator, Barnaby Joyce, who has often said he could make more money as an accountant (a wage we are not counting) made conservatively $199,000 a year between 2005 and 2013. That’s not counting allowances, indexation or committee memberships.

That’s just over $1.5m.

When he moved to the House of Reps and served as a minister, he conservatively, made $350,00 a year. So there is another $700,000.

While deputy prime minister, he made $415,000 a year. So add on another $830,000 (which is quite conservative, but let’s count two years).

As a backbencher, he is making a minimum of $211,000. So he has made just under $400,000 on that.

So since 2005, Barnaby Joyce has earned, on the most conservative of measures, $3.5m as a politician.

This is not counting the $150,000 his partner received for the first televised interview after the birth of their son.

AAP has reported on the Newspoll result:

Prime minister Scott Morrison is heading into the final parliamentary sitting week ahead of the winter break on the back of a new poll pointing to a lift in his government’s popularity.

The Coalition’s primary vote has increased by 2.6% since its May election victory to 44%, according to the Newspoll published by the Australian on Monday.

On a two-party-preferred basis, the government now leads Labor 53% to 47%.

Morrison also leads Labor leader Anthony Albanese as preferred prime minister at 48% to 31%, while Labor’s primary vote remains largely unchanged at 33%.