This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/may/09/malcolm-turnbull-begins-the-budget-hard-sell-politics-live

The article has changed 16 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Federal budget and dual citizenship: four MPs quit after high court ruling – politics live Federal budget and dual citizenship: four MPs quit after high court ruling – politics live
(35 minutes later)
Here is Justine Keay’s whole statement to the chamber:
The greatest honour of my life was being elected as the member for Braddon in 2016.
In my first speech in this House, I said the people of West Coast and North West of Tasmania, and of course King Island, they’re a resilient lot. Ours is a community that genuinely care for each other. We come together in challenging times, we’re generous of spirit, we’re always willing to pitch in and help one another.
I chose to put up my hand up for my community because the need to stand up for workers, for pensioners and those trying to make ends meet, convinced me that they deserved a progressive voice in Canberra fighting for them.
I’m also here to give my kids, and kids right across my electorate, the decent, secure jobs they deserve in the beautiful part of Tassie they know and love.
I want to make it very clear to every member of my community, and every member of this House, that I am not done working and fighting on behalf of those who sent me here.
This citizenship issue has been a difficult time for my family, friends, supporters and staff and of course, myself. It’s been a character building experience.
But I can hold my head high for being upfront and honest with my electorate. I have nothing to fear or hide, you just need to look at my disclosure for that. I’ve been criticised for being too honest. Bit of an oxymoron for a politician perhaps. People have commented that while I don’t have an allegiance to the United Kingdom, that perhaps I have an allegiance to my family. Well if they are my flaws, then so be it.
I am a seventh generation Tasmanian. A town in the Huon Valley bears my mother’s family’s name. I am proud of my heritage from both my mother and father, as I would expect all Australians are proud of theirs.
I’ve always been upfront about the fact that before nominating for Parliament I acted on the best available legal advice, which indicated that I had satisfied the eligibility requirements under the Constitution as they had been interpreted for 25 years.
Today, the High Court has set a new precedent. This is a new rule, and I respect this new rule without qualification.
As a consequence of today’s decision, I will be resigning my seat as the Federal Member for Braddon. I will be writing to you, Mr Speaker to advise you of my resignation.
I will nominate for preselection to contest the election in the seat of Braddon. The people in my community deserve a representative that cares about them, respects them and listens to them. This is what I have done and I will continue to do.
I am proud of the fact of the first things I was able to achieve after being elected was to successfully advocate on behalf of local farmers for an inquiry to get to the bottom of the floods that devastated the livelihoods and the lives of my local communities.
I am proud of the fact my office has been able to assist hundreds if not thousands of people in Braddon.
I am proud of the fact I have been the first Member of Parliament in my electorate in generations to take mobile offices to our outlying communities in the far North West and West Coasts.
I am proud of the fact I have been able to advocate on behalf of our local fishers, farmers, miners, foresters and industry and of course our pensioners and people who feel they don’t have a voice.
But I also know there is much more to be done.
The people of Braddon deserve a government that invests in them and puts them first. This is what a Shorten Government will do.
I have been privileged to be have been given roles and responsibilities within the Shorten Opposition Caucus as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources and Secretary of Labor’s Caucus on Australian Jobs Taskforce. I want to thank my caucus colleagues for their unwavering support and mentoring, a united and awesome Labor team.
I have been supported by a passionate labour movement in Tasmania, party members, union members and of course, my staff who go beyond what is required and to support me and to help the people of my electorate. This has been hard on them and on my family and has taken a personal toll on all of us.
But we will keep fighting – this is bigger than us, it is about giving a voice to those who feel they don’t have one. It’s about helping people. That’s why I’m here. It’s about making our region, as wonderful as it is, better and better
Even the prime minister has given up on question time. It ends.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has released its budget snapshot.
For some facts and figures, head here
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:
This morning the treasurer introduced legislation to reform the income tax scheme. He refused to say what the year by year cost of the scheme would be. Will you tell the Parliament what is the year by year cost of the government’s personal income tax scheme over those seven years?” How does the treasurer expect this Parliament to support policies when he doesn’t know or won’t say how much they cost?
Morrison: The shadow treasurer will be well aware of the process for putting together budgets. He was once a treasurer. It for very long, and we will work very hard on this side of the house to ensure he doesn’t get that opportunity again, because of a lack of understanding that he has demonstrated in this place about how budgets are put together. I have made it very clear that the cost of that measure over the medium term is $140 billion.” Morrison: IT IS $140 BILLION. GOSH! THE BUDGET IS AWESOME
(I assume) He is yelling like he’s being swept up in a cyclone and there is a lot of pointing and fist-shaking and honestly, I am too tired to go through this for a millionth time today.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
The government has refused to say the separate cost of all three steps of its personal income tax scheme, and refused to provide the year-by-year cost of its income tax scheme. Is it that the government does not know what these numbers are, or that it is refusing to provide the answer?”
Scott Morrison takes it, because he just hasn’t got his yelling-at-Labor quota in today (and someone in his office has been very busy researching).
“The Leader of the Opposition may be very used to changing the rules to suit himself in the union movement and the opposition. This is what the former finance minister said in the government of which he formed apart. This is Penny Wong in 2012: ‘We do not release 10-year costings.’ The treasurer Wayne Swan stood at the same National Press Club and talked about 10-year projection as being unreliable, and he said to Fran Kelly on 20 March 2012, ‘We do not do those 10-year estimates’. Mr Speaker, it is always one rule for the Labor Party and one rule for everyone else. One rule for their union mates, one rule for everyone else. You can’t change the rules ...”
He withdraws the union mates comment and ends his question.
Peter Dutton takes his daily dixer on how safe we all are. VERY, VERY SAFE and now even safer because of the awesome budget.
Bill Shorten tries again to get Scott Morrison to say the corporate tax cuts will cost $80 billion, but Morrison is not having any of it.
And I really don’t think I have the energy at this stage to type out another answer saying nothing. It’s been a rough day.
Michael McCormack is yelling at the opposition because he is talking about infrastructure funding that is “ABOUT SAVING PEOPLE’S LIVES” (he is talking about the upgrade of the Cooroy-to-Curra section of the Bruce Highway, which is a particularly deadly section of road.
Anthony Albanese has a point of order to say they didn’t yell anything out.
Peter Dutton gets up to accuse Anne Aly of having made an unparliamentary remark, which Bill Shorten laughed at. She denies it, we move on.
And Chris Bowen has another go:
This morning the treasurer introduced legislation to implement the government’s entire seven-year personal income tax gain.
Already today at the National Press Club, the treasurer refused to say what the year-by-year cost of that scheme because he said those costings were unreliable. If the Treasurer won’t say what the year-by-year cost of the scheme is, and he also says the costing is unreliable, how could the Treasurer of the parliament vote for it?”
Scott Morrison:
The answer is simple. The cost of the measure is $140 billion over the next 10 years. That is more than twice the relief that has been provided to companies under our enterprise tax plan. We are putting the priority on ensuring the tax relief is provided to those on low and middle incomes ... If the opposition wants to deny Australians lower taxes, then they should just be honest about it. They should not come in here looking for excuses, Mr Speaker. They will look for any excuse not to reduce taxes for Australians. The bill is on the table. Vote for it or oppose it. Whichever way you do it, then the Australian people know where you sit on tax and where they sit on tax. Higher tax on Labor, low under the Liberal and National Party and you are making that clear to the Australian people.”
Chris Bowen tries again:
What is the year by year cost of the budget’s new personal income tax scheme over those seven years?”
Scott Morrison:
Page 33 of budget paper two, which sets out the costings, and as I have indicated the full cost is $140 billion over 10 years.”
So, still no answer.
He says Labor didn’t provide the year-by-year estimate beyond the forward estimates for its retiree tax, which is basically the “your face is” argument.
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:
This morning the treasurer introduced legislation to reform the income tax scheme. He refused to say what the year-by-year cost of the scheme would be. Will you tell the Parliament what is the year-by-year cost of the government’s personal income tax scheme over those seven years?”
Morrison: The shadow treasurer will be well aware of the process for putting together budgets. He was once a treasurer. If not for very long, and we will work very hard on this side of the house to ensure he doesn’t get that opportunity again, because of a lack of understanding that he has demonstrated in this place about how budgets are put together. I have made it very clear that the cost of that measure over the medium term is $140 billion.”
#theministerdoesnotanswerthequestion#theministerdoesnotanswerthequestion
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:
The budget includes a seven year personal income tax scheme. The budget papers outlined three separate steps of the scheme,and the government this morning introduced legislation to implement all three steps of the scheme. Will the treasurer immediately release the separate cost of each step of its personal income tax scheme?” The budget includes a seven-year personal income tax scheme. The budget papers outlined three separate steps of the scheme, and the government this morning introduced legislation to implement all three steps of the scheme. Will the treasurer immediately release the separate cost of each step of its personal income tax scheme?”
Morrison: The cost of the plan over 10 years is $140 billion.Morrison: The cost of the plan over 10 years is $140 billion.
We should move to another dixer, but whoever it was supposed to be on the government side doesn’t get up in time, and Bowen jumps up to fill the gap with another question.We should move to another dixer, but whoever it was supposed to be on the government side doesn’t get up in time, and Bowen jumps up to fill the gap with another question.
“My question is for the PM. Will the PM released a separate cost of each step of the government’s seven year income tax plan?” “My question is for the PM. Will the PM release a separate cost of each step of the government’s seven-year income tax plan?”
Turnbull: the Treasurer has answered that question very well. The question that the member for McMahon and his leader can’t answer is what is going to happen to the Australian economy and thousands of jobs if they were able to manage their tax plan, which is putting up taxes on businesses, on families, grabbing the cash out of retirees...” Turnbull: The Treasurer has answered that question very well. The question that the member for McMahon and his leader can’t answer is what is going to happen to the Australian economy and thousands of jobs if they were able to manage their tax plan, which is putting up taxes on businesses, on families, grabbing the cash out of retirees ...”
He’s told to sit down, because Tony Burke has a point of order, but then decides he has already said enough and concludes his answer.He’s told to sit down, because Tony Burke has a point of order, but then decides he has already said enough and concludes his answer.
We move on to the Member for Bonner, Ross Vasta, who gets a cheer for remembering to stand up, and another dixer on just how amazing is this budget, oh really amazing, I had no idea is uttered. Craig Laundy gets this one. He is really looking forward to heading to Queensland this Friday to talk more budget amazingness, apparently. We move on to the Member for Bonner, Ross Vasta, who gets a cheer for remembering to stand up, and another dixer on “how amazing is this budget, oh really amazing, I had no idea” is uttered. Craig Laundy gets this one. He is really looking forward to heading to Queensland this Friday to talk more budget amazingness, apparently.
Bill Shorten tries again:Bill Shorten tries again:
Prime Minister, is the total cost of corporate tax cuts over 10 years from July 1, 2018 both legislated and proposed to be legislated by this government, is it more than or less than $100 billion?”Prime Minister, is the total cost of corporate tax cuts over 10 years from July 1, 2018 both legislated and proposed to be legislated by this government, is it more than or less than $100 billion?”
Malcolm Turnbull: The honourable member, by the year 2027-2028, the full enterprise tax plan, were it all to be legislated, will have been in full operation for two years. So asking what company tax receipts will be 10 years from now is effectively asking, “What will be the profitability of the corporate sector 10 years from now?” Medium-term estimate has been provided.Malcolm Turnbull: The honourable member, by the year 2027-2028, the full enterprise tax plan, were it all to be legislated, will have been in full operation for two years. So asking what company tax receipts will be 10 years from now is effectively asking, “What will be the profitability of the corporate sector 10 years from now?” Medium-term estimate has been provided.
Scott Morrison in his latest effort of describing the budget as the greatest thing since Cronulla, refers to the opposition as “you muppet”.Scott Morrison in his latest effort of describing the budget as the greatest thing since Cronulla, refers to the opposition as “you muppet”.
That is ruled unparliamentary.That is ruled unparliamentary.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
I missed the whole question, but it basically amounts to WHAT IS THE TOTAL OF CORPORATE TAX CUTS FROM JULY 1 2018 OVER THE 10 YEARS, OMG JUST SAY $80 BILLIONI missed the whole question, but it basically amounts to WHAT IS THE TOTAL OF CORPORATE TAX CUTS FROM JULY 1 2018 OVER THE 10 YEARS, OMG JUST SAY $80 BILLION
The prime minister does not say $80 billion.The prime minister does not say $80 billion.
I refer him to the earlier answer. The medium term cost of the unlegislated component of the enterprise tax plan currently before the Senate is $35.6 billion over the period from 2016-17 to 27-28. And in 27-28 the projected cost of that is around $9.8 billion.”I refer him to the earlier answer. The medium term cost of the unlegislated component of the enterprise tax plan currently before the Senate is $35.6 billion over the period from 2016-17 to 27-28. And in 27-28 the projected cost of that is around $9.8 billion.”
As Shorten’s eye begins to twitch, Scott Morrison moves on to the latest dixer, where the budget reaches Collingwood-magically-gets-all-its-greatest-players-from-the-past-100-years-onto-one-roster levels of awesome.As Shorten’s eye begins to twitch, Scott Morrison moves on to the latest dixer, where the budget reaches Collingwood-magically-gets-all-its-greatest-players-from-the-past-100-years-onto-one-roster levels of awesome.
The next #deathtodixers puts the budget at if-a-unicorn-married-a-mermaid-and-held-the-reception-inside-the-world’s-sparkliest-wedding-cake-on-Atlantis-as-Billy-Joel-sang-Elton-John-songs levels of awesome.The next #deathtodixers puts the budget at if-a-unicorn-married-a-mermaid-and-held-the-reception-inside-the-world’s-sparkliest-wedding-cake-on-Atlantis-as-Billy-Joel-sang-Elton-John-songs levels of awesome.
Cathy McGowan has the independent’s question - it is on mobile phone blackspots:
“My question is what is the long-term plan to deliver mobile phone coverage to regional Australia? The budget overlooks the challenge of mobile connectivity in regional areas and there is no commitment for future rounds in the mobile phone blackspot program. What is your message to the 200 plus communities in Indi and across regional Australia that will be forced to go without this essential service?”
Malcolm Turnbull: [it’s under review, essentially]
I can also advise the house that the regional telecommunications review has been brought forward and the minister has asked them to hand down their recommendations to the government before the end of the year. The outcomes of the review will show how regional communication looks in the future. It will provide direction on where we need to focus our efforts to ensure contemporary communications in regional and rural Australia. We are committed to fixing the mobile blackspots.”
Paul Fletcher apparently said something interesting. I missed it, but it was enough for Tony Smith to ask him to stop interjecting, and for Tanya Plibersek to start her question to Scott Morrison again:
“When the Treasurer answered the exact same question last year, why was the treasurer refusing to tell Australians how much his corporate tax cuts cost over the next 10 years? So I ask, what is the total cost of corporate tax cuts over 10 years from 1 July 2018, both legislated and proposed to be legislated by the government?”
Morrison: [after being told to stick to the point, and responding with the parliamentary version of ‘I was totally gunna!’]
“Before the point of order was taken, the point I was about to make about the bank levy was how banks are major companies in this country who pay corporate tax and by the time that the major banks in this country would receive a corporate tax rate of 25%, they will have paid in the bank levy more than $16 billion in bank levy back to the government. But the figure ... Look, get your calculator out and get a pen. Write it down and I will help you with the maths. Add $9.8 billion to the cost. It is that simple. I know maths is not your strong suit and no-one on that side can help you. Just add 9.8. It is simple!”
Back to a #deathtodixers and in this answer, the budget is basically if Rihanna and Beyonce had a baby and it was raised in a commune with all the Hemsworths.
Chris Bowen to Scott Morrison:
Following last year’s budget, when asked what is the total cost of tax cuts both legislated and proposed to be legislated by the government, the treasurer answered $65.4bn. One year on, I ask, what is the total cost of the corporate tax cuts legislated and proposed to be legislated by the government?
Morrison, who looks like he is revving up to screaming-at-the-television-in-golden-point-time-yelling levels answers:
The ... medium-term cost of the unlegislated component of the enterprise tax plan, which is currently before the Senate, is $35.6bn. Over the period from now until 2027-2028. The last year of that, the cost is $9.8bn, which includes the cost of that measure as it applies economy-wide, so I will let the shadow treasurer add up if he can. But the point is this, the point is this, Mr Speaker, is that the costings I have just set out is for the unlegislated tax cuts. They would know that once a measure is legislated, it is legislated, so it begs this question Mr Speaker. It begs this question as to why they want to know. Why would you want to know the cost of tax legislation that has already been legislated for small- and medium-sized businesses, unless you wanted to reverse it? Unless you wanted to rip away the tax cuts given for small- and medium-sized businesses in this country, I will tell you! $25bn is the cost to revenue of what those legislated tax cuts gave to small- and medium-sized businesses over 10 years. And you will be out $25bn, $25bn unless you reverse those tax cuts in your plan. Because you went to the last election and you said ... Beating your chest, over there, the great man from McMahon, you are going to reverse the whole enterprise tax plan. You be honest with small businesses, and you tell them, are you going to rip away your tax cuts that have been legislated by this parliament? Or you going to strip it away?”
Holy moly, we haven’t even had question time today.
This is insane.
Here we go:
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
What is the total cost of corporate tax cuts over 10 years from the 1 July 2018, proposed to be legislated by the government?” (Labor has begun using a $80bn figure for it – they are now trying to get the government to say it.)
Turnbull: (after a bit of argy bargy over relevance):
The treasurer advises that the cost of the unlegislated tax relief business is $35bn, and the cost in the final year that is outside of the medium term, figures for which were given at the last budget, is just under $10bn. But Mr Speaker, what the Labor party is demonstrating in its questions, and a reference to an $80bn figure, to which they have simply added $15bn to $65bn, has no financial basis.
“What they have indicated is that their plan is to repeal all of the legislated tax cuts for Australian business. What they want to do is not simply oppose the unlegislated tax cuts for larger businesses, but repeal the tax cuts for Australian-owned, family-owned businesses up to $50m turnover, which employed 6.8 million Australians. That is what Labor wants to do, undermine the investment, the optimism, the entrepreneurship that is driving record jobs growth that we have seen. 415,000 jobs last year, the record jobs growth, the strong economy that is enabling us to deliver the outcomes for Australian families, 10 million Australians will receive tax relief from the treasurer’s budget, and we will move to a personal income tax system that is simpler and fairer.”
We move on to a dixer, the first of a series I am going to call: “Just exactly how amazing is this budget on a scale of Rhianna to Beyonce?” which, no offence to Trevor Evans, gives me a chance to run to the bathroom for the first time all day.
So, in the meantime, I have made some calls.
In Longman, the LNP don’t have a candidate ready as yet. And that worries them, because they don’t want the optics of losing a Queensland seat this close to the election. Because they need to hold Queensland to have any chance of holding on to power, and they are in danger of losing a whole bunch of them. Labor is less worried, but also aware they aren’t guaranteed to hold the seat. And given the amount of time Bill Shorten has spent in Queensland, vying for those votes, and talking fairness (a big deal in the lower- and middle-income seat of Longman), Labor would like a little more certainty that they will win it.
In short, both parties are feeling pressure – and that this is a test for the coming election. And neither of them are particularly happy about it.
Here is what Josh Wilson had to say:
The high court’s decision in the case of Katy Gallagher has changed the way the law is understood and interpreted in relation to eligibility under section 44 of the constitution. Until today’s decision the ‘reasonable steps’ test had been accepted for more than 25 years. It continues to be the basis of the Australian electoral commission’s advice to candidates (in the current candidate’s handbook), and was the guidance I followed when I nominated in 2016.
The new interpretation of the law means the question of whether a person took all ‘reasonable steps’ to renounce foreign citizenship simply doesn’t exist for dual Australian-British citizens, irrespective of the administrative delay in the process (which is generally two to four months). Under the new interpretation, any prospective candidate must have their British citizenship deregistered before the close of nominations. In my case, that was effectively impossible.
I was endorsed as a late replacement Labor candidate in Fremantle on 12 May 2016 and completed the requisite UK Home Office paperwork to renounce my British citizenship on that day. I mailed the renunciation form and attached documents on Friday 13 May, using express registered post. I received confirmation that the documents had been received by the UK Home Office on Monday 16 May. The processing fee for renunciation was withdrawn from my bank on 6 June. I nominated the following day, two days before the close of nominations. I received a letter from the UK Home Office dated 24 June saying that my British citizenship had been deregistered, with a copy of the renunciation form stamped 29 June 2016.
I was elected on 2 July 2016. I have not served a single day as anything other than an Australian citizen.
I was born in London when my parents were on a working holiday. My mum was expecting me when they travelled to the UK, and I returned home with them at the age of one after we’d travelled in Europe for six months in a Kombi van. Both my parents were born in Australia. My great-great-grandfather came to Fremantle as a convict in the 1860s. I have never lived in the UK, and have only visited there twice, in 1998 and 2012, for a few weeks each time.
In any case, the high court’s interpretation of the law has changed and I respect that ruling. That means I must resign as the member for Fremantle and contest the forthcoming byelection.
As I said in my first speech, I can’t imagine a more meaningful kind of work than to represent the community where I’ve lived virtually all my life. Every opportunity I am given to ask the people of Fremantle to trust me with the responsibility of being their representative in the national parliament is an opportunity I will relish.
I am looking forward to once again seeking that trust and responsibility in the weeks to come, and I am happy to be considered by voters in the Fremantle electorate on the basis of my character, principles, work-ethic, and record.
Georgina Downer (Alexander Downer’s daughter) looks like the strongest Liberal candidate to run against Rebekha Sharkie in Mayo.
Alexander Downer held that seat for 24 years, up until 2008.
Tony Burke says the case of Jason Falinski should be referred to the high court:
As you know last year, I did move for all of these cases to be referred to the high court, for all the ones where there could be considered any level of grey. The reason this court case doesn’t change anything for the Liberals involved, they are all people that took absolutely no steps. Absolutely no steps. So the reasonable steps test never helped them. There is still a cloud over their citizenship. The right thing for them to do, under, and this is all based on what they made public and what they left in doubt, with Jason Falinski being the one where the evidence appears strongest based on entry in 1958 and Polish passports there. We’re not saying he should leave the parliament tomorrow, but that is one case which should be referred to the court.”
Bill Shorten said his MPs did not resign, because they were waiting on the reasonable steps decision:
I’m giving you the answer. We relied on our advice that says all reasonable steps. Now what the high court has said is that all reasonable steps has to include the bureaucratic processing systems of a foreign government. That hasn’t been the advice we received. Whether or not we like what the high court has decided, they made that decision and we’re going to get on with it. Australians want to get on with debating what is the right sort of budget for the country.