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.
Wayne Swan wins Labor presidency – question time live
Wayne Swan wins Labor presidency – question time live
(35 minutes later)
Adam Bandt has the independents’ question:
Congratulations to @SwannyQLD on a strong campaign and emphatic victory. I reckon his former boss and Nat Prez, Mick Young, would have been proud! Best wishes for the next 3 years. https://t.co/ABSJPdbyuc
People in Melbourne are grieving at the death of Eurydice Dixon. Melbourne is full of strong, funny women like Eurydice Dixon, and this is why it is so hard. Thousands of people will be gathering at Princes park around the country to remember Eurydice. Many people are in mourning. Many are angry, and many of us, prime minister, are agreed that whatever we are doing in Australia to change man’s behaviour, we need to do more. And we need to do more so than ever [so we] can feel safe.
Greg Hunt gives a very enthusiastic answer to a dixer, which is probably not the best strategy when the last question time you featured in you had to apologise for swearing at a woman during an official government meeting.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Stephen Jones has a question to Malcolm Turnbull about warnings cuts to the SBS could result in problems in covering things like the SBS:
Our hearts go out to Eurydice Dixon’s family and loved ones. Our thoughts and prayers are with them … Women must be safe everywhere. On the street, walking though a park, in their homes, at work. We need to ensure that we have a culture of respect for women. Not all disrespect of women is violence against women, but that is where all violence against women begins. And so ensuring that we start from the very start, ensuring that our sons and grandsons respect the women in their lives, is vitally important. We all as parents and grandparents have a duty to do that. And also we have a very profound duty to ensure that our public places, our streets, our parks, are safe places in which to work and walk. I know that we are all united in this. This is not a partisan issue. But, you know, when we sit down with state and local government and work through our city plans and city deals, the key part of that is insuring that we have an environment that is safe. And as my wife Lucy often says, in her capacity as chief commissioner, the greater Sydney commission, a measure of the livability of a city is whether women are safe to walk wherever. And that has got to be another vital priority
Will the prime minister to apologise to an football fans who are watching second-rate coverage of the football cup.
This is a heartbreaking tragedy. But what we must do as we grieve is ensure that we change the hearts of men to respect women. We start with the youngest men, the little boys, our sons and grandsons, and make sure that they respect their mothers and sisters and all the women in their lives. As grown men, we must lead by example and treat women with respect and we must ensure that our cities, our towns, our country, everywhere is safe for every Australian to walk and work, whether it is a park, a workplace, whether it is in their own home. That is our commitment. Thank the honourable member for her the question, and I believe, Mr Speaker, that I speak for every honourable member when I say we must never, ever, ever, tolerate violence against women. Eurydice Dixon, we mourn the loss. We grieve with her family. And we say never again
Turnbull - go sport team. Basically.
Wayne Swan has put out a release on his ALP presidency win:
Peter Dutton gives his daily Labor-wants-to-open-the-borders speech.
It’s an honour and a privilege to be voted the next president of the Australian Labor party.
He links that back to what he says is the Left taking over the Labor party (that would be the Left faction which just lost the presidency vote)
My thanks to the many thousands of Labor members who participated in this important election, and of course to all the candidates who put themselves forward for the honour and hard work of being president of our party.
But I just have to point out, that at the moment, Labor policy on asylum seekers has not changed. There are policy proposal changes floating around. And unlike the Liberal party, the Labor national conference motion votes are binding. But at this stage, they are just ideas. And saying that is absolutely Labor policy is like saying a non-binding vote to sell the ABC is absolutely Liberal policy.
My campaign was driven by the belief that Labor’s future lies first and foremost in being clear about what we stand for.
Labor has set up this website on Georgina Downer: www.downerfacts.com
Our success won’t be determined by tinkering with internal processes or by the outcome of votes over single issues at national conferences.
Just a tip for anyone thinking of entering politics – buy up every domain name you can think of regarding your name.
To get new members coming through our door, and a new generation campaigning and voting for us, we have to show them we mean business about creating a better, more democratic and more equal society.
Bill Shorten asks Malcolm Turnbull about a Natsem finding that: this new tax system from 2044- 2025 is less progressive than the current system. It means higher income inequality.
This means getting better at addressing the big picture. Around the world and here in Australia, democracy and equality are under threat from powerful and well-funded vested interests.
“The rich get more of the tax cuts than the poor. Prime minister, how is this fair?”
We need to take them on and beat them. Labor must be re-organised so it can better fight that battle. We have to be more than a campaign machine for winning elections; we have to be a campaign machine for winning the battle of ideas.
The idea that we live in a corporation, not a community must be defeated for once and for all, and Labor has to take the lead in defeating it.
Ultimately, Labor must restore people’s faith in the idea that collective action through government can create a better society and better lives for all of us.
Winning that battle is the starting point for having Labor governments that can succeed in office
Julie Collins to Malcolm Turnbull:
How is it fair that under this arrogant and out of touch prime minister, a banker from Point Piper, earning $1m, will get a tax cut of $7,000 a year, while a retail worker in Strahan will only get a cut to penalty rates? Is this not what happens when a former banker is running the government and a former banker, Brett Whitely, is running in Braddon?
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
Again, here is the main bit:
It is fair precisely because it gives Australians, 94% of Australians, in fact, the surety that they will pay no more than 32.5 cents in the dollar for every additional dollar they earn. We all remember Dr Craig Emerson who used to talk great deal about effective marginal tax rate and all the problems occasioned by that. We are well aware of those issues. This gives you a 32.5 cent marginal tax rate from 41,000 through to $200,000. It ensures that you have every incentive for people to get ahead and Mr Speaker, the approach we are taking is one that provides benefits to Australians right in the heart of that little income area where Australians have had so many disincentives. It is a very positive reform and as far as the issue about inequality is concerned, I come back to this point. After the plan is fully rolled out and the people on the 45% of bracket, marginal tax bracket, that is you are earning over $200,000, will be paying a larger share of the personal income taxes take than they do today and a person on $200,000 who is earning roughly five times as much as somebody on $41,000 will be paying nearly 13 times as much tax . That is a progressive tax system.
So what we’re [doing] is providing the incentives, providing the encouragement for Tasmanians to invest and get ahead and they are seeing growth, especially in [Braddon], and above all, we are showing the integrity to treat Tasmanians with respect and not mislead them, as Labor is doing. We are delivering more funding into public health in Tasmania and the only reason we can do that is because of the stronger economy, supported by our economic plan
Chris Bowen to Malcolm Turnbull:
Scott Morrison sounds like he has a little bit of a cold – his voice barely gets above “wandered past the TV and my second team were up” levels for this dixer.
Can the prime minister confirm that by the time they are fully integrated, stage three of the government’s personal income tax scheme and its big business tax cut will cost the budget at least $35bn a year? Why won’t prime minister support Labor’s plans for a bigger, better tax cut instead of giving $25bn per year to big business and higher income earners?
Tanya Plibersek to Malcolm Turnbull:
Treasury has confirmed that the entire $140bn stage three of the personal income tax scheme goes to the top 20% of income earners. How can a banker from Vaucluse earning $1m get a tax cut of over $7,000 per year while a hospitality worker from Caboolture will only get a tax cut of $10 per week and will have their penalty rates cut as well?
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
(There’s some stuff at the beginning, but this sums it up)
I think it is worth noting that the question has been asked by the author of that famous economic tome.... Hearts and Minds [then a joke about it being available where ever great remainders are found] The honorable member wrote a book and talked about the importance of having a competitive tax rate and now, now having done that, he has been forced to eat his words and is flinging himself in the way of a competitive tax rate.
What we want to ensure is for that part of the tax system, the income tax system, there is every incentive and no disincentive for people to do more, to have a go, to invest, to be ambitious, to aspire and get ahead. And the Labor party members, they seek to dismiss that in the contemptuous way the honourable member opposite did a moment ago. I say shame on the Labor party. They used to believe in workers getting ahead, they used to believe in giving people a hand. Nowadays they sound very much like a privileged elite that wants to keep the workers in their place
Scott Morrison then tries to yell some things, but he just doesn’t have the vocal power today.
We then move onto the first dixer – which is on “just how strong is our strong economy”, which, after the very serious and necessary addressing of child abuse still occurring, just makes dixers sound all the more stupid.
Let us all take a moment to thank the internet for never forgetting anything.
Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull:
Here is Mitch Fifield in 2008, addressing the Australian Adam Smith Club:
Since this house last sat, the government released its response to the recommendations to the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. Can the prime minister please update the house on the important recommendations of the royal commission which will help address the wrongs suffered by the survivors of child sexual abuse and help keep children safe in the future.
Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post. There is merit in such proposals.
But the likely strong public opposition means that any government prepared to go down that path would need to prepare the ground and make the case for the change.
A further challenge would be the widespread misunderstanding of the consequences by the public and the inevitable misleading scare campaigns mounted by privatisation opponents.
But one immediate option for privatisation is the Bureau of Meteorology. In 2007 taxpayers forked out $214m to run this agency. Yet there is clearly a market for the information the bureau collects. The bureau could be sold off, with new private owners free to collect weather data and sell it on the open market.
Taxpayers would receive a windfall gain from the sale and whilst some government agencies would need to purchase weather data and services, there would be a sizable annual saving to the taxpayer.
So far I have mentioned reducing the number of ministries and departments and embarking on a new wave of privatisation as ways of reducing the scope of government.
These ideas can be thought of as reducing the number of avenues for governments to spend our money. But perhaps the most effective barrier to impulsive government spending is to reduce the money government has to spend in the first place.”
Standard note that the government is swearing black and blue it won’t sell the ABC.
The old “human error” excuse
Palmer sprinkler mystery solved! I asked Parliament what happened:"The system was turned on this morning in the Senate courtyard due to human error. One of the Landscape Services personnel was checking the irrigation system and mistakenly manually operated the wrong valve."
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – this is why the emus won, people.
Jenny Macklin to Malcolm Turnbull:
Can this arrogant and out of touch prime minister confirm that under his unfair budget, a banker will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, his bank will get a company tax cut of –$17 billion go to the big banks. Then a hospitality worker from Adelaide will only get a tax cut of $10 a week, and that is before she loses $77 in penalty rates.
I am sensing a theme here.
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
The commonwealth has accepted all of the recommendations that relate to it from the royal commission. The ... tragic events of recent times in the Northern Territory, particularly the assault on the young girl in Tennant Creek, is heartbreaking. The protection of children is our most sacred duty. I will ask the minister for social services to go into more detail about precise measures we are undertaking in the Berkeley area. I just want to say that we recognise, as the chief minister Michael Gunner has said to me, that we are dealing with very dysfunctional families facing enormous challenges of substance abuse.
Under the Labor party’s proposal on tax, a public teacher in Victoria would pay between $800 and $1,200 more tax per year. A crane operator would pay between $900 and $600 more tax per year. A public school psychologist in New South Wales will pay between $2,330 and $800 more tax every year. A forklift driver would pay between $1,440 and $500 more a year. Coming to Adelaide, a Police Inspector would pay between $4,000 and $5,200 more tax every year.
The chief minister has recognised … that the government has failed these children. Their need, as he has acknowledged, to have more senior child protection officers working in the community who have greater confidence to intervene earlier – also vitally important to ensure that people with cultural, particularly speaking about Indigenous committees, people with cultural authority are engaged so that the child protection agencies are working with the Aboriginal communities and people with cultural authority to ensure that there is that support that is provided both from government and from the community when families are failing their children.
You get the idea. Our tax plan is better than yours, basically.
He then calls on Dan Tehan to talk some more:
As the prime minister has said, there were specific recommendations, which we are working with the Northern Territory government on. The most important of which is that joint review of children and families, funding and services. We are establishing a commission. That commission will meet in the coming weeks. We are finalising the terms of reference with the Northern Territory government on that commission. Obviously, we are trying to expedite those terms of reference as quickly as we possibly can and we look forward to the first meeting in the coming weeks so we can get on implementing all of the important recommendations which were made by the royal commission.
Back to the story in the Australian this morning, regarding Labor’s dividend imputation policy.
These types of stories have a habit of recurring in Australian politics, like cycles of the moon.
Remember in 2013 when Kevin Rudd was prime minister?
Rudd claimed Tony Abbott, the then opposition leader, was incorrectly boasting about having found $30bn in savings when Abbott’s own figures showed he’d only found $20bn.
“It is quite clear that there is now a massive $10bn hole in the $30bn that they are claiming,” Rudd said of Abbott’s opposition at the time.
Now it’s the Coalition’s turn.
In today’s story, the Coalition asked Treasury to look at Labor’s dividend imputation policy to see what behavioural impacts it will have on shareholders and how much revenue it will generate after shareholders have responded to it.
It calculated Labor’s policy will raise $10bn less over a decade than Labor has claimed ($45.8bn rather than $55.7bn).
Treasury came up with that figure by assuming many shareholders will respond to Labor’s policy by rebalancing their portfolios away from franked dividend-paying shares, and that the size of their behavioural response will differ depending on the source of the franked dividend and the size of the refund.
There’s nothing wrong with that assumption. Research shows people are highly sensitive to tax rates on different savings options, and that people do tend to shift their savings towards tax-preferred vehicles. If Labor does eventually remove refundable imputation credits then some people will shift their investments away from high-yielding Australian equities into other things.
But the real question is what the revenue impact will be on Labor’s budget bottom line after shareholders have changed their behaviour.
The problem is, we don’t really know. That’s because Labor’s policy was modelled by the Parliamentary Budget Office, and the PBO said it took behavioural changes into account but we don’t know what those assumptions are because Labor has refused to release the modelling.
So, the Coalition is essentially using today’s story to try to force Labor to release the assumptions underpinning its PBO modelling.
It’s all pretty messy, and tedious. Surely voters are sick of these games.
Labor’s responded by questioning the legitimacy of the Treasury analysis because it turns out the analysis was put together by a Treasury official who used to be a staffer for Kelly O’Dwyer and Mitch Fifield, and who was also a former vice-president of the Young Liberals.
And now Chris Bowen, the shadow treasurer, has written to Treasury secretary John Fraser asking him to explain what the Treasury “analysis” is all about.
He asked Fraser if Treasury has even modelled Labor’s policy, or if it simply modelled a policy that shared characteristics with Labor’s policy.
“He replied that [Treasury was] asked by the government to cost a policy relating to the deniability of refundability of franking credits to certain entities,” Bowen said.
Brendan Coates, from the Grattan Institute thinktank, says Labor and the Coalition need to release the assumptions underpinning their various modelling exercises for transparency’s sake.
“We simply don’t know what assumptions the PBO and Treasury have made,” Coates told Guardian Australia.
“The behavioural responses are very complex, so there’s significant uncertainty regarding the revenue that will be collected from the policy change.”
The votes for the Labor presidency were:
Wayne Swan – 46.94%
Mark Butler – 37.69%
Mish-Elle Myers – 10.94%
Claire Moore – 4.3 %
Myers, a Maritime Union officer, was put forward in a move seen as an attempt to divide the left vote – and it looks like it worked. Her 11%, assuming it all went to Butler (and for left unions, it most likely would have) would have just got him over the line.
Butler had talked about reform of union powers in Senate selections and the like, while Swan ran a campaign based on inequality.
It’s largely a ceremonial position – but is on the national executive so the president is powerful, from an institutional point of view.
The votes are in – and Wayne Swan will take over as ALP president from Mark Butler.
I’ll bring you some more on that as soon as I can.
