Australia politics live: Dutton says Coalition won’t support motion to censure Morrison – but Archer says she is ‘inclined to’ | Australia news

The member for Flinders, Zoe McKenzie has a question for Anthony Albanese:

Australian families are said to be $2000 worse off this Christmas under this government with higher power prices, higher mortgages and families paying more at the checkout. Prime Minister, under Labor’s extreme industrial relations changes, inflation will rise, industrial disputes will increase and small business will be slugged with tens of thousands of dollars in new costs. Why is this government making a bad situation worse?

Albanese:

I thank the Member for her question and I thank her also for using the Leader of the Opposition’s favourite phrase. What is it? Going to make a bad situation worse. So he acknowledges that, after 10 years in office, we inherited a bad situation. That is the starting point.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition use that phrase, it is in the question here. How on earth, having sat in a cabinet for three terms you become Leader of the Opposition and say, gee, it is a bad situation Australia is in. A bad situation.

The member is right. We did inherit a bad situation.

What we inherited was a government that did not have an economic plan for the nation, did not have an energy plan, they had 22 energy policies and did not deliver any. We inherited a situation where inflation was rising.

Where interest rates started to increase under them. And where they didn’t have a plan to deal with skill development. Read during the pandemic, they told everyone to leave the country and wondered why they inherited skills shortages when the economy opened up again.

All of these problems we have inherited. Skills shortages, we are dealing with it. 180,000 fee-free Tafe places next year. Low wage growth, we are dealing with that. With our secure jobs better pay bill that they opposed. And somehow, somehow they have also implied or are stated clearly in the question somehow that wages going up will be a bad thing for the economy.

Well, what we had with the decade of low wage growth was that that was a handbrake on our economy. We want an economy that works with people, not the other way around.

We make no apologies for that. We want to deal with cost-of-living issues by having cheaper childcare, cheaper medicines and by lifting wages as well. Because people’s standard of living is based upon revenue and expenditure.

If you increase their wages, they are better off. That is the whole idea. But those opposite are opposed to higher wages. Those opposite concede in the question that, yes indeed we did inherit a bad situation from those opposite.

Get you someone who looks at you like Scott Morrison does after you have called him addicted to power.

Chris Bowen asked about impact of ‘poles and wires’ on NSW private properties

Dr David Gillespie gets a question (haven’t seen him in a while, so had to think for a moment who was on their feet):

Q: How many private properties will be impacted with the construction of poles and wires across New South Wales as part of Labor’s energy policy to build 28,000km of new transmission lines?

Chris Bowen:

I think by poles and wires across New South Wales, the honourable member must be referring to the HumeLink. It is the link necessary to connect Snowy 2.0, Mr Speaker. Which the previous government forgot to plug into the grid. They forgot to connect to the grid.

When you have a project already running 18 months late, but it could be running on time, later, would it matter if it is not connected to the grid, which is what the previous government failed to do?

I always try to be fair about such matters because, credit where it is due, the former minister for energy [brought] down a regulation to facilitate transmission, including specifically HumeLink, and in that regulation, he said: “Transmission is critical to deliver low-cost reliable and secure energy to consumers.”

‘Problem in Australia isn’t the wages increasing fast’, says Shorten after question on his response to RBA governor

Angus Taylor has a question for Bill Shorten:

I refer to his comments in the media last week that the RBA governor was talking rubbish. Will the minister apologise for these comments?

Shorten’s whole quote (which was part of his weekly slot on the Nine network) was:

These wage changes aren’t going to lead to double digit wages inflation. Like it’s just rubbish. That’s not what’s happening. So a lot of these debates are theoretical. If wages move too far too fast, that’s not desirable. But wages not moving at all is a disaster.

Shorten:

The member for Hume knows he is misquoting me, but he has form on misquoting people.

(The Liberals interject.)

I was asked about wages policy, and it was put to me that the Reserve Bank governor had said that if wages increase too much, that is bad for the economy.

The point that I made is the problem in Australia isn’t the wages increasing fast, it is that they haven’t increased enough the last 10 years, they have been frozen; and furthermore, the laws which Labor has just passed with the support of the Senate will, for the first time in 10 years, to feminised industries, low-paid workers, [be] a chance of getting wage rises.

What amazes me is that when people are doing it hard in this country, as so many industries have for so long, the opposition is not only not repentant for their poor wages policy in the last 10 years, they have [ignored] the lesson of the last election.

Paul Fletcher gets up to raise a point of order, but Shorten has decided he has concluded his answer.

Anthony Albanese says laws on truth in political advertising ‘worth examining’

Zali Steggall gets the first of the crossbench questions:

Right now, it is perfectly legal for political parties and politicians to … lie in advertising for elections and referendums. I tabled my stop the lies bill yesterday to stop this …

Will the government support regulating against misleading and deceptive advertising, election and referendum advertising, to ensure a fact based respectful debate on the voice?

Anthony Albanese:

I thank you very much, the member for Warringah, for her question, and I also thank her for raising it with me in a meeting that we held that is very important.

The member of course is very sincere in her strong view, which I share, that our electoral system and our democracy relies upon people being truthful and people being able to make decisions based upon the facts being there and not distorted.

And in particular, the member has raised concern about the referendum on the constitutional recognition of First Nations people in our nation’s birth certificate, the constitution, and that is important because there has been a lot of misinformation out there, including that somehow it would usurp the role of this parliament, even though it is very clear from the discussions and the drafts that have been put forward [that it] will not be the case.

To do a change to our electoral system, though, is a complex and difficult task. We have the usual Joint Standing Committee on electoral reform inquiry at the moment into the 2022 election. One of the issues that they will examine is a potential for truth in political advertising laws to enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. And I think that is certainly something that is worthy of examination.

We await that report. I had a discussion with the minister, the special minister of state, responsible for the AEC after our discussion earlier today. He indicated to me that the AEC had expressed some concern to him about the capacity that they have to make judgments on what mechanism you would have to put in place in order to achieve the outcome that the member for Warringah seeks, which, as I say, is a very worthy one.

I do note the member for Warringah and other crossbench members raised with me the South Australian laws in the state, and that’s certainly something worth examining, [and] is something I have only had drawn to my attention this morning.

It certainly is worth examining, our democracy is precious, and it is important that in the referendum in particular, but all elections and all deliberations in which the Australian people have a say, that there be truth in what is put forward, and we will examine the member’s propositions, but we thank her for her constructive engagement with the government.

Tony Burke says opposition’s problem with IR bill is that it will ‘push up wages’

Tony Burke takes a dixer so he can talk about the IR bill and lowering wages and he quotes Angus Taylor, speaking to Laura Jayes on Sky News.

Before this, Burke was talking about how the bill would “push up wages”. He then says:

But we know from the shadow treasurer that that, in fact, is their problem with this bill. It is their problem because the shadow treasurer knows, as he answered when asked about multi-employer bargaining on Sky News with Laura Jayes, he said: “It pushes up wages.”

Taylor stands up with a point of order:

I draw your attention to standing order 68, the comment that the minister just made is false.

Milton Dick:

The minister is reading a quote from a media report. I would just ask the Minister to clarify where he is reading a document from.

Burke:

It was said on television, Mr Speaker. It was on Sky News.

Burke is able to continue with his answer.

Opposition were ‘addicted to power but weren’t good at energy’, says PM

Sussan Ley is up with a question for Anthony Albanese:

I refer to the prime minister’s broken promise to reduce power prices for small businesses and families by $275. A promise he made 97 times before the election. I also refer to the prime minister’s broken promise to deliver cheaper mortgages made at Labor’s campaign launch.

Can the prime minister identify a single electricity company which has reduced its charges or a single mortgage holder who is paying less than on the day the prime minister made these promises?

(The promise for 2025. Yes, no one in the government will repeat it, but the commitment was to lower power prices by 2025.)

Albanese:

Yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. The whole premise of the question is wrong. When you look at the energy crisis …

They have given up on the IR … they are now on to [this] one. This is what the chief executive of the clean energy Council had to say: “It is abundantly clear that Australia’s clean energy transition has been throttled by years of policy uncertainty, with the amount of quarterly commission generated capacity continuing the downward trend in the last three years, and now it is at its lowest level on record. Industry confidence to invest is growing, aided by clearer and more potent policy directions across the country.”

Could not have said it more clearly.

… I was asked about power, and we know from the member for Mitchell, who has had some good comments about his made, the member for Cook, that they are addicted to power but weren’t good at energy. Weren’t very good at energy policy.

That is the problem for those opposite. All about power policy, nothing about energy policy. The truth is that the cheapest form of new energy is clean energy. Renewable energy.

Which is why our policy will put downward pressure on energy prices.

When it comes to mortgages, I know this is a really difficult concept, but if you have the policy that we have, that the WA government has – and I noticed Minister [Roger] Cook in the gallery there today, that is Minister Cook. Perhaps he could provide a workshop while he is here in Parliament House about how successful the WA program has been on providing a shared equity system for people to get into housing in WA.

And our help-to-buy scheme will do just that as well, because the nature of a help-to-buy scheme is that rather than the person who has the borrowing, it is a shared scheme.

Meanwhile, Mike Bowers had an eagle eye trained on Alex Hawke and Scott Morrison.

Hawke put out his statement (which is just a few posts from this one) after Niki Savva’s book quoted him as saying that he believed Morrison was “addicted to power”.

Hawke and Morrison sit together in no man’s land in the opposition backbench and have lots of little buddy chats when not performing “so unbothered” or sulking in opposite directions.

Bowers tells me that Morrison placed a hand on Hawke’s shoulder when he entered the chamber and then sat down and waved at the photographers.

He’s never been particularly subtle when it comes to optics.

The censure motion will be held tomorrow.

Question time begins

Alex Hawke defends Scott Morrison

Alex Hawke has released a statement about Scott Morrison, who is also his seat mate in the parliament (you will note he doesn’t claim he didn’t say Morrison was “addicted to power” as reported by Niki Savva in her book, Bulldozed”)

Reports today that ascribe certain views regarding former prime minister Scott Morrison are not representative of views I hold about him. Having known Scott Morrison for many years in many different capacities, I have only the highest regard for his character, ability and service as prime minister.

Indeed, we have been friends for many years and my long-term, consistent and positive views about Scott Morrison are well known and my views on the great success of the government, under his leadership, are forever on the public record for all to see.

For absolute clarity, when looked at in the context of the global pandemic, I believe the administrative decisions taken by Scott Morrison as prime minister make sense for the time they were taken and the situation the government faced. In context I have no concerns that these measures were taken or the fact that the executive of the government had to assume a stronger concentration of emergency powers during such a significant and unusual emergency period.

Indeed, every leader of government – state or federal – in Australia and worldwide did assume these powers and faced much scrutiny because of it. Like several other colleagues my only concern is in not ultimately being made aware of the unusual reserve administrative arrangements even though these were clearly emergency and pandemic related. Proposed changes to how the publication of administrative arrangements affecting ministers make sense and will ensure this is improved in future and I support the opposition’s support for the recommendations of the Bell review.

However, the pointless and unnecessary political manoeuvring of the Australian Labor party in proposing to censure a former prime minister – for taking important decisions that were deemed necessary – is wrong. I don’t believe Australians support this politically charged, payback, approach.

Today I have caught up with Scott Morrison and like every day look forward to joining him in parliament and in particular supporting him against the Labor party’s divisive political tactics.

Gas companies ‘propose nothing and oppose everything’ on prices – Husic

During his press club question and answer, Ed Husic was asked about gas prices and what was happening. He said there needed to be more moment on energy, but everyone was working on it.

And then he said:

The issue with the gas companies, if I may say, has been that they’ll propose nothing and oppose everything. In terms of anything we put forward, you’ll see that. But the reality is as a government we’re trying to get the balance right, recognising their needs to be able to operate in their way but to not do it in a way with the pricing set that hollows out other parts of the economy.

And we are also reflecting a strong belief in the views of the Australian public that we should have appropriately priced and accessible Australian resources – notably gas – for the needs of industry and to make sure households …. get it fairly.

‘With your help and support, we’ll nail it’ – Albanese

That continues:

The truth is that our experience knows that when people who are directly affected are consulted and have a sense of ownership over the solution, they will be more engaged. So the solutions to close the gap on education, on health, on housing, on life expectancy, on incarceration rates, on all of those measures where there is a gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, will be closed.

Unless you engage with people directly impacted, you will continue to have what we have had, which is with some of the best will in the world, we haven’t achieved the outcomes that we would like. And we know that on issues like park rangers, on justice reinvestment, when Indigenous people are directly involved you get better practical outcomes. That is why the Uluru Statement from the Heart is so important.

Now, in the same spirit of celebration as the Indigenous round, that is what the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its adoption will be. Imagine being able to celebrate, imagine being able to celebrate our country coming together in that way.

People will get the opportunity to have their say, each and every Australian, with one vote in the next financial year. And I guarantee that there are tens of thousands of people who will be voting in that referendum, who will spend more time watching the NBL next year than they do watching question time. And that’s probably a very healthy thing for them. So your engagement, your advocacy, your leadership on this question will carry a lot of weight around this nation. Referendums are hard to win. There’s no certainty of success. In fact, the history of this country shows that it is less likely.

But if you don’t walk out on the court, you’re certain to lose. And if you don’t take the shot, you don’t score. We’re going to take the shot next year, in the next financial year. And together with your help and your support, we’ll nail it. We’ll nail it and the country will cheer as if it was a three pointer taken in the last second of the game, when we were two points behind. So be a part of it.

Uluru statement is ‘a hand outstretched’, PM says

While launching the NBL Indigenous round, Anthony Albanese also addressed the Voice:

To First Nations kids practising their free throws at school, playing half court at the local park or getting excited for their first game at the local PCYC or sporting centre, there is a place for you at the highest level. And it’s great that the NBL is backing up this round with the indigenous players rule, the first of any code of such serious incentives, and I congratulate the NBL on its leadership encouraging clubs to recruit more First Nations talent. And I did want to take this opportunity to say a few words about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Particularly given there’s been a bit of a debate again in the last couple of days.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a hand outstretched. It is a generous and gracious offer of reconciliation. It doesn’t ask for anything more than two things. One, that First Nations people be recognised in our nation’s birth certificate, our Constitution. That the history of this great island continent did not begin in 1788.

It should be a source of extraordinary national pride that our history includes on this island continent that we share with the oldest continuous culture on earth. It’s an asset for our nation. The second thing that it will do is not usurp the role of this Parliament. It will simply be that where matters directly affect Indigenous Australians, we should consult them. We should ask them what they think.

I don’t know about others, but I was raised to give consideration to people if one of my actions was going to impact someone else. And if you know that that is the case, then you should do that. And what that will result in is to get rid of the very false dichotomy that somehow it is an act of symbolism versus a practical measure.