Jannah Theme License is not validated, Go to the theme options page to validate the license, You need a single license for each domain name.
United Kingdom

Australia politics live: Coalition continues attacking Labor over Cop27 climate damage fund in question time | Australia news

Coalition continues question time attacks on Labor over Cop27 climate damage fund

Alex Hawke then gets the latest dog-whistling question, about why, given energy costs, is the Albanese government considering giving funds to the loss and damage fund to help developing nations cope with the climate crisis, the UN Cop27 agreed on. Including, Hawke says, “China”. But Pacific nations will be a huge part of any fund, which is why the question from Hawke takes more than a few people aback in the parliament.

Hawke is a former minister for the Pacific.

The technical term for that dixer from Alex Hawke meets the technical definition of leading with your chin #qt

— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) November 22, 2022

Chris Bowen:

It is unsurprising to get a question like that from this opposition led by a man who thinks that the impact on the Pacific of climate change is a laughing matter, Mr Speaker. Who think it’s a great joke

We will work with the Pacific because we know, we know that this is in our interest as a country in a very complicated geopolitical environment. Not only does this opposition engage in the sort of cheap dogwhistle politics. They also don’t even know what was agreed! They don’t know what was agreed and I’m surprised to get a question like that from a man who was the Minister for the Pacific. That is the best they can do! He was the man in charge of our elections for the regions.

Hawke has a point of order and says he was asking about China.

Milton Dick says it was a broad question and Bowen is being relevant.

Bowen:

I guess if you are the Minister of the Pacific and you didn’t actually go to the Pacific that is probably a sort of point of what you attack. The other point of order you would take if you would ask a question like that is one of relevance because the Opposition appears unaware that in fact, as part of these negotiations, and as part of these discussions, Australia, Australia argued and successfully argued that the donor they should be reviewed so that the countries that were not rich in 1992 that have now become developed and are now well be should able to contribute, not receive, to contribute to the fund.

…I understand the difference between donor and recipient might be a bit confusing to those opposite but that is exactly what we argued. And that is exactly reflected by the tax which indicates a multiplicity of donors and a revision of the database.

If the Opposition will go down this cheap and nasty road they want to at least get that right.

Because previous prime ministers have understood that engagement on these issues is important. John Howard knew that, and the aftermath of the tsunami, he knew contribute into Indonesia’s recovery was good for Indonesia, good for our region and good for Australia and that’s because John Howard was a leader, he was a leader who understood our national interest. Currently the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the national interest and he just understands cheap and pathetic politics.

Key events

Filters BETA

The independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender has a question for Chris Bowen:

Why has [the government] refused to sign a pledge to and new public subsidies for fossil fuels. These subsidies for our planet and about use of public money. When will the government put an anti- fossil fuel subsidies?

Bowen:

I thank the member for her question and her keen engagement on these issues and engagement with the government on these issues.

The approach the government is taking is to implement the policies we took to the election. In addition, relegating internationally on a range of pledges and agreements of alliances which I signed last week.

… In relation to the question of the honourable member, we continue to target the government expenditure very carefully.

[There is more, but the transcription is too garbled, but he essentially says, we have done what we have done, and we won’t be doing what you ask]

Tony Burke takes a dixer just to talk about how much wrong information there is on the IR bill. He does not need notes for this and seems to be very much enjoying himself.

Kevin Hogan, the Nationals MP for Page, then has a question for Anthony Albanese:

My question is to be Prime Minister. In Lismore on the 28 October when asked whether the flood disaster grants would be taxed, the Prime Minister said there has been no suggestion that they would be taxed. Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement?

Albanese:

I thank the member for Page for his question. I am surprised, frankly, that he asked it. I am surprised that he asked in that way, given he travelled with me to Lismore with the Premier of New South Wales and also with the member for Richmond joined us on that occasion.

Effectively, what occurs with the system is that payments are made and once it is expended, it becomes a tax deduction. So it is, in effect, not a, it does not attract real tax. That is the situation. If you made it tax-free upfront, or what have you, then what you would do potentially is people could gain money from it. The grant is paid, some of it without proceeds, as you would be aware, as you would be aware of. Then, once it is expended, it becomes a deduction. Just like the grants we have made today which is the same way that it has always operated.

Coalition continues question time attacks on Labor over Cop27 climate damage fund

Alex Hawke then gets the latest dog-whistling question, about why, given energy costs, is the Albanese government considering giving funds to the loss and damage fund to help developing nations cope with the climate crisis, the UN Cop27 agreed on. Including, Hawke says, “China”. But Pacific nations will be a huge part of any fund, which is why the question from Hawke takes more than a few people aback in the parliament.

Hawke is a former minister for the Pacific.

The technical term for that dixer from Alex Hawke meets the technical definition of leading with your chin #qt

— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) November 22, 2022

Chris Bowen:

It is unsurprising to get a question like that from this opposition led by a man who thinks that the impact on the Pacific of climate change is a laughing matter, Mr Speaker. Who think it’s a great joke

We will work with the Pacific because we know, we know that this is in our interest as a country in a very complicated geopolitical environment. Not only does this opposition engage in the sort of cheap dogwhistle politics. They also don’t even know what was agreed! They don’t know what was agreed and I’m surprised to get a question like that from a man who was the Minister for the Pacific. That is the best they can do! He was the man in charge of our elections for the regions.

Hawke has a point of order and says he was asking about China.

Milton Dick says it was a broad question and Bowen is being relevant.

Bowen:

I guess if you are the Minister of the Pacific and you didn’t actually go to the Pacific that is probably a sort of point of what you attack. The other point of order you would take if you would ask a question like that is one of relevance because the Opposition appears unaware that in fact, as part of these negotiations, and as part of these discussions, Australia, Australia argued and successfully argued that the donor they should be reviewed so that the countries that were not rich in 1992 that have now become developed and are now well be should able to contribute, not receive, to contribute to the fund.

…I understand the difference between donor and recipient might be a bit confusing to those opposite but that is exactly what we argued. And that is exactly reflected by the tax which indicates a multiplicity of donors and a revision of the database.

If the Opposition will go down this cheap and nasty road they want to at least get that right.

Because previous prime ministers have understood that engagement on these issues is important. John Howard knew that, and the aftermath of the tsunami, he knew contribute into Indonesia’s recovery was good for Indonesia, good for our region and good for Australia and that’s because John Howard was a leader, he was a leader who understood our national interest. Currently the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the national interest and he just understands cheap and pathetic politics.

Julie Collins takes a dixer (it’s turning into the Julie Collins hour).

Collins is also the target of the next question from South Australian MP Tony Pasin

I refer to the minister’s previous answer, can the minister inform the house how many businesses will have to pay between $14000 and $75,000 under the new industry bargaining system?

Collins:

Thank you. And I think the member for his question. As I said here, more than 2 million businesses are exempt from this stream, this bargaining stream we are talking about. Seriously it is 90% of all Australian businesses will be exempt. Indeed, we expect most small businesses, as the minister has said, will be in the cooperative stream. And most of them, of course, are already members of the organisations so they will have little or no cost for the marking if they choose to opt in. That’s the point, that is what they [the opposition] are missing over there. More than 2 million businesses are exempt from the stream.

Tony Burke, responding to Zoe Daniel:

I thank the member for Goldstein for the question. I acknowledge the member’s interest for different parts of this bill, particularly on the gender equity parts of the bill.

I have been an advocate for those sections of the bill long before she became a member, and since becoming a member this is the first time in Question Time that the member’s raised it with me, it’s been raised both on the floor of the House and privately and I think in writing to me as well.

I respect the fierce advocacy of this issue of the – how the small business carve-out is done. I’ll say a few things in response.

First of all, and it goes to some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition today as well, the expectation with respect to small businesses will be the cooperative stream that’s used.

The cooperative stream. It’s very much an opt-in, there’s no industrial action effectively model, if you like, enterprise agreements are plead available that small businesses and their staff can voluntarily opt into. Involving no fees and no consultants and we respect overwhelmingly the way small business could would engage with the reforms.

With respect to the small business stream, the small business carve-out there is that at the moment is the definition that is elsewhere in the act for small business, a definition which those opposite did not seek to change in their entire time in office.

I respect the argument that the member for Goldstein and other members of the crossbench have made, where they’ve said that particularly for multi-employer bargaining they would like to see this go as a broader exclusion and that’s been raised not only by the member for Goldstein but by a number of members of the crossbench.

This is one of the issues where consultation and negotiation is happening with the Senate crossbench. As I said, when we’re not in detail – as I said we’re not in detail stage…

(Peter Dutton jumps in here, but I miss what he says)

Burke continues:

This might be new for those who haven’t been paying attention but not new for those who have. There has always been an expectation that when the bill hit the Senate that this… It was part of those negotiations.

In any broadening of the definition what I want to be mindful of and I have said this before is while the patient, such as early childhood educators who we definitely want to make sure to get the benefit of multi-employer bargaining, that they may start in the supported stream but effectively if you look at businesses like the Victorian childcare centres or early childhood education centres, they are now roughly 16% above the award and they would need a pathway to be able to continue to negotiate.

There is a nice moment of bipartisanship for the winners of the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science, some of whom are in the gallery and receive a small round of applause.

Then it moves into the first of the crossbench questions – Independent Zoe Daniel has the first one.

Goldstein has 17,000 small businesses and the government’s industrial relations bill captures businesses with a head count of just 15-plus. That would see thousands of small businesses across the country potentially drawn into multi-employer bargaining. Overall, I support the bill. However, does the government accept that the numbers should be raised to a higher number of full-time equivalent staff to acknowledge the concerns about small businesses?

The answer for this one is quite long, so I will give it its own post.

There is a nice bit of bipartisanship over the floods.

And then it returns into gaffaws with Angus Taylor’s question to Julie Collins:

I refer to the minister’s previous answer.

Can the minister now confirm the government’s regulatory impact statement predicts the cost for small businesses to negotiate in the new multi-employer is [$14,638]?

Collins:

I thank the member for his question. As the members would be aware more than 2 million businesses are exempt from the single bargaining system – more than 2 million, 90 per cent of all Australian businesses that is. He would also know, as I said earlier, that many businesses already incur costs and that many businesses are already covered by their employer peak organisation. He would also be aware that our expectation is that most small businesses would be in the cooperative stream where they can use off the shelf agreements.

Minister for housing and small business, Julie Collins. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Question time begins

For the first time in a long time, question time begins on time;

Deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Sussan Ley, kicks this one off:

How much will small businesses have to pay to participate in multi-employer bargaining the specific modelling contained in the government’s own regulatory impact statement?

It is directed to minister for housing and small business, Julie Collins, whom the opposition has identified as a target.

I thank the member for her question. I assume that she’s referring to the regulatory impact statement that has been prepared for the bill. As she would know, small businesses already incur costs when they try and enter the bargaining system. She would also know of course that many small businesses are actually represented by an employer organisation and that reduces the…

There are a bunch of point of orders.

Ley:

A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. My question asked how much under the government’s own regulatory impact statement extra would small businesses have to pay.

Tony Burke responds:

On two points. One on the direct relevance point of order that was just taken. The question that was just stated was a different phrasing to the question that was asked. Secondly, the immediate shouting while the minister’s here from the leader of the opposition is just off the charts at the moment.

Collins says she has finished her answer and then Paul Fletcher tries to table a document:

I seek leave to table page 53 of the regulatory impact statements which says that the costs to small businesses is $14,638 if they are dragged into this compulsory…

Burke says leave is not granted, as it is already public.

Daniel Hurst

Daniel Hurst

The Senate has passed the legislation required to bring into effect Australia’s new trade agreements with the UK and India, a day after the bills cleared the lower house. That means the bills will receive royal assent soon, the final step in Australia ratifying the two trade agreements that were inked by the former Coalition government.

OK, we are in the downhill slide to question time.

Can’t wait.

Paul Karp

Paul Karp

Greens press government on public hearings for anti-corruption commission

The national anti-corruption commission bill is being debated by the House of Representatives. We’ve got a late sitting tonight (10pm), and debate on Wednesday and Thursday, to get through a list of 55 speakers.

The Greens justice spokesperson, David Shoebridge, has responded to the government amendments.

In a statement to Guardian Australia, Shoebridge said:

These Labor amendments go some way to responding to the evidence presented at the inquiry, notably on journalist rights and support for witnesses.

One bright point is that the amendments to protect journalists facing Nacc warrants goes beyond the committee’s minimal recommendations and closer to where media organisations and the Greens have been pushing. These amendments provide that any search warrant against a journalist must consider the public interest in protecting confidentiality and sources, and that’s a step forward.

The decision to amend the bill to limit what corruption can be considered by the Nacc is deeply concerning. For the Greens this raises the question: exactly what kind of corruption don’t they want covered by the Nacc?

The biggest gap in these amendments is that they fail to deliver on the most pressing issue raised during the inquiry, which is the need for the Nacc to be able to hold public hearings when appropriate. This is a core issue the Greens will continue to press in the Senate over the next two weeks.”

Shoebridge is referring to a government amendment to delete “any conduct of a public official in that capacity that constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of corruption of any other kind”.

Deletion of that section was recommended by the joint committee report, after recommendations from the Law Society and Australian Human Rights Commission, which warned it could allow the Nacc to expand its own jurisdiction.

For background on this story:

Peter Hannam

Peter Hannam

Origin CEO says rising fuel costs could weaken support for transition to renewables

Origin Energy’s chief executive, Frank Calabria, has used his keynote address at Committee for Economic Development of Australia (Ceda) in Sydney to warn that rising energy prices could erode support for any transition away from fossil fuels.

He noted that the scale of the change ‘over this decade is truly staggering’.

Some $76bn will needed to be invested by 2030, with the required pace of new renewables and storage much faster than is currently happening.

[G]iven the scale of the investment required,[it] will undoubtedly create upwards pressure on energy bills’, he said.

I fear rising energy prices could erode community support for the transition.

About 3 gigawatts of large solar and wind plants are slated to come online in the national electricity market. This is good but we’ll need much more – an expected 28GW by 2030.

Calabria says more sources of gas are needed … but notably hasn’t appealed against a windfall tax.

Origin Energy CEO, Frank Calabria: ‘I fear rising energy prices could erode community support for the transition.’
Origin Energy CEO, Frank Calabria: ‘I fear rising energy prices could erode community support for the transition.’ Photograph: James Gourley/AAP



https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/nov/22/australia-politics-live-news-updates-weather-winds-batter-eastern-states-climate-200-signals-nsw-teal-challenges-state-election Australia politics live: Coalition continues attacking Labor over Cop27 climate damage fund in question time | Australia news

Back to top button