Australia politics live: question time under way ahead of late-night sitting to debate national anti-corruption commission | Australia news

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.

Question time begins

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

Can’t wait.

‘More work to do’ in Murray-Darling Basin plan, CEO says

ABC rural reporter Kath Sullivan is hosting the national press club address today. The guest is the chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), Andrew McConville.

Sullivan (who is one of the best in the business) asks:

This time last year, you were the head of the oil and gas lobby in this country. Today, you’re talking about considering the impacts of climate change. You also touched on, I think, more than 70 reports across the Basin, and this commitment to deliver water … that we know the constraints work hasn’t been done so we can’t even deliver the water at this stage. Why should anyone who lives in the Basin or has been advocating on behalf of the environment or has been following these 70 different reports trust you? Why should it be any different now?

McConville:

I’m delivering the message very, very clearly that there’s more work to do. We have made significant progress, absolutely, and I think we need to recognise and applaud the work that irrigation communities have done.

Our job as the MDBA and my job as the chief executive leading this organisation, is to make sure that we bring transparency to that progress.

I’ve spent a career dealing in difficult and contested spaces. It’s difficult when you have a situation where you have competing needs of irrigation, environment and communities.

I think that’s something that I understand and it’s about how you get parties to the table together.

We talk about the scrutiny of the Murray-Darling Basin plan – I’d like to flip that around the other way. Seventy individual reports. A number of parliamentary inquiries. Ten by the commonwealth parliament.

Other independent reports. And still the Basin plan is here. And no one is saying we should do away with it.

So I think to me, that’s testament that the plan is working. The reality is we have more work to do and we’ve still got more water that we need to deliver to deliver the plan in full.

But we are seeing the benefits from that water to the environment. And that’s very significant. We are seeing adjustments in communities.

What I’ve got to try and do in my role is bring transparency to that. And we are working hard on climate change in the context of the Basin plan and a whole raft of other things. I think it’s important that we bring people along on that journey. That’s what I’ve had a career in, and that’s what I’m focused on.

Advocates call for greater transparency in proposed anti-corruption commission

There is a last ditch effort from the nation’s transparency advocate bodies to remove the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test for public hearings in the proposed national anti-corruption commission.

The Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Accountability Roundtable, the Ethics Centre, the Governance Institute and the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law have come together to call for the government to remove the clause, and allow the commission to operate publicly.

From the joint statement:

Public hearings are crucial to corruption investigations. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

We welcome the introduction of the Nacc bill. It provides for a strong and independent integrity commission. However, in its current form the bill restrains the Commission’s ability to hold public hearings. Public hearings expose corruption and are a crucial tool in investigations.

We call for the exceptional circumstances test in cl 73(2)(a) to be removed.

The Victorian Ibac is the only state or territory commission to have the exceptional circumstances test.

They say it “has had the effect of placing an artificial limit on Ibac’s ability to conduct examinations in public. Ibac does not consider that the existence of exceptional circumstances ought to be a decisive factor in determining whether a public hearing should proceed.”

The exceptional circumstances test will cause delays, court challenges, and limit the public’s knowledge of corruption investigations. It should be removed from the Nacc bill.

Joel Fitzgibbon, the former Labor member for the Hunter has a new (interim) role.

Australian Forest Products Association has sent out this release:

The chair of the Board of Directors of the Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) regretfully announces the coming departure of long-standing chief executive officer, Ross Hampton. The chair also announces the appointment of Hon Joel Fitzgibbon as interim chief executive officer who will guide AFPA whilst a search is conducted for a new chief executive officer.

Please enjoy meeting the My First Speech winners, but also Speaker, Milton Dick, attempting to act natural in front of a camera.

Greenpeace urge government to go further on EVs

Greenpeace has also welcomed the changes to the EV legislation, but think the government can go further.

Lindsay Soutar, senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:

The agreement today is a step in the right direction to bring down the cost of electric vehicles, but we must do more to fast-track the shift to cleaner transport,” she said

Now the federal government must keep their foot on the accelerator and deliver strong fuel efficiency standards.

While the world is racing ahead in the adoption of electric vehicles, in Australia this year only 3.39 percent of new vehicle sales were fully electric.

International research has shown that plug-in hybrid vehicles deliver only a 25% reduction in carbon emissions when compared to internal combustion engines, while battery electric delivers a 70% reduction. This makes plug-in hybrids much closer to polluting conventional petrol cars than to electric vehicles.

In Europe plug-in hybrids have been called ‘fake electrics’ for failing to deliver promised emissions reduction and cost-saving benefits.

Australians deserve better, cleaner transport. We can have cleaner, quieter cities with affordable all-electric cars and today’s agreement is a step toward this destination.

This is what Paul Fletcher moved:

That this house notes that:

1. The government introduced the 249 page fair work legislation amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) bill on 27 October and rushed it through the house forcing its passage on 10 November through the use of a gag motion which greatly curtailed debate;

2. The process was so rushed and chaotic that on 9 November the government moved a further 34 pages of amendments;

3. The bill would make radical changes to Australia’s industrial relations system including:

   1. abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission;

   2. introducing compulsory multi-employer bargaining;

   3. expanding the supported bargaining stream enabling businesses to be covered without their actual agreement;

   4. giving unions new powers including

i. forcing an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement, even if the employer and the majority of its employees do not wish to bargain,

ii. vetoing an agreement reached by an employer and a majority of its employees to remove themselves from coverage by an agreement;

4. The measures in the bill, and the chaotic and rushed process, have been criticised by a wide range of stakeholders including the Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Minerals Council of Australia, National Farmers Federation, Australian Retailers Association, Civil Contractors Federation, Australian Hotels Association, Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Australia, Franchise Council of Australia, Manufacturing and Clubs Australia

5. This bill puts the narrow sectional interests of union bosses ahead of the interests of all Australians in a prosperous and harmonious society in which businesses of all sizes can grow and prosper, working in alignment with their employees, their suppliers, their shareholders and the broader community

And this house therefore calls on the government to lay aside this damaging and ill-considered bill.

AG puts forth amendments to Nacc legislation

Australia’s attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, has announced amendments to the national anti-corruption commission legislation in response to the recommendations from the joint parliamentary committee which examined the bill:

These amendments include:

• broaden safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants and extend protections for their sources;

• improve safeguards for the wellbeing of persons who may require assistance to comply with the summons or notice to produce and expressly permit people to disclose information to a medical professional;

• require the Commissioner to advise a person whose conduct has been investigated of the outcome of the investigation;

• amend the definition of corrupt conduct and clarify that the Commissioner may deal with a corruption issue on their own initiative;

• require surveillance and interception warrants to be issued by eligible judges of federal superior courts;

• enhance the power of the National Anti-Corruption Commission inspector regarding witness summons and arrest warrants;

• narrow the grounds for bringing contempt proceedings; and

• amending the requirement that all evidence which discloses legal advice be given in private.

For background on how the proposed legislation:

The coalition’s motion in the house will fail – because they don’t have the numbers, but it is about making a point, and getting attention – the same reasons Labor used to deploy them while in opposition.