[ad_1]
British high commissioner rebukes Peter Dutton for submarine comments
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, warned against Australia buying from the British submarine fleet recently, saying he preferred the US offering:
The beauty in my mind with the American model, of the Virginia class, was that it was a proven design, it gave us interoperability with the Americans and there will be more American subs in the Indo-Pacific than there will be British submarines.
Dutton said he was relying on advice he received as defence minister:
The advice to me at the time was very clear: that Rolls-Royce didn’t have any production capability left, no headroom; Barrow-in-Furness is obviously landlocked, it didn’t have the ability to scale up.
Vicki Treadell has made it clear she does not want to talk about Aukus, but she is asked about Dutton’s comments and says:
I told Mr Dutton last night that they didn’t agree with his view.
Q: Why did you do that?
Because he is commenting on an outcome he doesn’t yet know.
Q: And is that inappropriate for him to do so?
There is a lot of speculation. Everyone is entitled to speculate. I was simply pointing out that I did not think such expressions were helpful on what is a genuine trilateral partnership started under his government.
Key events
Albanese talks Mardi Gras on pre-recorded Perth radio
The transcript for Perth radio Nova 93.7 interview with Anthony Albanese has been released and it’s mostly about … Mardi Gras. And what the PM wore.
Host: “I want to start by thanking you from the community for marching in the pride parade. I think that was amazing. And the fact that you are the only prime minister to have done it just shows the way that you look at the community, and also really surprises me that that never happened before.”
Albanese:
I’ve got to say that there are worse things to do than walking down Oxford Street and being cheered by 200,000 people. I don’t know why someone hadn’t done it beforehand.
Host: “A bit of criticism for your grey shirt … don’t own a sequin? What’s going on?”
Other host: “That was not a gay-friendly outfit.”
Albanese:
Well, that’s what it’s about, of course.
Host: “Tell me, tell me, talk to me.”
Albanese:
Is being who you are.
Host: “I know. But we could have cut the bum cheeks out of your pants.”
Albanese:
No one wanted to see that, my friend, no one.
Host: “I reckon there’d be a few.”
Albanese:
I got asked a lot about, ‘What are you going to wear?’ And it’s like, ‘I’m gonna wear my clothes that I normally wear, because it’s about respecting people for who they are.’
Host: “You know what, that would have been a bit of a conversation, wouldn’t it? What are you going to wear? Because like, for you, anything can like shoot back up in your face, you know?”
Albanese:
So I just did that. And then on Sunday, the pride walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge was just extraordinary. It’s the second time I’ve done it. The first time was for reconciliation, you know, more than 20 years ago. And so there were 50,000 people, and there was such a good feeling. People were so positive. And it says something about how people feel, the discrimination that’s still there for a lot of people, particularly young people coming to terms with who they are and dealing with those issues that come, that people were so grateful. All these people coming out and saying, ‘Thank you for being here’. It’s like, it’s fine. It’s not a big effort. But it made a difference and it made me feel really good.
Where is Mike Bowers?
I have had a few questions from readers on why I haven’t been putting any of Mike Bowers’ photos in the blog.
Mikey is busy with other projects at the moment, so we haven’t had him for sitting weeks (he is very much in demand).
As soon as he can return, don’t worry –he will.
Question time ends
Kylea Tink, the independent member for North Sydney, brings some decorum back to the chamber by making a statement on indulgence on International Women’s Day – pointing out that in the nine weeks that 2023 has thrown up so far, 11 women have already been murdered.
That is more than one woman a week. And the shocking truth is that intimate partner violence is the main cause of illness and death in women aged 18 to 44. But let’s make no mistake, these tragic deaths are preventable.
Tink says it is time to do more.
The Labor minister Catherine King and the Liberal deputy leader, Sussan Ley, also give their support to the motion.
In between all of that was an absolute mess. Just a complete rabble today.
One more day to go.
Dai Le has a question for Catherine King:
I understand that our current prime minister set up Infrastructure Australia under the previous Labor government. Recently, this authority listed the Metro-Link between Western Sydney Airport to Parramatta as a priority area. This critical line would have brought job opportunities to my Fowler electorate and reduce congestions. But Labor has slashed this line in favour of buses, which don’t connect the three major cities. What will you do to restore this critical transport link for my community? Thank you.
King:
Thank you very much to the member for her question. I know that she’s doing so as a strong advocate for her community in relation to public transport.
I visited Western Sydney International Airport just recently to announce that it’s now got its international code – WSI – and it’s well and truly progressing well.
The Albanese Labor government has committed over $5bn alongside the New South Wales government to Western Sydney Airport Metro and, in fact, I had the opportunity to dig the first sod on that rail line with minister Elliott not that long ago. It’s a very important rail line.
It’ll be providing important links. We obviously want to see that project to fruition. Of course, there is money for the New South Wales government that’s been put on the table for a business case for part of that line to Parramatta.
But no other funding has been committed. No other funding has been committed to that project. We will certainly, as a government who is committed to public transport, committed to the Western Sydney Airport Metro-Link, we will certainly consider the New South Wales new government any proposals that they put to us on the table, but no level of government has committed the money to build that project.
No wait, Stephen Jones is awarded extra time to answer and says:
The reason we are doing this is to ensure the integrity of the superannuation system. This is a matter that the majority of Australians seem to support but not the members opposite. It is also the case that under the existing law, the example that the honourable member opposite gave us would be in great difficulty because that type of asset in the fund described as the way the member opposite had described it would be in breach of the existing laws. It would be in breach of the existing laws. Members opposite make lots of noise but they may not understand the way existing laws operate.
The Coalition’s Rowan Ramsey asks Stephen Jones:
Minister, under the government’s super changes, if a family’s farm is owned in a super fund and increases in value during the financial year, will they pay tax on that gain even if they have not sold the farm?
There are a LOT of interjections in this one.
Jones:
I think we should deal with this in three parts, first, why are we doing this? The reason that we are doing this, the reason we’re doing this, Mr Speaker, is the government has inherited $1tn in debt from those opposite. And simply doing nothing is not an option. We also need to ensure that the superannuation system is operating …
There are so many interjections that Milton Dick says he can’t hear Jones.
“Lucky you,” Paul Karp hears Peter Dutton say.
Jones tries again:
We’ve inherited a debt, we have to deal with it. We’ve also got to ensure that the system superannuation operates as it was intended and that there is integrity in the system. And that’s what these measures are all about it, ensuring that there is integrity in the system.
Now to the member’s question, he may not be aware but certainly the member for Deacon [Michael Sukkar] is aware and the member of Hume [Angus Taylor] should be aware that answer the current laws, there is a requirement for superannuation funds … just be quiet, you might learn something, there is a requirement for superannuation funds including self-managed superannuation funds to have provision from equity events … and ensure they have provision to draw down.
Now, I know that the member for Deacon knows this, I know that the member for Deacon knows this because when he was the minister responsible for the tax office, he had the tax office..
There is a point of order on relevance from Peter Dutton:
Jones then gets into a back and forth with members from the opposition over what the current laws are and how they are deliberately misunderstanding things.
There is no resolution and Jones finishes with:
It’s important that the opposition members who are gathered and in fact all Australians understand exactly why the government is introducing these changes. The process is that we intend to do to consult with stakeholders to ensure that we get the absolute detail right and to ensure that we explain to members opposite how it fits in with current arrangements. The reason we are doing this is that we have inherited over $1tn debt.
The energy minister, Chris Bowen, takes a dixer so he can talk about the safeguard mechanism and has a crack at his opposition counterpart, Ted O’Brien, for never asking him a question.
Paul Karp, who is in the chamber, tells me O’Brien fires back “Why did you break your promise on $275?”
To which Bowen returns “back from his movie tour with classics like, ‘What we can learn from Fukushima?’”
The independent member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, asks Jim Chalmers:
Australians wants the government to focus on the long-term, the new cycle. They understand we need economic reform because the present arrangement is unsustainable. The past government has not delivered that for long-term growth and prosperity. With $1tn of debt, high inflation and low productivity, the choices have only gotten harder. When will we see a real tax and spending reform agenda from this government?
Chalmers:
It is true, that governments are called to deal with the long-term opportunities in our economy and at the same time as we deal with some of the nearer term pressures as well.
And if you think about the 2020s as Australia’s defining decade and how we set ourselves up for another generation of respect the like that which was delivered by the reform agendas of the 80s and 90s, will need to be thinking about how do we manage the big shifts when it comes to the energy transition, how do we manage data and digital shifts and the opportunities there, how do we make sure that we’ve got the workers that we need for the care economy and the services of economy, how do we broaden and deepen and diversify our industrial base in ways that so many of the cabinet ministers over here are engaged in.
And so, it is crucial right now, in the 2020s that we have the capacity to work in the longer term agenda while we deal with this inflation challenge in our economy.
The National Reconstruction Fund is part of our efforts, the safeguard mechanism is part of our efforts, there has in Australia Future Fund, part of our efforts, all these things which are before the parliament will help determine whether we succeed in the 2020s and into the 2030s, whether we can reform and change our economy so that we are managing the ships in the economy that maximising the opportunities that flow from those changes at the same time and we do need to be able to do that while we deal with this near-term inflation challenge in our economy in ways that are outlined in the answer to other question.
When it comes to tax reform, which I understand was the main feature of the member’s question, we are reforming the tax system in modest, methodical but meaningful ways. When it comes to superannuation, tax concessions, when it comes to aligning the off-market and non-market treatment of share buybacks. When it comes to multinational tax reform, one of the key thing that we discussed with international partners at the G20 and on other occasions as well. And these tax reforms, these modest, methodical but meaningful changes to our tax system will make our budget more sustainable over time and it will make a more sustainable than it would be without these tax changes.
And in addition to that, we do have the whole bunch of other priorities when it comes to our economic plan, fixing our supply chains, lifting the speed limit on the economy so we can grow without adding to inflation, tax is part of the but it’s not the only part of that. I look forward to working closely with the crossbench, the member for Wentworth and with anyone who understands that we’ve got a big opportunity in this country to turn the difficulties of the last few years into immense opportunities for our country and more importantly, its people. Economic reform is part of that and we are up for it.
The LNP member for Dawson asks Stephen Jones:
My question is for the assistant treasurer. Can the minister confirmed that farmers holding their farmland or family businesses holding their assets in self-managed super funds could be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes under labour’s superannuation changes? Do you do nothing more than fluctuations, and volatile commercial property prices. Isn’t this another on their new tax on family farms and family businesses?
Jones begins with the usual spiel of how Labor created super and it is for retirement. After 90 seconds of this, David Littleproud raises a point of order on relevance.
Dick tells Jones to get back to the question:
The reason we are doing this as we want to ensure that superannuation is operating as it is intended to provide a retirement income stream. The member opposite asks me about self-managed superannuation funds that have illiquid assets in the my property. It is a requirement under the current law, it is a requirement under the current law that superannuation trustees have provisions within their accounts to account for liquidity events. That is a requirement under the current law.
… The current law requires that superannuation trustees, including the trustees of self-managed superannuation funds, including the trustees of self-managed superannuation funds have provision within the fund for liquidity. We understand a change such as this is going to present a challenge for some funds which is why we are consulting about the implementation of it and we will ensure that there are transition arrangements. This might be difficult for members to understand.
[ad_2]
Source link
