By political reporter Louise Yaxley

Photo: Joe Hockey is having a hard time getting his budget measures through the Senate (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Treasurer Joe Hockey is struggling to get budget measures through the unwieldy Senate, and is now looking at ways to bypass it.

Federal Parliament rose for the winter break without passing many of the measures Mr Hockey had announced in his first budget.

One is a plan to pay state governments a bonus if they privatise assets and use the money for building projects.

Mr Hockey hopes to get around the Senate to implement the plan for the asset recycling fund, which would be used for new infrastructure like the East West Link in Melbourne.

He says Labor has gone back on its word to allow the measure to pass the Senate so he will use another tactic.

"They deliberately misled the Australian people and deliberately misled us, and haven't kept their word that they'd facilitate its passage," he said.

"So we will seek to appropriate the money so that we can get on with building the infrastructure that Australia needs."

But Labor's treasury spokesman Chris Bowen rejects that.

"We made it clear that we'd move amendments to this legislation. If the amendments failed in the Senate we would pass the legislation," he said.

"Well our amendments didn't fail in the Senate. They succeeded in the Senate. The Government's chosen not to accept them.

"So for Joe Hockey to say that somehow this is Labor's fault is just blatantly misleading, and I would suggest deliberately, the Australian people."

Appropriating the money would be a way for Mr Hockey to get around the fact that the Senate amended his bill in a way he does not like.

"Of course there's always these option available to treasurers but this treasurer has shown himself pathologically incapable of dealing with a Parliament which he doesn't have the majority," Mr Bowen said.

"See what he can do is he can beat his chest and huff and puff and lecture people but he's very hard at negotiating and talking to people about detailed policy proposals."

Mr Hockey is using reports from the ratings agencies to try to bolster his argument.

"Standard and Poor's, just as Moody's did about a month ago, have warned that unless corrective action is taken on the budget, then there is a debt and deficit trajectory that could represent a very significant threat to our AAA rating," he said.

Mr Hockey points out Labor is now blocking some of the measures in the Senate that it announced as savings when it was in government.

However, Mr Bowen defends that.

"What he doesn't say is that we have some measures which were funding particular spending initiatives which he has scrapped," he said.

"So of course if we had a measure funding a particular spending initiative and he scraps it, well that entitles us to question whether that change should be made in the first place. That's a very legitimate point for us to make.

"We would also make this point, there are other options available to the Government, the new Government, which the previous government had in place which he's scrapped. Like making multinational companies pay a fairer share of tax, by cracking down on tax evasion, like getting high income earners to pay a fairer share of tax on superannuation.

"There were measures available to him that the previous government had in place, which he's reversed."

Joe Hockey seeks to bypass Senate to implement budget measures, including asset recycling fund - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Stephanie Convery theguardian.com, Wednesday 30 July 2014

Barely-liveable salaries, job ad buzzwords, no acknowledgement of receipt – everyone has their Centrelink stories. One thing is clear: the Australian job searching system is broken

‘Bogus applications are already part of the deal. Photograph: Gary Roebuck/Alamy

I’ve been looking for a new job for 10 months. I still haven’t decided which part of the process is my favourite. Perhaps it’s the undisclosed and often barely-liveable salaries on offer in my industry. Maybe it’s constant the job ad “buzzwords” that make you want to tear out all the pages of a thesaurus and papier-mâché them in front of the recruiter. Or perhaps it’s the slow but inevitable self-loathing that builds every time you hear the words, “Unfortunately, you were unsuccessful at this time ...”

Then there are the employers who don’t bother responding at all, as if all those hours you spent answering their convoluted key selection criteria, attempting to balance evidence of your experience with self-assured (but not self-satisfied) descriptions of your skills and attributes, weren’t even worth the 20 seconds it would take to send an acknowledgement of receipt.

Sometimes, after extrapolating on my excellent track record in grant writing, project management and “liaising with VIPs and stakeholders” for the zillionth time, I would start to wish I had been born about 35 years earlier, and could just quit my current job and register for the dole knowing I could probably still make rent if I cut back on groceries, and focus on writing and making art for a while.

Or, as the Abbott government would call it these days, “rorting the system”.

The government has made no secret of its desire to gut the Australian welfare system, but its latest move has more than a modicum of Zimmer frame-shaking about it. In order to rid their lawn of this latest plague of lazy good-for-nothings, the department of employment has advised that they want jobseekers under 30 to spend up to 25 hours a week working for the dole – or, if this occurs in the first six months after they have claimed unemployment, spend 25 hours a week working for nothing.

On top of that, they are somehow expected to find the time to apply for up to 40 jobs per month. It’s such a terrible idea that even business lobby groups are complaining about it: they don’t want to have to sift through all the bogus job applications.

But anybody who’s ever been on the dole knows that bogus applications are already part of the deal. It’s an especially cynical process when you know damn well that there are no jobs to be had in your industry, even for people who really want them. Sending off form letters and a skeleton CV for a bunch of roles for which you’re completely unqualified is par for the course. Right along with cash-in-hand work that even goody-two-shoes can’t claim for fear of being sacked, the interminable call waiting times, the interview queues, the random benefit cut-offs for no reason, and all the lost paperwork. One begins to wonder if “lost paperwork” is an officially sanctioned process designed to weed out the “bludgers”.

“The staff would frequently lose documents that took weeks to complete (means tests and such),” a friend wrote to me about his experience getting his father signed up for disability support. “We ended up photocopying everything before submitting. We got to the point where we would get the counter staff to sign our photocopies to prove they were submitted. Some were submitted three times, photocopies of photocopies.”

“I applied for many jobs I was not qualified for because I had to apply for anything to make the quota,” wrote another. “I worked at a few of the places that the job service agencies put me on to for a month or so before they fired me because I couldn’t do the work, but I was never qualified for it in the first place. The job service agencies never taught me how to apply for jobs I could do, or how to find the jobs that I should have been applying for.”

Everyone has their Centrelink stories. Even my mum has tales to tell of her time on the dole, and of welfare inspectors busting in at 7am to check that none of the members of her share house were sleeping in the same bed, and thus fibbing about their relationship status on their claim forms.

But my favourite story was told to me by a friend on disability support. Her payments had been cut off unexpectedly and without justification three times since she registered for them in 2009 — in one case, because the computer system couldn’t cope when she submitted her paperwork a week before the due date.

It’s tradition to make jokes about Centrelink, because if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry. But it doesn’t take much digging to find the serious side. The system is so broken that the only people who could conceivably derive benefit from their benefits are those who are willing to game it. And that’s the horrible, toxic justification behind these changes. They’re not designed to help anyone. Instead, they’re setting people up to fail.

Underpinning all the proposed changes to welfare is this idea that being on government support payments is necessarily a bad thing. But the truth is, a pro-welfare culture is ultimately social. It recognises that people exist beyond their capacity to labour mindlessly, but also that capital-generating labour is not the only kind of labour worth doing. There is also parenting, caring for family or friends, learning, figuring out what the hell you want to do with your life, recovery from illness, and failure.

Contrary to the opinion of the old white businessmen currently in power, being unemployed is already one of the most full-on jobs going, no matter how it comes about.

Unemployed and applying for 40 jobs a month: if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry | Stephanie Convery | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Australian Associated Press

theguardian.com, Sunday 27 July 2014

Hockey's ‘personal comfort in life has robbed him of charity, and, I might say, judgment’, says Labor leader

Bill Shorten made the comments in a strongly worded speech to the party's NSW conference. Photograph: Scott Barbour/Getty Images

Joe Hockey is an "arrogant, cigar-chomping" federal treasurer whose charmed life has "robbed him of charity", the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, says.

The Labor leader made the comments in a strongly worded speech to the party's NSW conference on Sunday.

"This arrogant, cigar-chomping treasurer – his hopeless story [biography] reveals that it took Tony Abbott to block him from deeper, harder cuts," Shorten said in Sydney's Town Hall.

"Seriously. If it's up to Tony Abbott to tell you that you've gone too far, you've well and truly gone too far."

Hockey and finance minister Mathias Cormann were filmed smoking cigars outside Parliament House shortly before the government's budget was delivered in May. Their critics seized on the footage, saying it showed the government was out of touch with everyday Australians facing deep budget cuts.

In his speech, Shorten said the government was "unravelling from the centre and rotting from the top".

"This is a budget brought to you by a conservative prime minister who doesn't see it as his duty to care for everyone," he said. "By a conservative treasurer whose personal comfort in life has robbed him of charity, and, I might say, judgment."

Much of Shorten's speech focused on Labor's support for Medicare amid Tony Abbott's plan to impose a $7 Medicare co-payment.

He said it was "madness" for Australia to adopt a United States-style health system, just when Americans were "finally making a long and exhausting U-turn".

On party reform, Shorten urged Labor to "rebuild as a party of members, not factions".

The opposition leader has been calling on the ALP to change its rules so that party members no longer be required also to be union members.

On Saturday, the conference supported a plan to give ordinary members a 50% say on who becomes state Labor leader. But a plan from party elder John Faulkner calling for direct elections for upper house candidates was rejected.

Bill Shorten: Joe Hockey is an ‘arrogant, cigar-chomping’ treasurer | World news | theguardian.com

By Stephanie Anderson with AAP 26 July 2014

Govt rethinks budget amid Senate block

Treasurer Joe Hockey tells New Zealand there is no budget crisis in Australia. (AAP)

Treasurer Joe Hockey has contradicted the messaging of the Federal Government after telling New Zealand it need not worry about its trading partnership with Australia as the economy is not in crisis.

Joe Hockey has told New Zealand that there is no crisis in the Australian economy, nor is it in trouble.

The treasurer also made no mention of the "budget emergency" he and his government referred to when justifying their unpopular budget to Australians.

Instead, Mr Hockey reassured Kiwis that their second biggest trading partner is benefiting from 23 years of consecutive economic growth.

"The Australian economy is not in trouble," he told New Zealand political current affairs show The Nation on Saturday.

Mr Hockey also denied drastic reforms to Australian healthcare, education and taxes were about ideological change.

He said his government's reforms were about continuing growth and stimulating other parts of the economy.

"There's no crisis at all in the Australian economy," the treasurer said.

"The fact is you need to move on the budget to fix it now, and you need to undertake structural reform to structure the economy in the years ahead."

Despite the changes, New Zealand has nothing to worry about in terms of its trading partnership with Australia, he said.

"We're like brothers and sisters. There might be a little competitive tension in the family, but there's no doubt in my mind that, you know, we're shared blood."

Hockey defends his 'tough decisions' budget

The Treasurer addressed the NSW Liberal Party state council general meeting this morning, where he also praised the leadership shown by Prime Minister Tony Abbott regarding the doomed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

“It’s in moments of adversity that you want strength and the strength displayed by the government reflects the inner strength of the Australian people,” he said.

“… If there's a lesson to be learnt over the past few days, you must always advocate for the values you hold. You never give up.”

Mr Hockey conceded that the first few months of government had been challenging, but defended the criticism the party has faced in the past nine months.

“No great achievements can be made without sacrifice,” he said.

Mr Hockey also defended the Abbott Government’s first federal budget, less than a week after revelations that he wanted far tougher cuts.

His authorised biography, released earlier this week, quoted sources as stating that the Treasurer’s controversial budget measures were not as strict as hoped.

Addressing the conference today, Mr Hockey said the economy would benefit from the cuts.

“We have made tough decisions in the budget, tough decisions that needed to be made,” he said.

“There is no easy path, but there is a dividend for the nation in doing it.”

The meeting coincides with the state’s Labor conference, where NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson is expected to speak.

Hockey tells Kiwis there is no economic crisis in Australia | SBS News

By state political reporter Sarah Gerathy, staff

Photo: Bill Shorten urged delegates to prepare to fight for education and health (AAP: Nikki Short)

Related Story: NSW Labor to adopt new voting system for leader

Related Story: Joe Hockey wanted heavier cuts in budget, book reveals

Related Story: Doctors warn against health insurers paying for GP visits

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has told the party faithful that some of Labor's greatest achievements are under threat from a "cigar-chomping Treasurer".

Mr Shorten told the 880 delegates gathered for the NSW Labor Party conference that the federal budget was an ideological attack on many of the things Labor stood for.

He urged delegates to prepare to fight for education and health, especially the future of Medicare.

"Let us make the promise to the Australian people that Labor will fight to the death to preserve bulk billing in this country," Mr Shorten said.

"We will fight right down to the line for the principle of universal healthcare."

Mr Shorten branded Treasurer Joe Hockey the "Foghorn Leghorn" of Australian politics and says his recent biography revealed how far he was willing to cut in the budget.

The biography of Mr Hockey, written by Fairfax Media columnist and former ABC broadcaster Madonna King, reveals that although there were heavy cuts to health, education, welfare and foreign aid in the budget, it was much softer than the Treasurer wanted.

The book, written with Mr Hockey's cooperation, reveals Prime Minister Tony Abbott was responsible for a more cautious approach.

It says the Treasurer wanted the "changes to pensions made earlier, and the deficit levy to net more taxpayers", but Mr Abbott was concerned about the reaction from voters.

Mr Shorten ended his speech by urging Labor to continue reforming, so it could win back the trust of the electorate.

Former foreign minister and NSW premier Bob Carr was among the dozens of ALP members awarded lifetime membership of the party.

Reflecting on his time in politics, Mr Carr told the conference that Labor was at its strongest when it sticks to its ethos.

"To be critical of us for a moment, when we decided we'd cut off Morris Iemma's premiership, that was our ethos turned rotten," he said.

"And pushing Nathan [Rees] and Kristina [Keneally] prematurely into jobs which they would have later held with great distinction was the Labor Party ethos gone a little sour."

Yesterday the 880 conference delegates backed a proposal to give rank and file members a 50 per cent say in the election of the parliamentary leader of the party.

That is the same model that saw Mr Shorten elected federal leader last year.

Delegates rejected a bid to wrest control of Upper House and Senate pre-selections from factional and union powerbrokers.

Lifetime membership bans were also slapped on seven controversial former members, including Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and Joe Tripodi.

Bill Shorten says 'cigar-chomping Treasurer' threatening Labor achievements, urges party members to fight for Medicare - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Matthew Knott Communications and education correspondent

July 26, 2014 - 1:58PM

Refugee lawyers say the federal government's plans for Indian officials to interview 157 asylum seekers when they arrive on the Australian mainland is unprecedented and potentially illegal under refugee law.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said on Friday that the group of mostly Tamil asylum seekers, who have been held on a Customs vessel on the high seas for almost a month, will be moved to the Australian mainland.

The asylum seekers will be taken to Cocos Island on Saturday then flown to the Curtin Detention Centre in remote Western Australia.

Mr Morrison said the group will undergo identity checks from Indian consular officials and that none will be resettled in Australia. India has agreed to take back any of its citizens and will consider taking Sri Lankan nationals who are Indian non-citizen residents.

Sources said most of the asylum seekers are Sri Lankan nationals.

Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre executive director David Manne said: "It is a fundamental principle of refugee protection that people should not have to deal with officials from the country they have fled from.

"People who are seeking protection should never be put in a position where they are exposed to officials from another country without a proper assessment first being made of their claims of persecution.

"It is completely unclear what proper role Indian officials have interviewing Sri Lankan asylum seekers."

Human rights lawyer George Newhouse, who has represented 48 asylum seekers in a High Court challenge against their detention at sea, said he was concerned confidential information about the asylum seekers would be handed to Indian officials.

"This is policy and process on the run - it's dangerous," he said.

Mr Newhouse said the government's decision had not affected the High Court challenge, which is due to be heard by the full bench of the High Court on August 5.

Asylum Seeker Resource Centre chief executive officer Kon Karapanagiotidis told the ABC: "It's unheard of - giving another government access to asylum seekers.

"If a person is found to be a citizen of a safe third country, that person will not be accepted as a refugee and will be returned home, so that's the role of the legal process, not the role of bringing in another government to do that.

"It's deeply problematic and I don't think it's fair. I question whether it is legal, and we have a legal process to deal with those questions."

On Friday Mr Morrison said: "I have been pleased to consent to the passengers being returned to Australia for the purpose of allowing Indian officials to determine identities and arrange where possible for the return of any persons to India. It is our intention that those who can be returned should and must be returned."

The official spokesman for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, Mr Syed Akbarrudin, said it was not his role to respond to individual comments by Australia’s Immigration Minister Scott Morrison regarding the fate of the 157 asylum seekers.
“Mr Morrison can say whatever he likes, we are not going to respond to any comments," Mr Akbarrudin said. “We have said all that we are going to say on the matter. We will not be adding to the statements we have made.”
After winning India’s general elections in May, new Prime Minister Narendra Modi has tried to forge closer ties with the Sri Lankan regime which is dominated by the Sinhalese ethnic group, another reason why India may be unwilling to accept the return of the Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers.
Earlier this month the Modi Government denied entry visas to members of a United Nations committee investigating alleged war crimes against Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority during the country’s civil war which ended in 2009.

Government's plan for 157 captive asylum seekers potentially illegal: lawyers

On-water limbo for 157 to end

Let's, for a moment, put to one side the ordeal that the Abbott government inflicted on 157 asylum seekers whose boat was intercepted off Christmas Island, just outside Australia's migration zone late last month.

Scott Morrison's message was that the resolve of the government was as strong as ever, which suggests he has learnt nothing from this sorrowful episode.

Let's ignore the impact on the children, including the babies, of being detained in windowless rooms for almost a month, perhaps in the clothes they were wearing, and separated from their fathers after already being at sea for more than a fortnight on a boat that broke down.

Unrepentant: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison in Sydney on Friday. Photo: Wolter Peeters

Let's just reflect on the cost of keeping them on the high seas on the Ocean Protector for a month, including the overtime paid to the crew; and the cost of defending a case in the High Court; and of sending officials to meet them in the Cocos Islands; and flying them to detention in Perth.

Let's also consider the message the government sent by arguing in the High Court that it had no obligation to even ask the asylum seekers what they seeking and asserting that it could take them wherever it wished.

And, for good measure, let's factor in the political capital expended on trying to convince the Indian government to accede to the boat being turned back to the port it departed.

Now answer the question: what more has the government achieved than if it had opted in the first instance for what Morrison calls the “backstop measure” of taking the asylum seekers to Christmas Island before consigning them to indefinite detention on Nauru or Manus Island? Would the deterrent have been any less?

What drove this insanity is not difficult to fathom because Scott Morrison kept reminding us of it in the final week of Parliament, even as he taunted Labor for being “too weak” to stop the boats.

“The Australian people can now know that we will exhaust any and every option to ensure that people-smuggling ventures are not successful into this country,” he declared.

Well, they did exhaust every option and the asylum seekers will arrive, however temporarily, in Australia on Saturday - but with a host of new legal questions unresolved, including the legality of what took place on the high seas.

Mr Morrison was just as unequivocal in the face of a High Court decision last month that the device he used to deny a permanent visa to a refugee teenager was illegal. “The Coalition government will not be providing permanent visas to illegal boat arrivals," he declared, before defining a new national interest test that would be used to deny the boy a visa.

Only when the legality of that response was challenged did he relent, sending the boy's lawyers a letter this week informing them that a permanent visa had been approved, but giving no reason for the change of heart.

The minister was similarly unforthcoming on many questions on Friday, when he announced that the 157 asylum seekers would be taken to Australia, where Indian High Commission officials would be given access, in the expectation that India would accept the return of any of its citizens, and possibly others from Sri Lanka.

He knows how many say they are Sri Lankans because we know this, along with their name, was the only question they were asked during their ordeal at sea, but he declined to tell the Australian people.

Rather, his message was that the resolve of the government was as strong as ever, which suggests he has learnt nothing from this sorrowful episode.

Costly, cruel, futile: the price of Scott Morrison holding 157 asylum seekers on floating prison

By political reporter Karen Barlow

Photo: Treasurer Joe Hockey signs a copy of Madonna King's book Hockey: Not your average Joe, at the book launch in Sydney. (AAP: Nikki Short)

Related Story: Joe Hockey wanted heavier cuts in budget, book reveals

Treasurer Joe Hockey is keeping his leadership embers burning as an ill-timed biography hits the streets.

The book, Hockey - not your average Joe, was written by Fairfax media columnist and former ABC broadcaster Madonna King and launched in Sydney today.

It has exposed tensions and distrust within Coalition ranks and reveals Mr Hockey would have gone further in the May budget if not held back by the Prime Minister.

The Treasurer co-operated with the author, but admits the timing of the book's release, especially as the Government has been trying to get its budget measures through the Senate, was not the best.

"I in no way apologise for the book, obviously the timing and so on is not of my choosing," Mr Hockey said.

It is understood some in the Coalition have questioned the wisdom of book, particularly the timing of its release.

But the Treasurer has revealed, despite reservations by his wife Melissa Babbage, he took Prime Ministerial advice to co-operate with the author.

"Madonna approached me more than a year ago in opposition and asked me to cooperate with the book and Melissa's instinct kicked in and said 'no way, you never co-operate with these things'. I sought the advice of Tony Abbott and he said 'you should cooperate'," he said.

Madonna approached me more than a year ago in opposition and asked me to cooperate with the book and Melissa's instinct kicked in and said 'no way, you never co-operate with these things'. I sought the advice of Tony Abbott and he said 'you should cooperate'.

Treasurer Joe Hockey

The book has re-opened leadership speculation, with Mr Hockey seemingly anointed by the Prime Minister's chief of staff Peta Credlin as Tony Abbott's most likely successor.

"Joe's absolutely a contender and he probably has his head above every other contender," Ms Credlin is quoted as saying, although she went on to note he was not yet the heir apparent.

Mr Hockey says whether he becomes prime minister or not will not be up to him.

"We'll leave that to destiny, whatever it may be," he told reporters.

The book reveals a school-age Mr Hockey voiced prime ministerial ambitions, but the older Mr Hockey is not so sure.

"Everyone seems to have recollections of me when I was eight years of age, that I don't have," he said.

Hockey a 'huge fan' of Peta Credlin

The Treasurer has backed Ms Credlin, who he says is an "outstanding individual".

"If we had three Peta Credlins in federal politics it would raise the level of the quality of public debate," he said.

"She has been a huge part of the team. I am a huge fan of hers. We don't always agree, but she is an outstanding individual and we are very lucky to have her."

Mr Hockey says he trusts his ministerial colleague and former leader Malcolm Turnbull, despite his wife revealing in the book "he won't trust Malcolm again".

It was revealed that Mr Hockey believes Mr Turnbull wronged him in the 2009 leadership ballot that led to the election of Mr Abbott.

When pressed today, Mr Hockey declared: "Well I trust Malcolm Turnbull, yes. I work closely with Malcolm. I speak to him regularly."

The Treasurer confirmed he wanted a tougher budget in May, despite having trouble selling the current heavy cuts to health, education, welfare and foreign aid.

Mr Hockey says the May budget is "about right".

"The bottom line is every treasurer, as you would expect, would prosecute the case for greater savings. Every treasurer worth their salt," he said.

"The problem was under Labor they did not do it and they just increased taxes and dressed them up as savings."

It has also been revealed in the book that Mr Hockey was caught out by the way Mr Abbott launched his signature Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme proposal.

The book says Mr Hockey was "irked and offended" that the then Opposition leader announced the scheme after previously only briefly describing it to him.

It is claimed Mr Abbott received media mogul Rupert Murdoch's endorsement for the PPL before taking it to his party room, with Mr Murdoch considering the idea "visionary."

Hockey 'should get back to work'

The Opposition's treasury spokesman Chris Bowen says Mr Hockey should get back to work.

"I think the Treasurer needs to focus a little more on his budget and on listening to the anger of the Australian people about the deep cuts and the tax increases contained in the budget," Mr Bowen said.

He says a spectacle is now surrounding the Treasurer.

"Where you have got a Treasurer who is backgrounding against his Prime Minister. You have got leadership speculation encouraged by the Prime Minister's office," he said.

"I mean no wonder Liberal MPs are being quoted in the newspaper this morning expressing their despair."

More on this:

• Government to press ahead with budget 'blueprint'
• GP co-payment elements could bypass Senate
• Deadlock leaves Government facing '$300b budget hole'
• Hockey issues cuts threat amid budget deadlock
• Government shelves petrol price increase

Joe Hockey says destiny will decide if he becomes PM, defends contents of biography - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australian Associated Press

theguardian.com, Sunday 20 July 2014

ALP celebrations begin in Brisbane electorate of Stafford as premier acknowledges voters not happy with government

Dr Anthony Lynham secured 61.5% of the vote after preferences in Stafford. Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP

Queensland's Labor party is celebrating after winning the by-election in the Brisbane electorate of Stafford, with a huge swing of 18.6% per cent.

Labor's candidate, Anthony Lynham, is the party's ninth MP after securing 61.5% of the vote after preferences against the Liberal National party’s Bob Andersen.

Stafford residents voted on Saturday after the former LNP MP, Chris Davis, resigned in May.

A political analyst, Paul Williams, from Griffith University, said the LNP was always going to lose the by-election, but the huge swing against it was a blow.

The 18.6% swing exceeded the 17% swing suffered by the government during the Scott Driscoll-dominated Redcliffe by-election in February.

Williams had tipped a swing to Labor of up to a 12%.

“I don't think anyone in Queensland would have expected it would have exceeded Redcliffe so that's a huge surprise, mainly because there was no Scott Driscoll,” he said.

“There are a multitude of factors that work here and basically at every level the LNP has a problem.”

It was “natural selection” – Stafford residents historically vote for Labor – and the fact voters do not like LNP policies or the premier's style, he said.

“Only the rusted-on Liberal and National voters are the ones clinging to the party. Everyone else seems to be deserting it,” Mr Williams said.

He said the LNP's attempts to position Lynham as a blow-in had backfired.

“As [the premier, Campbell] Newman has found out, it's very hard to win a public relations battle with people who are of a notable profession,” he said.

It was difficult to say whether Stafford was representative of the state, but either way Newman would be taking note, Williams said.

“[The swing] is just so damn big no government can dismiss it and say it's just a by-election.”

However, he said it did not mean voters are happy with Labor.

“It's a begrudging second look at Labor ... They're going to have to do a lot more work,” he said.

“And of course the unknown in this equation is how will the Palmer United Party fare ... It does throw the whole game into uncertainty.”

Newman acknowledged that some Queenslanders were not happy with his government, and said the party needed to work hard to win back voters.

“This evening I say to those people, ‘We've heard you, we understand how you feel, and I pledge this evening to continue to work hard,’ ” he said on Saturday night.

“We will work very, very hard to take our message out to Queenslanders about the positive things we do want to happen in this state.”

He said “attacks” on the government by Davis did not do Andersen's campaign any favours.

Andersen, a psychologist, said despite the huge swing against the LNP, the party should reflect on what it had achieved.

“In a very short time we put together a credible campaign and we've done so fighting against not just the Labor party but union third party campaigns and also the damage that was done to us by the former member,” he said.

The Labor leader, Annastacia Palaszczuk, said the by-election outcome was a result of Newman not listening to voters.

“This is a premier who is taking Queensland backwards, and tonight Stafford has sent him a clear message,” she told supporters on Saturday night.

Lynham, a maxillofacial surgeon, said he was proud to be elected, and said the results sent a clear message to the Liberal National Party.

“It's a clear message that our community deserves to be heard – a clear message that it’s not OK to cut services and sack workers that we rely on every day,” he said

Labor registers huge swing of 18.6% in Queensland by-election | World news | theguardian.com

Daniel Hurst, political correspondent

theguardian.com, Monday 21 July 2014

Prime minister is rated trustworthy by just 35% of voters in latest Fairfax Nielsen poll, compared with 45% for Bill Shorten

Opposition leader Bill Shorten maintains a five-point lead over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The Abbott government enters the winter parliamentary break lagging in the polls and with significant budget measures yet to be legislated.

The Fairfax Nielsen poll, published on Monday, shows Labor holding a two-party-preferred lead over the Coalition of 54% to 46% based on preference flows at the last election.

The poll of 1,400 voters from Thursday to Saturday indicated Labor’s primary support has risen three points since last month’s poll, to about 40%, the Coalition’s support has remained stable at 39%, the Greens’ has dropped one point to 12%, and the Palmer United party’s (PUP) support is at 5%.

Bill Shorten maintained a five-point lead over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister (46% to 41%) as parliament entered its winter recess after a session that included the government securing passage of its bill to scrap the carbon price.

The government failed to repeal the mining tax after the Senate insisted on keeping spending measures, including the schoolkids bonus, and the Coalition is yet to legislate key budget measures such as the $7 GP fee, welfare changes and university deregulation.

The budget appears to have taken its toll on Joe Hockey’s standing as the treasurer. The poll showed Hockey and his Labor counterpart, Chris Bowen, were effectively even on the question of preferred treasurer. Hockey previously held a 17-point lead, Fairfax reported.

Just 35% of voters rated Abbott as trustworthy, compared with 45% for Shorten.

In other measures of the leaders' attributes, 54% believed Abbott had a clear vision for Australia's future while only 38% had the same view of Shorten. Voters were more likely to view Shorten as having a firm grasp of social policy but Abbott held a narrow lead on the question of foreign policy.

Overall satisfaction with Abbott's performance rose three points since the previous poll to 38% and dissatisfaction decreased four points to 56% (resulting in a net satisfaction rating of -18).

Voters' satisfaction with Shorten's performance dropped one point to 41% and dissatisfaction rose three points to 44% (net satisfaction of -3).

The poll has a stated maximum sampling error margin of 2.6%.

Coalition struggles in poll as voters question their trust in Tony Abbott | World news | theguardian.com

Paul Farrell and Daniel Hurst

theguardian.com, Wednesday 16 July 2014

George Brandis's new spying laws will include measure to criminalise media reporting of Snowden-style leaks

Edward Snowden's NSA leaks have prompted a crackdown by the Australian attorney general on the reporting of 'special intelligence operations'. Photograph: Trevor Paglen/REX

Australian journalists could face prosecution and jail for reporting Snowden-style revelations about certain spy operations, in an “outrageous” expansion of the government’s national security powers, leading criminal lawyers have warned.

A bill presented to parliament on Wednesday by the attorney general, George Brandis, would expand the powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), including creation of a new offence punishable by five years in jail for “any person” who disclosed information relating to “special intelligence operations”.

The person would be liable for a 10-year term if the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation”.

Special intelligence operations are a new type of operation in which intelligence officers receive immunity from liability or prosecution where they may need to engage in conduct that would be otherwise unlawful.

The bill also creates new offences that only apply to current and former intelligence operatives and contractors in a move which appeared to directly address the risk of documentary disclosures being made following revelations by the US National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden – whom Brandis has previously labelled a “traitor”.

On Thursday Brandis dismissed suggestions he was specifically going after journalists who reported information.

"No we're not and I think there has been a little bit of erroneous commentary on that provision," Brandis told the ABC.

"It's designed to plug a gap in the existing legislation. Under the existing legislation it's a criminal offence for an officer of a national security agency to disclose intelligence material to a third party, but it's not an offence for an officer to copy or wrongfully remove that material.

"In other words, communication with a third party is an element of the current offence but it seems to us that it should be wrong and it should be an offence to illicitly remove intelligence material from an agency. That's all that's about."

But the leading criminal barrister and Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns said a separate provision in the “troubling” legislation could be used to prosecute and jail journalists who reported on information they received about special intelligence operations.

The offences relating to the unauthorised disclosure of information are outlined in section 35P of the national security legislation amendment bill, which was presented to the Senate on Wednesday and is set to face parliamentary debate after the winter recess.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill said the offence applied to “disclosures by any person, including participants in an SIO [special intelligence operation], other persons to whom information about an SIO has been communicated in an official capacity, and persons who are the recipients of an unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure”.

Barns said: “I thought the Snowden clause [in the bill] was bad enough but this takes the Snowden clause and makes it a Snowden/Assange/Guardian/New York Times clause.”

“It’s an unprecedented clause which would capture the likes of Wikileaks, the Guardian, the New York Times, and any other media organisation that reports on such material.”

Barns, who has worked on terrorism cases and has also advised Wikileaks, said ASIO could secretly declare many future cases to be special intelligence operations. This would trigger the option to prosecute journalists who subsequently discover and report on aspects of those operations.

He said it would be easy for ASIO to declare special intelligence operations because it simply required the security director-general or deputy director-general to approve.

“Their own boss says, ‘I think we better call this a special intelligence operation, don’t you?’ ‘Yes, sir,’ close it down. The more you talk about it the more outrageous it becomes,” Barns said.

Barns said operations in which ASIO officers broke laws were the very ones that the community may regard as abuses of power. He argued Brandis wanted powers not available to governments in the UK and the US where citizens enjoyed greater protections for freedom of speech.

“In Australia we lack that fundamental human rights protection and therefore Brandis can get away with inserting a clause into a bill which you wouldn’t be able to do in the UK or in the US,” Barns said.

“It’s the sort of clause you’d expect to see in Russia or in China and in other authoritarian states but you don’t expect to see it in a democracy. I hope the Senate rejects it because it takes the law further than in jurisdictions which are similar to Australia.”

Leading criminal law barrister Shane Prince said the new offences relating to special operations were “quite draconian”.

“The five-year offence would seem to be able to apply even if the person had no idea about the special intelligence operation and they happened to release information which coincidentally was part of or related to the special intelligence operation,” he said.

“Add on to that the fact you probably in a trial wouldn’t be able to know what the special intelligence operation was about, would mean that you could have the situation where a person could be on trial for disclosing information which they say is related to a special intelligence operation, even if the person didn’t know that the information related to a special intelligence operation and they would never get to know in their trial.”

The Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the new offence could criminalise the actions of journalists. “I can’t see anything that conditions it or carves out any public interest disclosures. I can’t see anything that would protect journalists,” he said.

Electronic Frontiers Australia chief executive Jon Lawrence said the clause covering security personnel “appears to be a clear attempt to stamp down on whistle-blowers to avoid an Australian Ed Snowden.

“The fact that they’re making that illegal doesn’t necessarily stop a whistle-blower though I think in the general context of what is a pretty extreme crackdown on whistle-blowers generally.”

The amendments would explicitly bring private contractors under the definition of intelligence operatives to make them subject to prosecution, and include any person “performing functions or services for the organisations in accordance with a contract, agreement or other arrangement”.

The new penalties criminalise copying, transcribing, retaining or recording intelligence material in any way, and carry a maximum penalty of three years. Evidence of disclosure is not required for these penalties.

Brandis said this measure filled a gap in existing legislation whereby it was not unlawful for an officer of ASIO to illicitly copy or remove material from ASIO. He said it was already an offence for officers to disclose confidential information to a third party, punishable by up to two years in jail, and that penalty would increase to 10 years.

The president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks, said the penalties raised serious concerns.

“When things go awry total secrecy is not desirable. When something is seriously awry whistle-blowers play a vital role in the provision of good governance. The recent case relating to East Timor has thrown some light on this balance in Australia.”

The bill is the first element of the government’s planned national security reforms, with further changes set to target the risk posed by Australians who fight in Syria and Iraq and then return home.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, a former intelligence analyst, said on Wednesday it was important for intelligence officers to be able to make public interest disclosures. Australia’s whistle-blower legislation leaves a narrow window for disclosure of intelligence information.

“It must be accompanied by protection for intelligence officials who copy and disseminate material in the public interest,” Wilkie said.

Brandis referred the bill to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security for a report by September, when MPs are set to debate the law.

Journalists will face jail over spy leaks under new security laws | World news | theguardian.com

By Mike Steketee

Photo: Tony Abbott's gyrations on relations between state and federal governments have been spectacular. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

On the matter of federation, Tony Abbott is waging a battle between the inner ideologue and the pragmatist, writes Mike Steketee.

According to Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott told him when he went from supporting an emissions trading scheme to opposing one in the space of a few months in 2009: "Mate, mate, I know I'm a bit of a weathervane on this."

Not only on climate change. Just as spectacular have been his gyrations on relations between state and federal governments.

When the Prime Minister released the terms of reference three weeks ago for a White Paper – in other words, a statement of new government policy - into reform of the federation, they included this sentence: "Our federation is not, as some argue, a relic from the past, broken beyond repair and ill-suited to the times." Some have indeed argued something very similar.

Tony Abbott, or was it perhaps his doppelganger, wrote in his book Battlelines, published in 2009 before he became leader: "More than 50 years of increasing Commonwealth involvement in areas of government that were once exclusively the realm of the states means that the federation is broken and does need to be fixed."

True, he did not say then that the federation was beyond repair. And he had a proposal for fixing it: "The only credible way is to give the Commonwealth legal authority commensurate with its political responsibility." This, he wrote, was not centralism. But it looked an awful lot like it. As Annabel Crabb pointed out here two weeks ago, he even drew up a constitutional amendment to turn his idea into practice. It gave the Federal Government authority to make laws on "any other matters" not listed as Commonwealth powers in the Constitution, which covers all those that are the states' responsibilities.

Today's solution is the opposite: as the terms of reference put it, "rather than seeking ever greater centralisation of power in the national government as a way of dealing with increasing complexity, now is the time to strengthen the way our federal system works by being clear about who is responsible for what."

Five years ago, the only practical alternatives to sorting out responsibilities in areas where both levels of government were involved were, to quote Battlelines, "to accept the existing situation as the least worst outcome or to give the national government power it does not currently have to bring the states into line". Now, says the Prime Minister, the states and territories should be, as far as possible, "sovereign in their own sphere".

Abbott is not the first politician to wage a battle between the inner ideologue and the pragmatist. In 2009, he was venting his frustrations with dealing with Labor state governments during the Howard years. Now, with mostly Liberal governments around the country, he is reverting to the more natural conservative position of dispersing power rather than centralising it.

If he carries through with his intentions, it would mean the biggest change in how Australian democracy functions since the nation was founded 113 years ago.

One sign that he is serious is the $80 billion in cuts to health and education funding to the states over the next decade. The states can cop it and pare back their two largest spending programs - and in the case of health, the fastest growing - or they can find the money elsewhere, which means from their own revenue.

Abbott is putting weight on the states to take up the second option. One of the items in the White Paper's terms of reference is "how to address the issue of state governments raising insufficient revenues from their own sources to finance their spending responsibilities."  As well, the White Paper "will be closely aligned" with the findings of the separate review of the tax system now underway and will draw on the recommendations of the Commission of Audit. The main option canvassed in the Audit Commission report is the states raising their own income taxes. Another is increasing the rate of the GST or extending its scope.

In theory, it makes sense for the states to raise more of their own revenue, so that they are more careful about how they spend it, rather than blaming Canberra every time they are short of money. The Audit Commission says Commonwealth funding of the states represents 40 per cent of state revenue, which is the biggest imbalance between spending and revenue of any comparable federation.

In practice, the result of the Abbott reforms is likely to mean hospital and school funding being squeezed even harder than they are today, while lower profile state programs such as housing and homelessness would run the risk of disappearing altogether.

The history of the Australian federation is clear. Ever since the states handed over their income taxing power to the Commonwealth in World War II, every offer to them to raise more of their own taxes has come to nought. The Fraser government legislated to enable the states to impose a surcharge on income tax or give a rebate. No state took up the offer. None of them wanted to be the first to jump. In any state approaching an election, both sides quickly feel compelled to rule out tax increases.

The states still have the power to impose income taxes but they show no more sign of taking it up now than they ever did. One argument is that if the Commonwealth cut its taxes to make room for the states, they would be more likely to act. Don't bet on it. Governments still would be looking over their shoulders at their counterparts in other states, and at their oppositions.

When the Howard government introduced the GST, it handed over all the revenue to the states, with the aim of ending the need for the states to take their begging bowls to Canberra. But what was supposed to be a growth tax has not kept pace with the overall economy, let alone fast expanding spending areas such as health. The states can do something about it: provided they all agree on an increase in the GST, then under current legislation Canberra will implement it. There is no sign of it happening. The changes have been mainly in the other direction, with states competing with each other to cut their payroll and other taxes.

Gough Whitlam wrote in his 1985 book The Whitlam Government:

The experience in Australia during the 1950s and 1960s was that any community service solely dependent on state government tended to deteriorate, while any service for which the federal government assumed a financial responsibility tended to prosper... Unless the national government becomes involved in a major function or costly service, that function or service will either not be financed fairly or not financed adequately or not financed at all.

Nothing has changed. Abbott's current proposal to fix the federation is a recipe for smaller government. That fits his ideological predisposition. Politics will determine whether the pragmatist takes over again down the line.

Mike Steketee is a freelance journalist. He was formerly a columnist and national affairs editor for The Australian. View his full profile here.

Fixing the federation: a tale of two Tonys - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Scott Ludlam theguardian.com, Thursday 17 July 2014

The prospect of another military deployment in the Middle East is real. After the strategic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the executive cannot be trusted to make that decision alone

'Our current Defence Act does not allow for any level of transparent decision making.' Photograph: EPA

Australia is one of the few remaining democracies that can legally deploy its defence force into a conflict zone without recourse to the parliament. At the moment, that decision is reserved to the executive alone.

As kindred democracies around the world have enacted reforms to vest the so-called "war power" in elected parliaments, Australia has remained anchored to a pre-democratic tradition founded in hereditary monarchies and feudal states.

If this anachronism had served Australia well, it might be possible to mount an argument that "if it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need fixing”. If the horror unfolding in Iraq does not permanently put this view to rest, it is difficult to imagine what would.

On the basis of fabricated and wilfully misinterpreted intelligence, in 2003 then-prime minister John Howard followed the United States and United Kingdom into an illegal and open-ended war in Iraq.

Our parliament, and by extension the voting public of Australia, were cut out of the decision, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world organised and campaigned against the decision to go to war.

The decision by hardliners within the Bush administration to invade Iraq is now seen as one of the most grievous strategic disasters in modern history. The vast majority of the world’s people were right, and the executive authorities in the US, UK and Australia, were wrong.

No inquiry into the decision to go to war has ever been held in Australia - only a handful of piecemeal attempts to pin the blame on intelligence services and shift focus away from the actions of the Howard government.

At the time, Iraq was not threatening war. There was no allegiance between the secular Baathist regime that ruled Iraq and the fundamentalist Al Qaeda networks responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and hadn’t been since 1991.

Intelligence agencies within the US, UK and Australia understood these facts, but inflexible groupthink prevailed within the White House, Downing Street and the prime minister's office here in Australia.

Australia is entirely complicit in the violent, decade-long occupation that shattered Iraq’s social and economic structures, and ignited long-dormant sectarian tensions that now threaten to plunge the crippled country into full-blown civil war.

At the time of writing, Sunni fundamentalists considered too extreme to remain part of Al Qaeda have established a new caliphate in territory carved out of Syria and Iraq. The brittle institutions of Iraqi governance, bombed into existence by the United States, now threaten to collapse entirely.

If there is a strategic policy failure more complete than the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, it is difficult to recall it. This dismal outcome was predicted at the time by many of those who opposed the war, but the executive’s lock on the process means that the normal parliamentary processes of critique and accountability were bypassed. Somewhere between 100,000 and one million Iraqis have paid for this obscene oversight with their lives.

As the security environment in Iraq deteriorates, should Tony Abbott decide to compound the strategic incompetence of 2003 with a further deployment, the Australian parliament, and the Australian people, will be cut out of the decision again.

Concurrently with the Iraq deployment, Australia has also fought a long, costly, and ultimately futile war in Afghanistan. The heaviest cost was carried by the Afghan people: tens of thousands of civilians killed, maimed and traumatised as the US government’s saturation bombing campaign transitioned into a long, untenable occupation.

Forty-one Australian soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan. Out of respect to them and their families, parliament pauses to acknowledge their sacrifice when news breaks of another death. No such respects are paid to those Afghans who also paid the ultimate price; no-one even appears to be keeping count.

It is no longer tenable that the decision to deploy into conflict zones should be left to the executive alone. Our current Defence Act does not allow for any level of transparent decision making, scrutiny and debate. This is an artefact of legislation, not the natural order of things.

Today I reintroduced the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2014 to ensure that the decision to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force be made not by the executive alone but by parliament as a whole. This means debate in both houses, followed by a vote.

It is the latest iteration of a bill introduced into the Senate in 1985. By 2015 it will mark its 30^th year of languishing in plain sight while Liberal and Labor prime ministers alike reserve this power to themselves.

This bill would bring Australia into conformity with principles and practices utilised in other democracies including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, where troop deployment is set down in constitutional or legislative provisions. Some form of parliamentary approval or consultation is also routinely undertaken in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway.

Our ally, the US, has a similar provision that subjects the decision to go to war to a broader forum — section 8 of the US Constitution quite clearly says, "Congress shall have power to declare war". In the wake of the disaster in Iraq, the UK parliament now holds a de-facto war power, a new convention that prevented a rushed deployment into Syria earlier in 2014.

There are exemptions in this bill to avoid interfering with non-warlike overseas service in which Australian troops are engaged. There are also appropriate exemptions in the bill to provide for the practicalities of situations where parliament cannot immediately meet.

It is time that Australia joined its closest allies and like-minded democratic states by involving the parliament in the decision to deploy the ADF. The entwined tragedies of our recent military misadventures, and the threat that history may soon repeat, make passage of this bill more urgent than ever.

The Australian parliament must have the power to decide if we go to war | Scott Ludlam | Comment is free | theguardian.com

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Video: Budget blocks could create serious risk, economist warns (7.30)

Photo: Many budget savings proposals by the Government have been blocked in the Senate. (AAP)

Related Story: Hockey issues cuts threat amid budget deadlock

One of Australia's foremost budget experts says hundreds of billions of dollars in spending will be added to the nation's books if key budget measures do not pass through the Senate.

Chris Richardson, from Deloitte Access Economics, has told ABC TV's 7.30 program the Senate plan to block cuts and new fees from the Abbott Government's first budget will cost $300 billion over the next decade.

"Essentially, the Senate is not just blocking the budget for the next handful of years, but blocking the budget for the next decade," he told 7.30.

"And it says deficits as far as the eye can see unless there is some breakthrough in political processes.

"Across the next 10 years, and when you add in the interest bill as well, you're talking about $300 billion that the Senate is implying it will impose."

Mr Richardson says the budget situation has "gone backwards" already.

"The budget is in a lot of trouble," he said.

"What's happening in the Senate right now is bigger than people realise. The budget was big news with the savings it was making.

"In fact, the Senate looks like it's blocking enough things that the savings the Government was going to make across the four years, they've completely disappeared, and more."

In its May 13 budget, the Government announced billions of dollars in cuts, including to family tax benefits, health and education, and a $7 fee on GP visits.

Many of the measures are facing defeat in the Senate, with Labor, the Greens and the Palmer United Party saying they will oppose them.

One of the most significant budget measures was the reinstatement of a biannual increase to the fuel excise, which would have added $2.2 billion over four years to the Government's coffers.

But that measure has been killed off by the withdrawal of any support from the Greens, who judged it was pointless to negotiate with the Government.

Mr Richardson says that decision "surprised" him.

"I'm not clear you'd be calling them the Greens at the moment," he said.

"They sound a bit more like the Australian Motorists Party in terms of their response."

Hockey warns of more cuts if budget negotiation fails

Earlier on Wednesday, Treasurer Joe Hockey warned he is prepared to bypass Parliament and force through new spending cuts if Labor and the Greens do not come to the table on budget saving measures.

"I say to the Labor Party and to the Greens - if your instinct is to say 'no' immediately and to stick with that, you are dealing yourself out of having influence on public policy," he told ABC radio's AM program.

"Because if the immediate reaction is 'no', with no opportunity [for] open discussions in relation to matters, then there are other alternatives that we can take.

"We are open to discussions - as any reasonable Government would be - but we are not going to step away from the fact that the budget needs to be repaired."

Labor says it is willing to negotiate with the Government, but points out that the Treasurer and Finance Minister have both previously ruled out making changes.

"Today he's talking about alternatives, [but] we've been told there's no alternatives," shadow treasurer Chris Bowen told Radio National.

"So if the Treasurer wants to put up alternatives, let's get rid of the bluff and bluster and the beating of the chest with which he specialises, and get down and tell us what the alternatives are."

More on this story:

• Hockey issues cuts threat amid budget deadlock
• Howard to tutor Government MPs on economic reform
• Australia could 'go broke' if budget not repaired: Joyce
• Budget hole opens as Senate delays savings measures

Senate deadlock leaves Government facing $300 billion budget hole, says economist Chris Richardson - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Matthew Knott Communications and education correspondent

July 11, 2014

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has flagged the possibility of an election within 12 months if the chaotic scenes of this week's Senate negotiations over the carbon tax repeal continue.

After telling radio 2GB on Friday morning that it might be time for a poll if the government's ''difficulty'' continued for six to 12 months, Mr Abbott later told reporters at a media conference that his administration was there to govern, not call another election.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he is confident that the carbon tax will be repealed and his budget measures will get through despite chaos in the Senate yesterday. Photo: Ken Irwin

Mr Abbott said on radio that despite a week of "argy bargy", he was confident that the Senate would repeal the carbon and mining taxes and pass the bulk of his government's budget measures.

The Prime Minister's comments came as crossbench senators David Leyonhjelm and Nick Xenophon blamed Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer, rather than the government, for the fact that the carbon tax was not repealed this week.

On Thursday Mr Palmer accused the government of attempting to ''double-cross'' him over the wording of an amendment forcing companies to pay large fines if they fail to pass on savings from the carbon tax repeal to customers.

PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie called for Coalition Senate leader Eric Abetz to resign, labelling him a ''disgrace''.

By contrast, the Prime Minister and other senior ministers have been careful not to attack Mr Palmer and his party, with Mr Abetz saying the repeal bill failed because of a ''technical difficulty''.

''One or two days of argy bargy certainly doesn't make for a political stalemate,'' Mr Abbott told 2GB radio on Friday. ''I think it would be a mistake to see the whole of the life of this new Senate being like the past few days.

''Let's never forget that Mr Palmer and his senators were elected on a clear platform of abolishing the carbon tax, abolishing the mining tax – they essentially have the same centre right platform as the government.

''I'm confident that for all the sound and fury, for all the colour and movement in the Senate we will get the bulk of our budget savings through and that once everyone huffs and puffs we will get the carbon and mining taxes repealed.''

Asked if his government would consider calling a double dissolution election, Mr Abbott said: ''If we had six to 12 months of difficulty maybe yes it would be time to start thinking along those lines.''

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on Friday accused the government of rushing its carbon tax repeal and causing confusion in the business community.

Mr Shorten said business leaders had told him they are concerned that any company using synthetic greenhouse gasses in their supply chain would be drawn into the penalty regime.

''Does anyone seriously think that the Abbott government gave this more than a cursory glance when they were so desperate to announce a win yesterday?'' he told ABC radio.

''This week's farce I’d put squarely at the feet of the government because they're too arrogant to be able to ever admit they have to negotiate or work out something that isn't 100 per cent want Tony Abbott wants.''

PUP says it will repeal the carbon tax only if the government accepts an amendment that would require companies that fail to pass on savings within the first year of the repeal to pay a penalty of 250 per cent of the savings to the Commonwealth.

Although PUP and the government have insisted that the amendment only applies to power and gas companies, the business sector is concerned that it extends far further than this and would place huge compliance costs on industry.

The PUP amendment refers to ''an individual, a body corporate, a body politics, a partnership, any other incorporated association or body of entities, a trust or any party or entity which can or does buy or sell electricity or gas''.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said: ''Amendments that drag in the broader business community would be unworkable and cause regulatory mayhem, particularly as so many businesses have absorbed the carbon price and not passed it on to their customers.''

Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm said he would vote against the PUP's amendment, describing it as an ''absurd regime of compliance''.

''The ACCC already has enough power without any amendments from PUP – nothing else is required,'' he told Fairfax Media on Friday.

Asked about the Senate chaos on Friday, Mr Leyonhjelm said: ''This is all Clive Palmer's doing.'' He defended the performance of Coalition Senate leader Eric Abetz.

"We never saw the amendment until five minutes before we were asked to vote on it; I hadn't even read it. Luckily it was withdrawn," Senator Leyonhjelm said.

Family First senator Bob Day said he had concern about the ''big and ugly penalties'' for companies that do not pass on carbon tax savings, but had not decided how he would vote on the amendment.

If senators Day and Leyonhjelm vote against the amendment, the government would need the support of senators Nick Xenophon and John Madigan.

Mr Xenophon said he supported the PUP amendment.

''If the government can live with it, I can live with it,'' he said. ''It won't cause regulatory mayhem if companies are passing on the savings.''

Mr Xenophon said he did not approve of the PUP's tactics and said he saw no evidence the government had double-crossed Mr Palmer.

Poll: Who is to blame for the Senate's surprise decision to block the government's legislation to repeal the carbon tax?

Clive Palmer and the PUP 26%

Eric Abetz and the government 70%

Other 4%

Tony Abbott dismisses Senate 'argy-bargy', backs away from new election speculation

By Anne Twomey Tuesday 15 Jul 2014

Photo: The Palmer United Party will find they are going to be heavily reliant on the advice of the clerks. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

It is a big call for any new parliamentarian to back their constitutional knowledge over that of a professional who has served the Senate with distinction for decades, writes Anne Twomey.

Clive Palmer's attack on the Clerk of the Senate for giving advice upon his proposed amendments to the carbon tax repeal bill appears to show a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the Parliament under it.

Last week, the Clerk of the Senate, Rosemary Laing, apparently advised the Palmer United Party that its amendment to the carbon tax repeal bill ought to be initiated in the House of Representatives, rather than the Senate, because it might be regarded as imposing a tax. This was to comply with rules set out in the Constitution.

Clive Palmer reportedly responded by saying she should "get out of that job" if she was not prepared to act on his instructions. Yet it is an essential part of the clerk's job to advise senators upon compliance with the Constitution and the procedural rules of the Senate, rather than simply taking instructions.

The Constitution establishes the institutions of government, such as the Parliament and the courts, confers powers upon them, and imposes limits on those powers. In most cases those limits can be enforced by the courts if someone brings a constitutional challenge. In some cases, however, the Constitution imposes the responsibility upon key actors, such as parliamentarians or ministers, to respect and apply the rules of the Constitution.

When it comes to the powers of the Senate in relation to money bills, there is a very delicate balance between the role of the courts and the role of the Houses in applying and enforcing the rules.

Section 53 of the Constitution sets out most of these rules. It says that bills imposing taxation shall not originate in the Senate. They must first be passed in the House of Representatives. This is because of the principle that the power of the purse lies in the hands of the representatives of the people in the Lower House. For the same reason, section 53 also says that the Senate may not amend any bill so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

Difficult questions sometimes arise as to whether a legal requirement that someone pay an amount to the government is really a tax or a penalty. Section 53 says that a bill is not to be regarded as imposing taxation if it just imposes a pecuniary penalty or a fine. Mr Palmer may argue that this is all his party's amendment was proposing to do - to impose a penalty. However, there is an enormous amount of complex law on the question of whether an exaction of money amounts to a tax or a penalty, so one needs to be very cautious in this area.

So far, the High Court has regarded section 53 as 'non-justiciable'. This means that it will not enforce the requirements of section 53. Rather, it is the responsibility of the members of the Houses of Parliament to abide by these rules.

That does not mean that politicians can do what they want because the courts will not enforce the rules. On the contrary, it means that politicians are under a very solemn constitutional obligation to comply with these rules.

Members and senators rely on the independent advice of the clerks to ensure that they are complying with the Constitution and meeting their constitutional obligations. The clerks have long experience in the intricacies of money bills and their advice is traditionally given great respect. It is a big call for any new parliamentarian to back his or her constitutional knowledge and parliamentary experience over that of a professional who has served the Senate with distinction for decades.

There are also other good reasons to be cautious. First, it may be that if parliamentarians were to start flouting section 53 of the Constitution, the High Court might change its mind and seek to enforce its provisions.

More importantly, the High Court has held that it will enforce section 55 of the Constitution. This provision states that laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation and "any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect". The consequence of this provision is that if the Palmer United Party inserted into the bill a provision that imposed taxation, it could torpedo the repeal of the carbon tax. Hence the need for caution and to listen to wise and experienced heads.

The senators of the Palmer United Party will find, in time, that in order to achieve anything in the Senate, they are going to be heavily reliant on the guidance and advice of the clerks and other officials of the Senate. Rather than railing against it, a better approach would be to respect it and to ask what alternatives would best achieve their goals. A constructive approach is more likely to succeed than a destructive one.

Anne Twomey is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney and in the 1990s was secretary of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee. View her full profile here.

Leashing the PUPs in the Senate - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Related Story: Government hopes carbon tax repeal will be third time lucky

Related Story: 'Bully' Palmer lashed for demanding obedience from Senate clerk

Debate on scrapping the carbon tax has been postponed by the Government in a move likely to mean there will be no final Senate vote on the legislation today.

There was widespread expectation the tax would be killed off by the Senate before it adjourned tonight.

The bills were passed by the House of Representatives late yesterday and were listed to be considered first by the Upper House when it resumed at 12:30 AEST today.

However, Leader of Government business in the Senate Mitch Fifield moved to vary the order of business to bring on debate about the mining tax instead.

He indicated talks about the repeal of the carbon tax were continuing with minor parties.

"There will be further discussions through the course of the afternoon," he told Parliament.

Timeline: Carbon Tax in Australia

Look back at the tortuous history of the carbon tax, one of the most divisive issues in Australia's contemporary politics.

 

"The Government is endeavouring to work cooperatively with colleagues in this place as far as possible to endeavour to reach agreement as to how to proceed to ensure this package of legislation is dealt with."

A statement from the Prime Minister's office says the carbon tax debate has been held up by a need to negotiate with crossbench, Labor and the Greens over other legislation to be considered by the Senate.

"As soon as this has been broadly agreed, the motion will be put that will enable the carbon tax bills to be brought on for debate," the statement said.

The Government has also sought to extend sitting hours for the Senate to ensure the agreed legislation is passed before the five week winter recess.

Palmer United Party (PUP) leader Clive Palmer says he does not know why the Government is delaying the vote.

"I can't tell you because I'm not the Government, of course, but I can tell you I expect it to happen late tonight or early tomorrow morning," he said.

Last week, the Government moved several times to gag debate and have the legislation dealt with urgently.

Its bid to have the tax repealed last Thursday was skewered by the PUP senators, who withdrew their support for the legislation, claiming they had been "double-crossed" by the Coalition over a key amendment.

Senior ministers have repeatedly sought to pressure the Senate to quickly pass the bills, because any delay was costing households money.

"Every day that repeal is delayed is costing Australian pensioners low income families and small business owners among others, $11 million a day in additional avoidable electricity and gas costs," Environment Minister Greg Hunt said yesterday.

"It's costing the Australian economy more than $20 million a day."

Government MP casts doubt on savings from carbon tax repeal

Earlier today, a Government MP cast doubt on the figures used by the Prime Minister in outlining expected household savings as a result of the repeal of the carbon tax.

Throughout the months of debate about the tax, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has claimed that households will benefit by an average of $550 when it is scrapped, saying gas prices will fall by 7 per cent and electricity prices by 9 per cent.

But the Liberal member for the outer Brisbane seat of Bowman, Andrew Laming, says households may not gain the full $550.

"It will be $550 lower than it otherwise would be, but if other elements have made prices go up by $100 then you won't see a $550 fall on any bill," the backbencher said.

"But you'll be $550 better off than you otherwise would have been, and that's a very important caveat."

Greens Deputy Leader Adam Bandt disputes the claim entirely.

"If anyone believes that their household is going to be $550 a year better off as Tony Abbott has promised, I've got a bridge to sell you," he said.

"It's just not going to work like that. Any savings that people do get are going to be very small and are going to be dwarfed by the other cuts that are going to come in Tony Abbott's budget."

The Opposition has attempted to catch out the Government over previous claims Coalition MPs have made about the costs of imposing the tax and the savings made by axing it.

But yesterday Mr Abbott said he "absolutely" stood by the figures.

"The carbon tax is a 9 per cent impost on power bills," he told parliament in Question Time.

"It is a $9 billion handbrake on our economy and it adds $550 a year to the cost of the average Australian household.

"So every single Australian should be better off when the carbon tax is gone."

Carbon tax repeal: Senate debate postponed by Government as MP Andrew Laming casts doubt on savings touted by Tony Abbott - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)