Australia politics live: PM calls for ‘temperature to come down’ on Gaza debate as Coalition targets Fatima Payman stance | Australian politics

The government’s decision to more than double the cost of international student visas has upset the CPA.

Business Investment & International Lead, CPA Australia Gavan Ord said the sector was “critical to Australia’s economy, society and influence” and the “government’s decision to drastically increase the cost of non-refundable visa applications for international students is outrageous”

Australia is highly regarded as a destination for international education. However, the government cannot assume that this advantage is permanent. Students have choices and many other governments are investing heavily to improve their tertiary education sectors to attract such students.

Poorly considered policies focused on achieving short-term domestic objectives, like this significant fee hike, runs the real risk of making Australia seem less welcoming to international students.

Any reforms in this area must be very carefully considered and debated. Wrong steps can have significant short and long term implications for Australia.

Australia is already experiencing a shortage of qualified accountants and many other occupations. Any measures that are designed to reduce the number of genuine international students who wish to study accounting will exacerbate this shortage and have a negative knock-on effect to Australian business and the economy as a whole.”

More on the news that pilots at Virgin Australia have voted down a controversial proposal from the airline’s to strip them of six days off per year in a new enterprise agreement, in a ballot that was defeated 61%-39%.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP), the union which represents roughly 75% of unionised pilots at Virgin, had encouraged its members to vote in favour, while the Transport Workers Union (TWU), representing about 25% of unionised pilots at the airline, had staunchly opposed the pay deal, insisting the extra days off were crucial in light of Virgin abandoning a pledge to upgrade what had been criticised as deficient rostering software.

Virgin Australia’s chief pilot, Alex Scamps, claimed the new deal would still have left pilots with “the most generous days off for any major airline in Australia” and strengthened work life balance and fatigue management protections. “We acknowledge and respect the feedback from our pilots and we will continue to work with the AFAP and the TWU to address the key areas raised,” Scamps said.

TWU national secretary, Michael Kaine, said: “This vote sends a strong message to Virgin and owners Bain Capital to listen to pilots’ concerns and return to negotiations ready to work together on the constructive solutions already put forward by the TWU Pilots committee. With a few key adjustments, Virgin pilots can very soon have an agreement worth voting for.”

AFAP, in an email its negotiating team sent to members seen by Guardian Australia, said “while we are disappointed with the result, we accept that a democratic process has taken place and the views of the majority of the pilot group must be respected”. Negotiators will now “go through a process to understand the reasons for the no vote” before resuming negotiations with Virgin.

Guardian Australia understands that many Virgin pilots were relieved about the result. The vote had itself been delayed; a last-minute decision to tweak its offer following critical feedback from pilots in pre-ballot town hall-style sessions. You can read Guardian Australia’s reporting of fatigue concerns, by Daisy Dumas and me, here:

Virgin Australia pilots reject airline’s EBA deal cutting annual days off

Pilots at Virgin Australia have rejected the airline’s push to strip them of six days off per year, with less than 40% voting in favour despite the proposed enterprise agreement being endorsed by the union that represents the majority of pilots.

Amid ongoing frustration from pilots over fatigue concerns that have gained the regulator’s attention – including allegations they are routinely rostered to work maximum shift lengths of 12 hours and longer on back-to-back days, while allowing for the legal minimum rest period of 12 hours – the first ballot was voted down 61%-39%, with 98% of the airline’s roughly 1000 pilots casting votes.

Under Virgin pilots’ existing enterprise agreement, which lapsed at the end of June, pilots were entitled to 12 days off every 28-day roster period, of which there are 13 periods a year. For the new deal, Virgin Australia had been proposing that for six of the 13 roster periods, days off would be cut to 11. The designated days off are in addition to annual leave.

As part of the proposed deal, pilots would receive a 9.38% pay rise in the first year, and 3% rises in the second and third years, in return for the loss of the six days off.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP), the union which represents roughly 75% of unionised pilots at Virgin, had encouraged its members to vote in favour, while the Transport Workers Union (TWU), representing about 25% of unionised pilots at the airline, had staunchly opposed the pay deal, insisting the extra days off were crucial in light of Virgin abandoning a pledge to upgrade what had been criticised as deficient rostering software.

Anthony Albanese taunts Angus Taylor over whether or not he is going to ask a question and then ends question time.

Michael McCormack asks Anthony Albanese:

Capital Brewing Co is a local success story, but under the Albanese Labor government, it is suffering from skyrocketing costs. Co-Founder and managing director Laurence Kain stated, quote, our ‘costs have risen almost out of control. Our electricity bill has gone from 4500 dollars a month to almost $12,000 a month over the last two years’. He said that yesterday. Prime Minister, why are regional small businesses paying the price for Labor’s economic incompetence?

Albanese:

…They produce a very fine product. I give them that.

We know, that this is one of the reasons why we’re dealing with energy price relief, not just for individuals, but for small businesses. But for those opposite, for those opposite who’ve opposed the tax cuts, for everyone who works at Capital Brewing, who have opposed the other support, including one would assume, the lower wages.

Many of the people at Capital Brewing will be on low wages award wages?

They’re likely to benefit from the increase in wages that we see and that’s a positive is interjecting not from his seat promised has the coal.

And that’s a positive thing as well. But I hope that the member for Riverina, if he goes down to the Capital Brewing joint just down the road that he, he tells me he’s familiar with, I hope that he tells them it’ll be OK because we’ll have a nuclear reactor somewhere in 2040. That that’ll fix it.

Advertisements

This will be one of the moments referred to from today:

Liberal WA MP Melissa Price asks:

My question is to the prime minister. Families in my Durack community are at breaking point. Joshua, age 16, has told ABC News, and I quote: ‘Sometimes we’re really scraping just to pay the bills and afford food for the family. Mum actually quite often misses out on dinner so that there’s actually a portion size suitable for the rest of the family.’ Why are Australian families paying the price for Labour’s economic incompetence?

Albanese:

I thank the member for her question and I hope that she’s told Joshua in her electorate that she voted against energy price relief, that one assumes that will have occurred if Joshua works.

And as a taxpayer, I hope that she’s told him that she actually supports the old stage-three tax cuts because that’s what the leader of the opposition said.

Just in February, not that long ago: ‘Do we walk away from the principles of stage three? Absolutely not.’

So I assume that she tells Joshua if he earns under $45,000, that he shouldn’t get a tax cut today [if he is working].

… Part of the point here is that a whole lot of part-time workers will now get a tax cut. And one of the reasons why Treasury estimated that our design of the tax cuts would increase workforce participation is just that. So it’s designed to provide that cost of living support at the same time as not putting pressure on inflation.

So I certainly wish Josh well, I know that families, many of them are doing it really tough, but they would have done it tougher if the inflation rate was the same as the one that we inherited, which was 6%.

So we are increasing wages, having tax cuts, energy bill relief, freeze on medicines, making a substantial difference with all these practical measures, all practical moves opposed by those opposite and voted against by the member for Durack.

Advertisements

Jim Chalmers continues:

The only thing more pathetic than the point of order was to hear the shadow treasurer chirping away without a question. (He’s referring to Angus Taylor interjecting.) The shadow treasurer chirping away without a question over there. He can’t get a question, but he’s prepared to chirp away when the member for Griffith asks his question.

Now, the reason why this is relevant, Mr Speaker, the reason why building more homes and building more supply in our $32 billion investment is so important is because the Greens political party had an opportunity in the Senate last week to vote for tax changes which would incentivise more homes in our communities. Tens of thousands of homes.

And the point that I’m making is if the member for Griffith wants to use the tax system to make the housing sector fairer for young people and homeless people and renters, then he would have voted that way in the Senate, or his colleagues would have voted that way in the Senate.

Our priority when it comes to tax reform and housing is to incentivise more rental properties, because for as long as there aren’t enough homes in our communities, rents will be too high.

Now, the other important point about rents is that we have now provided – in two consecutive budgets – two increases to commonwealth rent assistance, and rents are still too high and they’re growing too fast. In the most recent monthly indicator, the annual price growth was rental growth was 7.4%.

It would have been 9.3% without our changes to commonwealth rent assistance. So we acknowledge that rents are too high. We acknowledge that more homes need to be built. We’re providing that commonwealth rent assistance increase at the same time as we’re trying to build more homes. Now. Mr Speaker, last week in the Senate, the Greens voted for fewer homes and higher rents and more homelessness. If they really cared about housing, they would vote with Labor rather than vote with the conservatives.

Jim Chalmers:

I’ll tell you what Labor believes. Labor believes that the best way to deal with the issues in the housing market is to build more homes. And that’s why, to the great credit of the housing minister, to the great credit of the housing minister, we’ve allocated an extra $32 billion to building more homes in our communities and in our economy, including $6 billion in the most recent budget.

Now, Mr Speaker, as I said the other day, as the minister for housing said the other day, if the Greens political party really wanted to solve the issues in the housing market, they’d vote to do that. They would vote for more homes. They would vote for us to build more homes.

And that shameful vote last week – which made it very difficult to work out where the Liberal party begins and ends and where the Greens party begins and ends on housing – it really was a demonstration, I think, of the Greens political party’s real priorities here. And as I said last week, as I’m happy to say again, the Greens will always put a much higher premium on fighting the Labor party than fighting for more housing for people to live in.

MCM has a point of order:

We’re over a minute into the question, the treasurer has not mentioned negative gearing or the capital gains tax once. That was the entire point of the question. It was a tight question, and if he’s not capable of answering, he should sit down.

Milton Dick says the tag line on the question allows ministers to broaden their answer.

Max Chandler-Mather asks about this story from Sarah Basford Canales:

New analysis by the parliamentary budget office shows that over the next decade, the federal government will hand over $165 billion in tax handouts to property investors in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. 67% of the benefit will go to the top 20% of earners, while only 14% will go to the bottom 50% of earners. Can the prime minister explain why Labor believes this is a good thing?

The prime minister hands this to Jim Chalmers.

Returning to Anthony Albanese’s comment: “It’s just a fact. It’s in the Likud charter.”

Likud is the Benjamin Netanyahu-led ruling party in Israel. The party’s 1977 platform said the West Bank “will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”.

Senate breaks out in bickering

Senate question time erupts during a (probably) strategically-placed Dixer on cost-of-living.

Labor frontbencher, Murray Watt, takes a question from his colleague, Tony Sheldon, about how the government’s policies help Australians with inflation and wage rises.

Watt, who is known for riling up those across from him, does what he does best. After hearing a heckle from the opposition benches, he says:

Isn’t it good that at least one senator on the side of that chamber has an interest in cost-of-living issues?

A lot of yelling across the chamber ensues. The president, Sue Lines, tries to get everything under control but it takes a few seconds before things actually come to a halt.

Michaelia Cash, who is acting opposition leader in the upper house, is singled out by Watt for being particularly loud in her interjections.

Watt says: “Senator Cash is a lot more noisy when she’s sitting in that chair [the Senate opposition leader’s chair] rather than when she’s sitting in the one about a metre behind.”

Cash yells back: “I’m still living rent-free in your mind, unlike Australians…”

A few short minutes later, the government Senate leader, Penny Wong, makes a quip against Cash to the president: “The acting leader of the opposition could perhaps draw breath and not yell for the entirety of the answer?”

Paul Karp said Labor MPs could be heard interjecting with “mind your own business” in response to Coalition heckling.

Milton Dick tells the chamber to be quiet.

Anthony Albanese:

I’ll make a few points. One is that ‘from the river to the sea’ is a statement that has been used by both supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestine, who support a single state, a single state.

(There are more interjections from the Coalition here, and Albanese says ‘it’s just a fact – it’s in the Likud charter’ in response.)

That’s the first point I’d make.

The second point I’d make in terms of social harmony is that it is important that we take the temperature down in this debate, not seek not seek to inflame it.

We just had a question earlier on about some of the activity that I condemn, that I condemn, I condemn unequivocally the use of the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ because it speaks about a single state, a single state.

The fact is, the fact is that the government’s position is very clear. We support a two-state solution and last week in the Senate we moved an amendment which said this, the need for the Senate to recognise the state of Palestine as a part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace. Our position is clear.

We support the proposal by President Biden and the United States for a peaceful resolution. We support hostages being released. We support civilians being protected. We continue to call for increased humanitarian aid. We continue to argue that every single innocent life matters, whether Israeli or Palestinian. By her own actions, Senator Payman has placed herself outside the privilege that comes with participating in the federal parliamentary Labor party caucus, and I informed her of that yesterday.