Tuesday, 30 June 2015

UN climate talks moving at snail's pace, says Ban Ki-moon

Extract from The Guardian

Pace of negotiations for a climate deal in Paris later this year is too slow, says UN secretary general, as China says it will shortly submit its carbon pledge

Ban Ki-moon (right) with French foreign minister and the host of the Paris climate summit Laurent Fabius (centre), and Peruvian environment minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who hosted 2014’s climate talks in Lima. Photograph: Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

Suzanne Goldenberg

@suzyji

Negotiations for a deal to fight climate change were moving at a “snail’s pace”, the United Nations chief, Ban Ki-Moon, told a high-level meeting on Monday.
A promise from China – the world’s biggest carbon polluter – for ambitious cuts to greenhouse gas emissions “very soon” could inject some much-needed optimism into the talks.
But the UN and other leaders warned that time was running out to reach a strong climate change deal in Paris at the end of the year.
The gloomy assessment from Ban contrasts with sense of building momentum following the G7 commitment to phase out fossil fuels, the Pope’s call for radical climate action, and a flurry of recent climate announcements from Barack Obama.
Five months before the critical gathering, Ban said talks were bogged down, and that negotiators faced many challenges and controversies. “The negotiation pace is too slow, far too slow,” Ban told reporters. “It is moving at a snail’s pace.”
He noted there were only 10 formal days of negotiation left before Paris.
The countries of the European Union and 10 other countries have already made public their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades.
The EU has committed to a 40% drop in bloc emissions by 2030 and, speaking after a bilateral summit in Brussels, the bloc’s president, Jean-Claude Juncker called on China to match its resolve.
“I would strongly welcome China taking on its shoulders, commitments that have the same ambition, if not in numbers then at least in targets,” he told a Brussels press conference.
Beijing though is increasingly measuring its climate pledges against those made by the US - and not Europe, according to analysts at the ChinaDialogue think tank. Trade spats, incoherent policy priorities, and mutual suspicions over climate agendas have all strained ties.
Responding to Juncker, the Chinese premier Li Keqiang said that China and the EU could jointly combat climate change, within existing frameworks that oblige deeper emissions cuts by more developed countries first.
“We are willing to work together with the EU to jointly tackle the challenges caused by climate change, observe common but differentiated responsibilities, equity and our respective capabilities to implement climate change solutions,” he said.
An agreement signed by both sides called for an ambitious and legally-binding agreement to be sealed in Paris, and for links between their respective carbon markets to be expanded.
After the last round of talks, in Bonn earlier this month, the 193 countries at the table were left far apart on the contours of the deal.
Meanwhile, there was growing frustration with rich countries for failing to deliver on a promise to mobilise $100bn a year from 2020 to help poor and developing countries deal with climate change.
In a much-needed positive note, China, which is responsible for 24% of global carbon emissions, said it would make an official commitment to make ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions “very soon”.
“We are making great efforts to bring about a revolution in energy production and consumption,” Xie Zhenhua, China’s climate change envoy, told the meeting.
He said China would step up those efforts in its post-2020 climate change plan, and would set lay out a detailed plan for cutting carbon pollution and protecting its people from sea-level rise, extreme weather and other consequences of climate change.
“These targets are quite ambitious and will require arduous effort for implementation,” Xie said. “We have a determination and a confidence to reach these goals so they replace fossil fuel energy.”
The countries of the European Union and 10 other countries have already made public their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades.
China and the US – the world’s two biggest carbon polluters – took an historic first step to reining in emissions in the coming decades last November.
The US unveiled a plan to cut its emissions by 26% to 28% on 2005 levels by 2025, and China for the first time agreed to peak its emissions and get 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2030.
China said in the past it would deliver its pledge by the end of June, and there was growing anticipation that it may raise its ambitions.
India, the third biggest carbon polluter, has said it will deliver its pledge by the end of September.
But there was growing acknowledgement on Monday of the challenges to reaching a deal to avoid dangerous climate change. Ban told the meeting that the commitments made ahead of the Paris meeting would fail to limit warming to 2C, the internationally-agreed limit.
One of the big sticking points is cash – with rich countries so far failing to live up to promise to mobilise $100bn a year by 2020 for climate finance.
The funds were first promised at the Copenhagen climate conference six years ago to help poor countries cut carbon pollution and protect their peoples from climate change.
Ban called on presidents and prime ministers to provide clear guidance, saying “creditable climate finance is essential”. He went on: “It is imperative that developed countries provide greater clarity on the public finance component of the $100bn before Paris.”
Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate envoy, said there was a disconnect between UN and negotiators’ view of climate funding, and those of finance ministers and financial institutions.
“You can definitely feel that there is something moving,” Kyte said. But she added: “There is a disconnection between financial world and negotiation world, and just as urgently as we have to mobilise finance so we urgently need to fix that disconnect.
She added. “Maybe it’s not a complete disconnect but it’s a weak connection.”
For the small islands of the Pacific, it may already be too late. Anote Tong, the president of the tiny island of Kiribati, told the meeting king tides were already forcing villages to relocate.
“We may be in the world’s last hour in which our planet can be saved,” Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, told the meeting.

Q&A host Tony Jones says Zaky Mallah should not have been allowed on show

Extract from The Guardian

Presenter claims that had program known of ‘very offensive, misogynist’ tweet directed at two journalists, Mallah would have been prevented from appearing

Tony Jones, pictured on a previous Q&A, said the program-makers were unaware of an offensive tweet by Zaky Mallah before last week’s episode went out. Photograph: ABC

Daniel Hurst Political correspondent

@danielhurstbne

The Q&A host, Tony Jones, says the ABC program would have refused to allow Zaky Mallah to ask a question if it had known of his “very offensive, misogynist tweet” about two female journalists.
Jones opened Monday night’s episode with a statement addressing some of the criticisms levelled at the show for allowing Mallah, a former terrorism suspect who was convicted of threatening to kill Asio officers, to join the live studio audience last week.
The exchange between Mallah and government frontbencher Steven Ciobo prompted a barrage of criticism, with the prime minister, Tony Abbott, accusing the national broadcaster of betraying Australia and saying “heads should roll”.
Several investigations - including a government-ordered review by Malcolm Turnbull’s Department of Communications - are examining what factors the program took into account before allowing Mallah’s participation.
Jones said the Q&A team found itself in an unusual situation “because clearly one of the biggest and most controversial issues of the past week has been about events that occurred on our own program”.
“We’ve been the subject of a great deal of comment from politicians and from other media,” Jones said in a statement to camera before the panel discussed the controversy.
“The ABC itself has acknowledged that an error was made in having Mr Zaky Mallah live in the studio and as we go to air tonight there is more than one inquiry under way.”
Jones said it was “appropriate to put a couple of facts on the record”.
In an attempt to take collective responsibility, he said: “The decisions made about Q&A are made by the whole program and management team and we all take responsibility for them.”
Jones also noted that the ABC’s editorial standards “tell us to present a diversity of perspectives so that over time no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded, nor disproportionately represented”.
“Secondly, the safety and security of our panelists and the audience is always a key priority for us,” he said.
“And finally, the Q&A team were not aware at the time Zaky Mallah appeared of the very offensive misogynistic tweet that he put out about two female journalists. Had we known, we would have rejected his participation.”
Mallah tweeted in January that two prominent Australian journalists should be “gangbanged”.
After Jones’s opening statement, the panel spent more than half the episode answering questions related to the Mallah issue.
The deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, said the tweet was “very offensive” and she agreed that the inclusion of Mallah was an error of judgment, but she accused the government of responding in a “really quite emotional” tone.
The ABC had already suffered funding cuts and further attacks on the national broadcaster were “not helpful”, Plibersek said.
“I don’t always like what the ABC broadcasts,” she said, referring to The Killing Season series on the former Labor government’s disunity.
“I’ve had three very uncomfortable Tuesday nights over the last few weeks and what I’d say about the ABC is even when I don’t agree with it, I see that it does a really important job and plays a very worthwhile role in our community.”
Another panellist, the counter-terrorism expert Anne Aly, played down the potential for Mallah’s comments last week to encourage Australians to join terrorist groups in the Middle East.
“We are not about to see a mass exodus to Syria because of a public stoush between a minister and somebody wearing a funny hat on Q&A, let’s make that clear,” she said.
Aly criticised Ciobo for responding to Mallah’s question about ministerial discretion in terrorism-related issues. Ciobo told Mallah: “I’m happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I would be pleased to be part of a government that would say that you’re out of the country as far as I’m concerned.”
That comment prompted Mallah to reply: “The Liberals now have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join Isil because of ministers like him.”
Aly said Ciobo had missed an opportunity to “respond rationally” to Mallah’s question and contribute to debate about national security issues “free from political point scoring”.
In 2005 Mallah was acquitted of two terrorism offences but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officials. Ali said Mallah had “done his time” and “paid his price” for that offence. Mallah had made some “shitty” remarks but could become a really important person in the debate about radicalisation, Aly said.
Tim Wilson, Australia’s human rights commissioner, said no one was calling for Mallah “to be silenced or censored”.
“I think the producers and yourself ought to be ashamed of yourselves for giving him a platform,” Wilson told Jones.
“The issue at heart is that the ABC chose to give this person a platform on live television … It is bad, because it denied the opportunity for somebody who is sensible and rational and credible to actually talk about the serious points around citizenship that exist in Australia and around those laws, which I have myself expressed genuine concerns about.
“But for then the ABC to turn it into some sort of free speech issue and try and project it as though the ABC had made just a simple error of judgment and invoked the idea that this was akin to the Charlie Hebdo massacres I found laughable and contemptuous of the substance of the issue at heart.
“And I thought it was actually a tragedy that Mark Scott [the ABC’s managing director] chose to go and do it that way and in essence mock the memory of those people and what they actually stood and died for.”
The Australian newspaper’s editor at large, Paul Kelly, said the debate was “not an issue of free speech as Mark Scott pretended last week”.
When asked about a story the Australian published in 2012 featuring Mallah speaking out against violence, Kelly said he was aware that reformed jihadists were an “enormously effective” tool to persuade people against going to Iraq and Syria to fight.
But Kelly contended that the ABC included Mallah for the purposes of creating “a tabloid gotcha moment” rather than having a proper debate about the issue.
Government ministers and MPs - along with News Corp papers and talkback hosts - have used the incident to renew their pre-existing criticism of the ABC’s judgment and balance. Some MPs suggested a blanket boycott of the program by government members, and Abbott’s parliamentary secretary, Alan Tudge, withdrew from this week’s episode, citing the pending review.
The issue also featured on the ABC’s Media Watch program. Host Paul Barry said it was reasonable to have Mallah on a program about terrorism laws, but because of his background it was a mistake to allow him to do so in a live format.
If anyone was acting like a lynch mob, Barry said, it was “certain sections of the government and News Corp”.
“It seems the culture war is on again,” Barry said.

SUPPORT THE ABC FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE!

The Worker

Monday, 29 June 2015

Australian climate policy paralysis has to end, business roundtable says

Extract from The Guardian

Business and industry alliance sets out climate ‘principles’, including that climate policy should be ‘capable of achieving deep reductions’ in emissions

The Hazelwood coal-fired power station — Groups included in the ‘climate roundtable’ include the Business Council of Australia and Australian Industry Group, along with environmental groups and unions. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Lenore Taylor Political editor

@lenoretaylor

An unprecedented alliance of business, welfare and environmental groups and trade unions is demanding an end to Australia’s decade of political paralysis and division on climate policy, insisting the Abbott government make credible emission reduction commitments and the major parties agree on how the pledges should be implemented.
In an attempt to reset the bitter political debate on climate policy, the powerful line-up of interest groups has reached a historic agreement on “principles” that should guide Australia’s climate policy.
The principles do not explicitly mention the Abbott government’s Direct Action climate plan or the former Labor government’s emissions trading scheme, but they include objectives Direct Action fails to meet in its current form – including being “internationally linked”, being “capable of achieving deep reductions” and achieving greenhouse reductions “across all sections of the economy”.
Another principle is that policies should “prevent the unnecessary loss of competitiveness by Australia’s trade-exposed industries” – a charge levelled against Labor’s ETS by the Coalition, who repealed it.
Crucially, the new principles demand a policy that allows Australia to play a fair role in limiting global warming to 2C and eventually achieves no net greenhouse emissions – meaning more emissions are taken out of the atmosphere or bought from overseas than emitted by activities in Australia.
Groups included in the “climate roundtable”, which has been meeting secretly for more than a year, are the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Aluminium Council, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), the Australian Aluminium Council and the ACTU.
“This is born of collective frustration,” said the chief executive of the ESAA, Matthew Warren.
“We are tired of the politicking on climate policy. We have had a decade of policy uncertainty ... we need a target and we need an agreed policy to get there, but we have to know we aren’t going to keep changing track,” he said.
Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said the aim of the exercise was to “send climate policy in the right direction and avoid years of costly policy uncertainty and reversals”.
And Innes Willox, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said the principles would “end the frustration and disruption that business has faced from ever-changing policy”.
The government will shortly unveil Australia’s new target for greenhouse gas reductions after 2020 – a promise that foreign minister Julie Bishop will take to the United Nations climate conference in Paris in December.
But the new promise will raise immediate questions about what policy Australia will use to get there. The government’s $2.5bn emissions reduction fund may allow Australia to meet its minimum 2020 target – a 5% reduction in emissions compared with 2000 levels – but without changes it would become impossibly expensive for the government to “buy” deeper emission reductions through the fund.
One option would be to toughen the so-called “safeguards” mechanisms, which is supposed to put a cap on industrial and electricity sector emissions, forcing higher-emitting companies to buy emission permits from lower-emitting ones. But that would become a kind of baseline and credit emissions trading scheme, which has been ruled out by Abbott. Another option would be to allow companies to buy emissions reduction on the international market, but Abbott has previously ruled that out too.
Labor is also developing a new climate policy and, as previously reported by Guardian Australia, has not yet decided whether to re-legislate an emissions trading scheme or use the government’s policy to create a different type of carbon market.
The “principles” agreed to by the groups include that climate policy should:

drive domestic abatement wherever it is efficient and internationally recognised across all sectors of the Australian economy
make use of internationally recognised abatement from overseas to ease the transition towards net zero emissions
recognise the strategic importance of reducing emissions from the energy sector in achieving the overall goal
use any revenue resulting from climate policy to address legitimate needs directly related to climate policy, and otherwise be returned to businesses and individuals

The chief executive of the Climate Institute, John Connor, said the aim of the extraordinary new alliance was “to reset the tumultuous debate and try to establish a civil and constructive discussion”.
“We are offering ourselves as a sounding board for all parties to test and discuss their policies,” he said.
The group wrote to the prime minister, Tony Abbott, and opposition leader, Bill Shorten, advising them of the new consensus.

Free trade agreement: Removal of electrician skills assessment in China-Australia deal endangers community, union says

Extract from ABC News

By political reporter Eric Tlozek

Posted about 5 hours ago

Removing a requirement to assess the skills of Chinese electricians on temporary work visas will endanger the Australian community, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) says.

The Government agreed to remove the mandatory skills assessment requirement for Chinese workers in 10 occupations, including electricians, as part of its new free trade agreement with China.
Workers will still have to show evidence of their skills and training before being granted a visa, the Government said.

ChAFTA pros and cons:

Who are the main beneficiaries of the free trade deal with China, who misses out, and where might some Australians be left worse off?

But Allen Hicks from the ETU said the agreement could compromise Australia's high safety standards.
"For the Federal Government to come out and waive that under a free trade agreement, without any consultation with unions or employers, is an absolute disgrace," he said.
"It's going to create significant workplace dangers, not only just for electricians, but all those people who use electricity."
Mr Hicks said the mandatory assessment requirement was designed to protect people from unsafe electrical work, and that the change would create significant workplace dangers.
"If they aren't aware of the requirements that are in place in this country and they do something wrong, then you don't get a second chance with electricity and that's the significant, concerning part," he said.
"Countries, particularly Asian countries, don't have the adequate skill sets to meet the rigorous demands here in Australia."

The Government said the change aligned China with countries like the United States and Japan.

Saturday, 27 June 2015

News Summary May 25, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, MAY 25, 1895.

Smoko-Ho.

THE formation of a Social Democratic Federation is in contemplation in Melbourne.

LARRY Petrie is said to have been sentenced to thirty year's imprisonment at Honolulu for being “a revolutionist.”

ARTHUR Desmond, N.Z. and N.S.W. agitator and poet, is in California, working for 6s. a day, and is still “fighting the banks.”

MESSES. Thompson and Co., booksellers, of Queen and George streets, have in stock a large supply of “Merrie England.” Price 3d., by post 4d.

A “PROJECTED Free Communist and Co-operative Colony” is about to be established in Sunderland, England. Such movements show that the active thinkers amongst the working masses are really tired of the present industrial system.

The following advertisement appeared in the Tuaci of march 22: “Prince's title to be disposed of, on favourable terms, by lawful means, with acquiescence of the Government (South European). Please address R. E., No. 75 Postant, Berlin.

THAT political nonentity, Haw-haw Foxton, supposed to represent the electors of Carnarvon, addressed a meeting at Stanthorpe. From the reception he met with he ought to clearly understand that he will not be wanted next election.

MR. Thos. Budd, boot merchant, Queen street, has notified to the Early Closing Association that his shop will be closed at 9 o'clock on Saturday evenings from the 1^st. of next month. The other boot shops are to be worked up and, if possible, even one hour knocked off.

THE Shop Assistant's Association advertise a grand concert by the Orpheus Glee Society on next Tuesday evening, in the Trades Hall. This society carried off several prizes at the late Eistedfodd and comprises amongst its members some of the best vocalists in Brisbane. After the concert, dancing will be held for four hours.

THE oldest religion street-preacher in Brisbane, Mrs. M'Naught, has been sentenced to two months for not moving on whilst she was preaching the gospel. It is a shame to make her the particular victim, but then, you know, she has no votes neither does she command any influence, which makes a lot of difference in Tory-ridden Brisbane.

“OUTIS,” in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, says; “The great defeat sustained by the German Government in its absurd attempt to suppress Socialism by Act of Reichstag is what was probably expected by everybody who felt interested in the matter.” This ought to encourage Queensland Socialists, who have only such mediocrities as Byrnes, Tozer, and a few others to battle against.

MICHAEL Davitt's reception in Adelaide was a fitting one for the great reformer. The mayor of Port Adelaide received him first when Mr. Davitt spoke to an audience of about 1000 people. The mayor of Adelaide afterwards received him in the Adelaide Town Hall, the reception room being thronged. Notable features were the kindliness exhibited by the mayors and the Premier, the presence of almost the entire South Australian Labour Party, and the fairness of the press reports.

THE Cape River Associated Workers' Union, Deeplead, Pentland, is increasing in membership. The union has a most business like and energetic secretary whose heart is evidently in his work. The work of unionism is not yet done. It has hardly commenced. If ever a good strong labour union was necessary it is necessary now when, owing to the extraordinary increase in labour-saving machinery and the feverish struggle for wealth, some employers are prepared to break all the laws of God and man, and would reduce wages to a wretched level. The unionist revival in the Pentland district is therefore most encouraging.

JOB CREATED, INVESTMENT FLOWS AFTER RET DEAL

Media Release

Mark Butler MP.

Shadow Minister for Environment
Climate Change and Water

Date: 26 June 2015

Labor welcomes today’s announcement by GE and Downer of the expansion of the Ararat Wind Farm following the passing of Renewable Energy Target legislation earlier this week.

This expansion represents a $450 million investment in Australia’s renewable energy industry, creates up to 285 jobs and will inject $7 million into the local community of Ararat.

The financiers and owners acknowledged the project would not have proceeded without the certainty provided by the agreement Labor struck with the Government on the Renewable Energy Target.

Throughout the 18 months of the Government’s attacks on the renewable energy industry, Labor was guided by industry advice to return the policy to bipartisanship so that investors had the confidence to invest in Australian renewable projects.

While Labor would have preferred Tony Abbott had kept his promise not to change the Renewable Energy Target, we are pleased investment has started to flow again and jobs are being created.

Local Liberal MP Dan Tehan should be ashamed it took his Government so long to come to an agreeable position, effectively holding up the creation of nearly 300 jobs in his own electorate.

The Greens should also explain to the families of those workers why they were willing to let their jobs hang in limbo by voting against the passage of the legislation.

Labor’s ultimate goal throughout the entire Renewable Energy Target debacle, created by Tony Abbott’s broken promise, was to restore investor confidence in a critically important industry.

Labor’s focus is on creating jobs of the future. Those jobs exist in the renewable energy industry and we’ll do all we can to establish the right policy framework to foster job creation and attract investment.

Mark Butler MP. TRANSCRIPT OF MY INTERVIEW ON ADELAIDE ABC 891 BREAKFAST

Date: 24 June 2015

HOST: Mark Butler, the newly elected Federal President of the ALP, he’s the Opposition Environment and Climate Change spokesman and he’s the Member for Port Adelaide. Mark Butler, welcome to the program.

MARK BUTLER, SHADOW MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: Good morning.

HOST: And congratulations, El Presidente.

BUTLER: Thank you very much.

HOST: Christopher Pyne, Liberal Member for Sturt, he’s just a humble Education Minister –

BUTLER: Humble? I’ve heard Christopher called many things, but humble is not one of them.

PYNE: I am humble and modest. A humble fixer.

HOST: Nobody does humility and modesty quite like you Christopher Pyne, I think it’s fair to say.

PYNE: I think my electorate knows me as humble and modest and that’s why they keep re-electing me.

HOST: Do you have much to be humble and modest about?

PYNE: Indeed I do have much to be humble and modest about, especially my sporting prowess.

HOST: Chris Pyne, does the ABC need to eat humble pie over Q&A? The reaction has been quite hysterical by News Limited papers, including one which has taken an ISIS flag and put an ABC symbol on it.

HOST: Can you list for us the things that you think were inappropriate about the Q&A broadcast?

PYNE: I didn’t see the Q&A broadcast, but I have obviously caught up with what happened and I’ve spoken to Malcolm Turnbull about it and he is extremely concerned and I think the ABC made a very serious error of judgement. I can’t quote fathom why they would do that. What’s wrong with it is that they gave a person of very dubious character, if I can put it that way, a platform to promote ideas that are not helpful to the cohesion of our society and the ABC should be all about harmony and cohesion and it shouldn’t be about giving a platform to views that are inimical country’s interests. Secondly, and I think more importantly, knowing Q&A as well as I do because I’ve been on it 22 times, there is very little security arrangement for the audience and for the panel. Now, I’ve never felt in the least bit insecure in Q&A ever, even when the students unveiled their banner, I regarded that as all part of the cut and thrust of the political debate, I didn’t feel in the least bit personally insecure. But, to bring a person of his character into the studio audience, with the panel there as well, knowing that it was very unlikely they would have been checked for anything that could have done any damage to the audience, I think is a very serious matter.

HOST: We are talking about somebody described – quite rightly – as a known extremist, Zaky Mallar, who, we’re told, he applied to be part of the audience, then submitted a question and went on further. But he is someone who has served a term, according to what we understand, he served a term of imprisonment for threatening to kill ASIO officers, and had been charged with threatening suicide attacks and preparing for terrorist attacks in that context, although had been acquitted. So, Chris Pyne, there’s two issues here: some people would say no matter extreme the views, we live in a free society, people can express those views or are you looking to limit those. You’re saying the major issue is the lack of security?

PYNE: To me, it is.

HOST: The physical threat to people?

PYNE: I’m a free speech supporter and I don’t think the ABC should have given Zaky Mallar a platform and of course he was acquitted, according to Steve Ciobo the Parliament Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on a technicality. He is a person of interest to the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and security agencies in Australia because of his extremist views, which he hasn’t moderated. But, I also think that was a very dangerous and risky and potentially reckless thing for the ABC to bring him into contact with the audience and with the capacity for a live broadcast to make a political statement and to go even further than that, if he’d chosen to do so. I do think it was a mistake on the ABC’s part, I’m glad they’ve apologised and let’s hope that they learn from that mistake.

HOST: Mark Butler?

BUTLER: Look, I broadly agree with Christopher here. There’s been some commentary around, which has been to pile in on the ABC generally and pile in on the Q&A program generally which I think is a little over the top, but I think the ABC did make an error of judgement here. This fellow is a very serious fellow convicted of very serious offenses and I think Malcolm Turnbull’s explanation of his position to the Parliament yesterday was broadly the right one, which is the ABC should investigate the decision to allow this fellow on from two perspectives as Christopher says. Firstly, the security perspective. This is a live studio audience with a significant number of audience members, I’ve been on this program many times as well, and there is very little security precaution taken about the people who are allowed into that room. The second issue is a trickier issue and that is the one of editorial decisions taken by the ABC and I don’t think it is proper that Christopher or I seek to substitute our own views about what the ABC should do in this matter, but I think it is right that the ABC investigate the decision to allow this fellow on who has such extreme views and has a very serious record of, as you say, threatening to kill ASIO officers and a range of other serious things as well. I think broadly speaking Turnbull got it right here. He’s, as I understand it, given the ABC access to the Federal Police to think about the security precautions to be taken in an audience like this but also I think the Board should have a think through the editorial process in allowing people like that to have a platform like Q&A.

HOST: If we cut to the chase, most of us would think that Zaky Mallar is a lunatic. But, should we also be careful when a Prime Minister says to the media ‘whose side are you on?

BUTLER: Well, I don’t think that’s helped the debate at all. I think Turnbull’s contribution in the Parliament yesterday was measured, I think it reflected the seriousness of what happened on Monday night without seeking to pile in on the ABC in the way in which the Prime Minister unfortunately has and a number of other people, particularly in News Corp newspapers, have this morning. I don’t want to understate the seriousness of what happened, but I think to pile in on the ABC as a general proposition and say, ‘you’re either with us or against us’, which is effectively what the PM has said, is not helpful. I think what Turnbull has done is essentially the right path.

[Calls from the public]

HOST: Christopher Pyne, do you think that Q&A is a ‘lefty lynch mob’ as described by the Prime Minister?

PYNE: Well, firstly I didn’t from a Phoebe an answer, although she did have a good run, an answer on whether she went through a scanner to determine whether there was any metal in her experience. I don’t think that happened, I’ve been there many times, and I’ve never seen a scanner at the ABC like we have at the airports for example, which is a pretty comprehensive way of discovering if someone’s concealing a weapon. So I think the security does need to be changed, and I’m pleased the AFP’s working with the ABC on that. There’s no doubt at all, I go on Q&A, I enjoy Q&A, I think it’s great opportunity to get the Liberal Party’s message out to a million viewers, but there’s no doubt that it is slanted in a particular political view. You only need to look at the make-up of each of the panels to realise that. I mean anybody who pretends that the panel is a balanced panel of left and right and centre thinkers is kidding themselves. There’s always one Liberal, or Conservative, and then there are four – and arguably with Tony Jones, five – from the centre-left. That’s just the way it is. We could choose not to go on it, but I think that’s madness because I want the public to hear the Coalition’s message because I think it’s the right message.

HOST: Before we go, Mark Butler, there are reports today that your leader, Bill Shorten, he’s stopping short of committing Labor at the next election to fund all of the Gonski money and all of the health money that you’ve been bagging Tony Abbott for ripping out for the last two years. Now, will Labor reinstate all of the money that you’ve said Abbott has taken out on health and education.

BUTLER: Well, we’ve been rightly bagging him. The NSW Liberal Treasurer put the lie to Christopher’s protestations that there’s been no cuts to school funding –

PYNE: [interrupts] Why don’t you answer the question?

BUTLER: No cuts to school funding, apparently. Well the NSW Liberal Treasurer says otherwise. What Bill Shorten said yesterday I think is entirely unremarkable. What he said is, I think most people in Australia think, which is we will be better on schools and hospitals funding than the Liberal Party –

HOST: [interrupts] You can do that by promising a dollar more though can’t you?

BUTLER: The Federation Green Paper this week has just reinforced the views the Government has about these things. But –

HOST: But, you’re not locking into the Government’s funding though?

PYNE: That’s complete hypocrisy Mark and you know it.

BUTLER: But of course we haven’t released our costings for the election yet. That is a process that we are going through while the Government keeps wrecking the Budget every single year, Joe Hockey doubled the deficit this year against last year’s Budget papers. So, we’re going through an orderly process to work out what our costings will be for the next election, but I think everyone has confidence, given the effort we’ve put into this area that we have enormous commitment to a needs-based funding process in schools that will deliver an appropriate school resource standard.

PYNE: As the new President of the ALP you’re going to have to get much better at answering the question when you’re not really.

BUTLER: I answered the question exactly as any Opposition would. We are going through a proper process.

PYNE: Every listener knows the answer you just gave could have been summed up with two letters: no. N-o, no. You’re not going to provide that funding because you know you haven’t got it, the taxpayer doesn’t have it and you know that funding is going up every year and you will support the Government’s policy at the next election.

HOST: Christopher Pyne, can you continue? No.

RET DEAL THROUGH, WIND FARMS START BEING BUILT AGAIN

Media Release

Mark Butler MP.

Shadow Minister for Environment

Climate Change and Water

Date: 24 June 2015

Overnight, the Senate passed legislation for the revised Renewable Energy Target (RET), providing the much-needed certainty for the renewable energy industry to get back on track.

While Labor would have much preferred Tony Abbott stick to his election promise to retain the RET at 41,000GWh, this legislation provides the bipartisanship required to have investment once again roll in for Australia’s renewable energy industry.

In bad news for Tony Abbott, this means those wind farms he finds so utterly offensive can start being built again, despite his best efforts to drive them from our shores.

Fortunately, almost everyone else in Australia – except maybe Joe Hockey – will be pleased with this news.

The RET underpinned billions in investment and helped create thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector before Tony Abbott began his reckless campaign against the industry early last year.

Labor has been able to secure a deal that will see around 25 per cent of Australia’s energy generated from renewable sources by 2020, no changes to the small-scale solar scheme, a full exemption for emissions intensive trade exposed industries and the removal of two-yearly reviews of the RET.

The Clean Energy Council has said this legislation is a “huge weight off the shoulders of the 20,000 Australians currently working in the industry.” Under this agreement, renewable energy in Australia will nearly double, new projects will come on line and carbon pollution from the electricity sector will reduce.

Labor’s ultimate end game has been to return certainty to the renewable energy industry. This deal does that.

We did not make this deal with any sense of joy, but with relief that it will bring an important industry back from the brink, even in the face of Tony Abbott’s senseless verbal attacks in recent days.

Tanya Plibersek MP. Subjects: National Security.

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP
DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC RN BREAKFAST

THURSDAY, 25 JUNE 2015

ALISON CARABINE, PRESENTER: Tanya Plibersek, welcome.
TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Good morning.
CARABINE: Look, if we could go first to the asylum bill, that question is whether the Government has the authority to detain people offshore and to spend money for that purpose, doesn’t the fact that the legislation is needed to clarify this, show that offshore processing, which was reintroduced by Labor, may have been illegal all along?
PLIBERSEK: Well, no, what it shows is that the Williams High Court decision which put into doubt the Commonwealth’s ability to fund a whole range of different programs, wasn’t picked up in the case of offshore processing and it was important to make sure that just as, when we were in government, we had to update a whole range of Commonwealth spending to say that the Commonwealth actually had the authority to spend money in those areas. So, the Government now had to update the area of offshore processing.
CARABINE: And what it will do is shore up the integrity of offshore processing. Bill Shorten told Parliament yesterday that Labor would always be guided by compassion when it comes to asylum policy. How do you square that commitment from Bill Shorten with the numerous problems that are associated with offshore processing such as the sexual abuse of children, just as starters?
PLIBERSEK: I think it’s absolutely vital to say that the way that the centres have been run at times is completely unacceptable, certainly no one would accept the death of Reza Berati, the reports of sexual abuse of children, of sexual abuse of women, of sex being traded for goods, none of these things are acceptable-
CARABINE: So what you’re doing is endorsing the Government with continuing offshore processing which has had all of these problems.
PLIBERSEK: On the other hand, Ali, if offshore processing centres were closed down, and people smugglers got a message tomorrow that if they sent a boat to Australia, it would get through, we begin the whole process of risk again – people losing their lives on the open sea. So, you can have a regional resettlement process that includes offshore processing without endorsing in any way the way that the centres have been run by this Government.
CARABINE: Well, moving on to this citizenship bill. Labor has said that it will support revocation of citizenship in principle, you’ve been briefed on the bill. Dual nationals could lose their citizenship for what’s termed ‘certain other offences’ which seems to be a catch-all and it turns out that it could include such low level offences such as graffiti-ing Commonwealth properties, is that something Labor would like to see reworked before it comes to the floor for a vote?
PLIBERSEK: Well, that’s why it’s very important that this bill now goes to the joint security and intelligence committee because it seems to have been rushed. There’s been all different proposals from the Government about what this legislation would look like. Remember, we first heard that the Government wanted to revoke citizenship in January last year. Scott Morrison, who was then the Immigration Minister, floated this idea. The Prime Minister’s raised it at various times. We’ve been asking for months when we would actually see legislation in black and white. It’s been rushed into the Parliament. We’ve had inadequate time to consider it, inadequate briefing. Now it should go to the Parliamentary joint committee that is responsible for this area so that it may be properly examined. People-
CARABINE: And so it will be going to that committee. What definitions would you like to see tightened in the bill?
PLIBERSEK: I think it’s also very important for witnesses to be called who are experts in this area, who can interpret whether these provisions are indeed as wide as some have suggested. I’ve heard you had on the radio this morning, I think it was Anne Twomey suggesting that provisions are very wide, people like that should be able to give evidence to the committee so that the legislation may be improved in drafting.
CARABINE: And what about retrospectivity? It is a widely held principle that new laws not be made retrospective, is it fair that people convicted of offences before the changes are legislated could potentially be deported?
PLIBERSEK: Indeed, that’s another thing that should be examined in a great deal of detail by this committee.
CARABINE: And according to the legislation, the children of terrorists could lose their citizenship. Are you comfortable with that?
PLIBERSEK: Well, that’s another provision that’s been taken straight from the existing law. If, in the past, the provisions relating to people who are fighting with the armies of other nations- and so that provision has been brought from the existing law. It’s something that we would have to look at very carefully.
CARABINE: And something that the Government’s going to have to look at very carefully is the difficult decision regarding the wife and five children of Khaled Sharrouf, do you think they should be allowed to come home?
PLIBERSEK: I think that if Mrs Sharrouf comes home, she should face the full force of the law. I’m extremely worried about those children, I can’t imagine being their grandparents. Of course, you would be worried for their physical safety if they remain where they are. I think it’s unquestionably child abuse, taking children into the environment that they’ve been taken into. When the children return, if they return, they will need a great deal of emotional support to recover from what they’ve seen.
CARABINE: Okay. Now, you’re Bill Shorten’s Deputy, how does it sit with you that he lied about his role in the leadership battle between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard?
PLIBERSEK: Well, Ali, that’s ancient history. What’s not ancient history is-
CARABINE: But he’s now the Labor Leader. And the question now is about his honesty and his integrity.
PLIBERSEK: I think the question should really go to the Prime Minister who said before the last election no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no new taxes, no change to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS and has broken every single one of those promises. Promises that affect, deeply affect, the lives of all Australians.
CARABINE: It’s not been a great fortnight for Bill Shorten. Now there’s questions about his trustworthiness. Arthur Sinodinos puts it this way, that every time Bill Shorten makes a political commitment from here on in, people will question whether he’s telling the truth. Doesn’t this undermine the credibility of your leader?
PLIBERSEK: You know what, he was talking about ancient history, he came out yesterday straight away and corrected the record. I think it’s very important to focus on the lies that the Prime Minister has told, that actually are affecting people’s lives today. The Prime Minister said before the last election that there would be no change to pensions, pensioners are set to lose as much as $8,000 if they are single and $14,000 if they’re a couple. Singles who have got assets as little as $289,000 are set to lose part of their pension. Now they’re things like superannuation but also household effects, your mum’s engagement ring, assets that are supposed to last you ten or twenty or thirty years in retirement. That’s the kind of lie that the Prime Minister has told. In respect to our, you know, the past leadership chaos, I think it’s been a good reminder for my colleagues to watch this ‘Killing Season’ over the last few weeks and to remember what we gave up by being un-unified in government. We had-
CARABINE: It’s not such ancient history, it’s recent history.
PLIBERSEK: We had the best response in the world to the Global Financial Crisis. We did the apology to the stolen generations. We did the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We did so much that I am proud of and we left government too soon because we were disunited. I think now we’ve got Bill as leader, me as his deputy and a very united team.
CARABINE: Well, just finally and briefly, is it ever okay to lie in politics?
PLIBERSEK: It’s never okay to lie, I teach my children that all the time, but isn’t it a shame we’ve got a Prime Minister who lied to get elected?
CARABINE: Tanya Plibersek, thanks for coming in.
PLIBERSEK: Thank you.
ENDS

Bill Shorten MP. Subject/s: Abbott Government cuts to the pension; Abbott Government’s broken promise on pensions; Superannuation; ABC; Australia Post.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

DOORSTOP
EVELEIGH
FRIDAY, 26 JUNE 2015

BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Good afternoon everyone. Great to be at the ACOSS conference, ACOSS working so hard to speak up for people in this society. Today, I talked about the Government’s so-called pension reforms. New research today from NATSEM reveals that the case for the Government’s changes, that they were going to get all these millionaires off pensions has shown to be a complete myth, a usual set of Government slogans with no actual evidence.

0.3 per cent of all pensioners, 0.3 per cent of all pensioners have assets over $1 million and the real problem with these changes is that over a million Australians both now and in the future are going to have their part pension really severely slashed.

The Government’s created new poverty traps where the incentive for people now, 700,000 people, one in every two potential retirees in the next 10 years, the message to them from Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison is don’t save money because you won’t get a part pension. Their message is don’t save money and go onto the full pension.

I think this is a disaster for the idea of encouraging people on modest incomes to save money for their retirement. The Government is cutting pensions, which they specifically promised, the Prime Minister and Mr Abbott said before the election no changes to pensions, no cuts to pensions and we see the legislation that’s gone through Canberra this week is going to damage a million people from his broken promises.

Happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: So will Labor reverse the pension changes to the assets threshold if its elected?

SHORTEN: We’re going to have to see how much money is left in the Budget at the time of the election. As you would appreciate though, Labor has had a significant policy of review and consultation led by formidable Jenny Macklin the Shadow Spokesperson for Pensions and Families. So closer to the election we’ll announce what we’re going to do across the range of our issues, it’s very important. But there’s no doubt that Mr Abbott broke his promise from before the last election. There is no doubt that 330,000 part and full pensioners are going to lose significant sums of money. People are only getting $15,000 or $20,000 a year. There’s no doubt that one and two people contemplating retirement, over the age of 50 in the next decade, are worse off because of Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison.

JOURNALIST: What about superannuation changes announced today? Where does Labor stand on these changes that would see big funds appoint an independent director, an independent chairman, where does Labor stand on those [inaudible]?

SHORTEN: There they go again, the Abbott Government interfering with our superannuation system. Let’s get some facts into this debate. The superannuation industry in Australia is, I think, north of $1.6 trillion, our money, Australians money, $1.6 trillion. That money is being administered very well. We’ve seen superannuation funds including industry funds deliver some great returns to their members over the last two years. But here’s the Government putting politics ahead of the case for change and what they’re trying to do is interfere with some of these funds and the governance structure.

We will consider the Government’s proposals carefully but one question which needs to be asked of the Government right now, this is a $1.6 trillion industry, when you look at all the retail and industry funds they cover the vast bulk of that money. Why on earth is Mr Abbott interfering with the administration and the governance of people’s retirement savings? What is his case for change? What is the problem they’re trying to solve? What is the benefit that they can prove to people they’ll get?

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, what did you think of Mark Scott’s speech in defence of the ABC last night?

SHORTEN: Well I didn’t see all the words of the speech, but what I certainly know is that it would have been addressed to the issue around Q&A on Monday night. Let me state for the record the following principles. One, ABC Q&A show got it wrong when they put that fellow on TV and gave him a platform for some of his views. That was a mistake, no ifs, no buts. I do wonder why some of the other networks are also giving this fellow air time. If it was wrong to do it on the ABC, I’m not sure what the case is to give him further platforms. But beyond that, the ABC is independent of government. It is not a propaganda arm of government. So whilst I think it is right to be critical of the Q&A audience proposals and who they put in the audience I am not satisfied that it warrants the full-on attack against the independence of the ABC.

JOURNALIST: So should heads roll over Q&A, as Tony Abbott has said?

SHORTEN: I think you and I and most Australians know that Tony Abbott overreached with those sort of sentiments. I think if he had his time again Mr Abbott wouldn’t use such clumsy language.

JOURNALIST: What’s your reaction to Australian Post announcing today 1,900 voluntary redundancies over the next three years, is that concerning?

SHORTEN: Yes, it is really, really sad news for people who may have worked for Australia Post for 10, 20 and 30 years. Now I get that they’re voluntary redundancies. What I also believe though, is that the Government has an obligation to help these people transition to other work. I don’t know all the circumstances of all the people losing their jobs, but I do know that when redundancies occur, when men and women in their late 40s or 50s are told you no longer have a job, it is important that the government do everything they can and Labor will assist them, to help find other work. We cannot be a nation who says to people in their late 40s and 50s you’re expendable, that we view that you have nothing more left to contribute. Government has a job, an obligation to help these people find new work and Labor’s prepared to work with the Government to do it because there’s nothing more important than getting someone into a job.

JOURNALIST: Scott Morrison suggested this morning that the private sector needs to do more by way of investment in social services. What do you think about that as a proposition?

SHORTEN: Well if Mr Morrison is saying that private companies are not doing enough charity, that’s up for him and the private sector to work out. What I am concerned though is I don’t believe that merely encouraging the private sector to do work should absolve Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott of their obligations as leaders of Australia. The truth of the matter is we’re one of the richest countries in the world but that prosperity does not extend to all Australians. I don’t take the view that everyone on welfare is a bludger, is a rorter, is somehow a cheat.

I think that the Government has an obligation, that’s what they’re elected to do, to ensure that we have a strong safety net, to ensure that people with families are not finding it too hard to work through the cuts to family payments, that we don’t see parents who’ve got their children in early years of child care not seeing their funding cut. I think we have an obligation to make sure that older Australians get the opportunity to participate. I also believe that we need to make sure that people in irregular or casual work don’t get forgotten, too. So there’s a big job of work for the Government. I appreciate if Mr Morrison wants to give advice to the private sector about what they’re not doing but I also need Mr Morrison to focus on his day job, which is to look after people, not mug them.

Thanks everyone.

ENDS

Bill Shorten MP. Subject/s: National TAFE Day; Abbott Government’s cuts to skills and education; Abbott Government’s cuts to schools and hospitals; National security; Tony Abbott’s royal commission; Labor Party

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

FYSHWICK
DOORSTOP
WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 2015

BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: It’s great to be at Canberra Institute of Technology with hard working local Member of Parliament Gai Brodtmann and our Shadow Spokesperson for Skills and TAFE. It’s great to be here because today is National TAFE Day. It’s the one day in the year where we can draw breath and recognise how important TAFE is to our future.

Labor always backs TAFE, Liberals always abandon TAFE.

Under Labor, from 2007 we had 1.2 million people in the TAFE system and when we left office it got up to 1.5 million people. We need skills for the jobs of the future. We need more young people interested in taking up an apprenticeship, falling in love with a trade, starting their business and setting themselves up for life and providing services that all Australians need. But the Abbott Government’s cut $2 billion out of training and vocational education since they came to power. Over a billion dollars taken away from making sure our apprentices get the best start in life. Labor intends to make TAFE, backing TAFE up, not abandoning TAFE, one of the election issues coming up and I’d now like to encourage and ask Sharon Bird to say some words about Labor’s commitment to TAFE and apprenticeships and jobs of the future for our young people and our mature age people who are retraining.

SHARON BIRD, SHADOW MINISTER FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION: Thanks, Bill and I can thank CIT and the teachers and apprentices who’ve welcomed us here today. Some amazing stories that you see across TAFEs and across apprentice centres across this country of young people getting a start in apprenticeships, mature age people retraining and the Government has done absolutely nothing to support them in that endeavour. In fact they’ve cut a billion dollars of support away from them.

Today’s National TAFE Day, it is appalling that on this day we discover that the Abbott Government has a serious consideration in its Federation Green Paper to walk away from national responsibility for the vocational, education and training of the future. This is a critical contributor, as Bill said, to the jobs of the future, it is absolutely critical to growth, productivity and participation in this country and for the Abbott Government to even consider abandoning and therefore creating another $1.8 billion cut out of the sector is a disgrace and I think on National TAFE Day it’s a double insult to the hard working teachers and the really dedicated students we’ve met today. Thanks Bill.

SHORTEN: Thanks very much Sharon and are there any questions on TAFE or any other matters?

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, you’ve now changed your position on $8 billion worth of Budget measures. You’ve moved on Gonski, we’re not seeing a commitment on that extra two years and we’re not seeing a commitment to reverse the pension changes. Is this an indication that you’ve been playing politics too negative and how can people trust you?

SHORTEN: Well Ursula, there’s about five questions in that but let’s unpack them to begin with. Labor has made some compromises because Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey are just wrecking the Budget. In 2014, they said that the deficit would be $17 billion and now it’s blown out to $35 billion. We’ve seen that the Government tried to take Australians hostage with regard to – if we didn’t support their increase in fuel excise – that money that was raised would go to oil companies. So this Government is mishandling the Australian economy. Confidence is down, unemployment’s up, and their deficit is blowing out. This forces us to make decisions, compromises in the national interest. In regard to the part of your question about education funding in Australia, let me be really clear. Labor believes in needs-based funding. We believe that the principles of the Gonski Review are the right principles to properly fund education for our young people in the future. It is very clear that we’ve got a Government who’s addicted to breaking their promises and the closer we get to an election the more we see Tony Abbott making statements which we know he would break if he was to win the next election and schools is at the heart of that. Australian parents, Australian teachers and indeed Australian kids expect the Government to be fair dinkum about education funding yet Tony Abbott is cutting $30 billion from schools. We’ve seen the Federation Green Paper, which the Government doesn’t know if it wants to own or disown, proposing that at one level that we should have means testing for parents who send their children to government schools. Labor’s position about the future of education funding is also very clear. We always do better than the Liberals when it comes to funding education in Australia. Closer to the election we’ll outline our policies and we’ll outline our financial commitments. I know one thing – when it comes to trusting Tony Abbott on education, you can’t. He said before the last election no cuts to education, that’s what we’ve seen, $30 billion worth of cuts. His record on education is appalling.

JOURNALIST: Are you playing negative politics though? Are you playing negative politics?

SHORTEN: Well I think that we all know that Tony Abbott’s the Olympic gold medal winner when it comes to negative politics. It can’t be really negative can it be when we are supporting and compromising $8 billion of savings to the bottom line. That just doesn’t pass the sort of logic test. But beyond that, it is important that we have proper funding for our education system and for our schools and that our kids get the best start in life. What frustrates me is before the last election Mr Abbott said that they were on a unity ticket with Labor on education funding and we’ve seen every day since Mr Abbott got people to vote for him, tricked people into voting for him, that what’s happened now is he won’t keep his promise on education funding. Ursula you watch Question Time, you see every day when the Opposition asks questions about the $30 billion worth of cuts in education which have been outlined in two successive Budgets by Mr Abbott, he denies that the cuts have even happened, it defies belief.

JOURNALIST: On citizenship laws, will Labor vote for them?

SHORTEN: We haven’t been briefed on the citizenship laws yet. They’ve just been introduced into Parliament in the last hour. I am scheduled to have a briefing later this morning when I return from the Canberra Institute of Technology to Parliament. We’ve got very clear principles; we’ve been the one consistent proposition in this citizenship law debate. We have said that we will do whatever is necessary to fight terror abroad and at home. We’ve said that we support the principle of the extension of denying Australian citizenship to dual citizens if they take up arms against Australia. But what’s been frustrating for Labor, I think for some Liberal Cabinet ministers and for Australians is that Mr Abbott’s Government has spent 18 months talking about these laws. 18 months. And we heard them say as recently as the last couple of weeks that the Minister would make the decision and there would be no judicial or legal oversight. And now we said, well that sounds problematic. Now the Government and Mr Abbott have had to back down. I just wish the Government wouldn’t play politics with these national security laws. At last let’s have a look at them because what matters in national security is having laws that actually work. Mr Abbott does no favours to the national security of this nation if he puts forward laws which simply don’t work.

JOURNALIST: Should they be retrospective those citizenship laws?

SHORTEN: Well we’ll have to see what the details of the laws are and we’re getting that briefing later this morning.

JOURNALIST: Richard Marles sounded open to it this morning speaking on doors, that’s Labor’s position it’s open to them being retrospective?

SHORTEN: Well to the extent that Mr Marles has said that we wait to see the laws and what’s in them and we have an open mind of course.

JOURNALIST: What do you think should happen to Tara Nettleton and her children?

SHORTEN: I am particularly concerned about the children here. These children are victims of child abuse. Let us be really clear. Those shocking images, unimaginable images of a parent standing by their child in the middle of that war zone and those atrocities, I do not as a parent understand how on earth anyone, no matter how twisted their own views, would subject their children to that sort of trauma, that sort of child abuse. Also as a parent though I know that with these children to return they were going to need a lot of working through what they’ve seen and done. As a parent I wouldn’t feel comfortable with these children just simply reinserting in a playground with my children or anyone else’s children. But I also recognise that the sins of the father should not be visited and treated as the sins of the children and we just need to work through this issue intelligently. We will take the advice of the security agencies and that’s what Australians want.

JOURNALIST: Yesterday you said that, to your party room you expect an election potentially this year. What makes you believe that that will occur?

SHORTEN: Has anyone has a good look at that Budget in recent days? This is a Budget which is like one of those cartoon vehicles where the tyres are falling off, the wind screen wipers don’t work, the steam is coming out of the radiator. This Budget is not set to last 12 months. It doesn’t deal with the long-term issues of confidence, it does nothing to deal with the question of infrastructure and making our cities work, it doesn’t have a plan to help us transition from the mining boom to the non-mining boom which we’re now are experiencing. This Budget does nothing to deal with long-term unemployment, there’s been 188,000 Australians now who have been unemployed for longer than 12 months. We’ve got real wages growth, very low, heading towards lows not seen since the early 1990s and the difficult economic times are there. So I know that this Government does not believe it will bring down another Budget. So on that basis I am assuming that they are going to try and rush to the polls at some point this year because they know that the longer we see the examination and the evidence of their mismanagement of the economy, of confidence, of jobs then more Australians are going to be outraged at this Government.

JOURNALIST: If you think they’re going to rush to the polls this year, can you win as you’re facing the Royal Commission?

SHORTEN: It will be up to the Australian voters about which party they want to see handle the future but I know the party I lead is ready for an election whenever it is called. We will put forward, as we’ve been doing, a program for the economic future of this country over the next 10 years and beyond, but Labor is ready.

JOURNALIST: Julia Gillard on the carbon tax reversal nearly, well ended her, are you worried that in relation to the fuel tax that’s your Julia Gillard moment?

SHORTEN: No, I think what’s happened is that Labor has compromised. We know that the Government before the last election promised no increase to taxes. Australians remember Mr Abbott as he was relentlessly pursuing your vote and everyone else’s vote said there would be no changes to taxes. He’s introduced a petrol tax. We view that as a breach of promise but what we also recognise is that since he first introduced it in 2014 he’s also doubled the deficit. We also recognise that they put in a mechanism which means that if we didn’t agree to this in coming months all of the money raised would have gone to petrol companies and that’s unacceptable. Also what we’ve done is that there’s been over a billion dollars, or nearly a billion dollars, in cuts to local government. So we’ve proposed to the Government that they put money into building roads, right across Australia and outer suburbs and our regions and we think that what we’ve done is offered long-term job stimulus, long-term confidence, helping the councils of Australia and what we are making sure is that where people drive they’re seeing that money reinvested on their roads. I think it’s a good compromise. Last question.

JOURNALIST: On 3AW Neil Mitchell this morning called you a liar for saying that you supported Julia Gillard when in fact you were talking to Kevin Rudd. Do you stand by those actions still?

SHORTEN: Well, we’ve seen the Killing Season and the debate about all of the history there and that’s what it is. It is history. It is not my job as Leader of the Opposition to be the curator of the museum of Labor. What I‘m determined to do is work with my team to develop the best possible vision for Australia. What has happened in the past is exactly that, the past. I think all reasonable commentators would say that in the last two years the Labor Party has been much more united than it has for many years previously. That’s the first step of Labor’s rebuilding of trust with the Australian community.

What I can also say to Australians is that the Labor Party is committed to making sure that we create jobs and maintain jobs in this country. We’re committed to making sure that we have proper schools which are funded, proper hospitals which are funded. This will be some of the main battle grounds and when it comes to TAFE and the great young people here and mature age apprentices, Labor is backing TAFE, the Liberals are abandoning TAFE. Thanks everyone. See you in Question Time.

ENDS