Australia politics live: Labor spruiks plan for automatic $3,000 compensation payment to scam victims | Australia news

‘Outrageous approach to legislating’: Paterson

Speaking of criticisms, shadow defence minister, James Paterson, has fired shots at the government’s approach to legislating the CGT changes (which the opposition will vote against), calling it “outrageous”.

Labor will introduce its first bill to legislate the CGT and negative gearing changes as well as the working Australians tax offset (a classic wedge to force the opposition to vote against the tax cuts).

Paterson tells Sky News that the process is “completely backwards”.

The government’s got this completely backwards, even they admit their own legislation is so flawed that they will have to fix it in the future, but they’re saying, “Just trust us, we’ll rush it through now, and then we’ll negotiate with you afterwards to repair the mistakes we’ve made.” Well, that’s an outrageous approach to legislating.

Labor has argued that it’s totally normal to pass broad legislation first and then legislate the other details later.

Cook warns CGT carve out shouldn’t disincentivise mining investment

The WA premier, Roger Cook, has warned the government that its changes to the capital gains tax discount should not disincentivise investment in the mining sector.

On Wednesday, the Labor premier said that investors – locally and abroad – had already raised concerns about the changes, and told him “that could potentially put a disincentive in place for foreign investors”.

Cook said:

It’s important that as the government continues to consult and refine the tax laws, which back up their announcements in relation to the budget, that they talk to industry about … the potential impacts of those announcements and ensure that the laws ultimately don’t produce outcomes that they didn’t intend.

We want to make sure that it [the tax changes] doesn’t disincentivise both international investment in our major projects but also exploration.

Mulino defends CGT changes

Daniel Mulino moves across to ABC News Breakfast, where he’s being forced to defend against criticisms including from WA Labor premier Roger Cook about the impact the tax changes could have on the mining sector.

Mulino says that the government has acknowledged that consultation is needed and is being done, particularly for sectors such as venture capital where there is a “very low cost base”.

On the criticism from Cook, the minister says, “we will look at those issues raised and engage with him, I’m sure, on at a good faith basis”.

The government has received representations on the range of fronts. Those are the VC issues I identified, there’s been a number of issues in relation to small business. I myself have been in discussions in relation to that. But I know of course the treasurer is leading that and Treasury, the department, is also engaged with those.

Scams come in all shapes and sizes (and none of them are nice), and the government is considering creating rules that would force banks, telcos and digital platforms to automatically reimburse victims of smaller scams of up to $3,000.

Labor is considering a range of options as part of a scam protection framework.

The financial services minister, Daniel Mulino, is out and about this morning spruiking the idea.

He tells the ABC’s AM program it would mean that banks and telcos would focus their dispute resolution processes on bigger scams.

For smaller losses, $3,000 and under, what we’re proposing is that there should be automatic payment to consumers where they can verify that there has been a scam.

Scams that get into the six figures: some investment scams, some romance scams. And that’s where dispute resolution processes would come into play.

Host Sally Sara asks why the automatic payment threshold isn’t higher – she says other countries like the UK have theirs set closer to £48,000. Mulino says the government doesn’t want to incentivise bigger scams.

What we want to do is to make sure that we don’t have the wrong incentives for perpetrators to see Australia as a soft target. But the balance is that with very small claims we don’t want to have processes that are completely disproportionate to the value of the sum in dispute.

McKenzie denies misuse of taxpayer funds to attend son’s wedding

Bridget McKenzie has denied taxpayer funds were used for her to attend her son’s wedding or his engagement party, in revelations reported by Nine Newspapers earlier this week.

The Victorian senator billed taxpayers for flights to Tasmania where both events were held in 2022 and 2023.

Politicians can only claim travel costs where the “dominant purpose” of the trip is parliamentary business.

McKenzie told the Today show this morning:

Taxpayer funds should never be used for private business, nor were they in this case.

When we’re undertaking whether it be community engagement, media engagement, stakeholder meetings, you know, assisting colleagues, there are arrangements in place to assist us to do that work that is right and appropriate, and it is not right and appropriate to bill the taxpayer, as you say, for personal activities. And I did not do that.

So when I was on personal business, I absolutely paid my own way.

Asked if she stands by her decision, McKenzie said:

Yep.

The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, says her office has yet to finalise investigations into five platforms over compliance with the under-16s social media ban, stating that she doesn’t have a “fine-issuing button”.

In March, Inman Grant announced five of the 10 platforms – Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook – were under investigation for non-compliance with the ban with two-thirds of under-16s remaining on the platforms.

Inman Grant told Senate estimates on Wednesday evening that she had yet to conclude the investigation on whether the platforms had taken “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from accessing the platform:

I know there is strong interest in why fines have not yet been issued. Unfortunately, we do not have a fine-issuing button. Rather, systemic non-compliance needs to be proven in court with solid evidence and complex legal proceedings.

She said some platforms had improved in the intervening period, including by requiring accounts to go under further age checks and introducing new age verifications when people try to change their data of birth.

She said some platforms that allowed under-16s multiple attempts to pass facial age assurance reversed this practice, and parents have been able to report their teens’ accounts more easily to the platforms.

Inman Grant said one platform was allowing users to try, on average, 24 times each day to pass facial age assurance.

Nacc needs a ‘significant reset’ after Brereton, Haines says

Helen Haines – a key advocate for the anti-corruption commission – says that the body has been “overshadowed” by controversy and needs a reset after the inaugural commissioner, Paul Brereton, standing down.

She says that the commission should restore trust by delivering outcomes from investigations, more timely outcomes, and better public understanding of how the process works.

She tells the ABC’s RN Breakfast the process has so far been “a little secretive”.

Haines says:

We need to have a significant reset now.

Unfortunately for Mr Brereton, the issues regarding his perceived conflicts of interest with defence overshadowed all those other principles. There’s no question that, when Mr Breton was appointed to the Nacc, he was a person of great reputation and merit. And I think it is really unfortunate that what followed did follow and the Nacc has, of course, been completely overshadowed by those events.

Haines adds that the Nacc has held no public hearings – unlike its NSW state counterpart, Icac, which has held many.

An anti-corruption commission is not about a popcorn moment for the public … We want to see justice done when there has been corruption. And I think the public hearing is part of that, that people can see the process taking place. I’ve never called for routine public hearings but I do think we need to see some public hearings at the right time.

6,600 Iranians with visitor visas prevented from travelling to Australia

More than 6,600 Iranians with visitor visas were prevented from travelling to Australia after the Albanese government announced a six-month travel ban amid the overseas conflict, home affairs officials say.

At a Senate estimates hearing last night, the department confirmed 6,634 Iranian nationals with valid visas were unable to travel after the decision by the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, in March. Officials said the department had received 752 appeals for an exemption and had granted 480 travel exemptions and denied 164 others.

“Their visa is frozen and, if it has an expiry date that is after the September date when the arrival control determination lifts, then the visa will come into effect again,” Clare Sharp, the department’s immigration head, said.

Expressions of interest for a new temporary humanitarian pathway available for Iranian nationals onshore opened on Friday, granting them a three-year stay while the US-Israeli war against Iran continues. The department said there are 2,833 Iranian nationals in the country with visitor visas. So far, no one has applied.

Greens senator David Shoebridge asked whether the temporary visa could be made permanent in a similar way to those offered to Ukrainians and Palestinians in recent years.

Sharp said: “As [those] conflicts progressed, and [we’ve] gotten a better handle on [whether] is this a short term crisis with people able to return, or is this a long-term protracted conflict, we will look at what options need to be put in place there.”

Read more:

Good morning, Krishani Dhanji here with you, thanks to Martin Farrer for getting us started.

It’s the last sitting day of the week and the drama might just be dialled up to 11 today with the government to introduce its bill that will include changes to capital gains tax and its $250 working Australians offset – despite all the controversy and commentary surrounding it.

Yesterday the treasurer gave us a hint that the broad legislation would go through first and all the finer details would be introduced later.

There have been more headlines out of Senate estimates overnight, with new details on how many Iranians with visitor visas have been barred from travelling to Australia under the government’s temporary travel ban, and eSafety is still investigating breaches of the under-16s social media ban. More on those in a moment.

Grab your coffee, I’ve got mine – let’s get cracking!

Reserve Bank board member says rate settings not a choice between prioritising inflation or jobs

Carolyn Hewson, an independent member of the Reserve Bank’s rate-setting board, said the global oil shock has made it more “complex” to manage monetary policy but that it was wrong to frame the central bank’s deliberations as a “stark choice” between “prioritising inflation or prioritising jobs”.

The RBA has hiked interest rates three times this year as it attempts to juggle a (hopefully) temporary stagflationary shock from surging fuel prices that is pushing unemployment and inflation higher.

Hewson’s address at Adelaide University last night gave little extra insight into what the RBA will do next on rates.

But it was notable as the first of its kind since the central bank committed to having each of its independent board members deliver at least one speech a year.

“Supply constraints push inflation higher at the same time as they weaken economic activity and employment,” Hewson said, in a nod to the impact from the closure of the strait of Hormuz.

It is often said that central banks face a stark choice in such moments between prioritising inflation or prioritising jobs.

But “that framing misses the point”, she said.

It is not a question of which objective matters more; instead, it is about understanding that they are generally complementary over the longer term.

Seen this way, the RBA’s dual mandate is an expression of economics in service of the broader public interest.

Something to keep in mind the next time the RBA pushes up your mortgage costs. For the record, that could happen as soon as August.

Labor flags changes to mutual obligations

Amanada Rishworth also flagged changes to so-called mutual obligations, which require jobseeker recipients to prove that they have applied for a certain number of jobs in order to continue to receive welfare payments.

But she said the contentious system would remain, despite criticism from some welfare advocates.

She told 7.30:

Mutual obligations have been a feature in the system for a long time. [They] play a really important role.

It is part of the social contract that, if you’re receiving income support … and you’re able to work, you do take steps to find a job.

What I think is being commented on, where I do agree, is that there’s no point in having pointless, meaningless mutual obligations.

The employment minister, Amanda Rishworth, has said she is concerned there is “varying quality” among the providers meant to help welfare recipients find work but defended keeping private companies in the system.

Rishworth was interviewed on the ABC’s 7.30 program last night, after announcing at the National Press Club in Canberra that Labor would amend the unemployment system for jobseeker recipients.

The exact details of the new system were not announced yesterday but it is set to be separated into three streams depending on a jobseeker’s skill level and work readiness.

Asked by 7.30 if she accepted some of the responsibility for the “failures in the current system” were due to for-profit job providers who “ignore the more difficult cases”, Rishworth said:

I would say that I am concerned that there is varying quality in the system. So I am focused on how we lift quality.

Stream one really is about the public service delivery. Stream two is more like the services we understand today.

Stream three, I imagine, will be different types of providers – they will have deep connection with community and be able to do this specialised, intensive work.

Good morning and welcome to our live politics blog. I’m Martin Farrer with the top overnight stories and then it will be Krishani Dhanji with the main action.

The social services minister, Amanda Rishworth, was on 7.30 last night defending her decision not to get rid of the controversial for-profit aspects of the jobseeker program. More coming up.

The eSafety commissioner told Senate estimates last night that she is yet to finalise the investigations into five social media platforms for failing to comply with the under-16s social media ban, stating that she doesn’t have a “fine-issuing button” to deal with the problem. More to follow.