Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Amy Remeikis

Tony Abbott and Zali Steggall go head to head in debate – as it happened

Zali Steggall and Tony Abbott during a candidates’ debate in the seat of Warringah.
Zali Steggall and Tony Abbott during a candidates’ debate in the seat of Warringah. Photograph: Damian Shaw/AAP

And on that note we’re tucking the blog up for the night.

It’s been another big day, in a long line of big days, and they are only going to get bigger. I know that’s not eloquent, but I am officially out of words.

A massive thank you to everyone who read, commented, complained or messaged. We appreciate it all.

We’ll be back tomorrow. In the meantime – take care of you.

Updated

Carly Earl was at the debate, and, well, see for yourself.

A woman gyrates in front of Tony Abbott supporters
A woman gyrates in front of Tony Abbott supporters. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian
‘Mavis’ is not amused
‘Mavis’ is not amused. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian
At all.
At all. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian

Updated

Murph has written up an explainer on climate policy, and where we are at right now, which I highly recommend you take a peek at, if you have not already.

Updated

Right, the final statements in the Warringah debate have been posted:

Still no AFP referral on Liberal candidate's 'digitally altered' social media posts

The AFP just got back to me about whether or not Jessica Whelan or the Liberal party had as yet referred the social media posts she claims were ‘digitally altered’ to them as yet.

The answer is - no. But in bureaucrat speak.

The AFP is aware of media reporting in relation to the matter,” a spokesman said, in response to a question on whether or not it had received a referral.

In his press conference, Scott Morrison said they would be referred, not that they had been.

But at 5.50pm, they still have not.

Updated

Both campaigns are down for the night.

They both have to head to Queensland tomorrow, because the next leaders’ debate (the Sky people’s forum) is in Brisbane. Labor will spend the next couple of days in the greatest nation on earth, because its campaign launch is in Brisbane on Sunday.

Updated

And so the debate ends.

On the issue of the marriage equality vote, this was Zali Steggall’s response to Tony Abbott walking away from the vote:

I’ll get you the closing statement in a moment, but Tony Abbott, delivering his closing statement, gets off the chair and walks into the crowd to say the government hasn’t always got things right but “we’ve got the big things done”.

“It’s either going to be a Liberal government or a Labor government,” he says.

Updated

The candidates are wrapping up.

Zali Steggall says Warringah has a choice, and they shouldn’t take it lightly.

Asked about what the candidates are doing to support women workers, and helping women come back into the workforce, Zali Steggall says it is an issue that gets shuttled aside too much.

Tony Abbott, the former minister for women, says he has three sisters, three daughters and had female chiefs of staff, and if there were two candidates who were equal he would say give the woman a go.

But he doesn’t believe in quotas.

Updated

David Speers moves to religious discrimination and anti-discrimination laws, asking Tony Abbott what he would like to see happen.

“I think religious schools should be able to operate on the same basis they have always operated on,” he says.

But does that mean the law needs to change so schools can’t discriminate against LGBTI students?

Abbott says he thinks things are working well as they are at the moment, and doesn’t think it needs to change.

Zali Steggall says as a lawyer she “can’t condone discrimination”, and adds her children go to religious schools, but says she doesn’t think we have a model on how to do that yet.

Updated

Next question is on same-sex marriage, with the questioner saying how humbled he was that Warringah voted yes so strongly.

He asks what each candidate will do to ensure the mental health of vulnerable people, such as the LGBTIQ.

Tony Abbott says he was giving a voice to those who disagreed with marriage equality, but it is the “law of the land and I respect the law of the land”.

He then goes into the Morrison government mental health announcements.

Steggall says the electorate felt “abandoned” by Abbott when he walked out of parliament and “not reflect the views of the electorate of Warringah”, given how strong the electorate voted for it.

Abbott says he “respected the electorate of Warringah” by walking out, and not voting against it, and adds “I facilitated the passage of the bill”.

Updated

Zali Steggall is asked a question about GetUp, with the questioner saying that he was told by GetUp that they didn’t support Steggall as the independent candidate and wanted to come up with another independent.

He asks her how she feels about that.

Steggall says she doesn’t really have anything to do with GetUp, and that they are in the electorate because climate change is such a big issue in Warringah and Abbott is such a known climate science denier.

She says they had targeted Warringah before she even announced her run.

Abbott says that he thinks there are about 600 GetUp activists in Warringah, and that almost all of them are wearing “vote Zali” badges.

And here is that exchange on experts:

Updated

There’s another question on the tunnel.

Abbott on climate:

Tony Abbott seems to pronounce the Toyota Tarago as ‘tar-ra-go”.

He then brings up the ‘taking your utes’ thing, which the car manufacturers themselves have debunked.

Zali Steggall calls that out as being bullshit and says the problem is that when in five years’ time, when electric vehicles are up and running, we won’t have the infrastructure ready for them – like charging stations.

“What are we going to drive,” she asks.

Abbott suggests that maybe we will make our own cars. Again.

The crowd goes a bit mental at that because, well, we all know what happened to Holden under the Abbott government.

David Speers pulls him up on that, and Abbott says he doesn’t regret not doing more to keep the car industry in Australia, because he wasn’t going to chase down international companies with a chequebook.

Updated

An engineer wants to know what actions Zali Steggall has taken to reduce her own emissions.

He wants to know if she has solar panels, what car she drives, etc.

She says she is looking into solar panels, and her parents have them. And she doesn’t think that there is a seven-seater electric vehicle, but she thinks that people want the infrastructure to make those changes.

She says she was in the process of putting solar panels on her roof, when she decided to run for parliament, and thought that if she went ahead, it would look too cynical (to the press).

“Damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” she says.

Tony Abbott says he drives a 20-year-old car and connects to the main.

He then pivots to Labor’s electric car target, which he says he “assumes Zali supports”.

Updated

Asked about Labor’s franking credit policy, Zali Steggall says she is very against it and does not support it.

She wants to see a lower tax rate for small business, and a review of the tax system to make it fairer.

Tony Abbott says the policy is an “absolute abomination” and the only way to stop it is to have a “Liberal government and the only way to ensure that is to have a Liberal member here in Warringah”.

Updated

There is a great back and forth between Steggall and Abbott over climate policy and who should be in charge of it. I’ll try and get that to you soon.

Warringah voters attend a debate between Zali Steggall and Tony Abbott at Queencliff surf club on Thursday
Warringah voters attend a debate between Zali Steggall and Tony Abbott at Queencliff surf club on Thursday. Photograph: Supplied

Updated

Zali Steggall asks Tony Abbott whether he believes the RBA setting interest rates is subcontracting out economic policy.

Abbott says yes, and he doesn’t want to see that happen to climate policy.

Tony Abbott: “I think we contract out too much to the experts already,” he says.

He then says something about there being a ‘democratic deficit’.

“I believe that we the people should be in charge of these things,” he says.

Updated

This debate – the format, the flow, the questions – is already so much better than the leaders’ debate.

Substance and policy, but letting the candidates speak.

Updated

Zali Steggall says she wants to see more done on renewables.

“We need to make sure that we take the politics out of climate change,” she says, after taking down Abbott’s claims that we are on track to meet our Paris targets.

She also wants an orderly transition from coal to start being discussed. But she says she is not an expert and she would take her advice from the experts.

She supports ambitious targets, she says, but that we are on our way to a 3C warming and we need to take more action.

Updated

David Speers reminds Tony Abbott of his speech in 2017 when he said:

“...it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm. Climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm.”

Abbott says he stands by his speeches, but says he went to Paris with the 26% target.

Tony Abbott, asked about climate change, repeats his claim that “we are all conservationists”.

“But it is important to get the balance right,” he says, again mentioning the economy.

Updated

Asked what she could do as an independent, Steggall says she could ensure climate change was addressed.

But she doesn’t support Labor’s tax plan. So her preference would be to give the Coalition supply, if necessary, but she wants something done on climate change. So not a blanket yes, then.

Zali Steggall says she is also in support of the tunnel “100%”, but she wants a business case and to ensure that the tunnel stacks are filtered.

Tony Abbott says there are no filtered stacks.

“The thing about filtration is, it is not necessary, it is expensive, it is going to be a requirement of the tunnel that the air quality is comparable [to not having a tunnel].”

Steggall says she will take advice “from the experts” if there is no filtration and wants to make sure the tunnel “is done right, not just done out of political desperation”.

Abbott tries to interrupt her, but she tells him that she listened to him, so “you can listen to me”.

She reminds the audience that it is a state project, and it is not for the federal member to get in the way of a state project – she just wants it done right, she says.

Updated

“The tunnel needs a champion,” Tony Abbott says.

“Build on the past to cement the future,” he adds, when talking about his legacy.

Warringah debate begins

Zali Steggall opens with why she knows Warringah.

Tony Abbott opens by talking about the tunnel.

“I know some of you are thinking of a protest vote – fair enough,” Abbott says.

“But a protest vote will give you a Labor government in Canberra.”

There are verbal eye rolls at Abbott and David Speers asks for the “passionate” crowd to stay respectful.

Updated

Adam Morton, who is looking at Tasmania for us, has published this story:

Scott Morrison went against Treasury advice not to canvass government assistance to an electricity company part-owned by the coal investor and Liberal party donor Trevor St Baker, documents show.

Morrison announced in March that an upgrade of the Vales Point coal plant, owned by St Baker’s Delta Electricity, was one of 12 projects the government was considering underwriting with taxpayers’ funds.

Documents released under freedom of information show St Baker has lobbied the government for support since 2017, when Treasury officials advised Morrison, then the treasurer, against agreeing to his requests.

According to a ministerial brief, St Baker and Delta director Brian Flannery met Malcolm Turnbull, the then prime minister, and Josh Frydenberg, the then energy minister, on 8 August 2017 and expressed their desire for continued investment in coal and a moratorium on support for renewable energy. They met Morrison the next day.

In a second brief on 20 September, before a planned visit by Morrison to Vales Point that ultimately did not go ahead, Treasury officials advised against “providing or hinting at providing any assistance to Delta” for Vales Point or any other electricity assets.

“Doing so would further encourage electricity generation companies to try and offset their private investment with public assistance,” it said.

You can read the whole piece here

Updated

I imagine it wasn’t that hard to work out...

Asked about whether or not the AFP referral process should run its course before any judgement is made on Jessica Whelan, the Liberal’s Lyons candidate, Ed Husic says there is a quicker way for the matter to be cleared up:

Well, I think there’ll be a lot of people that raise the point that you did in your opening remarks about the time frame in which that report by the AFP, with the greatest of respect to the Federal Police, how long that would take and the time frame for that, and the Federal election.

I imagine it will take longer than the Federal election. There’s a quicker way I reckon this could be done, and that is for that candidate to cooperate with Facebook to identify those posts, to get the metadata attached to those posts and to the account and the way that it was all done, and to allow that material to come to light relatively quickly.

Patricia Karvelas: Luke’s comments, we have seen quite a few of them now, isn’t it a prejudice against women – rape jokes, female anatomy commentary. Sounds like prejudice against women to me.

Ed Husic: You know, there is no such thing as a rape joke if I can put it that way.

PK: No there isn’t and that’s my point.

EH: There’s nothing, and I feel very strongly about it and I suspect through your comments you feel the same. And, you know, I just, will not obviously walk away from making that point. In reference to the Liberal candidate in Tasmania, instead of waiting for an AFP report they should, I believe, work with Facebook in handing over the – allowing for the access to the metadata. As to where that post was made, what IP address, when, what time, to be able to determine what had gone on. Facebook will have that material. It can be handed over relatively quickly and I think that the Liberal Party should cooperate with Facebook to make sure that happens pronto.

Updated

Over on Afternoon Briefing, Ed Husic is being asked why the Liberal candidate needed to resign over his Islamaphobic comments, but Labor doesn’t expect Luke Creasey to do the same thing:

Hang on there’s a difference between sharing something inappropriately versus – and rightly he’s had to apologise.

I think that was what absolutely should have happened. And I have – you know, just as much spoken about other people that – you know, when they share posts inappropriately, they should step forward and accept the criticisms that are levelled towards them.

I certainly think that Luke’s doing that but there’s a difference between that and prejudice.

Again I’m just making the same point that Penny Wong made with you yesterday. Some of these comments made by some Liberal candidates reflect a prejudice that is quite wrong and needs to be tackled and I think in terms of the actions that happened there, they were appropriate.

Updated

Nek minute:

More old social media posts by Labor candidate Luke Creasey emerge

The Herald Sun has published more on Labor’s candidate for Melbourne, Luke Creasey.

Creasey apologised yesterday after a rape joke he made on social media in 2012 emerged. The Herald Sun has published more of his social media from seven years ago:

So I have a theory: When two vaginas come into contact, they begin to ‘mind-meld’ and eventually; after prolonged exposure; form a hive mind. This is why lesbians tend to merge into One Being,” Mr Creasey said in a 2012 post.

The Labor candidate also attacked [Tony] Abbott for claiming boat people were acting in an un-Christian matter.

“I beg to differ, Tony. Coming in the back door is very Christian, or at least catholic. How else do you avoid perpetual pregnancy when your faith condemns conception (sic)?” Mr Creasey posted.

Updated

As a grieving cat person, I appreciate this:

Updated

Angus Livingston from AAP was in Lyons with Jessica Whelan and Scott Morrison and described the awkward campaign meet and greet today:

A couple of weeks ago, Mr Morrison happily posed tasting ice cream with Ms Whelan, but the mood was frostier on Thursday when they had an awkward walk together.

At agricultural show Agfest in northern Tasmania, Ms Whelan had a brief handshake with Mr Morrison but the prime minister’s staff studiously separated her from the media.

When Mr Morrison went for a walk through the festival to meet voters, his media advisers used themselves as human shields to ensure journalists couldn’t stop Ms Whelan to ask questions.

She started walking next to Mr Morrison, so Agriculture Minister David Littleproud called forward the prime minister’s wife Jenny to walk next to the leader instead.

And in a final chaotic dash to a car, Ms Whelan refused to answer questions about her alleged online comments, which also included support for lifting penalty rates.

Mr Morrison later said the comments had been doctored, and the matter was being referred to the Australian Federal Police.

The Jim Molan below the line campaign has upset a Nationals Senate candidate.

From AAP:

Nationals NSW Senate candidate Perin Davey has accused Jim Molan of breaking the coalition agreement by running a guerrilla campaign to keep his job.

Senator Molan has gone rogue after being relegated to an unwinnable spot on the coalition ticket for the May 18 election.

The former major-general is distributing how-to-vote cards celebrating his military record and his role in immigration policy, urging people to cast their ballots for him below the line.

Liberals Hollie Hughes and Andrew Bragg fill the top two spots on the ticket, leaving the Nationals’ Ms Davey in the third with a tough battle competing with Senator Molan for the final seat.

“It is an absolute risk for the Nationals in what Jim Molan is doing,” Ms Davey told AAP on Thursday.

“It goes against the coalition agreement that we had. It also goes against the intent of the agreement that we had.”

Asked whether Senator Molan was letting the coalition down, Ms Davey said: “That would be a conversation for others to have.”

Updated

Tony Abbott and Zali Steggall will be debating in just under two hours.

Abbott is an environmentalist now. Please try and keep up.

Updated

WAtoday’s Nathan Hondros has an interesting story on Monday’s debate.

From the story:

Colin Ashworth, who lives in the marginal Perth seat of Pearce, told Oliver Peterson’s Perth Live the audience participants were asked to write down questions before the debate, but no one planned to ask Mr Shorten about his franking credit policy.

“They said, we’re going to look at them [the questions] now and when they came back and they said, ‘did anyone put down a question about the franking credits?’ Mr Ashworth said.

“And not one person put their name up. And they changed and said, who wants to read a question?

“Two people put their hands up and those two people got given a sheet of paper that had the questions on they wanted to answer. They were written down in the pile this lady had that she gave to them and said, ‘this is the question you will read’.”

In fairness, the story also has a denial from Seven News managing director Ray Kuka:

We did not hand out questions pre-written by us,” he said.

“The audience had been briefed by Galaxy YouGov that we’d collect questions from them.

“They were provided pen and paper in the waiting room. The audience was given an opportunity to submit questions to our staff right up until they headed down to the studio.”

We’ve asked some journalists who were at the debate, and they all said they were not in the room when that stuff was being worked out – they were allowed in just before the debate started.

Updated

He continues:

This is what I really want to address my remarks to the Australian people. Childcare is important.

A lot of two-income families, a lot of women returning to work are caught in a vicious cycle.

They’ve got to go to work to pay for the childcare. But the childcare is so expensive, really, they’re working for nothing.

We’ve come up with a pretty neat solution which gives a fair go to a million households.

Specifically, if you earn up to $68,000 in your household, we’ll pay for 100% of the child care.

If you earn between $68,000 and $100,000, we’ll pay up to 85%. If you earn between $100,000 and $174,000 as total household income, we’ll contribute between 85-60% subsidy.

What this means practically, and when people go to make a choice to vote between now and the election, what it means is that if you’ve got two kids in childcare, say your household income is around 100K, or maybe just a bit north of it, what you’ll be getting is in excess of $3,000 childcare fee relief.

When you add that on top of what we’re doing with lowering people’s taxes, about 5K extra a year.

This is how we get a strong economy working for middle and working-class people. And I don’t think anyone seriously thinks we shouldn’t give our early childhood educators a better deal. It’s all about priorities, isn’t it?

This government wants to give $77bn to the top 3% of income earners. I’d just like to give a better pay rise to 140,000 childcare workers.

Updated

Question: [on childcare] Will your payrise – will people need to be on an EA to get that payrise? And will they need to be a member of the union?

Bill Shorten: No. The short answer, no.

The longer answer is this. Our early childhood educators are underpaid. They’re the first adults to which we entrust our kids outside the family unit.

Did you know that out of 96 occupations, childcare workers, early childhood educators, their pay level comes in at 92?

That’s hopeless. Another fact which I’m going to keep banging on about is that 96% of the industry are women.

If it was an industry which was 96% men, it wouldn’t be as low-paid. So, what we’ve looked at is what are the options to give these important people a better go?

Ask any parent – some of you, or maybe some of you have got family who are early childhood educators – there’s plenty of them in Australia. We know they’re overpaid.

What’s the solution? You either let them be underpaid. That’s intolerable. Why should we rely on a bunch of workers to sacrifice themselves just so the rest of us cannot pay these people what they’re meant to?

The second option is you could ask parents to pay a lot more. But under this government, childcare has been such a debacle. Childcare costs have gone up and up. That’s not an option, to ask parents to pay more. You can ask all of the not-for-profit and for-profit providers to put more money in the system, but it’s not there.

We will help contribute to the wages of early childhood educators – it won’t be allocated based on their industrial instruments or enterprise agreements or union membership.

That’s another government scare campaign we can put in the bin, along with the utes and the rest of the stuff they come up with.

Updated

Question: If you’re not getting to that target, though, would you be prepared to intervene with subsidies for...?

Mark Butler: Well, obviously a government at that point is gonna have to think about this.

But over the last few days we’ve seen reports from the Academy of Technology and Engineering, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Transurban and a range of other groups that I can’t even remember over the last few days, all confirming that the ticket price of an electric vehicle will drop below the petrol and diesel equivalent by about 2025.

And, frankly, after that happens, you are gonna have a boom in new purchase of electric vehicles. And I think, in retrospect, the 50% target of the new sales, if that estimate by everyone in the industry is right, will be seen as modest in retrospect.

Mark Butler and Bill Shorten during a press conference at Direct Edge Manufacturing in Burnie, Tasmania on Thursday
Mark Butler and Bill Shorten during a press conference at Direct Edge Manufacturing in Burnie, Tasmania on Thursday. Photograph: Darren England/AAP

Updated

Mark Butler then takes the question:

I’d invite you to have another look at our policy. Because there is a range of levers we are seeking to pull. I noted that Angus Taylor was out this morning rubbishing the idea that state governments would be looking at ways in which new commercial and large developments would be future-proof by fitting electric vehicle chargers to them.

He obviously didn’t talk to Gladys Berejiklian, because that is a central part of the New South Wales Liberal government’s policy that they took to the last election.

This is just commonsense. To future-proof new building stock – not individual houses, but large apartment buildings and commercial buildings – with electric vehicle chargers to recognise that over the coming decade there is gonna be a wave of electric vehicles coming to the market.

Other elements of our policy are these. We’ve provided that the Australian investment guarantee, which will provide accelerated depreciation of an additional 20% in the first year’s purchase of new capital will apply to electric vehicles.

That will be an enormous boost to fleets which constitute 50% of the new purchase market in Australia.

Moving to electric vehicles. What that will do is start to create a liquid market here, driving a secondhand market for private purchasers, but also creating the critical mass that means that automotive companies start for the first time sending their affordable electric vehicle models to Australia.

And as to the ute scare campaign that Michaelia Cash so famously started – I note, I think, maybe reported in your paper, this morning, that General Motors is the latest company of many, many companies to announce that they will be launching an electric ute the next three years.

So, this is just about making sure that Australian motorists have access to a global revolution in the car industry that every other country has access to. We currently have the lowest uptake of electric vehicles in the OECD. We want to change that.

Updated

Question: You’ve got no policy to actually hit the 50% [electric vehicle] target, except for rolling out chargers, helping with that. So, would you be willing to intervene in the market for subsidies if it turns out the pick-up isn’t as great as you’d hoped? Or is it just gonna be “that’s a wait-and-see” thing.

And is your renewables target similarly aspirational, just like your electric car target is it?

Shorten: Well, Mark is champing at the bit to answer this. I will just go first, though. First of all, in your question, you recognised the lie that the government have been saying.

Because the government said – I think they let poor old Michaelia Cash loose out of witness protection for a moment, then they realised that mistake and put her back under watch. But I think she said, “We’re gonna take utes off people.”

The Australian has confirmed we’re not going to take people’s utes off them. I thank you for clearing that up.

Let’s go to the bigger issue. We saw the government run that scare campaign. “You’re gonna lose your ute.” Rubbish, rubbish.

In terms of EVs, we have said we want to put in charger stations so people in the bush can also access new technology. We’ve also said that in government purchasing that we would like to start orienting the purchase of the car fleet to electric vehicles. But I might get Mark to further answer this.

Updated

Question: Mr Butler said this morning there will probably be a limit on the number or proportion of international credits that will be allowed to reduce emissions in Australia under your scheme. What will that limit be? More than 50%, more than 75%? Should voters have a right to know, approximately, a ball park figure about what that limit will be, because it will have an influence on the overall cost?

Shorten: Well, Mark’s here, so he can speak for himself. But, remember, international permits, we’ve heard the scare campaign from the government. They think it’s a bad idea. They forgot to check with the Business Council and all the other employer groups who say it’s a good idea. Mark can explain what he said.

Mark Butler: I would invite you to point to a business organisation that wants us to set the limit before the election. I don’t think you’ll find one.

Every business organisation I’ve talked to over the last 12 or 18 months are clear that the scale of access to international trading will ultimately depend on the relative cost between the international market and the domestic market.

The purpose of this is not to get to a particular proportion of international permits versus domestic permits.

The purpose of this is to get lowest cost abatement, and that will move according to the different prices.

So the overwhelming policy objective, though, is to give access to the most liquid market possible.

That’s why it’s so inexplicable why the government have opposed the view of every single business organisation in this country, which is to allow businesses to trade in robust international carbon trading markets in the way they’re able to trade in every other international market.

So that is consistent with the wishes of every business organisation that I’ve engaged with, something we would finalise with them after engagement with them in government.

Updated

Question: I spoke to a couple of audience members after the leaders’ debate on Monday night, who are still undecided, because of the question marks over your climate policies.

By not releasing modelling, are you willing to lose voters over it?

Shorten: I don’t think we will, actually. I think more people ... and I was at the debate too. I think more people were actually unhappy that the government is not advocating anything serious on climate change.

Now, I get that in the election – and this is why you in the media play such an important role, interpreting what you hear, reporting what you hear – I get the government is trying to – is doing a cyclonic scare campaign on climate change.

But I actually think the people of Australia are a bit over being told to be scared of the future.

If this government finds the future too hard, they should get out of the way and have a government who is not scared of the future.

The reality is, the single greatest reason why energy prices have gone up in Australia is there’s just a lack of energy policy. And anyone who thinks this government, after 13 energy policies, is miraculously going to fix their internal chaos and division, you know, they’re dreaming, as they say.

Updated

Question: You implore Australians to accept the outcome of experts with regard to whether the Adani mine should go ahead or not.

You now have an expert giving a mixed finding on your climate plan, and you’re tipping a bucket on them from a great height. Why shouldn’t Australians conclude you’re cherry-picking your experts?

Shorten: No. No, no, no. Wrong.

First of all, I’ll tell you who’s on our side of the ledger – just about every scientist in the world. Apra. The RBA. Citibank.

Now, Citibank is not a nest of communists, although the way this government is going, they probably will call them that soon.

They have to write a note for the market for their clients. It has to be up to an ASX level of compliance.

Citibank doesn’t have any skin in the game with whether Liberal or Labor win the next election.

It’s not a biased, you know, opinion for rent that we’re seeing in this latest report.

They’re just telling it straight. And, again, let me return to the lived experience of Australians. What we’ve seen in the last six years, under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-Palmer-Hanson government, is we’ve seen power prices go up.

That’s just a fact. You don’t need an expert. Just ask anyone who pays electricity in this country.

It would be the triumph of hope over experience to give these climate-denying cave dwellers another three years in business when they clearly failed in the last six years. Labor’s got a real choice for change.

When people go and vote between now and the election on May 18, there is a real choice.

If you’re happy that your power bills are going up, if you’re happy that nothing is happening on climate change except more carbon is being polluted, if you’re happy to miss out on renewable energy jobs, then you’ll probably like more of the same.

But if you think that politics is broken, if you think the climate deniers need a good kick up the back pants, just a good kick up the backside to just get on and do something, vote Labor at the next election.

Updated

Labor press conference

Yes, this happened earlier, but it became press conference-aggedon, so I apologise for the delay.

Right.

Question: Doesn’t [the Fisher modelling] show that the numbers can still be crunched and it’s not actually impossible to get a figure?

Bill Shorten: It shows if you write a fairytale, you’ll get a report for this government on climate change. I just don’t believe it.

We’ve gotta call out the scare campaigns. Ask yourself – and I say to Australians who hear the scary numbers coming from private vested interests, commission reports – why do these people want you not to take action on climate change?

What are they so scared of? You know, you want to hear some real modelling, come with me to Sun Metal in Townsville where they’ve built a solar farm providing cheap energy which keeps the refinery going.

Come to Whyalla and see the solar farm there, powering 3,000 houses. If you want to see the real, lived experience of taking action on climate change, next time you land in a plane, have a look and count the number of solar panels on the roof.

We’ve gotta call out the superstition and fear. The problem is that this government, after six years, is incapable of lowering your energy prices and incapable of doing anything on climate change.

They’re split down the middle. We see the influence within the rightwing extremists within the Liberal party and the National party, for whatever reason, they’ve got them stuck in the cul-de-sac of history. They don’t want to move on climate change.

It wouldn’t matter, except they’re the government of Australia. The reason why families are paying more on electricity prices right now, because this government can’t move forward on energy policy.

The reason why we’re handing on a more polluted environment to our kids is because this government can’t change its ways. We need real change in Australia. We need to get the energy prices down. We need to unlock the potential of this company, and 10,000 companies like it, to export to the rest of the world. We need to do more on climate change.

Here’s a prediction, and I think it makes pretty good sense – three more years of this government, like the last six, it will be even more expensive to fix up the damage of climate change in three years if we don’t start now.

Updated

Brian Fisher confirms his house was egged this morning:

I think somebody has become a little bit emotional and, um, and thrown some eggs at my place.

Probyn: But your work has been criticised over the years. Are you a climate change sceptic?

Fisher: No, I’m not. I spent years as a climate negotiator, and I’ve completed part of – or been part of three intergovernmental panels on climate change assessments.

Probyn: Are you, then, a sceptic of climate change action?

Fisher: No. No, I’m not. All I’m trying to point out is that there are economic costs here, and I believe that voters are owed a sensible, transparent discussion about the costs. And it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking here about the Coalition or the Labor party or the Greens, we should have a decent economic debate about what this is going to cost.

Updated

Meanwhile, in WA

Brian Fisher is on the ABC talking to Andrew Probyn.

AP: Who paid for this modelling?

BF: I did.

AP: So this is some sort of philanthropic exercise, is it?

BF: Well, basically, I think the reason I did this originally was because I kept hearing media reports that you could do up to 100% renewable energy target in the Australian economy for no economic cost. And as an economist, I find this to be appallingly dishonest, frankly. Because, you know, as you, in just in the case of renewables, as you increase the renewable share in the electricity sector, you must commit to build extra interconnectors, to build extra backup, assuming, of course, that we maintain reliability in the electricity sector. Therefore, there are economic costs associated with this.

Updated

You may remember that Greg Hunt claimed his Twitter account had been hacked when it was found to have liked a porn tweet.

The Australian federal police commissioner, Andrew Colvin, told Senate estimates that it had investigated and found no hacking.

“I will say though, senator, that I think social media hygiene is an issue that we all need to be conscious of,” Colvin said at the time. “And that is about who has access to your Twitter account, how many people have access, do you know who has access to your account? I will leave it at that.”

Jessica Whelan’s candidate social media presence is only from this year, with all previous social media accounts having been deleted. The posts which have been called into question were all in the last few years, purportedly from previous accounts.

Updated

Tanya Plibersek came in at the end of Labor’s press conference, after there were no questions on Jessica Whelan, the candidate Scott Morrison was referring to there, when he was talking about posts being referred to the AFP (she claims they are fake).

Plibersek:

I’m surprised that we’re here in northern Tasmania and no one’s asked us about the candidate for Lyons and those extraordinarily racist comments.

What really confuses me is you’ve got a prime minister who is prepared to take action when it’s the candidate for Isaacs, but not prepared to take action on the candidate for Lyons.

Racism is racism is racism, and when you’ve got two candidates saying things, it’s vital the prime minister shows leadership and makes sure the candidate for Lyons is disendorsed, as the candidate for Isaacs was disendorsed.

I think this is a really key difference between Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison in this election. You’ve got Bill Shorten, who’s out there with a united, disciplined team. You’ve got Scott Morrison, who’s leading a Coalition of chaos and cuts.

You’ve got Bill Shorten, who’s focused on positive policies for our future – whether it’s more affordable childcare, whether it’s real action that brings down power prices and pollution, whether it’s better Medicare, including Medicare dental for pensioners. You’ve got Bill focused on positive policies for our futures, and you’ve got Scott Morrison, who’s got nothing, so he’s gone negative.

There is a real difference here, because Scott Morrison can’t run on unity and discipline. We can.

Scott Morrison can’t run on his record, because his record is chaos and cuts. And he can’t run on his plan for the future, because he’s got no plan to lift wages, he’s got no plan to lower pollution, he’s got no plan to lower power prices, he’s got no plan to make childcare more affordable, he’s got no plan to improve Medicare. He’s got no plan for this country, and we do.

Updated

Hunt and King have closed the press club debate on health, with Hunt finishing where he started, on medicine affordability.

Medicines can only be made affordable and health services expanded when the economy is strong, he says. Meanwhile, King closes by reiterating Labor’s $7.5bn package to improve hospitals and cancer care, and by saying Labor will stop cuts to Medicare.

Both agreed on waiting for a Medicare taskforce review before expanding access to mental health counselling services, both have committed to improving medicine affordability.

King says Labor would look at introducing mandatory health star ratings on foods rather than the current voluntary system, while Hunt says the voluntary system is working. King says Labor hasn’t come up with any sort of time frame for introducing a mandatory system.

Hunt says Labor’s plan for mandatory regulation of the food and beverage industry means Labor has “effectively given themselves electric cars for Tim Tams”, and no, I’m not sure what he means by that.

Updated

And with that question, Scott Morrison ends the press conference.

Question: Can I just ask, union leader Sally McManus has said the government hasn’t outlined its policies on industrial relations, and so I’m just wondering, beyond some of the things that Kelly O’Dwyer has talked about in terms of legislation that you’d continue if in government, can you rule out any other changes to industrial relations if you’re elected?

Morrison: I can tell you what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna keep the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

I know that’s what Sally McManus is very upset about. Sally McManus, remember, was the person who said that unions don’t have to obey the law.

I’m not gonna take any tips from Sally McManus about how we should run the economy.

Updated

Question: Just on the cost of this – and you’re calling Labor’s target reckless – we’ve seen so much modelling, one model says it’s going to cost up to $500bn, another says nothing. Is it right to rely so much on modelling which has such a vast difference in it? And given that, is it right to call their target reckless?

Morrison: Well, without going to modelling, 1.3bn tonnes of emissions reduction versus 328m tonnes of emissions reduction – that’s the difference between the two targets. OK? One is going to cost the economy a lot more than the other – clearly.

I mean, just on the sheer level of abatement and the amount of available abatement that can be achieved onshore. That forces those companies to have to then go and purchase emissions reductions occurring in other countries.

So, we will have Australian companies, Australian companies, paying countries and programs overseas to reduce their emissions, which puts them at a disadvantage to their competitors around the world.

It’s like a reverse tariff. Now, our policies don’t do that to those businesses. And that’s why... I mean, people have to ask themselves – Bill Shorten won’t tell you.

Bill, he won’t tell you what the cost of this is. The other day, he compared someone’s job being lost to eating less Big Macs. Now, I really don’t think that shows that he gets what the potential consequences are of his policies. And people, I think, have every right to ask themselves whether their job would be at risk as a result of those policies.

I mean, there’s 100,000 jobs and more in Western Australia that are affected by that. There are thousands of jobs here in Tasmania that are affected by this. There’s tens of thousands of jobs up in central Queensland, and people have a right to wonder and ask that question, particularly when he won’t tell them.

Scott Morrison with Liberal candidate for Bass Bridget Archer at a press conference in Launceston, Tasmania on Thursday
Scott Morrison with Liberal candidate for Bass Bridget Archer at a press conference in Launceston, Tasmania on Thursday. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Updated

Question: There’s a series of posters that have gone up around Warringah with a picture of Tony Abbott’s head. There are some on childcare centres. What do you make of dirty tactics during the election?

Morrison: I said a few months ago at the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce in Melbourne. I was speaking at a lunch there, and I said, “In our society, we’ve got to learn to disagree a bit better”.

That doesn’t mean we have to agree all the time, but I think we can disagree better than we currently do. And I have noticed that there is a bit more of a nastiness that is attached... I mean, there have been swastikas on Josh Frydenberg’s posters.

I mean, this sort of thing, you know, isn’t the way that we should engage in politics in Australia. I think that’s really disappointing. And I obviously don’t condone anything like that.

And I think, in this election, I mean, it’s one of... We’re one of the oldest democracies in the world, and I think it’s important that we conduct that democracy in the best possible way we can.

I mean, it sort of flows into what we’ve seen with that, sort of, quite, you know, extreme activism that we’re seeing in the community. I mean, people storming people’s farms and thinking that anything is justifiable because they have a particular point of view, well, no, it’s not, actually.

You can’t go around storming people’s homes and farms because you hold a particular view about, you know, policy or things like this. I don’t think that’s the way things should be done.

Updated

Question: Prime minister, on your target for – in reducing climate change, there’s been some modelling to show that, you know, your targets, with the use of Kyoto carryover credits, would cost the economy $20bn in GDP and $70bn in GNP. Is that true?

Morrison: No. I’m not disputing the modelling of an economy-wide carbon price to achieve those outcomes, but that’s not what we’re doing.

What we’re doing is a direct purchase through the reverse auction process of the Emissions Reduction Fund, as it was previously termed, and we’re buying that abatement directly.

So that means that the companies that are engaging in reducing these emissions, we’re paying for it directly.

We have a direct action approach, which, you know, was criticised at the time, but it actually worked. It actually met the targets.

It was one of the key vehicles through which we turned around that more than 700m tonne deficit that we inherited from Labor on climate. And we turned it into a 369m tonne surplus.

So it wasn’t just the budget that we brought back into surplus. We’ve actually brought our emissions reduction commitments back into surplus, having inherited a deficit from Labor.

They talk big on this. They talk really big on this. But when it comes to actually having policies that they can explain, that they can cost, they can tell you the price of, let alone deliver, well, they come up a bit short.

Updated

Question: What’s your reaction to Labor candidate from Gilmore Fiona Philips’ comments that Warren Mundine should go back to where he came from?

Do you think it’s appropriate, even if it was in reference to his residence in Sydney?

Morrison: I think Warren is capable of dealing with those things. Warren has been around a long time and he’s had to deal with that sort of thing over the course of his life.

And the thing I love about Warren is he turns up every day, and he turns up for what he believes in. And that’s why I think Warren is going to be, if he’s given the opportunity, an outstanding member for Gilmore. And I think in that exchange, I think people saw the real difference between Warren Mundine and his Labor opponent.

Updated

More on climate:

Well, again, it’s a choice between what target you set. OK? So Bill Shorten has chosen a 45% target. To reduce emissions by 2030. We have chosen 26%. Now, under our model, there won’t be the requirement of hitting all of those businesses, forcing them to buy abatement, particularly offshore.

As you know, that’s around A$42 on the European climate abatement price. And that will raise to over $50, it’s forecast, over the next decade.

So that’s their choice. They’ve decided to go down with a reckless target on this issue. We’ve decided to have an achievable, responsible target that sits in the middle of the pack.

That’s what we did. I remember when we set that target many years ago. It was right in the middle of the pack with like-minded countries, and that’s what we’re achieving.

See, when we set a target, we meet it. We meet it.

Now, Bill Shorten has already walked away, it would seem, from his electric cars policy being part of his emissions reduction plan. And his policy seems to change every day. But one thing doesn’t change – every day, he still doesn’t tell you the price.

Updated

Question: Yesterday, you said that your $3.5bn climate solutions package is over 10 years...

Morrison: No, what I said was, I said the commitments would be made for that expenditure, but the actual expenditure runs out beyond 10 years.

Question: But doesn’t that actually raise questions as to whether the government is serious about tackling climate change?

Morrison: I’m glad you raised this question. I’m glad you raised this.

Because this election is not about whether we should take action on climate change. I believe we should.

It’s not about whether you’re taking action on climate change. We have taken action on climate change. And we will continue to take action on climate change. And as I’ve talked about already, when we came to government, we inherited a climate deficit of over 700m tonnes to meet our Kyoto 2020 targets.

We turned that around into a 369m tonne surplus. Turning around 1.1bn tonnes of carbon emission reductions that needed to be achieved to meet the Kyoto 2020 targets.

You know, we’ve got $12bn of renewable investments going in just this year, and there’s $25bn that is going in out to 2020. This is exciting. It’s positive. It’s good.

Scott Morrison speaks to the media in Launceston, Tasmania on Thursday
Scott Morrison speaks to the media in Launceston, Tasmania on Thursday. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

It should be happening. And it is. The question is whether you have a reckless target of 45%, as the Labor party is proposing, where he’s forcing people to choose between the economy and the environment. Or whether you have a responsible target that we have – an achievable target – with the programs to support it, as you rightly say.

Our $3.5bn climate solutions fund achieves this target and ensures that you don’t have to choose between the economy and the environment. The only person, frankly, who’s trying to sell a pair of jousting sticks to the Australian people at this election is Bill Shorten.

The only difference is, at least the guy selling the jousting sticks would tell you what the price was.

Updated

Question: Prime minister, you’ve had Greg Hunt, Christopher Pyne and now Jessica Whelan who all claim they have been hacked. It’s becoming a little bit hard to believe, isn’t it?

Morrison: No. No, I don’t think it’s hard to believe in this day and age that images can be doctored.

Question: If it turns out that they’ve not been doctored, do you think she should still be the candidate?

Morrison: Well, there’s an investigation that is being referred to the federal police. I’m going to simply let that take its course.

Question: Do you have any confidence that this will be confirmed as a doctoring and a hacking?

Morrison: Well, all we can do, all Jessica can do, is refer the matter to the AFP and have confidence in their ability to pursue the matter in the way you’d expect the AFP to.

Updated

Scott Morrison says candidate Jessica Whelan's posts 'appear to have been doctored'

Question: Prime minister, should Jessica Whelan stand down?

Scott Morrison: The imagery that we have found, that has been presented to us, appears to have been doctored. And so what Jessica has done – this matter has been referred to the Australian Federal Police, and so that is a matter that is being referred, I should say, to the Australian Federal Police. And this is a matter that will be subject to an investigation.

Question: All those posts are fake?

Morrison: This is all being referred to the federal police.

Question: Prime minister, why didn’t Ms Whelan answer reporters’ questions earlier? And why not now?

Morrison: A, we’re in Bass. B, we weren’t doing a press conference earlier today. And she’s issued a statement to the effect of what I’ve just said.

Updated

At the National Press Club debate on health Greg Hunt and Catherine King have just faced questions on mental health, private health insurance and the PBS.

On private health, King acknowledges “private health overall is in trouble”. Labor wants a cap on premium increases of 2%. And, King says, the Productivity Commission to look at private health overall.

Hunt speaks about the reforms the government has introduced to the private health sector. “Our record is of believing in and restoring what we do with private health, reducing the costs,” he says.

However, many public health experts and health economists are on the record as saying private health insurance is beyond reform. Just this week the Grattan Institute’s Stephen Duckett wrote in the Australian Financial Review the industry is in a death spiral. He supports calls for a Productivity Commission review.

Hunt and King are asked if either have plans to improve access to mental health treatment by increasing the number of counselling sessions available under the Better Access Scheme beyond subsidised sessions per year.

Hunts says access has already been increased for those with eating disorders, who can now access up to 60 mental health and dietician sessions. If the Medicare taskforce recommends more sessions for mental health generally, Hunt says he will act on that.

King responds similarly that Labor will wait for the findings of a Medicare taskforce review.

Updated

Back to the health debate for a moment:

Journalist Mark Kenny from the Australian National University and the Adelaide Advertiser has just asked Hunt to explain what he preferred about Peter Dutton over Malcolm Turnbull, and indeed over Scott Morrison. Hunt backed Dutton during the spill, and was vying for the position of deputy.

Hunt dodges commenting about Dutton, saying: “... Scott is evolving very rapidly into being not just the finest federal Liberal leader since John Howard, but arguably the finest federal leader, federal or state, Liberal or Labor, since John Howard. His vision is one I share.”

King hits back that Hunt was not “an innocent bystander in the coup”. “This is the person who wanted Peter Dutton, who was voted the worst health minister in Australia’s history, to be the prime minister,” she says. “And not only did he want that, he wanted to be his deputy. That’s the reality of it.”

Updated

Liberal press conference

Goodness everything is happening at once today!

I am still working on transcribing the Labor press conference, but Scott Morrison is with us now, so we cut across to him, in Tasmania (he’s in Bass, Bill Shorten was in Braddon).

Updated

On the flip side, Sue Dunlevy’s question to Catherine King was this:

When you were last in government, the Labor party decided that it couldn’t afford to fund all of the medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and that you could delay listing some very important medicines.

Why should Australians trust you again on that front, and can I also ask you, given that Labor has made a point of taking on the top end of town, and delivering to ordinary Australians, will you act on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and allow Australians doctors to prescribe medicines of periods of two months?

Catherine King:

I think the first thing to say around the PBS is when Labor was last in government, we listed over $6bn worth of medicines, including the ones that Greg likes to keep mentioning, that he makes the claim we stopped listing all medicines, that is simply a lie. We listed every single one of those medicines.

And we did that at the same time as there was a global financial crisis. What we also did, we continued the work of John Howard, in reforming the PBS, to actually allow substantial savings to be realised to continue the listing of medicines.

We’re very pleased the government is doing what all governments do, list medicines on the PBS. That is what we did in government, every single one of them.

The government has 18 medicines that it will never list, recommended by the government, because price disclosure have broken down.

Your department told us that at Senate estimates – 18 medicines that will never be listed because price negotiations was unable to be concluded.

We have made a guarantee that we will do what we did in government, which is list medicines. Because it is what governments should do, and we shouldn’t have the sort of politicisation of the PBS we’ve seen from this minister. In relation to the issue around the guild, I think the really important thing is there is agreement. There is a community pharmacy agreement.

And that pharmacy agreement is the process by which governments negotiate with the community pharmacy sector, and the wholesalers, about how the government, you know, the dispensing of medicines is going to be conducted.

If you’re going to do anything, when the government looked as though it would do, you need to do it within the context of those agreements.

Updated

Sue Dunlevy, who is one of the best health reporters in the country, asked this of Greg Hunt:

Minister, you have made enormous political points about the fact that your government has been acting on every recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee – you have done it again today.

But there’s one recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee that you haven’t acted on. It’s a recommendation that would have saved millions of Australians up to $240 a year on their medicine costs.

It was a recommendation that doctors be able to prescribe people with chronic illnesses medicines that would cost for two months. It would have saved the taxpayer many millions of dollars, because we wouldn’t have to pay as much dispensing fees. You backed down on a decision to act on that after the pharmacy guild ran some ads in major newspapers just before the budget.

Could you tell Australian voters today why is it that you have decided to side with 3,000 wealthy pharmacy owners at the expense of the hip pockets of Australian patients and the convenience of Australian patients, and the, to the detriment of Australian taxpayers?

Greg Hunt:

Firstly, I respectfully disagree with some of the characterisation, but most importantly, we have been listing all of the medicines, all of the medicines that the medical experts recommend and that’s saving lives and protecting lives, and transforming the ability of families to access new medicines.

Secondly, only today, only today, we have announced a $308m plan which we will implement, that will deliver a lower cost of medicines to Australian patients.

That lower cost of medicines will mean that patients who are pensioners, or concession card holders, will be able to access free scripts earlier. By being able to access those free scripts earlier, they won’t just save money, but they will be able to manage their own budget better, and manage their own medicines better.

And those patients who are not concession card holders will be able to access discounted scripts at an earlier time. So that goes directly to the question that you have raised.

It’s fundamental to what we’re doing. In addition to that, in relation to the proposal that’s been put forward, we’ll consider and consult. And the reason you do that is because there’s differing views within the medical community and I respect and acknowledge those.

By doing, that’s the way we’ve been able to create things like the new primary care initiative, to create a transformative proposal to primary care. Why we were able to strike an agreement with Medicines Australia to ensure there was the investment to deliver all of these new medicines. That’s the approach we’ve taken, which has worked and delivered and that’s the approach which we’ll continue to take going forwards.

Updated

Catherine King responded:

Let me respond to that first, and then I will answer the question asked of me. What Greg has said is blatantly untrue. They haven’t costed our policy.

I don’t know what they have costed, and tried to co-opt the health department in some sort of way and repudiated by them for that.

Greg, you have absolutely no plan to match our $2.3bn cancer plan. No plan at all to do that. All of the things you mentioned are in the budget, and Labor will do all of those.

But our $2.3bn plan to deal with cancer out-of-pocket costs is in addition to what you have done.

Because we have listened to the Breast Cancer Network of Australia, who have told us that out of pocket costs are putting people under enormous pressure.

What [the reporter] said about public hospitals, there’s a bit of history to this – the Liberal party in the 2013 election campaign, in their own policy documents, now I didn’t make this up, they put this in writing, they said they would match Labor’s commitment.

Not only they would match Labor’s commitment, they explicitly stated they would fund 50% of growth in activity-based funding for hospitals.

That what they said in 2013.

I didn’t make them put that in their policy document. They did. And that’s not what is happening today.

It’s at 45% capped at 6.5% from the commonwealth’s growth perspective as well. $715 million in the current existing agreement, they cut out, and going forward from 2019, that’s $2.8bn.

We’ll restore commonwealth funding over the course of the next agreement, to 50%.

That’s absolutely our commitment. But we’ve also talked to the states and territories, and they have told us that damage that has been done to our public hospitals in the last six years needs immediate attention.

It needs immediate attention with capital investments in things that help the patient pathway. We’ve been investing in better emergency departments, subacute care, palliative care beds, with that capital investment. They told us they need immediate funds to help with emergency department and elective surgery wait times.

That is what the $2.8bn will go towards. We announced as part of our cancer plan, $50m to go to public hospital outpatient appointments for cancer patients. It’s not a $2.8bn plan for public hospitals, it’s even more than that.

Updated

Question: For [Greg Hunt], prime minister Scott Morrison responded to Labor’s cancer policy by saying that cancer treatment is free. A lot of Australians do struggle with out-of-pocket medical costs, whether that be going to the GP, or getting treatment for a serious condition.

What will a coalition government do to address this?

And for Catherine, Bill Shorten has promised to restore activity-based funding for hospitals and to put $2.8bn back into that, at the same time as announcing a bunch of funding announcements from the $2.8bn better hospital fund.

There’s been a lot of confusion as to whether it’s $2.8bn, or whether it’s double that. Is Labor doubling up with this commitment and has Labor costed its health policy and how much will it cost the taxpayer?

Hunt: Let me begin in relation to cancer – in hospitals, obviously, that treatment is provided as it should be, through the public system. The biggest single cost out-of-pocket that people can face is the cost of new medicines. Yesterday, there was one listed for Merkel cell carcinoma.

I met Wayne, who would have otherwise paid $50,000. He’s on his way to palliative care and is now up and about.

By listing new medicines, we save patients money. And we are investing over $25bn, and I want to repeat that, we’re investing over $25bn in a comprehensive cancer care program that costs hospitals, the PBS, across what we do with Medicare, and medical research, over the course of the budget.

As part of that, one of the fundamental things that we are doing is ensuring that we bring forward new treatments such as Car-T therapy, which we announced with an $80m investment, that we announced at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.

In terms of Labor’s plan, they made an announcement without any of the detail, without any of the work. We did that work. There are $400...

King: That’s just rubbish.

Hunt: There are 421 comprehensive items in relation to cancer. You can open up to any of the pages. They named one. Yet what we know, they have what would be a more than $6bn plan, if it was remotely comprehensive, they’re not guaranteeing bulk billing as Bill Shorten set out, they’re not going to achieve it and they haven’t done the work. What we’re doing is bringing down the cost and providing the medicines.

Updated

Peter Dutton is still very angry about GetUp. Here is what he had to say on the group when chatting to his good mate Ray Hadley this morning:

Well, Ray, certainly what GetUp says – and let’s call them out – they never support the Coalition candidate; they are seeded in terms of funding by the CFMEU – Bill Shorten put money in from the AWU to start with, he was on the founding board of GetUp – it is a front for the Labor party and the Greens. So if you hear from GetUp hang the phone up or ask some questions about the money they get from overseas and all their motivations.

They are a leftwing extremist group and so when they post all of the hate and all of the attacks online – whether it’s against Tony or me or Scott Morrison, anyone else – it does incite people to be angry and that’s why they do it, but it needs to be called out. As I say over many elections in my part of the world, and I’m sure elsewhere, somehow the Labor and Greens signs always stay upright and ours always disappear – so people can draw their own conclusions – but I think it speaks to the character frankly of people who are supporting GetUp and those people that are involved in the Greens and elements of the Labor party as well. People well know that and you see it on the booths, it’s not our supporters – the Liberal and National party supporters – who are screaming and yelling obscenities as people are handing out for the other party. It should be conducted civilly and I just think it goes to the way in which the culture of the Labor party operates, their attacks on people that they believe are wealthy with the retirees’ tax, their attack on small business, you know a couple that have got a trust set up between two sisters running a hair salon they’re going to pay thousands and thousands of dollars more tax under Labor’s proposal because Labor believes that they’re rich.

So there are big cultural differences and big differences to the way in which we govern and support people and I hope people take all of that into consideration when they’re casting their ballots right now.

Updated

Back to the health debate, Greg Hunt opened with this:

A little over a year ago, I met a little girl named Stephanie. Stephanie has spinal muscular atrophy. It progressively leads to the loss of function and ultimately the lungs shut down and this little child would perish.

Shortly afterwards I had the privilege of listing Spinraza on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

This medicine would otherwise have cost $375,000. I spoke to Stephanie’s parents this morning. They said that each day, every day, she’s getting better.

Movement, the capacity to do things, her lungs are strengthening, and this little girl is now singing. This little girl is now singing.

But Stephanie’s story is the story of what we’ve been able to do with the listing of medicines such as Orkambi, for 3,000 women with breast cancer, that otherwise would have cost $50,000.

That’s exactly how it should be. But it’s not how it has always been. We know we need a strong economy to be able to do these things, to save lives and protect lives. We know this, because in 2011, when Mr Shorten was the assistant treasurer, the then government stopped listing new medicines in that budget. The words were, due to fiscal circumstances, the government will defer the listing of some new medicines until fiscal circumstances permit.

In short, they couldn’t manage the economy, they couldn’t afford the medicines, medicines for asthma, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for endometriosis, were all stopped. That’s why you need a comprehensive long-term national health plan, and you need a strong economy to back it.

Updated

It’s that time in the campaign. From Bob Katter’s office:

KAP Leader and Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter has counted up to 70 of his election corflute signs that have been removed from roadsides around Far North Queensland, suggesting the thievery has been done at the hands of those threatened by him competing against the major parties given their signs are still standing.

“We have our eye on you,” said Mr Katter who suspects he knows the culprit at hand and warning that CC television footage may be available.

“And we deliver this full warning to you, we’re watching and you will feel the full force of the law should you keep going on this way.

“In the meantime, we will do some patrols ourselves and we are asking the police on the highway to keep their eyes open as well.”

Updated

The ABC is still on the National Press Club debate, but I will transcribe the Labor press conference as soon as it’s done.

So far it is on why they disagree with Brian Fisher’s modelling.

“Why do these people want you to not to take action on climate change,” Bill Shorten says.

“What are they are afraid of?”

Speaking in Braddon, Bill Shorten says the Brian Fisher modelling reminds him of when the tobacco industry used to roll out doctors to talk about smoking being fine.

He says it should be filed under “P for propaganda”.

Mark Butler is a bit stronger – he calls it a crock of rubbish.

Updated

Catherine King won the toss and is going first. Both speakers get a seven-minute opening statement.

King opens with:

Voters often complain there isn’t much difference between the major political parties and I’m not sure that is ever really true. It’s certainly not true at this election. As you have no doubt heard Bill Shorten say by now, this election offers a stark choice. And nowhere is that choice more stark than when it comes to health policy.

It’s a choice between a Labor party with a proud record of health investment and reform and a Liberal party with a shocking record of cuts and chaos.

It’s a choice between a Labor party with an ambitious health agenda and a Liberal party with no agenda at all.

It’s a choice between a Labor party promising to make massive new investments in hospitals, in cancer care, in dental care, and a Liberal party promising nothing more than the status quo.

It’s a choice between a Labor party committed to building and strengthening Medicare and a Liberal party that has cut $3bn from Medicare over the last five years.

It’s a choice between a Labor party with a long-term vision for our health system, and a Liberal party that has comprehensively failed to address any of the challenges before us.

Updated

Greg Hunt and Catherine King are today’s national press club address: they are debating health policy.

We are just waiting on the campaign press conferences.

The Mercury has updated its story on controversial social media posts attributed to the Liberal party’s Lyons candidate, Jessica Whelan. Scott Morrison was forced to play candidate photo chicken while campaigning in the seat today, with campaign journalists reporting the awkward meet and greet.

The Mercury reports:

In one comment, Ms Whelan apparently said public hospital facilities were not up the scratch.

The post was read out in State Parliament this morning.

“I pay for private health & I want to keep it. I don’t want to be stuck going to the RHH, even tho I pay for that too,” the post says.

“Having to take my children there is bad enough. Maybe make the private hospitals take on more? Why do I have to take my children to the public hospitals when I pay a bomb for private health? They should have paediatricians onsite.

Updated

Adam Bandt wants to move a state of climate emergency motion when parliament resumes. From his statement:

“The UK Parliament has recognised the world is facing an existential climate crisis and that we all need to act urgently,” Mr Bandt said.

“I will seek to move a similar motion to the UK and have a state of climate emergency declared here as soon as the new Parliament returns after the election.

“It’s time to act as if our house is on fire, because it is.

“This election is a climate election and the Greens are the only party that supports emergency action. The Australian people have an opportunity to show their support for emergency action by voting Greens.”

Updated

Greg Hunt was a late apology to the candidate’s forum in Flinders last night. According to his office, he had initially said he would attend “if possible” but instead had to fly to Canberra for today’s health debate at the National Press Club.

Hundreds of locals attended the forum, which was organised by the community activist group Save Western Port in opposition to the proposed AGL gas import terminal at Crib Point.

All candidates, including Hunt and the Labor candidate, Josh Sinclair, are personally opposed to it and have been engaged in a game of who opposes the development more.

They were asked at the forum what they would do, if elected, to convert that personal opposition into tangible action to actually block the project.

Hundreds of people attended a candidates’ forum in Flinders on Wednesday night in opposition to the proposed AGL gas import terminal
Hundreds of people attended a candidates’ forum in Flinders on Wednesday night in opposition to the proposed AGL gas import terminal. Photograph: Environment Victoria

Hunt provided a statement, read out to a few jeers from the crowd, saying that this was Labor’s project and the responsibility for stopping it lay with the Andrews government. Victoria is undertaking an environmental effects process, with a decision due at the end of the year.

“I am absolutely of the view that this is a matter for the Victorian government as not only have they caused the problem but they also have planning responsibility,” Hunt said.

He said he was meeting with the AGL chief executive, Brett Redman, on Monday to discuss the project.

The Andrews government was positive about the project when it was announced in 2017 but has since cooled its ardour.

Sinclair said he had raised concerns about the project with the state Labor ministers and federal Labor spokespeople, and argued that as a member (possibly) of a (possible) Shorten majority government he would have direct access to the new federal environment minister.

Julia Banks reminded the forum that she had used her last three days in parliament — when she was still the member for another electorate but was planning to run for Flinders — to submit a petition and, confusingly, described herself as both “not a member of the political elite” and the only person on the stage to have “experience of being a member of a major party and being an independent”.

“As an independent I know that I will get a seat at the table regardless of who the government of the day is. And I have done more, already, than the local member, in relation to this.”

Updated

It’s all in the details.

Updated

Yup. Totally normal election campaign.

(Obviously she means presented. It’s been a long campaign. And who wouldn’t be struck dumb by that carving.)

Updated

Things seem a little awkward in Lyons for Scott Morrison at the moment:

Because it keeps coming up, I think we need to put in the definition of socialism – as defined by Merriam-Webster.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You know what’s not socialism? Allowing a private-sector business in a capitalist market to purchase permits to offset its own carbon use in a free and open market.

I cannot believe we are having this conversation.

Updated

The Australia Institute is not a fan of Brian Fisher’s new modelling.

From its statement:

• Fisher’s results are contradicted by a large economic literature. The Australia Institute has identified 17 reports from the last five years alone and 3 major reports from Treasury. They show deep cuts are possible with very small or positive economic impacts and strong ongoing economic growth.

• Fisher uses costs of abatement that are ridiculously high and widely contradicted. They are many times higher than government commissioned assessments from three years ago.

• Fisher explicitly ignores the high cost of in-action. Despite citing a report that says the costs of inaction to Australia are more than $130bn a year – even without considering disaster impacts.

• Fisher misrepresents Australia’s commitment under the Paris agreement. He conflates Paris with current 26% “downpayment” pledge, when in fact in the Paris agreement, Australia agreed that “much greater emission reduction efforts will be required” to 2030.

“While there is legitimate debate on the best climate policy for Australia, it is important that information is factual,” said Richie Merzian, climate and energy program director at the Australia Institute.

“The last time Australians saw Labor’s climate policies in action, emissions went down 2%, the economy grew by 5% and employment increased by 200,000 jobs. Given that experience, why would anyone place any weight on Brian Fisher’s modelling which predicts the exact opposite happening?

“The modelling uses the absurdly high price of over $400 a tonne if there is no trading. It assumes firming costs for renewable energy could be as high as $200 MWh when the government-owned Snowy 2.0 is offering firmed renewable contracts at $70MWh.

“This new modelling also excludes the huge cost of climate impacts resulting from weak versus ambitious reduction targets, which by a study Fisher himself previously referenced, is around $130bn per year.

“The government has an entire department at its disposal with hundreds of economists. It is very telling that the Minister Angus Taylor and this government are relying on one report from one consultant who critics say has a long history of working for the coal industry and, frankly, he’s never met a climate action policy that he’s liked.”

Updated

This is a totally normal election campaign …

Updated

Tony Abbott says Labor climate change policy is 'socialism'

Tony Abbott, at a press conference with Paul Fletcher to make an announcement on disability support, had a few things to say about how big an environmentalist he is.

Keep in mind that it was only three weeks ago that he said “the so-called settled science is not quite as settled as people say and that’s my position”, when asked about climate change.

But now he is all about that environmental conservationist life. But also – BEWARE OF THE SOCIALISTS.

“I think all of us here in Warringah are conservationists and I am incredibly proud of what I have been able to do for the environment, here in Warringah,” he said.

Tony Abbott with social services minister Paul Fletcher on the campaign trail at Sunnyfield Disability Services in Allambie Heights, Sydney on Thursday
Tony Abbott with social services minister Paul Fletcher on the campaign trail at Sunnyfield Disability Services in Allambie Heights, Sydney on Thursday. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAP

“For instance, but for my efforts, we would not have saved the last unspoiled headlands of Sydney harbour, through the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. But for my efforts, we wouldn’t have had green army teams working to improve water quality and landcare of Manly Lagoon and Curl Curl lagoon and elsewhere.

“So look, we are all conservationists here, we’re all environmentalists, because like me, so many of us, are out on our boards behind the waves, every other day, so many of us like to walk in the beautiful parks that we’ve got here, both bush parks and others, so we all appreciate that we’ve only got one planet and we’ve got to hand it on to our children and our grandchildren in the best possible condition so I think all of us are concerned about that.

“The question, I suppose, is what do we do about carbon dioxide emissions. I want to reduce them. My government took a 26% to 28% negotiating position to Paris – reasonable, proportionate and achievable without doing damage to the economy, because the last thing we want to do, is damage the economy, that we also have to live in.

“But I’ve got to say a lot of the policies that I have heard of, from the Labor party and from independents who want to go to further, is, it’s socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”

Updated

Tony Abbott rues 'new level of nastiness' after posters defaced

Tony Abbott says this campaign has reached a “new level of nastiness” after his campaigns posters were defaced.

From AAP:

Offensive posters depicting former prime minister Tony Abbott’s face are being taken down around his Sydney electorate as police appeal for information.

At least two caricatured heads with expletives written across the forehead were found along Spit Road in Manly and Mosman.

Other posters had “Pell” written across them.

NSW Police on Thursday said they were investigating the offensive slogans and graffiti, and asked people to come forward with information.

The posters “have been or will be removed”, a spokeswoman told AAP.

Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells labelled it “absolutely disgusting”.

“This is a new low in political life,” she told 2GB radio.

Mr Abbott’s main rival, independent Zali Steggall, rejected any suggestion that she, her campaign or volunteers had anything to do with the posters.

“My volunteers have signed an extensive code of conduct,” she tweeted.

“They are under strict instructions not to engage in negative behaviour, as I have been the subject of a non-stop smear campaign from Mr Abbott and his supporters and do not condone that type of politics.”

Updated

Angus Taylor's full circle on international carbon permits

Given that we are all talking about international carbon permits again, it is worth taking a look at the Coalition’s journey down this route.

Once upon a time international carbon credits were seen as the sensible solution, because it was the least-cost abatement option. And that made sense to a lot of Liberals who believe in a free market. Because it puts the decisions back in business hands.

Then along came Tony Abbott, who seemed to fixate on international permits as being THE VERY BAD THING. And so, when he was elected in 2013, they disappeared from the Coalition agenda, to be replaced with Direct Action.

We know how that turned out. But there were still moves within the government to bring back international permits because they made sense.

So when Malcolm Turnbull took over the leadership, he initiated a review of climate policies, which was released in 2017 and laid out the framework for the national energy guarantee, and also, in principle, accepted that international carbon permits would be part of the mix, with a decision of how many and whatsit to be made in 2020.

But when Turnbull fell and Scott Morrison took over the leadership, there was the climate policy “pivot” and international permits were back out, and Direct Action and carbon credits (Kyoto) were back in.

In short – the government went back to the Abbott position from 2013.

Early last month the ‘minister for lowering power prices’, Angus Taylor, was talking to an American Chamber of Commerce in Australia lunch about the big scary international carbon permit impost (which, by the by, the business community has very loudly called for):

“Industry does not know how much carbon they are going to have to abate through this emissions scheme that Labor has announced,” he said, in comments reported by the Australian Financial Review.

“It is extremely hard to see heavy industry surviving these imposts,” the minister said, adding that the plan would also stop smaller businesses from expanding their operations and prevent new jobs because of the reduction in the threshold of businesses covered by the system to 25,000 tonnes a year of CO2 emissions, from the Coalition’s 100,000 tonnes.

Which, to circle back round to why I started this post in the first place, is very, very different to the view Taylor had when he was a candidate for the seat of Hume, back in 2013.

Then, he told the AFR:

A tonne of carbon from New Guinea is the same from a policy point of view. Frankly, it doesn’t matter – what matters is whether you are going to get the abatement.

“The idea that Australia offers the cheapest sources of abatement is bizarre. There are many cheaper sources of abatement in other countries.”

Not so bizarre in 2019, apparently.

Updated

Richard Di Natale was on Sky News talking about the Fisher modelling:

Interesting state political news, which gives a bit of context to the Tasmanian situation federally – the Hodgman government lost a vote to introduce mandatory sentencing for serious child sexual assaults, which was a key election promise, and a policy it said it had a mandate for.

It lost because Sue Hickey, who was the rogue Liberal MP who became Speaker after some Labor and minor voting shenanigans got her over the line ahead of the Liberal pick, used her casting vote against the government.

Why is this important? Well, it has some people saying Hickey should be expelled from the party. Which would plunge the Liberals into official minority government. And it’s not the first legislative vote the government has lost. Which, of course, has some people talking about going to an election.

tl;dr – there are some fires for the Liberal party to put out in Tasmania at the moment.

Updated

Pre-poll is happening in droves.

At this rate it is easy to see how 40% of voters will get there before 18 May.

Updated

Asked about preference deals, and whether the Coalition, being a coalition, had to accept blowback for partner parties’ choices, David Littleproud had this to say:

I hardly see it’s disingenuous where we have a democracy, where the Australian people decide. They walk into the ballot box, not me, and they get to determine where they put each number on that ballot paper. And that’s the way it should be. This is merely a way that parties have come to an agreement around where they believe they should go, the least worst possibility, if you don’t want to vote for us. But the reality is, it is and always will be the gift of the Australian people. And it’s something we should always fiercely protect.

Michael McCormack believes only journalists care about preference deals. But the thing is, the parties wouldn’t make them unless they believe they were getting some benefit.

Like, for instance, in Herbert. Minor-party votes are going to decide the Townsville seat. When Mike Bowers and I headed up there last week, we came across a lot of disaffection – but the anger wasn’t directed in one particular area. They hate the majors fairly equally. The Palmer, Katter’s and One Nation vote is seen as a “we’ve tried everything else, and no one is listening, so this is how we can send a message” move. By making these deals with Palmer and Pauline Hanson, the Coalition is hoping to capture that vote on the flip side.

Herbert is a flashpoint for how a lot of outer urban and inner regional voters are feeling at the moment. Don’t write them off as rednecks – there is a lot of context behind how they got to this point.

But pretending that preference deals don’t matter because it is up to voters to decide how they vote is disingenuous. While it’s true that we can’t predict how those voters will number those boxes, the reason those parties get so much attention is because once a major party agrees to work with them, they are legitimised. And not just the parts the major party is after. All of it. Because political parties, much like people, are a sum of all of their parts.

You don’t just get to pick and choose what parts of a minor party like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or Clive Palmer’s United Australia party you want. You get all of it.

Updated

The Mercury has reported that another candidate is in a social media mess, although the candidate at the centre of this one, the Lyons Liberal candidate, Jessica Whelan, denies she made the comments. She’s claiming her Facebook page has been doctored after Islamophobic comments – including saying that women who support Islam should be mutilated – were attributed to her.

Labor is calling for her to be sacked. David Littleproud was asked about it while on ABC Breakfast this morning and his face as he heard Michael Rowland say “another candidate” and “social media post” might just be my mood for the day. He replied:

Well, look, Michael, that’s breaking to me as well. I’m in the National party. I’m not privy to those conversations or investigations. But I am sure that they are being done in a thorough way, and investigation that will be transparent. But I’m not privy to any of that information. I’m a member of the National party. And our Coalition partners, I’m sure, are working through that.

Asked whether the Nationals should take responsibility, given that, you know, they are in a Coalition, Littleproud rallied enough to remember the “I don’t endorse these views” line.

Look, they’re not views that I hold in any way, shape or form. And I don’t think any – or the majority of Australians would. Unfortunately, there are minorities that make these sort of statements. But the reality is everyone is entitled to due process, and this candidate is entitled to due process as well, which I’m sure is being worked through, through the Liberal party, and I’m sure the Liberal party hierarchy is working on that as we speak.

Updated

Good morning

Welcome to what I think is day 21. There are 16 to go.

And climate change policy remains the biggest issue.

Labor is set to announce a $75m renewables policy, while the Liberal party is focusing on health.

But new modelling from the BAEconomics economist Brian Fisher has once again put the focus on the cost of Labor’s policy. The government shouted the last Fisher modelling from the rooftops, despite it not actually modelling Labor policy, but this one shows that using international carbon permits lowers the economic cost of emissions reduction.

As Katharine Murphy reports:

New analysis from BAEconomics says international permits will be critical to reducing the transition costs associated with Labor’s climate change policies, noting “the negative economic consequences of adopting stringent emissions reductions can be substantially ameliorated through greater trade in international permits”.

While the Morrison government has been blasting Bill Shorten for proposing a policy mechanism that involves allowing the use of international permits to lower the cost of abatement, and the Greens have also criticised their use, arguing it would lower the level of ambition – new modelling from Brian Fisher makes it clear permits lower the economic cost of emissions reduction.

The new analysis, which follows a previous study that did not model Labor policy, but was nonetheless used in dispatches by the Morrison government to highlight the costs associated with Labor’s proposal, looks at four different scenarios in addition to a reference case which assumes no new policy beyond that already in place from 2020.

We’ll hear a lot more on that today.

Scott Morrison is in Tasmania, where I believe Bill Shorten is also planning on making an appearance, as Braddon and Bass become key battlegrounds.

And there is the Sky News Warringah debate this afternoon, where Tony Abbott and Zali Steggall will go head to head.

There is a lot to get through, so I hope you are ready. I am not, but then again, there isn’t enough stimulant in the world for this campaign.

So let’s just jump in.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
William, Prince of Wales, is a 'big fan' of American Pie
William, Prince of Wales, told American Pie star Eugene Levy in an episode of the actor's Apple TV+ The Reluctant Traveler series that he is a "big fan" of the raunchy sex comedy films.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Priscilla Presley: 'I felt that Michael Jackson was using Lisa Marie'
Priscilla Presley feared Michael Jackson was “using” her daughter Lisa Marie Presley when they got married in 1994.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Why do I use LOL so much in my texts?
My personal texts and work chats were littered with LOLs. I asked experts for advice on avoiding its ‘more insidious’ uses
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
There's one detail on coffee bags that tells you if it's worth buying — and most shoppers miss it
Discover how to identify fresh coffee and understand the optimal window for brewing quality coffee at home.
Tom’s Guide
Tom’s Guide
‘Porch light will be off this year’: Parents are giving up as Trump tariffs just made Halloween unbelievably expensive
Halloween became so expensive.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
I Only Wear Abercrombie & Fitch Jeans—These Are My Absolute Favorites
The six pairs I will never stop buying.
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play