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

Federal election 2019: Labor says it's 'extraordinary' Morrison is 'contemplating' nuclear power – as it happened

Scott Morrison and his wife Jenny Morrison
2019 Australian federal election: Scott Morrison and his wife Jenny at the Royal Flying Doctors Base at Launceston Airport on 18 April, 2019. Photograph: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

The campaigns are at rest, and so, with that, are we.

Like we’ve been saying all week, there will be a break in campaigning over the Easter public holidays. That doesn’t mean there won’t be happy family snaps. We are still in an election campaign. Let’s not get too crazy.

Both campaigns shift back into gear on the Sunday, ready for the Monday. But then the intensity is dropped back down again for the Anzac Day long weekend (let’s not kid ourselves – there is going to be a significant portion of this nation who come down with *the flu* *cough cough* on Friday 26 April).

Which means the campaign won’t actually kick into gear until 29 April. When pre-poll opens. And the first leader’s debate is held. And then, well, strap in.

So take these few days and cherish them. It’s about to get very loud around here.

There won’t be a blog over Easter and then early next week you’ll be in the hands of Gabrielle Chan, as I trek around for a couple of days with Mike Bowers, getting a lay of the land and throwing musk sticks at his head while controlling the stereo. There is so much Backstreet Boys and Dolly Parton in that man’s future YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW.

And I know you’ll all welcome Gabi back with open arms because, well, she’s the best.

So have a lovely Easter. Switch off and enjoy whatever relaxation means to you. Thank you for spending the last week with us, and making it all bearable. We’ll be back very soon. In the meantime, take care of you.

Updated

PK: Just finally on the campaign, we’re at the end of week one, Labor has released a lot of policy detail, policies full stop compared to the Coalition, which is going into the election with relatively little apart from this big tax plan.

Has it left you exposed? You are constantly as a campaign on the defensive and the PM and the government are on the offensive. You’re consistently trying to defend policies. Has your campaign had trouble this week?

AA: Someone has to lead in this country and Labor has been leading from opposition and Bill Shorten has been showing courage in putting forward those policies.

PK: Does your campaign need a reset because you’ve been constantly on the back foot all week?

AA: Well, we make no apologies for the fact that unlike the current government that went to an election in 2013 promising no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to the ABC, and then did the exact opposite in the 2014 budget.

What we’re doing is outlining our plans on the economy, on infrastructure, on education, on health, on all of these matters, saying how we’re going to pay for the commitments that we’re making. I think that’s a right and mature thing to do before an election.

Updated

And on the issue of the week:

PK: Scott Morrison has been really hammering your climate abatement policies today. Aren’t voters entitled to be wary about your climate change policies if you’re not prepared to say what the total cost will be to the economy?

AA: We’ve had analysis that we’ve put out there, Patricia, which is of course the basis, the foundation of our policy is the same as what the government was adopting in their party room in terms of when they had the debate about the Neg, was adopted not once, but twice.

And the modelling in terms of the different targets which are there as was demonstrated. They both show a 23% growth in the economy, in real terms, over the decade of the 2020s.

And we know that, as well as a cost, there’s a great benefit. If one of the benefits of the Australian economy moving towards a clean energy economy is that you have, as we’ve seen with the growth of renewables, enormous benefit in terms of savings to individual households but also benefits to the national economy.

Now one of the concerns that we have is that many of those benefits that can be gained if you have first mover advantage in economic terms have been lost because we are falling behind the world.

So, for example, the practical measures that we have put forward on moving towards more use of electric vehicles, exactly the same things that Josh Frydenberg just months ago was saying was a very positive initiative and will benefit consumers.

We’ve had this quite dramatic and hysterical campaigns from Scott Morrison and other government ministers repudiating what they themselves were saying just months ago.

Updated

Still on climate:

PK: The Greens leader wants a seat at the table as Labor implements its climate policy if you’re successful in parliament. Will they have a seat at the table?

AA: What we will have is a Labor government governing for the Labor party and a Labor cabinet.

PK: You’ll have a Senate to deal with. You’ll have a Senate to deal with.

AA: The fact is, and we deal with the Senate all the time, as the current government has to do. We’ll deal with the Senate as it’s elected. But we’ll support the policies that we are putting forward, not the opportunism of the Greens political party who are frankly all over the shop, including on climate change.

They come out with policies without having any pathway to get to the result that they say they can. Whilst many people out there who are thinking of voting Green do so with the right motivations and because they want to assist in the environment, the fact is that my opponent and many of the Greens’ political candidates never actually mention the environment or climate change.

They’re more obsessed with some extreme hard left agendas which they’ve brought in from the political parties on the fringes that they used to belong to.

Updated

On the Greens, Anthony Albanese doesn’t hold back:

PK: The Greens have described Labor’s plan to allow big polluters to buy international carbon credits instead of forcing them to reduce their own emissions as like paying someone else to go on a diet. That’s the language they’ve used. Is this part of your policy up for negotiation?

AA: What hypocrites the Greens are. They speak about the policy they’d like to say they were involved with under Julia Gillard, that allowed for the trading on international markets of these permits.

They supported it. They say they’re proud of it. But once again they showed themselves to be opportunistic and of course they’ve threatened to vote against, not just this measure, they’ve threatened to vote against Labor’s very strong policies that we have and practical policies to deal with the issue of climate change.

They did that in 2009 and they’re directly responsible for the last decade of energy and climes change policy paralysis that we’ve seen. And over the last six years we’ve had no policy at all.

The Greens decide to just be opposed to anything that Labor puts forward, even when it’s exactly the same as what they were prepared to support in government and claim that they helped to assist put in place.

Updated

Anthony Albanese is being cheeky on Patricia Karvela’s Afternoon Briefing on the ABC, about Scott Morrison’s slip on nuclear power.

Morrison has tweeted that it is not the Coalition’s policy. But he didn’t actually say that when asked on Tasmanian radio today. He said it was “not, not” on the agenda, but would have to stand on its own two feet.

But like a three-eyed fish, Albo is looking to grab the headlines:

PK: He said it’s not their policy and you said he needs to explain where he will put the nuclear power plants. He doesn’t because it’s not their policy.

AA: Why did he raise it? Why did he put it on the agenda if they haven’t been giving consideration to it? That’s what he’s got to answer. Why it is that during an election campaign Scott Morrison, so desperate to try to look like he has an energy policy somewhere, has now put nuclear power on the agenda during this election campaign. Labor’s opposed to nuclear power.

We don’t think it’s necessary and we don’t think it economically stacks up. And issues like nuclear waste and where you would locate a power plant, issues that are all outstanding, it is up to Scott Morrison to say why he has put this on the agenda today.

Updated

A reader just pointed out that Simon Birmingham, in his 2GB chat, encouraged people to vote One Liberal/National above the line – but you actually have to vote one to six.

As the AEC website reports:

On the white Senate ballot paper, you need to either:

    • number at least six boxes above the line for the parties or groups of your choice, or
    • number at least 12 boxes below the line for individual candidates of your choice.

I vote below the line, so didn’t pick it up, but yes, they are very right.

Updated

Clive Palmer to run as United Australia's top Senate pick

In the least shocking news this election, and that includes Michael McCormack talking about throwing nails in the soil and growing crowbars, Clive Palmer has confirmed he will be running as his party’s number one Senate pick.

That leaves the United Australia Party Herbert candidate to be ... Greg Dowling, continuing Palmer’s habit of recruiting former NRL and Origin players to be his candidates. At least this one played for Queensland, even if it was around the same time I was learning to walk.

Updated

Just an update on school funding:

Asked about Jim Molan’s vote below-the-line campaign on 2GB earlier today, Simon Birmingham had this to say:

Well, I urge every voter to vote for the Liberal party and if they are going to vote below the line to make sure they vote for every Liberal and National candidate first and foremost before they deviate. Of course I would encourage people to make sure that they follow the simple thing with their vote which is to vote one above the line and that way you can guarantee that it flows through all of the Liberal-National candidates.

Updated

Kelly O’Dwyer responds to today’s labour force figures:

Today’s Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force figures demonstrate the benefits of a strong economy, with 1,316,000 jobs created since the Coalition government came to office in September 2013.

There are more Australians in work than ever before. Total employment has increased by 304,700 over the year to a record high of 12,791,500. Full-time jobs growth increased 48,300 in March 2019, and in the last twelve months 95 per cent of the jobs created have been full-time jobs.

Under the Coalition female employment has reached record highs, with female employment currently at 6,000,600. Under the Coalition we have also seen the lowest gender pay gap on record and record high levels of female workforce participation.

Updated

Ahhh social media:

Updated

The campaigns have gone quiet – Scott Morrison is finishing up in Tasmania, and is planning on heading back home for the Easter break.

Bill Shorten is also wrapping up, up north (he was at the Tiwi Islands, as well as Darwin), and will also head home to Melbourne.

There will be happy family snaps, I would imagine, but not a huge amount of campaigning until the campaigns whirs back up again on Sunday night, ready for Monday.

Updated

Christian Porter was on Perth radio 6PR this morning, talking about GetUp’s campaign in his seat of Pearce. From the official transcript:

Porter: They have said clearly, I think, that they have no intention of halting campaigning on Friday and Sunday, but they just don’t think the rules apply to them and it is right across the board. Even to the point of accepting foreign donations. So they campaigned against foreign donations. As a government, we the Liberal government banned foreign donations and then in the last days leading up to that ban going through parliament GetUp disclose tens of thousands of dollars in foreign donations, a $95,000 one-off foreign donation, they were asked about the nature of the donation – were utterly evasive – said it wasn’t for campaigning, said it was for climate research. Why would anyone give GetUp money for climate research, they’re not a research organisation.

Jane Marwick: They just, babe, honestly they do your head in.

CP: Just in my seat right, they fly in people, they bring a lot of money from Sydney so they do a lot of letterbox dropping and phone calling, but yeah we had people outside our office and it was a tiny group of people. A great number of them from over east, there were sort of 12, 14 people. This is not a grassroots movement for WA.

Updated

And the response:

Shane Stone was appointed in March, following the god-awful Queensland floods:

Shane Stone’s appointment as head of the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency further builds on a life dedicated to public service.

The former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory served in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for almost 10 years. His portfolios included Attorney-General, Education and the Arts (including remote regional schools), Employment and Training, Mines and Energy, Industries and Development and Asian Relations and Trade. He had a close working relationship with the NT cattle industry over many years especially the live trade to Indonesia, Philippines and Brunei.

In 2014 Mr Stone was appointed Chairman of Northern Australian Advisory Group by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Prior to entering parliament Mr Stone worked as a primary school teacher and subsequently trained as a barrister. He worked on the Royal Commission into Australian Meat Industry in 1982.

Mr Stone was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001 and appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2006 for his service to politics, industry and bi-lateral relations between Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.

Having grown up in Wodonga on the NSW/Victorian border Mr Stone understands the quiet strength of country Australians who work hard to give their families a decent life and look out for each other in the good and not-so-good times.

He believes a person should be regarded for their deeds and not their possessions, an ethos that has guided him personally and professionally.

This ethos, and his extensive experience, position Mr Stone well to lead the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency.

He reports directly to the Prime Minister and is supported by an Advisory Board comprising representatives from the northern cattle industry, affected communities and government representatives.

Former Liberal's $500,000 pay for Queensland flood job

Nice work if you can get it.

For reference, this is more than a minister, and about $2,000 less than the prime minister receives.

Updated

It’s funny the way Scott Morrison has attempted to use the BAEconomics modelling/Fisher report to attack Labor but runs a mile from its implications for Coalition policy.

BAEconomics modelled a few scenarios, including emissions reduction of 27% from 2005 to 2030 – which is roughly the Coalition’s policy, although Morrison denies this because he says the government will not introduce an economy-wide carbon price.

And what did BAEconomics find about use of international carbon credits?

  • A 27% emissions reduction target with Kyoto carryover credits implies a $92 a tonne carbon price. When you add in international credits, that drops to $73.
  • Cumulative GNP loss from 2021-2030 falls by $9bn through the use of international credits.
  • Wholesale electricity prices will be $93/MWh with a 27% reduction target and carryover credits, falling to $91 if international credits are used.

In fact, almost every industry sector is projected to be better off if they’re able to access international credits:

Now, as I’ve noted previously there are reasons to be wary of this modelling, including that it DID NOT model any benefits from mitigating climate change.

But one thing it did show: whether you’re adopting the Coalition’s 27% emissions reduction target or Labor’s 45%, carbon abatement is cheapest when you can buy international credits.

Updated

Meanwhile, on the wombat trail, David Littleproud has sent out this statement:

Labor has made the extraordinary admission it has no idea how much carbon it needs or intends to save through stopping farmers managing native vegetation on their land.

The Land newspaper today says:

“In responding to questions from The Land, Opposition Agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon and Climate Change and Energy spokesman Mark Butler could not say how much carbon they forecast would come from their land clearing reforms.”

Minister Littleproud said Labor had admitted it had no idea how much carbon it would save through its moves in other industries as it hadn’t yet negotiated with them.

“Now it admits it has no idea how much carbon it would book from taking away farmers’ rights to manage vegetation on their land,” Minister Littleproud said.

Full-time job growth is up by 48,300, but the economy lost 22,600 part-time jobs, which has seen the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate inch up 0.1%to 5%.

Updated

Meanwhile, Chris Bowen has gone on the attack over the number of government MPs who couldn’t put a figure on the higher income tax cuts:

Scott Morrison today could not explain basic and fundamental details of his income tax plan and how much of the benefits flow to the highest income earners.

No wonder the Liberals have long since stopped talking about their two-week old budget – it’s full of high-income tax cuts based on $40bn a year in secret cuts.

The Liberals cannot say how many billions of dollars flow to the highest income earners or what cuts will need to be made over the next decade to fund them.

Updated

Labor says it's 'extraordinary' Morrison is 'contemplating' nuclear power

Tony Burke has been pretty quick off the mark responding to Scott Morrison’s ‘it’s not not on the agenda’ answer to nuclear power.

Nuclear power is against the law in Australia. It is extraordinary that Scott Morrison is now contemplating changing the law to allow nuclear power stations in Australia.

Several places have been identified in the past for nuclear power stations – like Jervis Bay, Townsville, Bribie Island, Mackay. Where is Morrison proposing to put his nuclear power plants? Which coastal community is under threat?

Updated

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson on international credits. Industry is for it (which is Labor’s policy):

Australia should continue to engage with the international community to achieve environmentally effective and efficient climate change policies that minimise costs and distribute the international burden of mitigation equitably without compromising Australia’s international competitiveness.

We need to mitigate the extent and impact of climate change in a cost-effective way.

Australia’s carbon emissions reduction policies should be stable, predictable and provide long-term certainty for business. They should include access to credible international offsets; be market-based; implemented nationally; and minimise the potential for carbon leakage.”

Updated

Scott Morrison opens the door for nuclear power

Oh the joys of live radio. Scott Morrison was speaking to Brian Carlton on Tasmanian LA FM, and was asked about the government’s agnostic approach to energy generation:

BC: “...Why is nuclear not on the agenda?”

You might remember that question from Boomer Bingo in Corangamite a couple of days ago. Morrison largely dodged it then. But today, we get:

“Well, it’s not, not on the agenda. Wherever it can come from is fine, but it’s got to be sustaining.

“I mean I am not going to roll out tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, that is not the future of energy efficiency ...

BC: That is happening with renewables anyway.

SM: “No, we are shutting that down, we are shutting that down. Our policy ... is to shut that down, because they can stand on their own two feet. And they should.

BC: “Shouldn’t the nuclear industry be able to do the same, I know they can.”

SM: “Well, they can, if it can pay its way.”

BC: “OK, so you’ll be happy to take submissions from big nuclear manufacturers, the Toshibas ...”

SM: “Well, if they want to put them forward, they can, but the point is this. Over all this period of time, when these issues have been raised and Ziggy Switkowski, did a major project for the Howard government on this, and it came back and it didn’t come back it could support itself. So I mean, whether you put subsidies in, or you put the prices up, Australians end up paying, so I am fairly careful about not throwing tax payers’ money around, or companies’ money around. And I want to make sure that money stays in the hands of Australians, so they can spend it on their priorities and in our community, and our economy, because that’s what makes us stronger.”

Updated

It continued.

Tom Connell: Right so and I understand you pressed Labor for their what it would impact on the economy one would assume there’s every chance it’s more of an impact. That’s the question they’re being asked and they are being asked it. But you said that there, there would be an economic impact of your plan, what is that impact?

Arthur Sinodinos: Well the impact that we factored in when you look at our projections in the Budget and whatever indicates it would not be a large economic impact. But the point we’re making is that we believe that is a cost that the economy and the Budget should incur to deal with climate change. But it’s a more balanced way forward than the plan Labor of putting forward.

We’re happy to sit down with Labor and compare numbers on all of this Tom but the point that -

TS: Yeah, I understand that -

AS: Labor, Labor are very keen to argue in generics and say something’s got to be done and I hear this from some of the independents as well and they talk about it in the broad what we’re saying is we’re happy to have a debate on the costs and benefits but they are the ones who are saying that more urgent action is required. We’ve baked in our numbers to our Budget and everything else and we’re moving forward in a way that we think is balanced and sensible for the economy. We’re not seeking to impose the sort of cost that Labor is talking about.


TC: Yeah you do keep pressing Labor on a figure either the cost to the economy in percentage terms or billion dollar terms. What’s your figure?

AS: Well our figure is that economic growth would be largely unaffected. There might be some small impact if you look at the work that Brian Fisher has put out the reduction is a cut to a couple of zero percent points off growth. In other words a very low amount over the period to 2030. Whereas Labor’s plan in the broad appears to suggest a bigger impact on GDP and the employment.

TC: Alright but there’s, there’s no figure we can get from you?

AS: well a Brian Fisher modelling which is out there by it by someone who is independent the government and the opposition

TC: Which I think mentioned tens of billions of dollars to the economy. So that’s the figure you’d adopt, the same one as them?

AS: Well what he’s saying is though if you look at it as a proportion of the economy over time it’s relatively small compared to the proportion of the economy that may be affected by what Labor are talking about.

OK, it took a while to get this, because it happened just before the Scott Morrison press conference, so apologies for that.

But here is Arthur Sinodinos attempting to answer Sky News’s Tom Connell’s questions about the cost of the Coalition’s own climate policy.

AS: Labor is saying that the polluter will pay but of course polluters who have market power, carbon polluters what they will do is pass those costs onto consumers. We need to understand the full costs – not because we should not take action on climate change but because we’re arguing that we have a balanced policy which allows us to meet our commitments for climate change, meet our international commitments in a way which is balanced and sensible for the economy going forward.

What we’re saying about Labor is that the cost implications of what they are seeking to do has major implications for the structure of Australian industry, Australian jobs and that people should spell this out and work out whether that cost is worth incurring for the benefits we will gain.

TC: What are the cost implications of your plan.

AS: What’s that sorry, Tom?

TC: What are the – you mentioned Labor’s plan – what are the cost implications of your plan?

AS: Well the plan that we’ve got; the 26 to 28% by 2030 would involve reducing emissions by something like over 300m tonnes. There’s also the carryover from Kyoto. It would have some impact on the economy and jobs as we go forward. But that economic impact is smaller than the impact of the sort of policies that Labor is talking about and we think it’s an impact that the economy can absorb as part of the cost of meeting the challenge of climate change.

Updated

Craig Kelly, who continues to do live TV like he’s yelling at you outside a ute window to move your car, is now explaining that George Christensen is a “great member” and the “people of north Queensland would do well to re-elect him”.

Asked about Christensen missing committee work, to go to the Philippines, Kelly says he can’t answer that because he doesn’t have all the detail (because that has ABSOLUTELY stopped him in the past).

This next bit is not direct quotes, because my eyebrows were somewhere near the Tweed, but paraphrasing ...

Tom Connell: But that is the detail

Kelly: I haven’t seen the detail, but I can tell you he’s an excellent local member.

Updated

Scott Morrison is out quoting the government’s favourite modelling to claim that Labor’s climate policy will cost workers $9,000 each.

As we reported in March BAEconomics modelled a 45% reduction by 2030 with a renewable energy target of 50% BUT it assumed emissions must reduce by the same amount year-on-year. Labor’s policy does not assume a year-on-year reduction and this gives it leeway to set a less strict target for 2025 then ramp up with bigger reductions towards 2030.

As Malcolm Turnbull himself suggested in a draft speech, leaked to Guardian Australia in December, the cost of meeting a 45% reduction target by 2030 “may not be as high as it would appear” if Australia is allowed to start slowly and accelerate emissions reduction towards the deadline year of 2030.

“There is some modelling already from Frontier Economics which suggests that Labor’s 45% target will not result in higher prices,” the early draft said.

Other relevant things to know about the BAEconomics modelling:

  • The modelling states that it “does not attempt to estimate the possible economic consequences linked to climate change itself”, implicitly ignoring the benefits to Australia of mitigating climate change through stricter targets.
  • The modelling also does not account for new policies released by the Coalition to boost its environment credentials, including the $1.38bn capital injection to the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project. Labor says that project will reduce the cost of firming renewable energy to $70/MWh instead of the $200 calculated by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the estimate used by BAEconomics.

Updated

Craig Kelly is the latest one to try and attempt to explain why he can’t put a number on the tax cuts.

It’s ... not great.

Updated

It continued:

KG: Yeah that’s fine, but you still haven’t given us a number – so the government knows but is just not sharing that number?

SB: The opportunity that Australians need to focus on here, is for those who are going to have bracket creep eliminated under our policies. And if you’re an Australian who is earning around $80,000 a year, you’re at real risk under the Labor party, under their policies of being pushed up into higher tax brackets, whereas under us we are going to eliminate that 37-cent-in-the-dollar tax bracket for those middle income earners, so there is an incentive to be able to work an extra shift, work an extra day, be able to actually go out and keep more of your hard-earned earnings, and to be able to spend on the things that matter. To pay down your mortgage faster, to invest in your superannuation, something which Bill Shorten will tax to the tune of an extra $34bn even though he pretended earlier this week that wasn’t the case. In the end we want to make sure that Australians have that incentive to work, to invest and to save for their future.

Updated

While the WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS debate continues to rage, Simon Birmingham was the latest MP to come up with a million different ways to say “I don’t know how to answer this”.

This is from Sky News this morning, when Kieran Gilbert was asking Birmingham what the figure is for the government’s tax cuts for high income earners.

SB: What’s relevant here, is that we are keeping the progressive nature of the tax system, in terms of those high income earners in place. That, if you are in the top 20% of Australian income earners, you’re currently contributing around 60% of the income tax take in Australia, and under our reforms, you’ll still be contributing around 60% of the income tax take in Australia. So we’re not changing the fact that high income earners pay the vast majority of income tax in Australia currently, and they still will under our changes. But what our changes do do, is they say, if you’re an ordinary income earner in Australia, if you’re a middle income earner, and you’re going to take on an extra shift, work a second job, get a promotion, you’re not going to be pushed up into a higher tax bracket.

Because for those people, they’re not looking at the $180,000 plus, or $200,000 plus tax bracket, they’re working within the range where the risk is you get pushed into that 37 cent in the dollar tax bracket, that we are abolishing but Bill Shorten will keep. And the fundamental difference in terms of where Australians start to pay more tax under Labor’s policies compared with ours is for income earners starting at $45,000

KG: But do you know what the number is? Do you know what the figure is? Are you just not sharing it? What is it?

SB: Well, Kieran – what’s important is we don’t want to buy into Labor’s scare campaigns that they will run in this space, we want to make sure that people understand high income earners in Australia, will still continue to carry the overall heavy burden of paying income tax. The top 20% of income earners today, pay around 60% of income tax, and they’ll still pay –

Updated

Then Scott Morrison finishes up to go to an event.

Which leaves Michael McCormack to explain how great a member George Christensen is, and how he hasn’t been overseas since July last year, so everything is cool beans.

He actually gets a bit of a flush, so you know he’s super agitated.

Updated

Question: Out of interest, will your candidate here, Mr Pearce, be preferencing One Nation last?

Scott Morrison: These are decisions made by the party organisation. We will not be putting One Nation ahead of the Labor party, that’s the decision of the Liberal party.

Updated

Question: BAEconomics says that 78,000 jobs will be lost under your climate policies ...

Scott Morrison: No, Miranda, I’m sorry ...

Q: And you’re using that modelling to criticise the Labor party in saying they’re going to lose jobs and half a trillion dollars to the economy. But you’re also doing, what, half as bad ...?

Morrison: No, Miranda, I’m sorry. You’re not comparing apples with apples. The policy that BAEconomics modelled was on an economy-wide carbon-price way of reducing emissions. That’s not what our policy does.

Q: You won’t be losing 78,000 jobs due to your 76% reduction?

Morrison: No. No.

Updated

Question: Prime Minister, can I just clarify - I just want to make sure - you’re saying that you don’t accept the BAEconomic modelling of the coalition’s policy ...?

Scott Morrison: My point is the BAEconomics is not a modelling of our policy. What it is is a modelling of an economy-wide carbon price.

Q: So therefore ...

Morrison: Therefore, no, it’s modelling a different set of measures. See, we’re not going to have an emissions intensity scheme.

We’re not going to have a carbon tax. We’re not going to have a carbon price. That’s not what we’re proposing. We are dealing with our emissions reduction by directly purchasing the abatement through the budget, so the cost of that is $3.5bn. So that’s why I’ve been happy – at the ice-creamery yesterday, one of those projects was the $50m we’re putting into efficiency of energy appliances in businesses.

There’s others around Snowy 2.0. There’s others around, in particular – and I know Michael will be excited about this – is us getting on with the interconnector between Tasmania and Victoria. And we’re funding the first part of getting the development work done on the Marinus Link.

This is going to open up serious jobs here in Tasmania. Only the other week when I was in Ulverstone talking about the skills package we’ve put here into northern Tasmania to ensure that Tasmanians can go and get the jobs of realising the nation-changing Battery of the Nation project which will be focused right here in northern Tasmania, and it’s going to have a big impact on jobs and the future of young people.

Updated

He continues:

That’s what our cost is. That’s how it’s comprised. We’re taking the direct-action approach to meeting our targets.

And that direct-action approach has worked. As I’ve reminded you all – and I will remind you again – when we came to government, there was a more than 700m tonne climate emissions reduction deficit to meet the Kyoto 2020 targets. More than 700m tonnes.

We have turned that around, and we will meet our Kyoto 2020 targets – targets that Labor set and weren’t meeting. We will now not just meet them, but beat them to the tune of 369m tonnes.

Now, Labor are now saying that, by 2030, that they need to reduce emissions by 1.33bn tonnes. Our target is 328m tonnes. And if Bill Shorten thinks that’s going to cost the economy the same, well, frankly, he knows less about his policy than he’s even demonstrated to date.

Updated

Question: You had a go at Mr Shorten for not knowing the cost of his carbon policy. What is the cost to the economy for the 26% ...

Scott Morrison: I’m happy to tell you. The cost is $3.5bn. That’s the cost.

Q: The economic rate? What’s the economic – the cost to economic growth?

Morrison:

The cost was 0.6%. That wasn’t based on the same – that’s to GDP - that wasn’t based on the same policies we’re now proceeding with.

A lot of the modelling you see on the 26% is actually based on an economy-wide carbon price.

And the BAEconomics work that was done on the 26% target was based on policies that provided an economy-wide carbon price.

Now, it is not our policy to have an economy-wide carbon price.

It is our policy – through the $3.5bn Climate Solutions Fund – to have, as you know, through the previous Emissions Reduction Fund – a reverse auction where we purchase the abatement, the emissions reduction – and that cost is a direct cost to budget, and that cost – together with the other initiatives we’ve already announced – is $3.5bn.

What Bill Shorten is doing – whether it’s the requirement for companies to purchase these tens of billions of dollars of foreign carbon credits from goodness-knows-where – I mean, the Australian reports today it’s $25bn. As I said, our estimate is closer to $35bn.

That is a direct cost on the economy. And it’s more than that. It’s really more than that.

Updated

Question: Messages have revealed secret plans from the alt-right to use Queensland Senator Fraser Anning to expand its agenda in the Australian parliament and beyond. What do you make of those?

Scott Morrison: Well, they sound quite like conspiracy theories.

Updated

Question: Prime Minister, what is the total value of your income tax cut package for those earning more than $180,000 over the next 10 years, and is the Australia Institute figure ...

Scott Morrison:

The Australia Institute?! The Australia Institute...?! OK, well, I’m not going to – the Australia Institute is well-known. It’s a leftwing activist group. I’ve never relied on advice from the Australia Institute, and I’m not about to start doing it now.

What I can tell you is those on the top rate of tax, at the end of our tax plan, will be paying a greater share of the income tax burden then than now.

So the progressivety of our tax system is actually improved, even after our changes. So those who are earning less than the top marginal tax – they’re on less than the top marginal tax rate – they will actually be paying a smaller share of the overall tax burden under our policies than they are today. So what that means is we’ll have a tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar from those earning $45,000 through to $200,000.

So that means, if you’re earning $45,000, you’ll be paying less tax. In fact, if you’re earning $40,000, you’ll be paying less tax, because you’ll be on a 19-cent rate, not a 32.5-cent rate that Bill Shorten wants to impose.

See, what this whole tax debate boils down to is this – we believe that what you earn – and more of it – should stay in your pocket. Because we think you’ll do the best with it for our economy and for your family.

Bill Shorten’s higher tax policies believes that what you earn is better off in his pocket.

And that he can spend your money better than you can. Now, that is the clear choice at this election. Do you think that your money is better off in your pocket, or in Bill Shorten’s pocket? I think it’s better off in your pocket, and I’m gonna make sure you can keep it in your pocket.

Updated

Question: The only energy plan you had was one that you dumped and we lost a prime minister over. When are you going to come up with a new, defined plan that marries energy policy with climate policy?

Scott Morrison:

I’m sorry, that’s actually not the case. The reliability guarantee that was actually taken through the states and territories was our policy. And that’s now in place. That requires the buying of reliable energy into the energy market on the east coast.

We’ve already put in place the arrangements on the big energy companies, which is already seeing discounts being provided and real savings being made from the big energy companies, whether it’s to those who are in the most vulnerable position – we’ve got rid of those sneaky fees that are applied on energy customers which they’re hit with for late payments.

We’ve got a responsible emissions reduction target – 26%. Our emissions reduction target for 2030 – we’ll hit it. We’ve gone through every tonne of how we’re going to do that.

Now, Bill Shorten – you know, one day, he can’t make his negative-gearing policy add up, so he takes it off the website.

The next day, he can’t remember that he’s putting taxes on superannuation – some $34bn – and today, he still can’t tell Australians what the cost of his emissions reduction policy is on Australians.

Now, BAEconomics have said what it is. It’s $9,000 for every wage earner.

That’s what they’ve said. And he hasn’t been able to dispute it. And today, he can’t even tell you how much money that companies are going to have to send offshore – the Australian reports today that it’s $25bn – we actually think it’s higher than that. I understand it’s around $35bn that they will force companies to send offshore for those foreign carbon credits that could be invested here in Australia in employing more people, increasing wages ...

I mean, they have a 1.3bn-plus tonne carbon emission job they’ve set for themselves. Ours is 328m tonnes. If Bill Shorten thinks it’s the same cost to the economy for 328m tonnes and 1.3bn tonnes, then he knows less about his own policy than I think we’ve seen.

Updated

Question:

Prime Minister, Bill Shorten today has accused you, again, of cutting funding to health and hospitals. He’s called you “a cutter-in-chief”. How do you respond to that?

Scott Morrison:

[Laughs] Well, look, I know Bill’s got his troubles, and he’s certainly getting a bit more desperate as each day passes and, therefore, he makes these sorts of claims.

But the truth is that we’ve increased funding for hospitals around Australia by more than 60% since we came into government.

We’ve increased funding for schools – public schools, state schools – by more than 60%.

We’ve increased funding for aged care by 50%. We’ve increased funding for Medicare by 27%.

We’ve increased funding for mental health services by 45%. We’ve been investing the dividend of the stronger economy and the strong budget management that we’ve put in place back into the essential services that Australians rely on. Bill Shorten, no doubt, will want to try and distract attention from his own woes.

I mean, we’ve already seen, yesterday – and the day before – he couldn’t even remember a $34bn superannuation policy.

He said he misheard the question. It wasn’t like he, you know, forgot the footnote on Page 7 of a policy. He forgot the entire policy, as if it never existed. Now, you know, I’m a pretty keen sports fan.

I might forget the name of one or two players on the roster. But I don’t forget the entire team.

And that’s what Bill Shorten did yesterday. I thought what he said yesterday, frankly, lacked credibility. As the campaign goes on and he gets more desperate and makes more desperate claims, I think that’s what the Australian public see it as.”

Updated

Question: What should the Hodgman government do about the controversial gender laws?

Scott Morrison: What should they do about them?

Q: Do you think they should repeal them?

Morrison: As a Liberal – I know the Nationals are the same – we respect the sovereign parliaments of the states and territories. That is, indeed, what the sovereign parliament of Tasmania has decided – then, that’s a matter for Tasmania. Simple as that.

Updated

Question: Prime Minister, will your government support placing AFP officers at a redeveloped Hobart Airport?

Scott Morrison: That is what the Hobart City Deal provides for.

Question: Prime Minister, you seem fairly confident about winning back Bass. How are you feeling about Braddon?

Morrison:

What I’m focused on is keeping northern Tasmania, north-eastern Tasmania – all of Tasmania – heading in the right direction. That’s been driven by the strong economy which the Hodgman government – working together with our government – is achieving here.

As I said yesterday, the Tasmanian economy is rocketing up the leaderboard of state and territory governments around the country.

Wherever I go, I find this – people excited about their future here in Tasmania, Tasmanians coming home to Tasmania, Tasmanians – we were with a whole bunch of them last night – they were born here, not far from here, in Devonport.

They’re staying here in Devonport. They see a future for them in northern Tasmania.

I’m excited about that. There’s a big transactional cost of walking away and moving away and changing government. Changing government to the Labor party, at a federal level, puts that future at risk. And so that’s the simple point we’re making.

You keep the economy strong, you can pay for the essential health and hospital services.

Today I’ll be making an announcement of an additional $25m going into, particularly, north and north-eastern Tasmanian health services.

That’s on top of the $91m – almost $92m – I announced when I was here last week in Launceston.

The dividend of the strong economy that has been running, both at a Commonwealth level and, indeed, as Michael knows it, a state level, is our ability to work together to invest in those important health services here in Tasmania.

Updated

Lots of cost questions today:

And Labor has found its response:

Michael McCormack then steps up, after theatrically looking at his mobile phone:

The time I’ve just taken to look at my mobile phone there - just to glance across at it - if I were driving a car, I’ve just travelled - without looking at the road - from here to the road behind me. 55m, at 100km/h. 55m that I’ve taken my eyes off the road to look at my mobile phone.

And I urge and encourage each and every driver, this Easter weekend - indeed, every weekend, every day of the week - don’t get distracted. Obey the rules. Make sure that, when you’re driving a car, you think of the other uses on the road. You think of the passengers in your car.

You think of yourself, and think - “do I want to put the SES, do I want to put our fantastic emergency service workers, to the fraught peril of having to pull me out of my vehicle when I’ve looked at my phone and run off the road?” It only takes two seconds. It only takes one second.”

He then drops the “very important pin” he is wearing.

The prime minister starts with a road safety pledge, as well as asking that all sides respect the no campaigning agreement this easter:

One of the key things I highlighted when I came into the job as prime minister – I said I wanted to keep our economy strong so we could guarantee the essential services Australians rely on.

I said I wanted to keep Australians safe. And this is an important part of keeping Australians safe on our roads – particularly over an Easter long weekend.

And I want to keep Australians together. Families together. Communities together.

And I hope and pray that, over this long Easter weekend, Australian families – Australians – will connect with each other in a really special and wonderful way, and it will be a time of great coming together in our communities and as families.

I wish everybody – I wish everybody – a very, very happy Easter and, as we go into Good Friday tomorrow, as you know, there’ll be no campaign advertising on Good Friday or on Easter Sunday – and I would hope that everyone would respect that, not just the major parties, but the activist groups or the unions and others – I’d just ask – just respect the Easter long weekend.

Give Australians the opportunity to just go and enjoy the weekend this weekend together, particularly those who hold a strong faith, that they can really celebrate the real true message of Easter.

Updated

And then we move to Scott Morrison to Tasmania.

And on that note, Bill Shorten finishes up the press conference and heads to the Tiwi Islands.

Question:

Bill Shorten, regarding your claim that, with your policy climate policies, we’d have GDP growth of 23% in the 2020s - is that business as usual, the same as if you didn’t have the climate plan? Where did you get the numbers from?

I understand it’s from the McKibbin report. Isn’t that figure outdated now?

Shorten:

First of all, it’s publicly available ... the campaign against the changing of the guard by this government is malicious and stupid.

It’s malicious because there are elements of the rightwing – who’ve undermined even people in the Liberal party to take action on climate change.

Whenever we talk about commonsense on climate change, you just get a scare campaign run by the more extreme elements - hang on, this is really important – ’cause climate change is an important issue in this election. It’s a malicious campaign by this government.

What they want to do is scare Australians and say that it’s too hard to take action on climate change.

Even though they ignore the fact that 2m households have solar on their rooftops. It’s also a stupid campaign. And this goes to costs.

You know, the world is moving far more investment into energy generation from renewables.

It is stupid to want to miss out on what the rest of the world is doing. It is stupid to say to people that you don’t need to change, that nothing needs to change, and you can all have it all very good in the future without change.

This is a malicious and stupid campaign. And when I hear people say “Well, the McKibbin report - those figures aren’t right.”

Well, do you know what? In climate change, there will never be enough figures to satisfy the climate sceptics. If you don’t believe in the science of climate change, no amount of evidence will ever convince you because, fundamentally, it’s a stupid position not to take action.”

Updated

There are a few questions on what Labor would do with the Community Development Program.

Pat Dodson takes the question and says:

Look, if you’re penalised for eight weeks and you have no income, what do you think your kids do?

They start to break in. They get into trouble. And you have a problem with kids on the streets. Going hungry. That’s what this scheme does. It creates poverty. It creates discrimination.

And it’s totally ineffective in getting any drive towards real work, real wages, and real employment.

What we’re about is going back to something like the old CDEP scheme, where the community has a say over the work, there’s real wages, and it’s work - if you work, you get paid, if you don’t work, you don’t get paid.

So the mutual-obligation matter will be there. In relation for training and skilling up of people in these remote regions.

And any of the savings will go back into these remote places for improving the social opportunities, as well as for the entrepreneurial activities so that people will be able to begin small businesses, look at creating opportunities for training with a hub-and-spoke type approach where we bring skills into these communities, help train people up not only in the trades areas but in the service areas, so that we’re keeping people on their communities and keeping people in control of their own destinies, rather than trying to extract them out of these places, plunk them on the fringes of some of these towns, and where they end up in the law courts or in the prisons.

So this is about going back to empowering First Nations peoples, giving them real control, and giving them some dignity. This government has totally ripped the guts out of Aboriginal people.

It has totally treated Aboriginal people without any honour and any respect. And that’s a big legacy we’re going to have to turn around. And we start with the reform to the CDP.

Question: $25bn is a lie, Mr Shorten, you say, but isn’t the problem here you don’t have a number to put in its place? And as long as you don’t have a number to put in its place, why should we be confident that you’re taking the Australian economy somewhere where you know how it’s going to be affected at the end of the line?

Bill Shorten:

You and I know this is a fundamentally dishonest debate. It’s not you or the people asking the questions - it’s what the government’s saying.

It is so dishonest. You all recognise a scare campaign when you see one.

I’ll give you three numbers. 50,000 more jobs in renewables if we go down our path. I’ll give you another number: $18bn, the cost of natural disasters. I’ll even give you a more modest number.

When this government – when the current prime minister was the “loyal” treasurer of the previous prime minister – if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you – when the prime minister was the treasurer, when the current treasurer was the former environment minister and Malcolm Turnbull was still on top, they said the National Energy Guarantee would deliver $550 in lower prices on household energy.

The numbers we’re using are the numbers the experts have given. They’re the publicly available numbers and, in some cases, they’re MalcolmTurnbull’s own numbers.

Updated

Question:

A report in the paper today estimates it would cost businesses $25bn by 2030 to buy foreign carbon credits. Can you say how much money you believe Australian businesses will have to pay to buy these carbon credits over the next decade? Is this $25bn figure accurate? Is it more? Is it less?

Bill Shorten:

The $25bn figure is a lie. It’s using ... You can make any number work for you if you pump in the assumptions you want to.

It’s using top-price EU carbon offset prices and saying that’s the only thing that will happen.

It’s so intellectually dishonest it doesn’t deserve to be talked about.

We’ll start looking at how we help industry meet the future. The big missing link in this whole debate – it’s as if the government never tried to do did climate change and now they’ve tried it and failed.

We’re using their industrial safeguards mechanism.

We’re using their National Energy Guarantee.

We’re going to work with our energy intensive trade-exposed sectors, cement, steel, aluminium and others, creating a fund to help them invest in new technology. The reality is that once companies – and I’ve visited the factories and organised the workforce, I’ve seen the technology, I’ve sat in the boardrooms – every company who invests in lower carbon pollution creates more productivity and more efficiency and they invest in new technology.

Updated

Question:

Have you a rough figure on how much it would cost?

Bill Shorten:

You keep going on about cost. I want to say let’s get this straight.

What is the cost of taking no action? What is the cost of no action?

I can tell you. Energy prices are up. When did this government get a leave pass on its appalling and abysmal track record on energy prices? Australians are angry.

They’re angry at a government who can’t work out taking real action on climate but want to push all the problems down the road and let our kids sort it out when they want action now.

And Australians are angry at their power bills. Cost of living is the big issue.

Cost of living and wages are the big issue in Australia. The middle class of Australia feel like forgotten Australia.

They feel like the Bob Hawke that had a view of Australia that looked after them.

They even thought John Howard had that view. The middle class are saying to the government, you’re promising nothing, you won’t take action on climate change, you haven’t got a wages policy, all you want to do is cut, cut, cut.

The big question, the big secret, is how does this government pay for its tax cuts on the never-never?

Tax cuts which go disproportionately to the most well-off in our society?

I will tell you how Mr Morrison pays for looking after the top end of town and the top 3% of taxpayers – by making you, and every Australian, pay more for your health care and get less services in your hospitals and aged care.

Updated

Question: Isn’t this issue starting to get a bit away from you? You blame News Limited. Shouldn’t you bring voters in on your plans?

Bill Shorten:

First of all, the issue of climate change has been getting away from Australia for the last 10 years. The people of Australia are fed up with politics. They want to talk about – you want to talk about what’s been getting away, why is this nation paralysed on climate change?

It’s because one-half of the Liberal party, the bully boys, bully the other half.

The reality is if the Liberal party could be trusted on climate change, Malcolm Turnbull would still be prime minister.

What’s been getting away from Australians is the fact that energy prices are going up.

We are having a technophobic debate where we’re told to be afraid of new renewables technology and double down and invest in power plants that are 50 and 60 years old.

This climate change debate for a decade has been dysfunctional and dishonest and divisive. It’s time we backed the science and we backed the people.

Updated

Question: Mr Shorten on the question of tax cuts, there’s a report in newspapers this morning suggesting that Labor has taken a decision not to offer additional tax cuts for people on incomes between $90,000 and $125,000 a year. Can I – one – ask can you confirm that Labor has taken that decision?

And – two, if you can – what does that say to people on those incomes? Doesn’t it say, “You’ve got enough money and you’re doing well”?

Bill Shorten:

Well, let’s go through the whole position on tax and I’ll be as brief as I can. Let’s just state some facts.

First of all, there’s the first round of tax cuts proposed in the next term of government, whoever forms government.

Labor said we have the same position. In fact we have a better position for 3.6 million people who earn less than $40,000.

And in fact we’ve led the tax debate. In my budget reply speech of 2018, I proposed bigger, better, fairer tax cuts and the government gradually, after a year of kicking and screaming, matched us.

On the first round of tax cuts, it’s all the same except we’re slightly better for people under $40,000.

On the second and third round, they don’t come in for a number of years and what we found when you study the fine print of the fraudulent claims of this government on tax is that they’re making promises on the never-never and are not up front with how they pay for it. Let me explain how they pay for it – cuts, cuts, cuts. This government is addicted to cuts. We’ve had six years of cuts. I never lose sight of the fact that the current prime minister was the treasurer for the last three years. He’s the cutter-in-chief of schools, cutter-in-chief of hospital, cutter-in-chief of services. How the government pays for future tax cuts, which would require you to vote for the current government at least twice in two more elections, what it does is it requires billions of dollars of cuts. The Grattan Institute exposed this, called out the secret. The other thing is that let’s look at the priorities of this government on their tax cuts. Did you know that there’s $77bn hidden away in the budget to give tax cuts to the top 3% of taxpayers? Or, put another way, in even more plain English, if you are a millionaire in Australia, you will get an $11,000 tax cut from the Morrisoon government in 2024. If you are someone who earns $40,000, you get $11 a week. For me, tax reform is about priorities. Yes, we would like to see more personal income tax reform, but what we won’t do is sacrifice the schools, sacrifice the waiting lists, sacrifice the hospitals to make an unfunded promise. And this is the inherent lie of the government’s position. They want to look after the top end of town by cutting services to everyone.

Question: There’s a suggestion that your carbon credit policy would cost Australians $625bn. I take it it’s a figure you reject. How much would it cost?

Bill Shorten:

First of all, it is just a nonsense claim. It is a nonsense claim and it is built upon the back of a big lie. It says somehow that using international offsets to help abate carbon is a bad thing.

Well, if it’s a bad thing, why don’t they go to Josh Frydenberg, the current treasurer, who used to believe it didn’t matter where you cut the carbon from as long as you were cutting the carbon. That’s our view.

That’s our view. In terms of the costs, we’re relying on the same public modelling the government has.

The News Corp climate change deniers, and their ally, the prime minister - a coal-wielding, climate-denying cave-dweller on this issue - they all say, “Look at the cost”, but never mention the cost of extreme weather events, do they?

They never mention the cost of not getting into renewables and they never mention energy prices, do they?

This is a government who used to rush out in the last few years and say energy prices are going down.

That’s been exposed. Energy prices are up 15% because we don’t have proper investment and don’t have proper rules around energy.

Updated

Shorten continues:

How the government pays for future tax cuts, which would require you to vote for the current government at least twice in two more elections, what it does is it requires billions of dollars of cuts.

The Grattan Institute exposed this, called out the secret. The other thing is that let’s look at the priorities of this government on their tax cuts.

Did you know that there’s $77bn hidden away in the budget to give tax cuts to the top 3% of taxpayers?

Or, put another way, in even more plain English, if you are a millionaire in Australia, you will get an $11,000 tax cut from the Morrison government in 2024.

If you are someone who earns $40,000, you get $11 a week. For me, tax reform is about priorities.

Yes, we would like to see more personal income tax reform, but what we won’t do is sacrifice the schools, sacrifice the waiting lists, sacrifice the hospitals to make an unfunded promise.

And this is the inherent lie of the government’s position. They want to look after the top end of town by cutting services to everyone.”

Updated

Question: Will there be any cost to business under Labor’s climate change plans?

Bill Shorten:

Our climate change plans will grow the economy, they’ll create jobs and they’ll lower power prices. I notice there’s been a bit of a debate and a bit of a scare campaign by the News Limited papers talking about international offsets for carbon pollution reduction.

I thought, well, you know, I thought this was something which both sides of politics had agreed on so I did a little bit of homework - and I found this very interesting quote, which I think goes to the baseless, fraudulent scare campaign of the Morrison government, backed up by their allies in some parts of the media.

It says, “When it comes to helping the environment, it doesn’t matter if you’ve reduced a tonne of CO2 here in Australia or in another country.”

I thought, “Well, that makes sense.”

By I was surprised to find Josh Frydenberg who said that.

The government is now scaring you about policies they used to have and support. When it comes to carbon pollution reduction, our strategy is the lowest cost abatement using a combination of international tools and domestic tools and might I also say plenty of incentives.

Did you know that if we properly invest in renewables, there would be tens of thousands of new jobs? And did you know if we don’t take action, we’ll have a greater cost on our insurance and arising from natural disasters.”

Meanwhile, on Twitter

Bill Shorten is the first cab off the election campaign rank today.

Labor is announcing $115m for Indigenous health and NT hospitals.

Updated

George Christensen is in the headlines again – the Sydney Morning Herald reports that he missed committee work because of all his trips to the Philippines.

From the David Wroe report:

A crosscheck of his travel dates with committee work reveal his trips meant he missed eight public hearings – six of which were in Queensland – out of a total of 27 held by the Northern Australia committee, which was set up to look at how to develop the Top End.

Speaking to Sky News, the Coalition’s campaign spokesman, Simon Birmingham, says Christensen “stands up for his community” after Laura Jayes questioned how it was fair he was allowed to miss work.

“I don’t think anyone could say that George Christensen doesn’t stand up for his community. He is a very vocal advocate for the people of central and northern Queensland and he does that in many different ways.

“I can say as trade minister, George is in touch with me regularly in relation to matters affecting the sugar industry, as well as the tourism industry …”

“We would all like to work from holidays,” Jayes says. “Why is it OK for him but not OK for the rest of us?”

“Well, all I am doing is relaying my personal experience that George Christensen is somebody who is frequently calling, messaging, communicating with me, arguing for his community, on issues that are important in terms of the jobs that central and north Queenslanders rely upon, the tourism industry, the sugar industry and those agricultural sectors, as well as of course his position in relation to the mining industries.”

Updated

Gerard Benedet who is heading up Advance Australia and is the brainchild behind “Captain GetUp” had a chat to Sky News about the “character” this morning.

Updated

The Australia Institute has responded to Mathias Cormann’s interview on RN this morning:

The Australia Institute stands by its modelling which shows that at least $77bn of the lost revenue from the Morrison government’s top-end tax cut plan will benefit those earning more than $180,000, and $64bn of that figure will go to those who earn over $200,000.

The government has claimed that the difference between its tax cut plan and opposition’s is $230bn over 10 years. The analysis also reveals that after the government’s tax plan is fully implemented in 2024-25, high income earners will pay a smaller proportion of tax (4% less) and low- and middle-income earners will pay a larger proportion of tax.

Updated

Jim Molan, who has been dropped to an unwinnable spot on the NSW Liberal senate ticket, is continuing his fight to keep his seat in parliament.

He’s trying to muster support for a below-the-line voting campaign but needs at least 150,000 people to do that to have any chance of making the quota.

Updated

Economy, economy, economy.

From AAP:

Labor will promise a bigger budget surplus than the Coalition instead of further tax cuts for middle-income earners to promote its economic management credentials.

The Sydney Morning Herald and the Age report the opposition had been considering a last-minute tax reform package for workers earning between $90,000 and $120,000.

But instead, Labor has decided to focus on the budget bottom line, which it believes will allow it to “burn” the Coalition over the question of budget responsibility.

The decision comes as both sides of politics are trying to convince Australians they have better tax cuts on offer before they go to the polls on 18 May.

Labor has vowed to match the government’s tax cuts for people earning up to $125,000 in its first term if it wins the election, and offer more tax relief to lower-income earners.

The party would not go ahead with the later stages of the Coalition’s tax cuts, which would be fully rolled out in mid-2025.

Updated

Just a reminder – if you haven’t enrolled to vote, you have until 8pm tonight to do just that.

Updated

Katharine Murphy has a report on the Greens’ plan for climate policy:

If Australian voters on 18 May return a parliament where Labor is forced to govern in minority, then the Greens leader has some clear expectations. He wants a seat at the table as Labor implements its climate policy, as happened during the 43rd parliament. “I would hope Shorten would show the maturity that Julia Gillard demonstrated and bring people to the table to negotiate constructively.”

In the event it’s not a minority government scenario, if Labor wins outright and the Greens are in balance of power in the Senate, Di Natale also wants it known that his party is prepared to vote against a climate policy it regards as insufficiently ambitious, as the Greens did once before, controversially, in 2009.

Ahead of the election, the shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, warned the Greens against a repeat of 2009. Butler told Guardian Australia the Greens voting with Tony Abbott against Labor’s first climate policy mechanism during the last period in government was one of the factors in shattering the political consensus at the federal level, which has prevented policy action for the best part of a decade.

Updated

On the Australia Institute’s analysis of the government’s tax cuts, Mathias Cormann rejects it as “the so-called analysis of the left-greens institute”.

That assertion is completely false, it is coming from the left-green institute which has absolutely no credibility on these matters whatsoever.

Cormann also questioned the independence of the Grattan Institute yesterday, which looked at the government’s budget and forecast surpluses and concluded it could only make it by cutting funding growth by $40bn.

But the government has accepted the Grattan Institute’s criticism of Labor’s super policy.

Updated

Fran Kelly pushes Mathias Cormann on the assumptions the government has made, given that Labor is yet to make any decisions of how much its abatement policy would rely on international permits and would wait to discuss the policy with business if it won government. Plus, you know, we don’t know how much the offset cost would be in a decade.

Cormann was undeterred: “So what you are saying there, is Labor wants to sneak into this election, wants to sneak into government, without telling the Australian people, what the cost would be to family and business, what the cost would be of the international carbon credits.”

Kelly rejects that assertion, because we can’t know with any certainty what the cost is.

“It is an estimate and it is the best available estimate given what Labor is prepared to put into the public domain,” Cormann says.

Asked repeatedly if Treasury or another department has been asked to do any costing on this, Cormann says we “obviously ask Treasury and finance from time to time to cost various policies, options” but it takes him a while to say that he is unaware if it has been asked to cost this.

“What I am aware of is Bill Shorten is refusing to outline what the cost of his climate change policy is for family and business.”

He “completely” rejects that the government is running a scare campaign.

He tries to say that it’s a “hypothetical” question that there might be modelling, and then repeats that he is “not aware of any modelling”.

But I think we can probably expect some Treasury “costings” to come out on this after the Easter break. Which will be a Treasury estimate based on figures provided to it by the government, but, also probably not totalled by Treasury. Why? Because we have seen it twice before just this week.

Updated

Mathias Cormann was interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National and continued the government’s strategy of hitting Labor’s policies, while not going into detail about the Coalition’s plan, beyond tax cuts.

Asked about the government’s claim that Labor’s proposal to look at international carbon credits could cost businesses $25bn, Cormann said it was a best estimate based on current circumstances.

The Australian reported this:

Experts believe the price of international carbon offsets could hit $62 a tonne over the decade but, allowing for an average of $50 a tonne, the hit on businesses would be about $25bn to meet Labor’s target.

This is based on an assumption that more than 500 million tonnes of abatement would have to come through either the purchase of international carbon credits or further land-clearing controls and reforestation, which would prove politically explosive in the bush.

Asked how the government knows this, Cormann said:

Well, Australia’s biggest employers would be forced to buy more than $25bn worth of international permits, you know, it is obviously based on the policy settings that Labor has put forward, given that they are, not properly answering questions, we have to come up with the best policy estimates based on the information that is out there.

Updated

Paul Karp has had a look at the Australia Institute modelling which was mentioned by Patricia Karvelas on ABC TV yesterday. The thinktank believes $77bn of the Coalition’s tax cuts would go to those earning more than $200,000.

Under the plan in the 2019 budget, those earning more than $41,000 will receive a tax cut in 2022 and by 2024 everyone earning between $40,000 to $200,000 will pay a marginal rate of 30%.

According to Treasury documents, flattening tax brackets will result in a total tax cut of $1,205 a year for a person earning $50,000, $1,955 for someone earning $80,000, $3,040 for a person earning $100,000 increasing to $11,640 for those earning $200,000 or more.

Based on the government’s figures that the Coalition’s plan will cost $230bn more than Labor’s, the Australia Institute analysis finds those earning more than $180,000 will get at least $77bn in tax cuts over the next 10 years. Most of that benefit ($64bn) will flow to those earning more than $200,000, it says.

The majority of the income tax cuts (54%) goes to those in the top 20% of taxpayers, according to the Australia Institute.

Updated

Nominations don’t close until 23 April, but the South Australian independent senator Tim Storer has ruled himself out:

After much thought and consideration with my family, with full knowledge of life as an independent senator and the implications of what this means for my young family for the next six years, I have decided to not nominate for re-election. I believe it would be disingenuous of me to ask South Australians for their vote in these circumstances.

This has been a difficult decision for me. I am deeply appreciative of the support I have received from many members of the community and the respect with which I have been treated by my fellow senators and other parliamentarians.

It’s not a surprise – Storer was aware of the uphill battle he faced to get re-elected, and so used his time in the Senate to do what he could. He was instrumental in the medevac bill, brought electric vehicles into the spotlight and fought for an increase to Newstart.

Updated

Good morning

It’s officially a week since the election was called and it’s all economy, economy, economy.

Plus talking points. Gotta love those talking points.

Today is the last full day of campaigning before both parties go dark for a couple of days over Easter. They’ll resume just before Anzac Day, but there is an unspoken agreement that the real fight doesn’t begin until everyone is back at work full time.

That’s 29 April. Which also happens to be the date of the first leaders’ debate (in Perth) and, coincidentally, also when pre-poll opens. And if you thought pre-poll was big in 2016, wait until you see how many people get this over and done with early this time around.

But this strange little campaign train keeps on chugging. It’s a bit like being on the climb on a rollercoaster. You can see the loops and drops coming, but you just have to sit there, strapped and unable to move as you inch closer, questioning every life decision which has led you to this point.

Climate policy cost versus the cost of tax cuts for higher income workers is one of the battles today.

Bill Shorten is beginning the day in the Northern Territory, to announce a suicide prevention policy, before an expected return to Melbourne for the break, while Scott Morrison remained in Tasmania overnight, with a health announcement to come. He’s expected to also head home for the Easter break.

So let’s get into it.

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
Kelly Osbourne Net Worth: Will Her Income Remain at $16M Despite Lack of New Projects?
Explore Kelly Osbourne's impressive $16 million net worth, her income streams, and how her lavish lifestyle continues despite personal challenges.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
CM Punk And Roman Reigns' WrestleMania Feud Is Hitting Hard, And There Are A Few Specific Reasons Why
This is the most heated WrestleMania feud I've seen in years.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
“Feel Better Princess?”: These 59 Photos Induce Secondhand Embarrassment So Bad, You May Feel It In Your Skin (New Pics)
A cringeworthy experience means secondhand embarrassment, which means you’re empathizing with a person. However, it also gives off the same emotions as hearing fingernails run down a chalkboard. It makes your face remain crumpled for a few good seconds, much like what the following posts might also do to you.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
73 Hilarious Tweets By Women That Had People Cracking Up
Twitter might have doubled its famous 140 character limit back in 2017, but the spirit of the perfectly crafted short joke is still alive and well. In fact, some of the funniest posts still manage to squeeze a whole punchline, a relatable moment and a little bit of chaos into…
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Cardi B Has the Best Reaction to Nicki Minaj's Sister Attending Her Concert Amid Rappers' Feud
Explore the ongoing feud between Cardi B and Nicki Minaj, including recent developments involving Minaj's half-sister, Ming Li.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
The 'Giant Hands' Conspiracy Theory: Trolls Urged Kelly Osbourne To Get Some Help After 'Corpse Bride' Look At BRIT Awards
Kelly Osbourne used Instagram to condemn online abuse after appearing at the BRIT Awards with Sharon Osbourne to collect a Lifetime Achievement Award for Ozzy Osbourne.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play