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

Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison appear in first televised debate – as it happened

Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten in Perth for the first televised debate of the election campaign.
Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten in Perth for the first televised debate of the election campaign. Photograph: Nic Ellis/AAP

And on that note, we will finish up. Sarah Martin will have a news take for you very soon and Murph will let you know how she saw it through analysis.

Me? I am going to pretend I still have a life. Maybe stare at a wall for a while. I am sure it will be just as enlightening as that debate.

We’ll be back early tomorrow morning, with both campaigns still in Western Australia. They have to make their way back to the east coast by Friday, when the second leaders’ debate, this one hosted by David Speers on Sky, is held in Queensland.

Queensland is shaping up to be quite the challenge for Labor. Last I heard, it’s looking like a zero sum game – in that the Coalition should hold all its 21 seats and maybe pick up Herbert, but lose Flynn. That was late last week, and things change, but it will make the Friday debate interesting.

But that’s still a lifetime away in political time. So let’s grab what is left of this night and go collapse in elegant heaps away from blue light and political rhetoric.

A massive thank you to everyone who followed us all day – as always, take care of you.

Updated

The ABC has just reminded me of this question:

Lanai Scarr: Mr Shorten, one of your climate policies is that you want 50% of all new cars sold in Australia to be electric by 2030. The Nissan Leaf is one of the more popular electric vehicles on the market, how much does that cost?

Bill Shorten: I haven’t bought a new car in a while so I couldn’t tell you.

Scarr: Shouldn’t you know how much that is going to cost?

Scott Morrison: I can tell you it’s 28,000 bucks more for the same type of car.

Shorten: That is great. We have a prime minister spending his times in the motor pages, that’s super.

Morrison: That’s what most Australians do, they read about cars, they read about the footy, they read about the races and the...

Shorten: I’m not talking about who won in Flemington. Can someone buy an electric car tomorrow? The problem is, it’s very hard to buy cheap electric cars in Australia because we don’t have a property market for them, we don’t have the charging stations.

Let me clear up some of the nonsenses that we have heard. What we’d like is that 50% of new cars, it’s a target ... We are not going to tell you to get a new ute.

Updated

Apparently we have to wait until 10.45pm to find out who the audience judged as the winner.

That’s a big nooooooooope from me.

I don’t know who won that. I’m too close.

I know who lost though. Oh yes.

It was me.

And it is finally done.

Oh gawd. It is still not over.

Because they were so brief in talking about what they like about each other, we are all getting punished with more of this.

It’s like when your siblings did something and your parents decide to punish you all by turning the car right around out of the Sea World car park (for instance) even though you were just sitting there doing nothing.

Updated

Bill Shorten is wrapping up with his same lines.

He too has discovered his hands. But his form fists.

Scott Morrison is finishing up with the same lines we have heard before.

But the real story here is the prime minister has apparently just discovered he has hands, and he can move them. From side to side and back again.

Anyone who ever had to give a high school oral or participate in a debate knows what I am talking about.

Updated

Yup

Lanai Scarr finishes with the “unexpected” “what do you admire questions”, because of course this is where this ends.

Morrison admires that Shorten has served in the public service.

Shorten admires Morrison’s stance on mental health.

What have we learnt?

Probably that we shouldn’t have too many of these debates.

Updated

Another audience question – this time to Scott Morrison, about Clive Palmer.

How important is Clive Palmer to your campaign, Cory asks.

Morrison gives the same answer he gave this morning – that Palmer can do what he wants with his preferences. There is a back and forth about whether Labor tried to get Palmer to preference them – “rubbish, rubbish,” says Shorten.

Mark Riley valiantly tries to bring this back on some sort of time schedule. But Shorten has prepared on this one.

“He is the unicorn of Liberal politics,” Shorten says of Palmer, mentioning again that the government has somehow managed to get to a point where it is once again being “held hostage” by Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson.

Updated

We move to questions from the floor.

Ron wants to know about franking credits and its effect on pensioners.

Bill Shorten says it won’t affect pensioners or part-pensioners.

He is now explaining what franking credits are.

Scott Morrison says it does hit pensioners – that 50,000 pensioners will be impacted (if they are in a self-managed super fund)

Lanai Scarr says something – the prime minister ignores her.

Mark Riley pulls Morrison up on calling it a “retiree tax” given that it’s not.

“They pay tax all their lives, Mark,” Morrison says.

Ron may have a self-managed super fund.

Morrison is thrilled to have his a-ha moment.

Shorten concedes that there will be a small amount of people with self-managed super funds who may be impacted.

Morrison has again taken over the questions, with comments.

As Shorten answers, the title card for QUESTION SIX jumps up.

I don’t know why we are still pretending there is any form to this.

Updated

Lanai Scarr pretends that this is just the fourth question. She asks Scott Morrison about his commentary after the medevac bill was passed. He says he based his decisions on the advice of the department. But given that one person has been evacuated since then, well, it seems the advice was not entirely right then, doesn’t it?

Bill Shorten is asked how he can guarantee that the boats won’t come back and says that Labor is committed to the same boat turnback policies.

Morrison jumps in to say that Labor is getting rid of temporary visas and that will bring back the people smugglers.

Shorten says he has learnt from the lessons of the past.

Updated

If this was the bad show, I think we would be taking this question (which, I think, is about why Labor is not accepting the Fair Work Commission’s penalty rate decision) as a comment.

Props to Scott Morrison – he manages to bring in unions, Clean Event and more unions, as well as asking about how Labor will pay its childcare wage increases.

Again, I am not sure why the journalists are here. Shorten asks why Morrison voted against restoring penalty rates eight times. He even uses his fingers, in case Morrison is confused. Morrison says the Liberal party respects the independence of the commission.

It’s like a really lame Sunday dinner.

Updated

Mark Riley moves us on to tax cuts – and whether they are necessary right now.

Scott Morrison talks about Labor wanting to take away tax cuts.

Bill Shorten is asked how much workers can expect their wages to go up by. He uses most of his time talking about how the government doesn’t have a plan.

Morrison takes over the questions again. At this stage, I am not sure why we have the journalists here.

Updated

We are now arguing about the cost of electric vehicles.

Scott Morrison jumps in to say he knows how much an electric car costs. He names $28,000.

“Oh great, we have a prime minister that spends his time in the motoring pages,” Shorten says.

Morrison says that is what Australians are concerned about.

I don’t know what we are achieving here.

Lanai Scarr takes over the questioning and asks about climate change.

Can Bill Shorten rule out job losses?

His answer is the same as usual – that Labor’s plan will create jobs.

How much of a threat is climate change, Scott Morrison, father to two young daughters (this is mentioned for some reason).

He says it is a threat, but the government is meeting it. Scott Morrison wants his kids to know how much Labor’s policy is going to cost.

We go back to Shorten.

“... In terms of policy, we want least cost abatement,” Shorten says.

He mentions again that Labor is using the national energy guarantee.

Morrison’s eyebrows head towards Bali, but he too seems to have received the memo to just stare down the barrel of the camera.

Updated

Lanai Scarr brings up this tweet:

And asks why people are voting early.

Morrison brings up that Labor has a lot of questions still to answer – like what are the costs of the tax and climate policies.

Shorten says he believes that it’s because people are ready for change.

Morrison takes over the questioning – he asks what is the cost to the economy of Labor’s climate change and tax policies.

Mark Riley jumps in to tell Shorten he can respond. Scarr tells Shorten he can look at Morrison and not just stare down the barrel of the camera. Shorten says he was told to look at the camera.

Somewhere in there Shorten says that he thinks people want action on climate change. Morrison jumps in again, when the audience starts to applaud, and then a third person (the host?) tries to bring everything back on track, because this is still just question one. Apparently.

Things are going really great.

Updated

It’s Bill Shorten’s turn on the same question.

He says the federal Icac will help restore trust, and says Labor has had its policies out there for people to judge.

And then....

“I think the real challenge of trust is how united your party is.”

He finishes with the Coalition and Clive Palmer will bring chaos line.

Updated

Mark Riley opens the questioning.

It’s on trust. That this is the third government in a row that the leader at the election is not the one who they voted in.

What will Scott Morrison do to restore trust?

Morrison launches into the “we’ve all changed our rules” speech.

That leads straight into ‘who do you trust to manage a $2 trillion economy? Who do you trust to pay down the debt?’ etc, etc, etc.

“Trust is about demonstration of performance. As an immigration minister I said I would stop the boats and I did...

“... You can trust those who have the track record of performance.”

I feel like that last line is set to a picture of a climber on a giant snowy mountain pic in some dude bro’s office somewhere.

Updated

MORE title cards.

QUESTION ONE

I am shocked, shocked to find out gambling is going on....

More dramatic music and title cards – and Bill Shorten starts with a pretty robotic “good evening everybody”.

To be fair, I am not sure how comfortable it would be for either of them in those chairs.

“When we aim to be our best, there is no holding our future back,” Shorten starts with.

Again, pretty safe opening.

They both love Australia.

Shorten rolls into his own campaign lines – better services, paying for the decisions they’ve made, everything is going up except your wages.

Update – the election is still about choice.

“We all agree that Australia is the best country in the world,” Scott Morrison says.

Seems a pretty safe opening. We roll straight into the campaign lines – record funding, low unemployment, strong economy.

Updated

Scott Morrison opens debate

The coin toss – it’s tails and Scott Morrison opens the debate.

Updated

There is no Tveeder transcription, because it’s on Seven Two (not the main channel), so strap in for paraphrasing.

The leaders are both sitting very awkwardly on two tall chairs on risers. They look like two kids who have been allowed at the adult table.

And with some VERY dramatic music, the debate begins.

And we are back!

Both campaigns are now in debate prep mode, so we are going to power down for the moment.

But it’s just a break, not goodbye. We’ll be back just before 7pm eastern time to bring you the blow-by-blow of the first leaders’ debate.

So go take a breather while I get some fresh air and I’ll see you back here (if you are so inclined) in about two or so hours.

The moderators are also going to take a short break, but we’ll turn comments back on when the debate starts.

See you soon.

Updated

On what he would do in terms of climate policies (given his history on the subject with the Gillard government):

It was Tony Windsor and I who forced the changes. Both sides have the ability to get on with embedding climate change into the processes of government. At the time we did have world-leading legislation.

I concede we lost control of the politics and that Tony Abbott, as the alternate prime minister, came in on a wave of, you know, that carbon tax message, which even his chief of staff, you know, after the event, has admitted was more about the politics than anything to do with policy.

So I’m very much still in the consistent position of, you know, what major businesses and what most Australians, I think, are coming to the position of, is we want certainty on this topic. And so we can move on to the many other issues that we need to deal with as a country.

But even as of yesterday, at the Coffs Harbour jetty markets, the National party candidate, when asked by a gentleman, “Do you believe in climate change?”, he gave the answer, “Yes and no”. We’ve got to get beyond is this real or not, and get on with delivering certainty in all aspects of government and giving certainty for the private sector. This should be good industry policy for the future and not necessarily about environmental policy.

I think I’m closer to the likes of a BHP, Woodside and Glencore when I say that compared to the two major parties about the future of leadership of this country.

Updated

The independent Cowper candidate Rob Oakeshott (so many blasts from the past this election), is having a chat to Patricia Karvelas about who he would support in the case of a minority government:

That’s an interesting question. There is a prime minister now, that’s Scott Morrison. And the day after the election, it will be Scott Morrison, if he can’t form government. He’ll have to go to the governor general to say he can’t form one. He’ll be ringing around, we’re assuming crossbench, in those circumstances.

So really, the only question is would I take his phone call? Yes, of course I would. And we’d have a discussion about the possibilities of how a parliament could run for three years, or not.

Updated

Quick pitstop in Kooyong

Loads of MPs are out at pre-poll centres today now that voting is under way, which you’d expect.

I hear the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, is handing out in his electorate of Kooyong. Close watchers of this contest will know that Frydenberg is tending his home turf carefully given he faces challenges from a high-profile Greens candidate (Julian Burnside) and a climate-focused former Liberal, now independent (Oliver Yates).

It’s interesting that Yates has given supporters two separate options on his how to vote card.

One column encourages people to vote one Yates, followed by Burnside, with the Labor candidate, Jana Stewart, at No 5 and Frydenberg at No 8 (there are eight candidates in the field).

Then there’s separate advice for Labor voters. That advice says Yates, one, Stewart, two, Burnside five and Frydenberg eight.

Labor’s how to vote advice is Stewart one, Yates four, Burnside five and Frydenberg seven. The Greens advice is Burnside one, Yates two, Stewart five and Frydenberg seven.

A uComms poll taken for GetUp in the seat at the end of March had Frydenberg on a primary vote of 42.7%, Stewart on 20%, Burnside on 17% and Yates on 10.6%. If that survey is anywhere close to accurate (and, I stress, often single seat polls aren’t) then preferences will play a role in determining the outcome.

Julian Burnside, Josh Frydenberg, Jana Stewart and Oliver Yates are all candidates for Kooyong
Julian Burnside, Josh Frydenberg, Jana Stewart and Oliver Yates are all candidates for Kooyong. Composite: Julian Smith, Mike Bowers, Calla Wahlquist/AAP/The Guardian

Updated

Michael McCormack will deliver the press club address tomorrow.

It’s an hour of uninterrupted McCormack. What could be more enthralling?

It’s the 25th anniversary of the Reclink Community Cup (Reclink works to provide sport and art programs to disadvantaged and vulnerable people) which also marks the return of DJ Albo and DJ Ged.

Anthony Albanese and Ged Kearney are both taking time out of the campaign to fundraise for Reclink (it’s not a Labor fundraiser) this Wednesday.

The vote below the line campaign continues in Jim Molan land:

Yes, Lisa Singh did manage to win her spot in the Senate despite being placed sixth on Labor’s Senate ticket through a below-the-line campaign – but it was a double dissolution and she only needed about 20,000 first preference votes. Molan is going to need a hell of a lot more. Like, 150,000 more.

Updated

For those asking in the comments about whether or not Clive Palmer will get a rail line in the Galilee Basin, just a reminder that any of those projects would need state government approval. It’s how the Naif loan for the Adani train line was stopped. The Queensland Labor government said it would not sign off on it. State sovereignty means the state’s get a say (and the next Queensland election is not until October 2020).

Updated

Anthony Chisholm has responded to Clive Palmer’s allegations. From his statement:

Most Australians know that Clive Palmer is chaotic and dishonest, and his recent press statement was another example of that.

In regards to the 2019 Federal election, I attempted to do due diligence on what the Palmer Party’s intentions were, as I have done in previous elections.

In recent weeks I had two very brief phone conversations in an attempt to discover what role Mr Palmer would play in the Federal election.

At no stage did I negotiate or offer Mr Palmer anything in regard to preferences.

I was not authorised to offer anything and I didn’t.

Bill Shorten has made it clear that no arrangements with Mr Palmer could be entertained while Queensland Nickel workers remained out of pocket, and I agree with Mr Shorten’s principled position.

There is only one Party that has a deal in place with Mr Palmer and it is the Liberal National Party.

That deal could see Mr Palmer, and his shambolic team, elected to the Senate and control the balance of power.

Mr Morrison needs to explain how the chaos and dysfunction Mr Palmer would bring to the Senate is a good outcome for the Australian people.

It’s clear that a vote for the LNP is a vote for Clive Palmer, and vice versa.

Scott Morrison will bring the cuts, and Clive Palmer will bring the chaos.

For those asking about Julia Banks, Paul Karp wrote this up yesterday:

Simon Birmingham has lashed out at Liberal-turned-independent Julia Banks for preferencing Labor ahead of the Coalition in Flinders, a move which could cost health minister Greg Hunt his seat in parliament.

Birmingham accused Banks of “gross inconsistency”, as backroom negotiations spilt out into public spats ahead of early voting opening on Monday.

Labor has gone on the offensive over preference deals between the Coalition, the United Australia party and One Nation, as a new Galaxy poll showed the major parties were treading water in the campaign while Pauline Hanson’s party was falling behind.

But in Flinders, held by Hunt with a 7% margin, Labor is the beneficiary of a preference deal with Banks, who quit the Liberal party and shifted from her seat of Chisholm to run as an independent after Malcolm Turnbull was dumped as prime minister.

Updated

We have checked with Anthony Chisholm about Clive Palmer’s version of events but he is not going on the record.

The word from Labor is there was nothing more than due diligence going on, checking up on what Palmer was up to.

Updated

Oh – I forgot to mention that Clive Palmer walked off stage immediately after finishing delivering his statement, so there were no questions.

Clive Palmer was the LNP’s biggest donor (and used to be Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s Nationals spokesman) and only fell out with the LNP over Campbell Newman’s government (it’s a long and tortuous story, involving projects not getting approved, and ending with Palmer setting up his own political party with the sole mission of taking Newman down) so a decision to preference Labor would probably be the bigger story.

Updated

There’s more, but you get the gist. The rest is just why he doesn’t like Labor.

He finishes with:

All of these issues were matters that we considered in deciding how we would allocate our preferences. We figured out the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.

No one can deny the fact Morrison has delivered a good economic numbers and a strong economy.

While we may have differences on how that strong economy is used, we cannot ignore that the Liberals’ economic management has been superior to the previous Labor governments of Gillard and Rudd who destroyed the very fabric of our nation.

It was Wayne Swan who sought to divide Australians with hate and negativity and to put wedges between fellow Australians wherever they may be.

The United Australia party seeks to unite all Australians. In summary, what we want, all Australians to vote for the United Australia party. We have to put Australia first and we’re here to win.

Clive Palmer reads a statement without taking questions from the media during a press conference in Brisbane on Monday
Clive Palmer reads a statement without taking questions from the media during a press conference in Brisbane on Monday. Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP

Updated

And still going ...

In that decision I advised him I was happy to talk with him but we were considering various parties for different positions on our ballot. Of course we were considering the One Nation party. At no time did I or any person on behalf have discussions with One Nation in respect to preferences. I was disappointed when it was revealed One Nation was prepared to sell the influence of One Nation to a foreign association for $20m. I regarded it as a sellout of Australia.

I note the Liberal party has decided to preference One Nation after Labor. So I don’t know how Albo claims they would be in government with the Liberal party.

What bothers me about the Labor party is their willingness to lie repeatedly and that must to me be an indication of dishonesty. It’s not the quality of an individual that would want to be PM of a country …

We were very concerned about their honesty and Shorten’s repeated lies about preferences confirm my judgment that he’s not morally fit to be PM of Australia. Shorten only backtracked on his statements and admitted these lies when he was found out and realised he could not hide from people what had happened. Shorten’s attack against the Liberal party highlights the double standards and a fatal flaw in his character.

He will say anything to reach his objective. He’s desperate. The Labor party and Shorten were happy to deal on preferences with the United Australia party and they wanted them but they were bad losers. You’ve seen the articles in the press about their senator contacting our senator on the Wednesday of last week, still trying to get preferences after I had spoken to Chisholm and hadn’t called him back. It was only after they realised they had missed out that they attacked the Liberal party for doing the same thing as they were trying to do.

That is why the United Australia party’s number two recommendation to voters in the House of Representatives in the Senate will go to the Liberal party of Australia. Everybody knows all parties have had to discuss preferences because that’s the system we operate under.

The United Australia party does not want preferences. We’ve want Australians to vote for the United Australia party first at this election. We could not preference the ALP because we realised if we were to do so and they won their policies would destroy Australia. They’re joined at the hip with the Greens and a vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens. Labor cannot rule without the support of the Greens.

Updated

We’re still going:

However, I then turned on the television and Bill Shorten was saying a lot of things about me which were untrue. He was lying to the Australian people. And I then decided I want nothing further to do with him or his party because they were two-faced liars. The language he used was not fit for consumption by our children and I realised he was unfit to be PM of Australia. Australians should be entitled to expect honesty from their political leaders.

Even if there were differences about policy. I decided not to call Chisholm as we had agreed. While it was true that I had discussions in the last two weeks with Michael O’Connor of the CFMEU, the previous week,[they] had not been about preferences with the Australian Labor party, and dealt with the real matters of Queensland Nickel and the steps requiring to reopen it.

The Labor government of Queensland has been blocking me investing millions of dollars in Townsville and employing hundreds of people. It seems to me it’s all about politics rather than the benefit of individuals and the community. I advised Mr O’Connor that the administrator had sacked workers over our protest and offers to keep them employed and to pay all creditors in 2016. I had decided personally to arrange for payment of any outstanding entitlements to all former workers of Queensland Nickel.

Considering the hard times being experienced in Townsville and although I was just a shareholder of the holding company of Queensland Nickel at the time, with no personal liability, I had arranged a payment of $7m for that purpose to be paid in a solicitor’s trust account so he could pay all the workers and deal with all the claims in accordance with Australian tax law. That payment has been made and he’s currently dealing with the claims that have been received.

Mr O’Connor was very helpful and offered advice on how the union movement could assist in reopening the refinery. I advised the Queensland government and the Port Authority of Townsville were still not responding to us and to provide jobs for the people of Townsville.

Updated

Clive Palmer continues outlining his discussions with Labor:

After that I attended parliament to meet with Senator Burston. While I was there I went to the Aussie Cafe and run into Bill Shorten, who said hello to me. It was very pleasant and indicated that there was a possibility of working together. Subsequently I attended parliament on budget day and was seated on the floor of the Senate. Senator Birmingham acknowledged me and Senator Penny Wong spoke to me and said, “Hello, Mr Palmer.”

Senator Cory Bernardi approached me and offered me the best for the election, saying our party will most likely receive more votes than his.

It was in this atmosphere that Senator Chisholm rose from his seat in the Senate and walked across the Senator chamber and sat down next to me. He referred to the discussions I had with the former Labor minister and asked when we were going to get together to discuss preferences in the 2019 federal election. I said I’d be back in Brisbane next week and we could make contact then. I had a subsequent phone call with him a week later, resulting in us agreeing to catch up as soon as possible.

Last week I received a phone call from him from north Queensland. He said he was with someone named Bill. I asked whether it was possible to get the United Australia party preferences, he asked. I said I was happy to discuss it and to call him the next day to arrange a meeting in Brisbane.

I knew all voters were required by law to put a preference number in all squares on the ballot and it was for the United Australia party to determine which number it would place for the Australian Labor party. Its recommendation to voters and vice versa. I did not see this as a very controversial matter because we were dealing and discussing preferences with all political parties.

Updated

Palmer continued:

The media works on the assumption our democracy won’t allow this to happen and I believe Australia is more than that … we can all do a lot more together.

To understand the event of the last week I’ll take you back to 2013, when I, on behalf of the Palmer United party, had discussions on a number of occasions on the question of the allocation of preferences with the Australian Labor party, Anthony Chisholm. He assured me he was fully authorised to discuss matters on behalf of the Australian Labor party. This had been confirmed to me by senior Labor figures I had personally known during my over 40 years of business career in politics in Queensland.

Anthony Chisholm met with me in our party offices in Brisbane in 2013 and had further negotiations and discussions that year on the question of preferences. Following his resignation as state secretary of the Australian Labor party in 2014 he was appointed as campaign manager for the 2015 Queensland state election. In 2015 I had further negotiations with him on behalf of our respective parties on the question of preferences for the then state election in matters pertaining to the Newman government in respect of what seats the Australian Labor party would stand for.

Anthony Chisholm was elected to the Australian Senate in 2016 and earlier this year I had lunch with the former Labor minister in Brisbane and he raised with me the issue of what our party had intended to do with preferences in 2019? He inquired if the United Australia party would be discussing the matter with the Australian Labor party? I said I was open to discussions with all political parties as we are required by law to number every square on the ballot. The former minister raised with me the prospect of having further negotiations with Anthony Chisholm, Senator Anthony Chisholm, in respect which I had negotiations that he was aware of in relation to the 2015 election.

Updated

Clive Palmer discusses preference deal

Clive Palmer is now holding his press conference:

I’ll give you a comprehensive statement first so that you’ll be in a state of knowledge before you go any further steps.

The system of voting is required by law that every square in the ballot paper for election to the House of Representatives must be numbered. Otherwise a vote cast in the federal election is invalid.

United Australia party is standing at 151 candidates in every seat of the House of Representatives.

Because it wants to win government in its own right. The Labour and Liberal parties have spent around $50m on their election campaigns. I’m personally supporting the United Australia party at this election on a similar basis.

To give Australians a choice and real policies that can change our country for the better. Whether or not we win or lose, it’s up to the Australian people.

But our country is richer for more diversity and more ideas. And the more people that come forward at election time can only be healthy for our democracy.

The United Australia party wants Australians to vote for the United Australia party and we don’t want to distribute our preferences to anyone. We want to win the election.

Updated

The Minerals Council of Australia has issued Labor some rare praise (from them):

MCA welcomes the federal opposition’s commitment to invest $75m in Geoscience Australia’s Exploring the Future initiative.

Australian mining and minerals processing is the nation’s largest source of export revenue and provides highly paid, highly skilled jobs to thousands of workers in regional communities.

Investment in pre-competitive geoscience exploration is essential in building a pipeline of mining projects that will deliver jobs in the minerals sector across regional Australia into the future.

This commitment will fund vital data acquisition using geophysical surveys, geochemical sampling, hydrological mapping and stratigraphic drilling.

The data collected will be analysed and integrated to provide a comprehensive picture of Australia’s mineral, energy and groundwater resources, which will support investment decision making allowing Australian companies to expand commercial opportunities and create more jobs.

Australia faces growing competition to attract the international capital the resources industry needs to convert our minerals potential into lasting economic benefits.

Commitments like those announced today are consistent with MCA’s The Next Frontier: Australian Mining Policy Priorities, which outlines a plan for the minerals sector to continue to invest and grow with confidence, supporting regional communities and a more prosperous Australia.

Updated

Question:

Prime minister, we have seen the latest results from Newspoll putting the Coalition edging closer to victory. How are you feeling and what was your response when you saw that Newspoll?

Scott Morrison:

Well, I will just say this to all Australians: there is a choice at this election and your choice matters. If you think that is out there today, it underlines the point that this is a very close election, a very close election and every vote is going to count.

The choice that Australians make is going to count. I know that Australians will take that very seriously.

All the talk of months ago that Bill Shorten would go on a coronation tour during this campaign, which he seems to go along with, I think we are seeing something quite different and that reminds I think Australians of just how close this election is, ultimately, has become, as with get closer and closer to polling day.

The choice, because it is about to rain so I think we will have to wrap it up here, but the choice is pretty simple: it is a choice of between if you want a stronger economy with plans that have been delivering a stronger economy that will take us to that $2tn economy barrier for Australia or a weaker economy under Bill Shorten.

If you want to have a government that is demonstrating that it can lower taxes for families and small businesses to encourage them so they keep more of what they earn or Bill Shorten and his $387bn of higher taxes or a government that is bringing the government back into surplus next year that knows how to manage money and particularly with the difficulties we are facing globally and the pressures on our economy, you don’t go around spending money like there is no tomorrow.

What you do is you remain calm, you have a clear fiscal plan, you bring the budget back into surplus and you ensure that you pay down Labor’s debt or the Labor party, who have demonstrated they don’t know how to manage money, and if you can manage money, you can’t run the country.

Updated

Question: In Victoria the CFMEU are suing Victoria police. Do you think taxpayers should have to defend that and put money into that case?

Morrison:

The CFMEU, I mean, I think there is 800 criminal charges against them at the moment and they are bankrolling Bill Shorten’s campaign. If you want to talk about the friends of Bill Shorten, it is the CFMEU who actually are taking place to court for doing their job of chasing them down and trying to lock them up to their criminal behaviour. So that is who Bill Shorten is hanging out with at this election. He is hanging out with the Greens the CFMEU and the 800 criminal charges that have been levied against him.

Updated

Question:

Before your party signed this preference deal with the United Australia party, did you seek assurances that the workers would be paid not just the remaining $7m but the $70m picked up by taxpayers, and if not, does it show you are happy to be associated with a candidate that is contemptuous of not just workers but taxpayers as well?

Scott Morrison:

He’s put that money aside as I understand and the other matters are being pursued through the courts. Those matters are going through the court.

Updated

Take a 'chill pill' on preference discussion, says Morrison

Question:

Has Clive Palmer put that money away? Are you seeking evidence or proof?

Morrison:

What I do know is this, Bill Shorten begged for Clive Palmer’s preferences and his mates over at the CFMEU on the reports today, it would seem were even seeking to bribe him for the preferences by trying to stitch up deals with the state government to give him access to ports in Townsville. That certainly hasn’t been part of any discussions that the Coalition has had.

... The Greens support death taxes in Australia. If that is the rule, if the rule is that where you send your preferences is the policies that you support, then Bill Shorten’s death duties and Bill Shorten is for ending the alliance with the US.

Now, I don’t believe he’s going to end the alliance with the United States, but I think we have just got to take a chill pill on this discussion.

Preferences from the major parties don’t get distributed ultimately to anyone else because they are traditionally and typically the last two candidates in the race. So I think we have got to get into this perspective.

Where we have simply said is we are prepared to offer those preferences because, frankly, after you vote Liberal and National the choices get pretty thin. They get very thin, in fact. We think, frankly, Bill Shorten and the Greens, Labor and the Greens would be far worse for the economy and Clive Palmer thinks the same and United Australia party thinks the same. That is why he knocked back their begging for his preferences and I am sure he knocked back a subtle attempt to bribe him.

Updated

Question:

The member and candidate for Fairfax, Ted O’Brien, is refusing to preference Clive Palmer second on his ticket because he doesn’t want to preference a bloke who won’t pay his workers. If Ted O’Brien makes that decision, shouldn’t the Coalition as well?

Morrison:

As you would have heard today, Mr Palmer, and you can make his own explanations, has put aside the money that is subject to those legal meetings to ensure that workers will be paid, but that is for him to go into the details of all of that. But if the implication and the LNP in Queensland will be following the preference decisions of the LNP and I have no doubt about that.

Updated

Question: Bill Shorten this morning has been talking about his childcare package and wanting to do more to assist childcare workers. He said, “We have picked childcare workers to go first.” What is your response to that?

Morrison:

Bill Shorten still hasn’t explained how he’s going to increase the wages of these workers. I mean, is he going to provide them a direct payment from the government to subsidise their wages? Is he going to give the money to the employers? I have no idea.

He hasn’t answered the question. The shadow Labor finance minister said, “In opposition, you just have to set out priorities.” No, you don’t. You are expected to be in government sitting? A cabinet in just over three weeks’ time, you should know the answers to the questions and what it is going to cost.

The other question is, what about construction workers that are being paid the same, men and women? What about people in the retail industry? What about people who are hairdressers? Is he going to subsidise their wages, too? Is this how Bill Shorten is going to run the economy? Is he going to set everybody’s wages and if he doesn’t like what they are getting paid, he she going to tax people more to send the money to them? This is his strategy for managing the economy. This is actually a serious policy that he is putting out there. All I know is this – I hear he is a reading a book to children today. It was The Cranky Bear disappointingly. It was The Hungry Caterpillar.

He will be hungry champing into your wallet, champing into your wallet, to pay for his spend-a-thon. The way we have got the budget back into surplus is being careful and responsible with our spending and careful and responsible with our taxes. That is what we will continue to do. You tax the economy too high and you slow it down. It not just a few million Australians who are impacted but 25 million Australians who are impacted because you tax the economy hot and slow it down. Bill doesn’t understand that.

Updated

Question: do you acknowledge people are still struggling to pay for childcare, despite your changes and will you match Labor’s commitment around childcare?

Morrison:

Let me first say, I am not going to engage in Bill Shorten’s spend-a-thon. As Fairfax reported today, he spent $230m a minute yesterday.

The way that you keep your economy strong and your budget under control is you keep your spending responsibly. You keep your taxes under control. That is how we have brought the budget back into balance.

Childcare costs have been a significant challenge for families and as social services minister I designed the changes to the system that has ensured that once implemented, childcare costs in this country, according to the Bureau of Statistics, have fallen by 8.9% once our changes were introduced.

That included the new setting of the subsidies based on a benchmark price. When we came to government, Labor had allowed childcare costs to rip because they had a subsidy based on whatever the childcare operators wanted to charge people. So I changed the system, so it now referenced a benchmark price and I changed the subsidy to get it up to 85% for those on the lowest incomes and they were important changes; the policy was called “jobs for families” because I know that childcare, particularly for those on lower incomes, is incredibly important, but what I also know in designing those changes at the time is you have got to be careful because, if you get your subsidies wrong, you know what they will do?

They just put up the prices. New, Bill Shorten goes around and he says, “I am going to police that.” Really, Bill? That is not what they did when they were last in government when they saw the prices go through the roof. This is economics 101 for Bill Shorten.

Put a big subsidy in, it pushes the prices up. It is the same for fodder when dealing with the drought or it is the same for dealing with childcare or any other area of public expenditure. You have got to be careful about how you managing the budget. Bill Shorten is spending like there is no tomorrow. They have learned nothing while they have been in opposition and if they get back into government, you can expect them to spend, spend, spend and you’ll pay for it. You’ll pay for it

Updated

Question:

Is the Coalition seriously targeting Freemantle?

Morrison:

We are targeting getting people into work. That is what we are doing. That is what this is about. This is about jobs in Western Australia. Thousands of jobs in Western Australia. We have got people who are coming and working here and they are travelling from as far away as Joondalup and Mandurah because this is where the jobs are.

We want there to be more jobs. Whether it is defence industry jobs here or defence industry jobs in Adelaide or defence industry jobs in Darwin or in Penguin or in Berrick or where ever it happens to be, this is what these programs do. They are really – I mean, I saw this when I was treasurer. As our economy was going through the changes that it was, big changes in the industrial nature of how Australian businesses were operating, the defence industry plan has provided a really important transition pathway for a lot of these supplying businesses and others into the defence industry. So it has been a critical and strategic investment, not just for defence industry, but for our economy more broadly.

Updated

Question:

The union has already come out and said that this is not enough, given that there already has been the Valley of Death and jobs have been lost in the interim with a lapse in shipbuilding, both here and in Adelaide. What do you have to say to that?

Morrison:

That is why we brought forward these these projects. That is why we have got 57 vessels that are now being pursued. I mean, no government hasn’t gauged on a re-equiping of it naval float like Australia has in such a time period.

I mean, I have sat on national security committee of cabinet for the last five years, sat on the ERC for the last five years. So I’ve had quite a bit of experience in working through these projects, as we have put them into place. We have worked with our allies overseas and we have been seeing what others have been doing around the world and what those allies tell us is they have never seen, even in a US context, in terms of the scale and size of what we are doing proportional to the size of our defence forces.

So this is the biggest reequipping of our naval fleet and defence force capability, particularly shipbuilding, that we have seen. That lays in stark contrast to what Labor did. If the unions want to make that point, they need to ask Labor why they didn’t commission one naval ship, not one! Not one!

Updated

Question: These four ships, no one in defence was expecting that the current class of vessels would be retired until the 2030s. What means they have to be rushed now?

Scott Morrison:

To maintain a sovereign defence industry, that continuity of build is critical. To maintain what is enormous infrastructure and skills and support, you need that chain to be continually linked out into the future and this is what we lost under Labor.

When Labor hit the brakes on defence industry spending and took us back to 1.56%, the lowest since the second world war, that is when workers lost their jobs.

The reason they did that, as I said, is because they couldn’t manage money. They had to raid the capability of our men and women in our defence force because they couldn’t pay for the things and the bills that were coming across their desk.

Managing money is critical to every element of government, whether it is being able to deliver on your promises and commitments in health or in education or aged care or mental health or, indeed, defence industry procurement and defence industry capability.

Linda Reynolds:

This was done at the request of Defence. Our advice is that new technologies are available and so we have budget forward by up to a decade $is billion project to make sure our men and women have the best possible mine warfare support.

Updated

Labor MP Amanda Rishworth has responded to Dan Tehan’s “communism” comment from earlier today:

David Cameron’s Conservative government backed free childcare in the British election in 2015.

And the conservative Abe government just passed a law for cheaper childcare in Japan.

Does Dan think these are communist agendas from conservative governments?

It was only last week the Liberal candidate claimed that Labor’s National Preschool and Kindy Program is a ‘conspiracy to strengthen government control over child-raising’.

What will the Liberals come up with next?

Updated

The bookies have Scott Morrison as the favourite to win the debate tonight, but Labor is still the firm favourite to win the election.

Updated

Scott Morrison is now holding his press conference. It looks like Linda Reynolds is there as well.

Morrison:

The Australian economy next year will break through the $2tn barrier. It’s up from $1.5bn – trillion, I should say, when we came to government. Breaking through a $2tn barrier.

When you have a plan to grow your economy, that’s what happens. That’s what we have been doing as a government over the last 5.5 years. We have been making the decisions that lead to investments like we’re seeing around us here today.

Lower taxes, of course, played a big role in ensuring that we keep our economy strong and the Australian businesses and individuals out there and investing and making their contribution. It’s how you get record jobs growth particularly for young people when your economy is moving forward. That’s what we have been doing.

Updated

The ABC feed has fallen over, which means the Tveeder transcription has gone with it.

But Bill Shorten is being asked about whether the childcare wage subsidy is the first of “a raft of almost unprecedented government intervention in getting wage rises”.

Shorten:

I don’t see this as being an economy-wide approach at all, but I do accept that in certain sectors of the economy, we have a wages problem, don’t we? And I put it to you, childcare educators – there is only four things that can be done. One, they just never get a pay rise ... two, we ask the parents to pay a lot more, that is not really viable ... three, we just ask all the operators to increase their costs and not pass it on to anyone, that is not economically rational or reasonable either, or four, the government assists – providing money to the childcare sector so workers can get better wages.

This is a problem that everyone acknowledges. All of us agree that childcare wages are too low. If I did a quick survey of all of you, is $21 or $22 or $23 an hour, is it enough for someone with a cert III in childcare? You and I know it is not enough.

... So if we know there is a problem, it is then a manner of choices and that is what this election is about. It’s about choices.

Updated

Bill Shorten says he doesn’t believe the Labor Northern Territory Senate candidate, Wayne Kurnoth, should be the candidate.

That came after some old social media shares were found.

Tanya Plibersek also gets a go at that question:

I have been thinking a lot about Scott Morrison and Clive Palmer, and the conclusion I come to, they’re just the same. Scott Morrison can afford to protect every tax loophole for the top end of town.

Clive Palmer can afford to put his face on every billboard in the country, but he can’t afford to pay his workers he ripped off at Queensland Nickel properly. They’re peas in a pod.

What really worries me, Scott Morrison is so desperate he’s prepared to put his arm around Clive Palmer to do a deal, to try to cling desperately on to power. What is in it for Clive Palmer?

What deal has Scott Morrison made? We know that Clive Palmer does nothing for people without expecting some return on his investment. What is the deal here? You’ve got Scott Morrison backing Clive Palmer to get into the Senate. What does that mean?

It means more cuts and more chaos and it’s incredible that Scott Morrison should be prepared to inflict those cuts and chaos on Australians, just to cling desperately to power.

Updated

Question: On preferences, you made your feelings about Clive Palmer very clear. Why is one of your candidates in Tasmania, Julie Collins, preferring his candidates second?

Shorten:

I’m not aware of that. In terms of Mr Palmer, why is to hard for billionaires to pay the taxpayers the money they owe them? Why is it one rule for the rest of us and another rule for him and Scott Morrison? If you owed the government $10,000 for longer than a year, the ATO would give you a ring. They may give you a letter, they will chase you up.

Updated

Question: You have repeated your line that everything is going up except wages. If most workers in Australia don’t get a pay rise, will your first term have been a failure?

Shorten:

I believe our policies will see sensible movements in wages. This nation can’t keep bumping along at the bottom in terms of wages. I know for example, that we will reverse these unfair cuts to penalty rates.

That means that hundreds of thousands of people get a wage rise. Our plan for early childhood educators will see in our first term modest and sensible increases. When we improve the bargaining laws, when we crack out on sham contracting, we stamp out the abuse of temporary work visas for 30 years, I have been in this business for 30 years. I understand how to get the wages moving. It will done with business, recognising capacity to pay.

Confidence is flat. We’re seeing household savings being spent. We saw zero per cent inflation in the last quarters. That shows that people are hunkering down under this Liberal government.

Updated

Question: You promised a pay rise for childcare workers. Why not single out workers in other low-paid industries, and could that not open the floodgates for union claims in other sectors?

Shorten:

... We said early childhood educators is a system where it is not working. If you’re in the media or mining or say, manufacturing, you can go and bargain with your boss to try to get a wage rise.

But the fact is childcare has a lot of government funding so when the government funding is tight there is no money for wage rises.

Workers are caught in a catch 22. If we don’t put more money into the industry then you can never get a wage rise, if you never get a wage rise we keep churning the good workers.

We have a policy that is not dissimilar to when Labor was last in government where you pick industries where they predominantly feminised, in this case childcare is 96% women, it is no surprise the pay is low because it is the inbuilt bias.

We will find money in an orderly manner across eight years and then sit down with employers, with the industry, with the parents, with the independent umpire and work out how we can do it.

But what we bring to the table is goodwill. And more than goodwill, we are willing to find money.

This is a government who is willing to find $77bn or they haven’t told us where it is coming from, what cuts they are going to make, to pay for a tax cut for the top 3%. We have explained how we are raising our money, have been upfront with the people for the last few years and this is the dividend of reforms.

Updated

Question: Just to clarify, Mr Shorten, would you like to see the activity test scrapped following this review?

Shorten:

I thought Tanya Plibersek answered that. The government, because they are defending themselves and the top end of town with unsustainable tax cuts, they are doing policies on the cheap. We said we will review that, we want to see how that is working. We are not convinced it is working well. But the good news for Australian families to cut through the clutter and white noise of the election: if childcare matters to you and your family budget is being knocked around, Labor is so far ahead of the Coalition on childcare, just not funny.

Updated

Tanya Plibersek on the same question:

I guess there are two main areas of difference between us and the government when it comes to early childhood education.

The first is we have committed to universal access to preschool for three-year-olds as well as four-year-olds that will continue forever if Labor is elected. At the moment, you have got a Morrison government that has only promised one more year for preschool for four-year-olds. They have been rolling over preschool funding year after year.

Centres can’t plan. Community organisations that want to build new preschools can’t build them because they don’t know whether the funding is going to be there in 2021, or 22-23.

We need to make this commitment because 90% of the child’s brain development takes place before the age of five. Investing in 15 hours a week of universal access to preschool for three years and four years is critical.

So that’s one very important difference. When the Liberals changed the childcare arrangements previously, about a quarter of families were actually made worse off. Some of those families were on very high incomes but many of them were on very low incomes.

We are very concerned that a number of those children who would benefit from early childhood education are missing out on it.

We’ve seen a very substantial drop in the number of children from disadvantaged families that are using childcare and we do need to look at how we can offer early learning opportunities for those kids who would really benefit from a few hours a week of childcare even if their parents aren’t working.

It is a flaw in the system as it is being administered at the moment. We have spoken to early childcare educators, the centres, and they have told us a lot of disadvantaged families have dropped out. We need to get to the bottom of this and we have committed to reviewing the arrangements for the disadvantaged families should we be elected.

Updated

Question:

On childcare, Mr Shorten, why are you keeping the activity test in place which means families and women [who] decide not to work won’t get access to this? Previously Amanda has been against it?

Bill Shorten:

Let’s go to the macro numbers here. This government, when it talks about childcare, cut people’s childcare and other people got an improvement.

Under our scheme, no one goes backwards. A family household income up to $168,000 will get a subsidy, 100%, a family household between 68 and 100,000 will get a subsidy.

That will save them $1,500 or so every year, that is per child. So for a couple of kids, 3K. That is not to be sneezed add. Between 1 00 and 174,000, the subsidy will taper down but a benefit of 12 and $1,400 for families.

Updated

Bill Shorten: 'chaos in Canberra needs to stop'

Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek are the first to stand up on today’s press conference circuit.

They are at a Perth childcare centre. Shorten:

It is a choice between a united and stable Labor team led by myself and supported by Tanya Plibersek or the divided, ramshackle coalition of the unwilling led by Mr Morrison and Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson. This is a very unstable coalition of cuts and chaos in Canberra and it needs to stop.”

Plibersek:

I see the qualifications of the people doing that work. And there is no way you can convince me or the parents who are leaving their kids here that these workers don’t deserve a pay rise.

They deserve a pay rise. Because of the skill, because of the complexity, because of their qualifications. Because of the way that families rely on the care and the early learning opportunities in these centres. Nobody in Australia believes these workers don’t deserve a pay rise.

The question is who is going to pay for it? Parents can’t afford extra fees. So, it is simply the fact that a Shorten Labor government would gladly assist with the cost of improving early childhood educators’ wages because someone has to do it. The turnover in the sector is too high. The people who work in this sector can’t afford to raise families themselves.

Updated

Tonight is not only the first debate – A Current Affair is also promising to “rock” federal parliament with footage of a politician in a strip club.

Which, I don’t know, I’m kinda against moralising against legal sex lives, because it only ever seems to add to the stigma sex workers are up against, and they are already up against enough in their line of work.

But it did remind me of Steve Dickson’s (former LNP minister turned the supposed leader of the Queensland Pauline Hanson One Nation branch, and number two on that party’s state ticket) rambling confessional in the wake of the al-Jazeera investigation:

I’ve drunk as a young man, I’ve been to strip clubs, probably done a lot of things most young men have done in this country. I understand that ... I won’t hold that against any human being.”

Updated

This is interesting, as it is something Doug Cameron had been looking at, during his time in the Senate. From an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission statement:

The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the federal court against Quantum Housing Group Pty Ltd (Quantum) alleging unconscionable conduct and false, misleading or deceptive conduct relating to the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS).

The ACCC alleges that Quantum’s director, Cheryl Howe, was involved in the conduct.

Quantum is an approved participant of the NRAS, meaning it is entitled to receive incentives under the NRAS and is responsible for ensuring NRAS dwellings are compliant with the scheme.

The ACCC alleges that from February 2017 to July 2018 Quantum pressured property investors participating in the NRAS to terminate the arrangements with their existing property managers and to retain property managers recommended or approved by Quantum, and which had commercial links to Quantum.

It is also alleged that Quantum made false or misleading representations to investors and property managers about its own rights, as well as the potential losses investors would face if they did not use Quantum’s approved property managers.

Quantum also issued guidelines to investors and their existing property managers setting out how property managers could become approved by Quantum. The guidelines required property managers to pay a $10,000 deposit to Quantum for each NRAS property they managed.

The ACCC alleges that Quantum did not receive a security deposit from the property managers it recommended

“Payment of the $10,000 per property would mean that managing any NRAS property would have been completely unviable for many property managers,” ACCC chair Rod Sims said.

“Quantum’s alleged conduct meant that investors could not select a property manager who best suited their needs and many property managers suffered a significant loss of business as a result.”

The ACCC is seeking pecuniary penalties, injunctions, declarations, and banning orders against Ms Howe.

Updated

Bill Shorten is due to stand up in the next half and hour or so.

We’ll hear from Scott Morrison shortly after.

Clive Palmer will also announce his preference deal with the Liberals today.

He Clive Palmered his way through a Today show interview this morning.

Speaking of preferences, Pauline Hanson plans on sending preferences to the Liberals in four of its marginal seats, including Peter Dutton’s electorate of Dickson, Luke Howarth in Petrie and over in WA, Andrew Hastie in Canning and Christian Porter in Pearce.

But let’s remember, Hanson preferenced Labor last in Longman and we all know how that turned out.

Preference deals get a lot of attention, but at the end of the day, they are only as effective as a voter base’s intention to follow through on those cards. And increasingly, many don’t. Particularly when it comes to minor parties. The danger for the major parties is when they legitimise a minor party by telling their supporters, who are more likely to follow how-to-vote cards, they are OK to vote for. That not only legitimises them, it also carves off supporters from their primary vote.

Lately, that has tended to wound the Coalition more than Labor.

Updated

Confusion over voting changes

Meanwhile, it seems even the experts are still wrapping their heads around the voting changes. The Australia Institute has released a statement asking for an apology from AEC Commissioner Tom Rogers for information he gave ABC listeners this morning:

With early voting for the federal election starting today, Monday 29 April, mass public confusion still exists around Senate voting changes introduced in 2016 at the last election. Australia Institute research shows that almost half of voters are mistaken on how the new Senate voting rules work, which could have a big impact in a tight election contest.

The Australia Institute gave respondents the actual text instructions printed on the new Senate ballot papers, and found:

· Almost one in two voters (47%) mistook voting 6 above the line as voting for “the party you dislike more than any other party on the ballot paper” (ie “putting last”.) 32% disagreed.

· One-third of voters (32%) agreed numbering beyond 6 disqualifies the voter’s ballot paper. 37% disagreed.

However, under questioning by Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast, the AEC commissioner added to this confusion by:

· incorrectly telling listeners “one to six above the line” rather than – crucially – that voters are able to vote at least 1 to 6.

· when asked to clarify for listeners that preferencing parties 1 to 6 above the line equates to voters preferencing their top 6 choices (ie voting 6 above the line does not equate to “putting last”) the commissioner chose not to clarify and instead suggesting however voters would like to mark their votes is up to them.

Updated

The Labor party will announce a $9.5m commitment to addressing the huge inequalities in the health system for people with intellectual disabilities.

Around 450,000 people in Australia have intellectual disabilities and recent studies have found rates of potentially avoidable deaths are up to three times higher. They have higher rates of physical and mental health conditions and double the rate of presentations to emergency departments.

Currently doctors receive just 2.5 hours of specific training across an average six-year degree, and nurses receive none.

Shadow minsters Catherine King and Linda Burney will announce later today Labor’s proposal for a three-year pilot program putting disability health workers in the primary health network to train GPs, and an education toolkit to better equip health workings and trainees on meeting the needs of patients with disabilities. The pilot program would cost $6.3m and put 10 trainers across four primary health networks for three years.

Another $3.2m will fund the development of a toolkit on disability healthcare and a pilot of “improved education” in two medical and two nursing schools.

The announcement comes after a push by 120 current and former heads of medical organisations, colleges and peak bodies, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the NSW Council for Intellectual Disabilities.

The group told Guardian Australia earlier this month $50m was needed for a network of disability support workers in primary health networks ($14m a year), an $8m boost to the curriculum, and a $3m national inquiry.

A Labor spokesman said the party had worked closely with the Council for Intellectual Disabilities on what were “new and complex initiatives”.

“Trialling and evaluating these programs gives us a chance to get implementation right before considering a national expansion.”

The commitment is a fraction of what was asked, but Jim Simpson, head of the council, said it was ”very good news” and was the largest commitment ever made by a major political party.

“It’s in line with the things we’re seeking and what’s particularly valuable is the strong preventative focus, ensuring graduates have the values, awareness and skills, and also lifting the focus in GP and primary care in prevention and early diagnosis.”

Simpson said while they would always push for “everything to happen yesterday”, the council supported the staged approach.

“Any pilots you can learn from which will mean we’ll obviously be then pressing for a full rollout, and the Labor announcement is encouraging in relation to that.”

He said the recent bipartisan support for a royal commission into the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities addressed their calls for a specific inquiry, as long as the treatment of people within the health system was a major focus of it.

Updated

Childcare plan is 'communism'

So, this is a thing that happened.

Dan Tehan had a chat to ABC radio this morning, where he had a few things to say about Labor’s multi-billion childcare plan:

“I mean this is a fast track to a socialist, if not communist economy. It is unheard of,” he said.

“... When they say it is going to be free, taxpayers are paying for this.”

Well yes, minister. Just as I am paying for roads I am never going to drive on, franking credits for other people, and medical treatments I will never need. But, I don’t think that paying for childcare to help low-income parents return to a capitalist society so they can put food on their table is “communism”. And as a child of an eastern European who lost everything fleeing a communist regime, I am pretty sure I am qualified to talk on that.

Updated

Today is going to be a bit of a weird day. The time difference in Western Australia means things will be done fairly early, before a bit of a lull sets in as both camps prepare for the first debate.

Seven West is hosting this first debate. It has been on a bit of crusade about fairness for the West, so you can expect a lot of questions on that. It’s not often WA is the centre of an election campaign, so it’s fairly excited.

Updated

Oh good – the costings debate has started.

Fun.

For the record, the Parliamentary Budget Office will update all the costings and we will get the numbers just before the election date, not that it matters because it is all magical unicorn numbers until the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (Myefo).

Updated

Section 44 cloud over UAP candidates

Long live section 44.

From Paul Karp:

At least 19 United Australia party candidates have submitted incomplete or inconsistent information to the Australian Electoral Commission, failing to provide evidence they are eligible to run for parliament.

The candidates for Clive Palmer’s party have asserted they are not dual citizens disqualified by section 44 of the constitution, but have mostly failed to provide birth details of their parents or grandparents, even in cases where candidates admit parents or grandparents were born overseas.

In one case the UAP candidate for Blaxland, Nadeem Ashraf, claimed in a statutory declaration that he lost dual Pakistani citizenship automatically when he became Australian in 1986. Even when taking up another citizenship Pakistani law requires a declaration of renunciation, which Ashraf failed to provide.

A spokesman for the United Australia party told Guardian Australia “all [candidates] are eligible and compliant under s44”, but failed to explain why they had not completed the checklist.

Just a heads-up: I do not think I have the capacity to deal with another constitutional crisis. *eye twitch*

Updated

This seems a very WA announcement. From AAP:

Labor leader Bill Shorten has promised to invest $75m to discovering mining resources if he wins the election.

Mr Shorten says the money will reverse the Liberals’ decision to stop the Exploring for the Future program, which uses technology to find future deposits by developing underground maps to show where minerals are.

About two-thirds of Australia’s potential mineral deposits remain undiscovered.

“We want to ensure Australian mines are powering the commodities of the future – such as lithium – as we build the renewable energy economy,” he said.

“Labor wants lithium batteries to be made domestically, seeing potential in the industry that will store renewable energy and power electric cars and smartphones.”

Updated

Anthony Albanese has popped up on Sky News this morning. I expect as we head into these final weeks we will be seeing a lot more of him.

He’s leading Labor’s attack on the government for its preference deal with Clive Palmer:

Scott Morrison is legitimising … a bloke who ripped off his workers, a bloke who doesn’t stand for the Australian national interest. A bloke who, last time, he was in parliament, couldn’t be bothered voting on legislation most of the time and who fell asleep in question time.

I mean, this is the bloke that Scott Morrison is doing his best to re-elect to the Australian parliament. I am not so much worried about what that says about Clive Palmer. I am worried about what it says about Scott Morrison. Because it says to me that he is not fit to be the prime minister of Australia.

There is a lot of talk about what it will mean if Palmer is back in the Senate and who will “accept” his vote or not. But just a reminder, that a political party can not reject the vote of a member of parliament. Yes, they can send someone out on their own side to nullify the vote, but it will still be recorded that that particular person voted for your side (which ever it may be), because MPs represent electorates, and you can’t reject those votes.

When it comes to deals to pass legislation, well, that’s a whole different story entirely.

Updated

William Bowe has turned his attention to the latest Newspoll. From his Poll Bludger blog:

This is the first time a result for the United Australia Party has been published, but the tables in The Australian today reveal the party was on 3% in the poll a fortnight ago, and 2% in the poll the week before that. As Peter Brent discusses in Inside Story, pollsters have an important decision to make in deciding whether to include a minor party in the primary question, or saving it for those who choose “other” out of an initial list – a decision that will have a bearing on their result. I assume the publication of the UAP result in the latest poll marks its elevation from the second tier to the first, but the publication of the earlier results may suggest otherwise.

Then there’s the two-party preferred, which raised eyebrows as the primary votes are of a kind that would normally be associated with 52-48. The answer, it turns out, is that a preference split of 60-40 in favour of the Coalition is being applied to the UAP vote. The rationale is explained in an accompanying piece by David Briggs, managing director of YouGov Galaxy, which conducts Newspoll. First, Briggs confirms this is also what it has been doing with One Nation preferences since the start of last year, earlier statements having been less exact. Of the decision to extend this to Palmer:

With the UAP there is no historical trend data we can refer to in order to estimate the likely preference flow to the major parties. We do know, however, that in the 2013 election 53.67 per cent of the Palmer United Party vote was ­directed to Coalition candidates. That was without a preference deal, but in the forthcoming federal election the Liberal Party will swap preferences with the UAP and this can only result in an even higher proportion of UAP votes being directed to the Coalition.

Updated

Newspoll results

The Newspoll, first published in the Australian, offers up a few little titbits.

First, the poll shows the trend towards a tightening is, well, a trend. That’s to be expected, because the polls more often than not tighten up in the back end of a campaign.

The one-point movement is within the margin of error but it will still have Labor looking at what is going on.

But the primary vote is what I see as the more interesting story. The Coalition has dropped down to 38%, from 39% just two weeks ago. Labor’s is still hovering around 37%. That means, the polls being accurate, minor parties will matter. And they will matter a lot. The Greens are maintaining it’s 9% share. But Clive Palmer’s party has leapfrogged One Nation to claim 5% of the primary vote.

So what do the major parties do?

They spend.

Scott Morrison will announce $1bn to build three new navy ships while he is in Fremantle. That’s on top of the $300m for carparks.

Bill Shorten announced $4bn for childcare at the weekend, with a further $2.4bn for senior dental care. That’s essentially taking the $6bn or so Labor says it will save from scrapping franking credits and spending it on seniors and families.

Updated

Josh Frydenberg and Alan Tudge are up nice and early (but not as early as the campaign journalists who are in Perth having to update breakfast television in the pitch dark because it’s still basically midnight there) to talk ... car parks.

(insert Oprah YOU GET A CAR PARK AND YOU GET A CAR PARK gif here)

Frydenberg is very happy to announce $300m for 30 new/expanded car parks to “bust congestion in our cities and take 13,000 cars off the road”.

This is the biggest-ever investment by a federal government in commuter car parks and it is a real credit to Alan and the work that he’s done and the work that our colleagues ... are doing to ensure that the people in their communities can get to work sooner and get home safer and earlier to be with their families.

Updated

Both major parties should commit to increased funding for the aged care sector and not use the royal commission as an “excuse” to delay reform, a peak advocacy group has said.

The Morrison government announced a royal commission last September in response to damning incidents of neglect, abuse and negligence in nursing homes across the country.

Tasked with examining the state of aged care in the country, the commission is due to release its final report in April next year. While the sector welcomed the decision, a key advocacy group is now urging both parties not to use it as an excuse to delay immediate reform.

On Monday Aged and Community Services Australia released a statement calling for both parties to commit to addressing “urgent priorities” in the sector before next month’s election.

“We can’t use the royal commission as an excuse to delay urgent reforms that will improve aged care right now,” said the groups’s chief executive, Patricia Sparrow.

“We don’t think it’s acceptable to announce the commission and not do anything about funding and structural issues until after its recommendations are released. There are things that can be done now to address some of those issues.”

The peak advocacy group for not-for-profit aged care providers, ACSA, wants both parties to commit to extending the short-term $662m funding boost announced by the Coalition in February until the royal commission’s recommendations can be implemented.

Updated

The Coalition has pledged $156m for cybersecurity through improved training and capability in the Australian Cybersecurity Centre.

The funding, to be announced on Monday, includes $50m for workforce development, $40m to establish a new policing unit within the centre to fight organised crime gangs and $26m to expand community assistance.

The campaign pledge comes in the wake of the Bureau of Meteorology being hacked in 2016 and an attempt to hack the federal parliament’s computer network in February by a state actor, which also affected major political parties.

The measures announced on Monday are mainly directed at protecting citizens and businesses from cybercrime, which costs the Australian economy more than $1bn annually.

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, said: “As the risk of cyber-attack increases we need to ensure Australians are protected and our defence forces and capabilities continue to get the backing they need.

“We will continue to take a proactive approach against cyber criminals at home and overseas, including scammers, fraudsters and those involved in child exploitation.”

The workforce planning element of the policy will include scholarships for study of cybersecurity courses, with 50% of the scholarships reserved for women, greater investment in cybersecurity educational activities in schools, and development of specialist courses to improve government, industry and defence capability.

The Coalition would develop a comprehensive online training program providing practical advice for small businesses, older Australians and Australian families.

A further $40m investment will accelerate the creation of 230 positions for military cyber operations specialists in the Australian defence force and create up to 100 new gap-year positions each year to encourage young Australians to embark on a cyber-related career.

Updated

Good morning

Happy Monday and welcome to politics live.

A massive, massive thank you to Gabrielle Chan for filling in while I traipsed across Queensland (and then tackled the dreaded campaign flu, which is as ubiquitous in any election campaign as politicians holding babies).

But with 19 days left we have hit the campaign proper, just as pre-polls open.

The public holidays are over, meaning this last three-week stretch will not be interrupted.

Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten will go head to head for the first time tonight in Perth, for the first of three debates. They do it in the shadow of the latest Newspoll, which has the Coalition gaining one point, making it 51 to 49. That movement is within the margin of error but it is part of a trend, showing that the Coalition is tightening the race. But the primary vote remains quite low for both parties. Which makes the minor parties absolutely crucial.

And Clive Palmer is emerging as kingmaker. What are his actual policies? Who knows? But his name is absolutely everywhere and it’s proving enough to make a difference. Particularly in Queensland, where Palmer may actually snatch the sixth Senate spot at the expense of One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts.

How’s that for a Sophie’s choice?

Meanwhile, there are about 500 polling booths opening across the country today. And people who know more about these things than me tell me that close to 40% of voters are expected to head to the polls before 18 May.

That’s a lot of people who have already made up their mind. It’s also a problem for the major parties, who are used to knuckling down and winning those hearts and minds in the final two weeks.

So there is a lot to get into today. I hope you have had your coffee. I haven’t had nearly enough.

Ready?

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
7 Things Parents With ADHD Kids Say Schools Still Don’t Understand
Image source: shutterstock.com
Kids Ain't Cheap
Kids Ain't Cheap
Why is everyone so obsessed with gen Z?
Is there something different about people born between 1997 and 2012 or is it all just marketing nonsense and hysteria?
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
‘I love being proactive about ageing gracefully’: Kerry Washington on memes, Botox and imperfect women
The Scandal star made history as the first Black woman to lead a TV show in 40 years. Now, she’s back in the hot seat with starry thriller Imperfect Women, and she’s determined to keep shaking up the industry
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
How big is the housework gender gap? It depends if the husband or wife answers the question
Couples often disagree about who does more housework. Part of that disagreement reflects real differences in behaviour. But part of it is perception: what each person notices, remembers and counts as “work”.
The Conversation
The Conversation
What to know: Downtown Anchorage braces for a canine takeover as the Iditarod’s 54th run begins
The Iditarod returns to Anchorage as hundreds of dogs and their mushers line up for the race’s ceremonial start
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Metallica add 16 dates to Las Vegas Sphere residency
Metallica have added 16 dates to their Las Vegas Sphere residency, bringing it to a total of 24 shows.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play