Health News at Your Fingertips

The Coalition’s firearms bill has just passed a third reading in the House of Representatives. Labor’s Brendan O’Connor wanted to speak on the bill, but Peter Dutton immediately moved for the third reading.

It passed on the voices, so no division, and Labor has sidestepped another wedge by waving legislation through the House – presumably because it knows the government is out of time to bring it to the Senate, or Labor can block or amend there.

The bill increases maximum sentences for trafficking and sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison for firearms offences. This is controversial, because Labor has a longstanding opposition to mandatory minimums.

Labor’s Tony Burke has successfully suspended standing orders to bring on debate on the Coalition’s firearms legislation, which it introduced to the lower house on Wednesday.

This is a stunt to show that the government doesn’t actually want to pass this stuff, it just wants to wedge Labor.

Somebody moved that Burke’s motion be disagreed to, resulting in a bizarre division where at first the Coalition was voting to shut Burke down, but then switched sides to vote with Labor.

The vote wasn’t even recorded, because there were so few people voting aye to shut it down.

The government tried to move on to other business, but as opposition leader Anthony Albanese pointed out, the suspension of standing orders was successful, so they’re debating the firearms bill.

The bill was then read a second time. Labor’s Brendan O’Connor wants to speak on the bill.

People will be encouraged back into the office and singing and dancing will return as part of a staggered easing of the New South Wales Covid measures.

Premier Dominic Perrottet also announced the density limits would be scrapped across the state from Friday. He said:

This is the new reality. We don’t want restrictions in place for any longer than necessary.

From tomorrow, QR check-ins will only be required at nightclubs and festivals with more than 1000 people attending. Singing and dancing will also be allowed in all settings other than music festivals – which will be added to the list from 25 February.

People will no longer be encouraged to work from home when they can and returning to work will be up to employers to decide.

From next Friday, masks will only be required on public transport, in a variety of healthcare settings, in indoor music venues with more than 1000 people and at prisons.

What is the poverty line in Australia? Is there a minimum of income people need not to live in poverty?

“It’s not a simple yes or no question,” social services minister, Anne Ruston, told Senate estimates earlier this morning.

The answer came under questioning from Greens senator Janet Rice, who noted the 2019 Senate inquiry into the Newstart payment (now called Jobseeker) recommended Australia adopt an official poverty line.

“You make it sound like there’s some magical number,” Ruston added.

Rice told estimates that there were a range of poverty line measures that were acknowledged in Australia:

Acoss recommends the poverty live should be set at 50%-60% of median income. 50% is $457 a week for a single person. The Henderson poverty line is higher, it’s $581 a week, and then there [are] other definitions that are even higher.

Rice said it was “extraordinary” that Ruston was “not willing to even acknowledge there was a minimum level of of income that people need not to be in poverty”.

Ruston insisted Australia’s welfare system was “comprehensive and targeted” and noted Australians enjoyed other benefits outside the welfare system such as free healthcare and education.

Asked if the rate of Jobseeker – $630 a fortnight – was enough, Ruston insisted it was “adequate for [its] purpose”.

Keen estimates observers might know this is not the first time the government has been less than keen to discuss poverty in Australia.

The New South Wales premier, Dominic Perrottet, has offered his condolences to the family and friends of the swimmer who was killed by a shark on Wednesday.

“It’s a reminder to us all about the fragility of life,” he said. He confirmed authorities were trying to track down the shark.

Two Liberal MPs have spoken on indulgence in support of a Commonwealth integrity commission, in the wake of the government conceding this week that it won’t have time to legislate it.

Independent MP Helen Haines first spoke on the matter on indulgence, accusing the prime minister, Scott Morrison, of playing “the public for a patsy”. She said:

The prime minister’s laughable excuse that he cannot legislate his integrity commission proposal because the opposition won’t support it is totally absurd.

She also accused Morrison of misleading her, saying he had initially suggested he wanted to work on the issue in a bipartisan way:

The facts are clear. He had no intention of working on this in a bipartisan way.

I’ll never stop bringing this to the attention of this house even in the dying days of this parliament.

Liberal MP Bridget Archer – who crossed the floor last year to support Haines’s bill – said it remained her view that legislating an integrity commission was still “one of the most important things” parliament needed to do:

I do believe that this issue needs to be debated. It is also clear that this parliament is running out of time to be able to legislate an integrity bill.

Archer said there needed to be a multipartisan approach, and urged cooperation in the next parliament. She said:

We must not allow this issue to just be lost in the politics and in the tribalism of the politics that can go on in this place and outside it.

This is such an important issue. It’s fundamental to the trust and confidence that we need from the Australian people to do our jobs. And so I would urge cooperation and collaboration from all parties on all sides to take this forward in the next Parliament.

John Alexander, the Liberal MP for Bennelong, also echoed this view, saying:

We must stop bashing heads, and put our heads together.

We need our leaders and parties to come together on this issue, because a solution will need to outlive a three year parliament and will need to outlive governments. For too long, this has been a political football.

We need a federal Icac so we can take action, to take the first step to regain the respect of Australians who need to have confidence that we are all acting with integrity and honesty that they rightly expect of us.

Independent MP for the seat of Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, also spoke in favour of an integrity bill, saying she had been calling for such a body for the past six years. Bob Katter also spoke, as did Labor’s Mark Dreyfus, saying Labor would legislate an integrity commission “with teeth” if it formed government.

Birmingham criticises Labor for its tactics in Defence Senate estimates, saying it doesn’t “seem terribly interested in actually pursuing questions relevant to the actual investment the government is making” in defence.

Keneally counters:

The Labor party is taking heed of the advice of people like the Asio director general [Mike Burgess] who says the weaponisation of national security makes his job harder, makes it harder to keep our country safe. I ask you again, do you consider using terms like Manchurian candidate is legitimate?

Birmingham says he has “already rejected your assertion in regards to the public debate that is there” and he says the contrasting of statements and positions “are not unusual things to occur” and are an important part of democratic debate in the lead-up to an election.

Asked whether he has any shame, Birmingham says for decades “we’ve seen different occasions in which national security is featured as part of our democratic election debates”:

When Australians go to vote, making the decision as to who is best placed to manage the safety and security of our nation is one of the key decisions that Australians have to make at that time.

Keneally ends this bracket of questions with the observation:

I never thought I would say this, but the Senate and the nation miss the day when leaders like Mr Brandis were here who stood firm on their values.

Cue stony silence from Birmingham. He doesn’t look comfortable.

Senate leader Simon Birmingham insists the government is not “confecting” national security divisions, when confronted with a past comment by George Brandis.

Brandis, the former Coalition attorney general who is now the Australian high commissioner to the UK, said in a valedictory speech to the Senate in February 2018:

I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly.

One of the main reasons why the government has earned the confidence of the public on national security policy is there has never been a credible suggestion that political motives have intruded. Were they to do so, confidence not just in the government’s handling of national security but in the agencies themselves would be damaged and their capacity to do their work compromised.

Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. To his credit, the prime minister [Malcolm Turnbull at that time] has always resisted such entreaties.

Labor’s Kristina Keneally asks Birmingham if he agrees with Brandis. The minister replies “I do”, but then adds: “Before you then leap to the next question, I don’t believe that anything is confected.”

Keneally: “You have got to be kidding me. You believe phrases like ‘Manchurian candidate’ is not politicising national security?”

Birmingham argues that having debates that highlight differences in track records “are all legitimate and fair”.

Labor senator Tim Ayres: “You have lost your way.”

Birmingham: “Senator, I’ll consider the context of the words I use when I when I’m using them.”

In community affairs estimates, Labor’s Jenny McAllister is asking about problems with the Escaping Violence program, a $145m trial set up by the government to “help women establish a life free of violence” with a payment of up to $5000 on offer.

It was announced as part of the government’s “landmark $1.1bn women’s safety package” in the May budget.

The department has revealed that the program has received 6067 applications, with 4000 of these still waiting to be processed. Just 77 applications were assessed as “urgent” and received cash immediately.

Social services minister, Anne Ruston, said the wait times were “not acceptable”.

McAllister is also asking about a document released by the department which is mostly redacted, including guidelines for the program. The department is saying the redactions were based on advice ensuring financial safety of clients and “women’s safety risks”.

McAllister said the sector had raised on many occasions problems about how the program was running, and without the information being released by the department, it was difficult to assess. She said:

The sector says that the eligibility criteria is too tight and the process is not realistic and doesn’t reflect the experience of their clients.

The information provided does not help me deal with the complaints that come to me about how this program is working.

Ruston said the program was a trial, and feedback was welcome. She said:

That’s exactly the purpose of a trial, is to make sure that we are constantly reviewing and making sure that we deal with issues as they come up.

She was engaging with the sector to deal with what she acknowledged were some problems with how the program was running. She said:

I have been talking to the sector around these issues that they have seen and improvements that they would like to see made, and in some cases some misinformation that is out there.

I’m quite happy to acknowledge that there are many improvements that need to be made to this program to make sure that it is delivering what I expected to deliver.

Defence resumes after that brief interruption. Simon Birmingham is asked about the warning by Asio’s current director general Mike Burgess against the politicisation of national security (it doesn’t help the job of security agencies).

Kristina Keneally asks:

Why is the Morrison-Joyce government making the job of our intelligence agencies like Asio more difficult by politicising national security?

Birmingham replies:

Senator Keneally, I just don’t accept the premise that you are putting there. The fact is that Australia is a democracy and a robust democracy. And we do have an election in a few months’ time and the track record of your party on national security and defence investment and our party’s [record] on national security and defence investment is fair game in a democracy … [with] an election coming up. We don’t seek to politicise it unnecessarily, but we won’t shy away from drawing contrast where there is contrast.

Birmingham goes on to say:

It is in the national interest in a democracy, which is what we are all defending here … for us to ensure Australians understand the differences … The differences are there to be highlighted.

Tim Ayres asks whether the government is mounting the “elaborate argument” that the statements of Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton have really “got something to do with defence capital and sustainment and personnel expenditure over the last 20 years”. Keneally adds that that suggestion is laughable.

Birmingham has gone back to citing Albanese’s inclusion of the word “some” in a single response to a recent question as evidence Labor wants China to keep in place some of the trade actions against Australia. Keneally says that claim “is ridiculous and you know it”.

The jobless rate was unchanged in January, remaining at its 13-year-low of 4.2%, the ABS has just announced. The result was in line with market expectations.

The economy added 12,900 jobs last month, with the participation rate nudging higher to 66.2%. Monthly hours worked fell, though, by 159m or 8.8%, signalling the scale of Omicron-linked disruptions.

Bjorn Jarvis, head of labour statistics at the ABS, noted that in a pre-pandemic year about 90,000 to 100,000 people would be off ill in January. This January, at times, the tally of those off work reached 450,000. He said:

Nationally, and in New South Wales and Victoria, the number of people who worked reduced hours because they were sick was around three times the pre-pandemic average for January.

Western Australia was the only jurisdiction with a usual low number of people working reduced hours in January because they were sick.