Health News at Your Fingertips

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.