What happened today
Let’s take a look at the main developments of the day.
- Victoria reported 28 new cases and three deaths, as the 14-day average continued to fall
- NSW reported two new cases, while none was reported in Queensland
- Queensland expanded its border zone into New South Wales, while South Australia is set to open its border to NSW from tomorrow
- The federal government unveiled an energy roadmap, but it has already drawn criticism, including from Malcolm Turnbull
With that, we’ll leave you. See you tomorrow.
Updated
Wild winds are continuing to wreak havoc on Covid-19 testing centres in Melbourne’s south-east, with a third site forced to close.
Peninsula Health confirmed on Tuesday afternoon its clinic outside the Frankston Basketball Stadium in Seaford had shut temporarily due to strong winds, AAP reports.
“We’ll reopen this testing location, as soon as it is deemed safe for our staff and our community,” it tweeted.
Two other test sites, drive-through setups at Casey Fields and Pakenham Recreation Reserve, were shut earlier on Tuesday.
The Department of Health and Human Services said the sites’ open marquees made the structures potential hazards, while staff could also struggle to write notes in the blustery conditions.
Nearby sites in Clyde, Berwick and Beaconsfield were kept open to allow residents to be tested, the department said.
Updated
Australian shares and the Aussie dollar both took a hit as global markets fretted over a potential second coronavirus wave, particularly in Europe, adding to the already unsettling backdrop of a US presidential election, AAP reports.
The S&P/ASX200 benchmark index closed 38.5 points down, or 0.7%, to 5784.1 on Tuesday, but managed to recover from a three-month low of 5763.2 earlier in the day.
The All Ordinaries index fell 40 points, or 0.7%, to 5973.5.
The Aussie dollar also sank to a one-month low just below 72 US cents at one stage, before partially recovering to 72.09 US cents at 1615 AEST.
That was down from 73.14 US cents at the close on Monday.
Updated
Morrison tells Kenny:
I know a lot of people on your program talk about Sweden. Well, Sweden has had a bigger fall in their economy and they’ve had almost 20 times the number of deaths.
I don’t really see that as a model to follow. I see Australia as a model to follow.
Updated
Kenny says he understands the need to flatten the curve but puts it to Morrison that young people essentially are not affected by the virus, and that this means we can “get smarter” about restrictions.
Morrison says:
We’ve also got to remember the virus moves most quickly among young adults.
He notes that this then puts older people at risk.
Updated
Morrison says he knows “there is a sense of security people feel from being behind a border”, but that it is not a replacement for a good testing and tracing regime.
He says NSW is the example.
On Victoria, including the curfew which Kenny was also been panning before the interview started, Morrison says the lockdowns have been very hard for Victorians.
He notes his comment a few weeks ago on the Andrews government’s roadmap. “I hope that’s the worst-case scenario.”
Morrison says there have been some changes, but “I hope we can see more”. And he says the federal government will “encourage further changes along the way”.
Updated
Scott Morrison is on Sky News with Chris Kenny. He is pleased with South Australian premier Steven Marshall’s decision today to open the state’s borders to NSW.
Asked about “border belligerence”, an apparent reference to the Queensland premier, who Kenny spent the first five minutes of the show criticising, Morrison compares Queensland’s jobs growth to NSW’s, which has been more significant.
He suggests the border closures have had an impact on Queensland’s economy, which he says relies on tourism, including domestic tourism, and hospitality.
Updated
The coronavirus recession’s disproportionate impact on women has fuelled fresh calls for an urgent rethink of pandemic recovery, reports AAP.
Sally Moyle of the National Foundation for Australian Women said changes to the jobkeeper wage subsidies due to come into place next week would hit women harder than men.
She told a Senate inquiry on Tuesday:
Twice as many women as men will now have their wage subsidy payments halved because of the cuts for part-timers.
At the same time, new stimulus proposals would have men gain twice as much as women from tax cuts.
Payments for full-time staff are being cut from $1,500 to $1,200 per fortnight, while people who usually worked less than 20 hours a week before the coronavirus pandemic will receive just $750.
Associate professor Moyle said childcare workers - 95% of whom are female - were the first to be excluded from jobkeeper.
The government prioritised assistance to the construction industry.
So it is regrettable to say the least that - despite women bearing the brunt of the pandemic - men are being increasingly targeted for government stimulus support.
Updated
Australians have a bigger vision for our country than the one offered up by the Government today. We are willing to work hard and work smart to make our country the world-leader in renewable energy. But we need a plan. Today, the Government failed to give us one. My statement 👇 pic.twitter.com/9wF4zFQ2ph
— Helen Haines MP (@helenhainesindi) September 22, 2020
Asked about reports the government will bring forward its income tax cuts plan (an idea Labor previously supported), Chalmers says:
I certainly think that just bringing forward the tax cuts wouldn’t be a substitute for some of those proposals that you have talked about and some of the other respected commentators and economists have talked about. I think it would be very troubling if the government thought that bringing forward some tax cuts was a substitute for a comprehensive jobs plan, it clearly isn’t. You ask me about our previous view on stage 2. We still maintain the view that people need help. The economy needs spending power.
Updated
Chalmers is critical of the government’s decision to taper the jobkeeper wage subsidy from next week.
Host Patricia Karvelas notes that Chalmers himself had called for the rate to fall and asks him why Labor has changed its mind.
But Chalmers says that’s wrong.
The same point that we have been making throughout still stands today, and that point is, that at some future point, jobkeeper will be tapered away. Ideally it won’t be a feature of the economy down the track. But we have always said, at every point, that the jobkeeper payments need to reflect the economic conditions, they need to be tailored to what is actually happening in the labour market and in the broader economy.
We have been entirely consistent on that point and in pointing out that we think next Monday, when all of this money is pulled out of the economy, that that will have very damaging consequences for workers and businesses and communities.
Updated
Labor’s treasury spokesman, Jim Chalmers, is next up on the ABC.
He is happy to point out how Malcolm Turnbull had essentially panned the government’s energy roadmap just before.
I think the most important point that he made, and I agree with him 100%, is that the absence of a coherent, overarching energy policy is costing Australia jobs, when jobs aren’t exactly thick on the ground. But also costing us the opportunity to get more, cheaper and cleaner energy into the system, which would be good for the economy, good for employment, good for investment. It ticks a lot of boxes.
Updated
Apra warns banks over super advice
The prudential regulator has warned banks over the practice of telling customers they can dip into their super if they are struggling to repay their home loans.
In a letter to banks, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority warned that doing so could amount to providing unlicensed financial advice – which is a crime.
Near the start of the coronavirus outbreak, sister regulator the Australian Securities and Investments Commission issued a stern warning against telling tenants who can’t pay the rent to use their super.
Apra was a little less forthright in its letter to banks, sent on Tuesday.
It said that some of the plans drawn up by banks to deal with delinquent loans “included reference to borrowers accessing their superannuation as an option that could potentially be considered if borrowers are unable to resume repayments”.
ADIs [Apra-speak for banks] should have appropriate controls in place to ensure that if they are informing borrowers about their ability to access superannuation, they are not providing unlicensed financial product advice and are ensuring compliance with requirements for giving financial product advice.
Updated
$40 a day too low for jobseeker payment, Turnbull says
Malcolm Turnbull has added his voice to calls for an increase to the unemployment benefits, which are set to drop back to $40 a day when Covid supplements are withdrawn.
The government has confirmed it won’t make a call on the rate of the jobseeker payment in the budget, but is open to further extending the coronavirus supplement beyond Christmas.
Turnbull says:
I think it is very widely accepted that the level prior to all of the Covid-19 supplements, [jobseeker] was too low, and I think that needs to be enhanced. How much, I don’t have the data in front of me to give a view on that, but I think the fact that you have seen people from right across the spectrum recognising that, I think it is something the government should do.
Because we have got to recognise that, thanks to this pandemic, we are likely to have high levels of unemployment for quite a while ... We don’t want to be complacent about that.We’ve got to do everything we can to fire up the economy and that is why a green new deal, renewable-led economic stimulus, would be much more effective than focusing on what is a very expensive fuel in gas.
It is worth noting there were calls for the rate to be increased from many of the same groups – Acoss, the Business Council, Deloitte – while Turnbull was PM.
Updated
Turnbull is asked about Angus Taylor’s suggestion the government will set a post-2030 emissions target at the next round of climate talks.
The whole expectation in Paris was that every five years or so we would have to set new targets, and that they would be of increasing ambition. So that is the whole point, that nobody imagines the cuts and emissions we have to date are going to be adequate. We only have one planet, and surely we recognise that we’ve got to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and the good thing is, that we can do so in Australia and at the same time have cheaper electricity and cut our emissions. So we can have our cake and eat it too.
If we de-carbonise our electricity sector, which we can do with renewables and storage, if we then electrify as much of our economy as we can, say from moving from liquid fuels in vehicles to electric vehicles, we can effect a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and have an abundance of cheap energy. The cheapest energy today is coming from renewables.
Everybody knows that, but for reasons that I’ve always found hard to understand – they are cultural, ideological, whatever. There is a body of opinion on the right of Australian politics in the Liberal party and the National party, the Murdoch press, which still clings to this fantasy that coal is best and if we can’t have coal we will burn gas. I mean, it’s bonkers. The way to cheaper electricity is renewables plus storage, which is why the big storage plan that we got started – Snowy 2 – is so important.
Updated
Some more choice words for Angus Taylor from Malcolm Turnbull.
Does he give Taylor credit for moving the government away from coal?
I think that misses the point. What I don’t give them credit for is most of what Angus says on energy is he doesn’t believe. Angus has got quite a sophisticated understanding of the energy market and he is speaking through the political side of his brain rather than the economic side.
Scott [Morrison] absolutely understands the importance of the Neg and is a keen supporter of it. ... Now is the time to deliver an integrated, coherent energy and climate policy which is what the whole energy sector has been crying out for four years. If you like, you can assume that a bunch of politicians know all about the energy market and the people in the energy sector don’t know anything and are all imbeciles. I don’t think that’s right.
Turnbull says “the government is intervening in the market”, which is “crazy” and “needs to stop”.
The whole announcement last week was, I’m not going to sing the song but ‘it’s gas, gas, gas’. It was crazy. Seriously, we have got to stop this mad ideology, ideological approach to energy. It’s not a question of whether you are for gas, against gas, for coal, they are all physical things with certain characteristics, some of them high-emission, some are low-emission, some variable and some dispatch for, and you have to get the right mix.
When the government starts saying this fuel is the one to go with, and the energy sector, people are just, they are punch-drunk with these random interventions from government. It’s got to stop. We need a coherent energy and climate policy. We had that with the NEG – sadly that was blown up in 2018, but that is what we need to get back to and then, I promise you, the market will do its work, and we will have affordable, reliable and low-emission energy.
Updated
Turnbull: PM's rejection of 2050 target at odds with Paris
Malcolm Turnbull agrees with Patricia Karvelas when she asks if the government’s rejection of a 2050 emissions target was at odds with the Paris agreement.
He says:
Absolutely, that was the part of the deal. And the idea that you crash the economy by cutting your emissions is, just again, that’s ideology taking the place of what should be sound environmental and economic policy. There is a reason just about every other developed country in the world is taking a very different approach, besides Trump’s America.
Turnbull is not alone in that view.
Updated
Asked about Scott Morrison’s threat to fund a gas-fired plant if the market fails to replace Liddell, Turnbull says:
This is crazy stuff. I mean, seriously. There is an argument for the government to invest where there is an overall public benefit, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing pollution. Government subsidies have been found in areas like that and been accepted for a long time.
But gas is a very mature sector, and expensive fuel does have a role ... Some gas plants in Australia – big ones that operate for only a couple of per cent of the year – the capacities factors are to, five a bit higher than that present but they are important. To say that will lead your energy revolution and cheap energy is a fantasy, and the reason it is a fantasy is because there is not cheap gas on the east coast because it costs too much to extract, that’s just a fact of geological life.
Updated
Turnbull also says he spoke to an investor before coming on air who told him he viewed the Australian energy sector as “an investable because of random government interventions, coupled with the absence of any coherent climate change and energy policy integrating the two”.
Malcolm Turnbull is on the ABC responding to the Morrison government’s energy roadmap.
Asked if the governent had the right priorities, he says:
What the big priority should be is to have a coherent national energy policy that integrates climate and energy – that’s what the national energy guarantee did which Angus Taylor helped wreck.
This is very hard to follow – what is emerging is this energy roadmap and it’s gas one minute, carbon capture and storage the next. What you need is to set out some basic parameters which deal with reliability, affordability and emissions reduction, and then let the market get to work. That’s what Liberal governments should do.
Unfortunately, it’s just one random intervention after another.
Updated
Labor Senator Kristina Keneally now clarifies whether the Office for Women is disputing the statistics from the Women's Legal Service QLD. It says no, it's just "painting a broader picture."
— Stephanie Dalzell (@steph_dalzell) September 22, 2020
The Reserve Bank has warned that the unemployment rate could still rise despite the recent unexpected fall, while presenting four policy options the central bank has available should the economy need a further lift.
Deputy central bank governor Guy Debelle says that while the drop in the unemployment rate to 6.8% in August was unforeseen, the recovery in the labour market was likely to be “bumpy and uneven”.
“We still expect the unemployment rate to rise from here,” he told the Australian Industry Group on Tuesday, according to AAP.
His comments came as new data on Tuesday showed payroll jobs fell 0.7% for the month ending 5 September.
Updated
The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, has responded to the Morrison government’s technology roadmap.
Here is some of his statement:
This technology list is a fig leaf for the continued expansion of the fossil fuel industry.
This roadmap contains no plan to phase out coal and gas. In fact, the roadmap bakes in coal and gas for years to come, subsidising the coal and gas cartels from the public purse.
Carbon capture and storage is unicorn technology that has already had millions of dollars of public money poured into it.
This is corporate capture and profit as the coal and gas cartels get access to billions of dollars meant for renewables.
We already have the technology we need to move to a clean energy economy that exports hydrogen to our neighbours.
He said the roadmap “doubles down on last century’s technology, all to suit the coal and gas corporations, whose fingerprints are all over this roadmap”.
Updated
Summer fires most costly Australia disaster since 1980
The summer bushfires are the most costly national disaster in Australia since 1980, with more than $2.3bn in insured losses claimed to date, the bushfire royal commission has heard.
The royal commission into national natural disaster arrangements is holding its last week of hearings before delivering its final report next Month.
It recalled witnesses from the Csiro, the insurance industry and security risk experts, with the senior counsel assisting, Dominique Hogan-Doran, saying there was “good reason” to consider climate and security risks together.
Dr Bruce Buckley, the principle climate research analyst at Insurance Group Australia, said that according to an update on severe weather risks in a changing climate, released this month, the best analogue for the upcoming summer was the summer of 2010-2011, which saw cyclone Yasi, the Queensland floods and a hail storm that caused $1bn damage in Melbourne.
So what this is telling us is that we have seen connected extremes recently where we have had a dry series of connected extremes [the drought and black summer bushfires]. Here, the prediction is for a series of wet connected extremes.
Insurance experts said that Australia would experience “compound disasters” at an increased frequency. That’s things like fires, severe storms and a pandemic all at once – as experienced in the first quarter of this year.
The chief commissioner, Mark Binskin, thanked the actuaries then remarked:
Gentlemen, you are depressing.
Updated
Today’s NDIS update has arrived.
There are currently 24 active cases within the NDIS; 12 participants and 12 workers.
It is a one-case increase among participants while the worker figure is unchanged.
All cases are in Victoria.
Prominent legal figures want the Victorian government to change its controversial Covid-19 omnibus bill, calling some of the provisions “unprecedented, excessive and open to abuse”, reports AAP.
The Reason party MP Fiona Patten also will not vote for the bill unless there are amendments.
The 14 retired judges and QCs have published an open letter, saying they are “deeply concerned” that the bill went through state parliament’s lower house last week.
The bill is due to go before the upper house next month.
The list of QCs putting their names to the letter include retired high court judge Michael McHugh and former federal court judges Peter Heerey and Neil Young.
You can read more about the proposed laws here.
Updated
Hi everyone, Luke Henriques-Gomes here, taking over from Amy Remeikis. Thanks to Amy for her work today.
We should have a national Covid update coming up. So I’ll bring that to you when it arrives.
Updated
That’s where I will leave you for today º Luke Henriques-Gomes is standing by to take you through the rest of the afternoon.
Thank you so much for joining me today. I’ll be back early tomorrow morning. In the meantime, take care of you. Ax
Updated
The bureau of statistics has released its payroll data:
Between the week ending 14 March 2020 (the week Australia recorded its 100th confirmed Covid-19 case) and the week ending 5 September 2020:
- Payroll jobs decreased by 4.5%
- Total wages decreased by 4.3%
Since the week ending 14 March 2020, the largest changes across industry were:
● Payroll jobs: accommodation and food services decreased by 21.9% and arts and recreation services decreased by 14.1%
● Total wages: mining decreased by 15.7% and accommodation and food services decreased by 13.8%
You can find more information here.
Updated
Victorian police have released their latest fine information:
In the last 24 hours, Victoria police have:
- Issued a total of 92 fines to individuals for breaching the chief health officer’s directions, including:
- 9 for failing to wear a face covering when leaving home for one of the four approved reasons
- 11 at vehicle checkpoints
- 36 for curfew breaches.
- 26,623 vehicles checked at the vehicle checkpoints
- Conducted 1,965 spot checks on people at homes, businesses and public places across the state (total of 452,852 spot checks conducted since 21 March).
Please find below examples from the last 24 hours of breaches:
- Four people were located in the carpark of Mernda railway station. When asked for their reason for being out, they stated they just wanted to catch up with their mates. All four people received fines.
- Five people were located having a party in a short-term rental apartment on City Road in Southbank. All five people were issued with fines.
- Three males were located in the carpark of a shopping centre in Casey, which was more than 5km from all of their addresses. The reason given for being out was that it was one of the males’ 20th birthday and they wanted to get a feed. All three were issued with fines.
Updated
The Business Council of Australia’s chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, is happy with the South Australian decision to open its border to New South Wales from Thursday:
It is good to see South Australia and NSW learning from our experience managing this virus throughout the pandemic, putting in place the systems to manage it locally, keep people safe and get their economies open again.
This will be welcome news to families hoping to reunite, for workers who can now cross borders to get to their jobs, and for businesses like retailers who can look towards the critical Christmas period and plan with optimism.
The economy doesn’t stop at state borders. Every artificial barrier to doing business hurts people and puts jobs at risk.
If NSW and South Australia can get the systems in place that manage the virus, keep people safe and open their borders up, then there is no reason other states can’t do the same.
We congratulate the South Australian premier for his leadership putting the people of South Australia and the national interest first.
We continue to urge all state and territory leaders to take a common-sense approach, manage outbreaks locally, open the country back up and adopt a nationally consistent scheme to manage border closures only as a last resort.
Updated
This will certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons.
#BREAKING: @QldPolice left scrambling as @DeptDefence set to pull troops off borders https://t.co/iYKUMBiIOq #Queensland #COVID19 #coronavirus #qldpol #auspol pic.twitter.com/oSifqA6Xgb
— The Courier-Mail (@couriermail) September 22, 2020
Updated
Kim Carr has some thoughts:
When they were debated, these bills were seen as agricultural matters, not matters of human health and civil liberties. #auspol
— Kim Carr (@SenKimCarr) September 22, 2020
This law, passed by parliament in 2016, gave the Min for Health power to override any other law under cloak of national emergency. This means, for instance, that tele companies can be directed to trace people & access their meta data, irrespective of any other legislation #auspol
— Kim Carr (@SenKimCarr) September 22, 2020
Unions representing members of Virgin Australia’s 6,000-strong workforce have warned new owners Bain Capital not to undermine a “culture of collaboration” at the airline.
Ahead of a meeting with the US private equity group tomorrow, the unions have laid out a long list of concerns about the future management of the airline.
These include a claim that there’s a shortfall of planes ready to fly. The unions say Bain promised there would be 75, but just 56 are ready to run.
In addition, they say Bain is using negotiations for a new enterprise agreement to drive down working conditions.
Pilot unions “are concerned that the change of culture, combined with savage reductions terms and conditions, will lead to an erosion of training and safety standards”, the group said in a statement.
One of the main concerns unions have is the involvement of former Jetstar boss Jayne Hrdlicka.
Officials at Jetstar’s biggest union, the Transport Workers Union, associate her with Jetstar’s hardline approach to labour negotiations, and the establishment of a workforce paid less than the budget carrier’s full-service parent, Qantas.
The unions said:
Workers stand ready to negotiate cooperatively but they will not accept a coarse plan to drive down labour, safety and service standards in the medium- to long-term.
It is clear that there is a lack of knowledge at Bain Capital on Virgin’s culture and brand among the Australian public.
It is incumbent on Bain to show it can listen and learn from workers who have helped build Virgin up.
Bain must show it can focus on maintaining the community trust that Virgin has created over the years, rather than morphing into a dictatorial culture.
Unions signing on to the statement were (deep breath): TWU, ASU, VIPA, FAA, ALAEA, AFAP, ETU and AMWU.
Updated
Mark Butler, Labor’s climate and energy spokesman, is responding to Angus Taylor’s speech. Butler says the roadmap is a “road to nowhere”:
None of the policy announcements will deliver a single new job in the time frame Australia requires, which is now, in the middle of the deepest recession in almost a century, not off in the never-never. We have no plans to create jobs, no plans to bring down power bills, nothing from Scott Morrison except spin.
... The roadmap contains some unusual features. Nuclear power is in there, but bio energy is not. Energy efficiency is described as an emerging technology ... The first thing we should be doing is to bring down power bills and emissions and create extraordinary numbers of jobs, that is what every other country is doing.
This plan has nothing about electric vehicles. We heard overnight the United Kingdom’s electric and hybrid vehicles, car sales, overtake diesel vehicles for the first time – a revolution sweeping the global car industry that this government has nothing to say about.
There are some things in this roadmap to be welcomed, there is no doubt about that. Glad they got onboard on hydrogen and some other things like that, where they were previously opposed. But there is still some major deficits, measure blindspots, by this government on technology. And again I will say: no energy policy. And without energy policy, you won’t see things change on the ground.
And without that, you won’t see new jobs created, and you won’t see power bills come down.
Updated
The Western Australia premier, Mark McGowan, has reported three new cases in the state. All are in hotel quarantine.
He was then asked about WA upping its returned traveller intake:
Obviously we are sympathetic to everyone who is overseas who wants to come home.
From whatever environment today we had three people come back to Perth and are now in hospital quarantine.
What you saw in Melbourne is when the system overloads and Covid-19 gets out, mass outbreaks and massive debts.
I don’t want to see that happen here so what we have agreed with the commonwealth government is over the course of the next three or four weeks we will double the number of Australians coming home who can hotel quarantine in Perth.
This will mean per capita, per capita, Western Australia is taking the largest number of returning Australians from overseas. But we have to be able to manage it, we have to be able to manage the hotels, so we will just work to make sure we have a steady flow of Australians coming home and we can manage the load safely and securely to prevent what happened in Melbourne happening here in Perth.
Updated
Another independent MP, Helen Haines, has also made her thoughts clear:
There will be a lot of discussion today about how Australia should reduce our emissions. But here in Indi, the message is clear: people want a renewable transition and they want to lead it themselves. And I back everyday Australians all the way.https://t.co/l9KQW23YPE
— Helen Haines MP (@helenhainesindi) September 21, 2020
Updated
Zali Steggall, who won her seat on a climate-change platform, also has some thoughts on the energy “roadmap”:
The government is taking us on a detour.
The roadmap is not the most efficient or economic way of reducing emissions, and not the way that delivers the most jobs.
There is no net-zero goal in this announcement, and the government won’t commit to such a goal because they know their current policy won’t get us there, despite all the science indicating we need to get there asap.
This is not a roadmap but a historical sightseeing tour of technologies, like carbon capture and storage, that have cost a lot and delivered little.
We know what is delivering emissions reduction and that is renewables. Just last year the cost of renewables dropped by 26%. They are the cheapest and most effective way of reducing emissions, but the government has overseen a flatlining of investment that is likely to continue with this announcement.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, renewable investment has fallen from $4.12bn in 2018 to just $549m this year - well short of what we need to transition away from coal and gas.”
Updated
And one of the early responses:
Technology without a target isn’t climate action @AusConservation #auspol pic.twitter.com/LNoIpftdUd
— Political Alert (@political_alert) September 22, 2020
Angus Taylor finishes up.
Murph will have more for you soon, but ... sigh.
Australia’s Technology Investment Roadmap will accelerate technologies to create more jobs, lower costs to households and businesses, and reduce emissions. #auspol pic.twitter.com/ieQ3p3vefT
— Angus Taylor MP (@AngusTaylorMP) September 22, 2020
Updated
Question: Two years ago, your predecessor stood here giving the national energy guarantee, saying we must not miss this opportunity to deliver a more affordable, more reliable and lower-emission energy system for Australia. This is a very glossy, 46-page document. You have spoken about more affordability and reliability, and outcomes. How can you convince the Australian public that this is now the way forward, given the national energy guarantee couldn’t get past your own party?
Angus Taylor:
Let’s be clear about the national energy guarantee. Parts of that are in place. We have only done it. It’s important because that will drive the incentive for dispatch ability. To balance out the deficiency in our grid, and the target of 26% reduction in the national energy market, will achieve that in the next 12 months, if not sooner.
This is another policy ... Let me finish. We are focused on outcomes. The relentless focus in this area of the government’s outcomes.
We have achieved those outcomes. In terms of achieving outcomes with this, we put in, I think, $18bn behind it, we’re serious about it, we’re already seeing the private sector and state governments matching significant funding in critical area. We have seen the New South Wales government state deal, they are matching our funding in many areas, and we have seen the private sector go there ...
The CFC is getting a ratio of three to one – for every dollar they put in, we get $3. So we have a track record on this, we have the delivery and achievements. There is much more work to do in the coming years.This document lays out how we’re going to achieve that, and coming back to your original question, we have already achieved those outcomes the treasurer described.
Angus Taylor, one of the strongest internal opponents of the NEG, says we’ve achieved the objectives of the NEG, so we don’t need to worry that the NEG didn’t happen, because we are outcomes focussed. How circles get squared in the climate wars @PressClubAust #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) September 22, 2020
Updated
Question: There are concerns that carbon capture is an unproven technology. Even the facility that you mentioned earlier, when in full swing, will still leave around 5 million tonnes of CO2 going into the atmosphere annually. Why are you gambling taxpayer money on unproven technology?
Angus Taylor:
Because it’s not. Let’s go to the facts: there’s 58 carbon capture and storage projects in the world, either in development or in operation. Nineteen of them are in operation right now.
The biggest one is Gorgon, which is taking 4 million tonnes annualised a year. It’s based on a technology that has been used for decades in the oil and gas industry and is being used now to store that carbon under the ground.
Now, this is a technology that is recommended by the IPCC, the International Energy Agency. It is part of the plans for the UK, for Europe, for both sides of politics in the United States. Both sides. Biden has said in recent weeks that he will double down on carbon capture and storage and invest in R and D in carbon capture and storage.
So you know, it is somewhat odd that in this country, it seems where we are a leader in this technology and playing a leadership role, it appears to me that in some quarters at least, it’s more controversial than it is almost anywhere in the world. But it is an accepted technology across large swathes of the world. It’s part of the answer.
It’s not the whole answer. It requires balance.
Q: Still a lot of CO2 going into the atmosphere, though?
Taylor:
It goes into the ground, whether it is biological. Biological, which we talked about earlier with soil capture. Taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through pasture growth, for instance, and that’s becoming soil carbon. And in the case of geological, we’re putting it in cabins under the ground. They are taking carbon dioxide out. They’re out of the atmosphere. That’s the objective here. That’s what the goal is. That’s what we say: we are relentlessly outcome focused. Technologies just deliver outcomes. They’re only interesting because they can deliver outcome and that’s what we’re focused on.
Updated
Question: Nev Powell couldn’t guarantee that no one on the commission stood to gain from the gas fired recovery plan.
Given the role with Strike Energy and the role on the board of the Saudi oil and gas company, can you tell Australia that no one on the commission stands to personally gain from the plan that they recommended to you?
Angus Taylor:
I should tell you that the plan that we have announced today is our plan. It’s our plan. The government makes the decision. Yes, we get advice from the technology investment advisory committee. Yes, we get advice from the NCCC. Yes, we get advice from departments and agencies. We’ve gone to Arena and CFC ... We’ve had hundreds of people engaged in every step of the way.
But ultimately, the decisions that we’ve announced this week and last week are our decisions – the decisions of the government, based on what we believe is right for this country, is right for job creation, is right in a coronavirus environment where we want a strong economy more than ever. And they’re decisions that we stand by, and we are confident will deliver the outcomes that Australians want and deserve.
Q: Will they personally benefit from it?
Taylor:
The decisions are ours, not theirs. That’s the point we’re making. It’s our decision. We’re the government. We’ve made these decisions. We’ve made the announcements. They’re our decisions. And that’s our job and that’s what we’re doing and we’ll take advice from many people.
We take advice from people in business all the time. We take input. We talk to them. We talk to people outside of business, NGOs, all the time. They all have various interests. But we make the decisions. And that’s what we’ve done here. They have to be the right decisions for Australia and we’re very confident that they are.
Q: It’s a simple yes or no. Do you know that or not?
Taylor:
Well, it’s not something that I’m even focused on. I’m focused on delivering a plan that is right for the country and we make the decisions. We made the decisions here that I’ve announced. We made the decisions that I announced last week. That’s the role of government. We take input from lots of people along the way.
Updated
Question: You said earlier that we are placing a bet on the portfolio here when it comes to your picking winners approach. But in practice, how will it work? Take, for example, low-carbon steel. If you won’t have a carbon price, would you simply just have to mandate a proportion of steel being used, being produced through green steel, which is hydrogen? Won’t that just simply put the price of steel up?
Angus Taylor:
We already have the price that matters and that’s the price of steel. And that’s why we’ve set our target as the price of steel. We want green steel, low-emissions steel, to be produced at the same cost as the current cost of producing steel. The price of steel. So that’s already there. That’s the goal.
And the whole point about this is that we don’t want to raise the costs of existing higher-emitting technologies and fuel sources. We want to reduce the cost of low-emission alternatives. And the only way to do that is for the technologies to get to the point where their cost of production for steel or aluminium or electricity, whatever it might be, is lower than the current higher-emitting alternatives. That way we deliver prosperity, jobs and all of that.
Q: Just repeating the question: without a carbon price, how do you get low-carbon steel? You would have to mandate steel being made in a green way?
Taylor:
No, people adopt new technologies because of the economics of those technologies.
Q: Or they’re being told to?
Taylor:
You know what, I know on the other side of politics, there’s always been an instinct to tell consumers what to buy, always been an instinct to tax them in order to make them buy what they want. We’re not going to do that. We’ve been clear about this at all times. We were clear about it before the last election and we’re clear about it now.
So the way through, and this is true just for Australia, this is true for developing countries, for New Zealand, for Canada. If you want to get emissions down, you’ve got to make sure those low-emissions technologies come in and can produce whatever good it is they’re producing – whether it’s aluminium or steel or electricity – at a lower cost than, or at least equal, to their higher emitting alternatives. And that way, you don’t have to impose a tax.
That way, you don’t have to make things more expensive for people. That’s what we’re seeking to do. We’re seeing that now. We’re seeing that solar is producing energy. It’s not dispatchable, but energy, at a low cost.
That’s a great thing. And that is resulting in very significant investment of household solar on people’s roofs and large-scale solar as well. So we know that this works. We know that it works because this has been the history of technology through the world, that new, lower-cost technologies emerge that offer consumers great advantage over the existing alternatives. We want to see that with a lower-emitting alternatives, whether it is aluminium, steel, transport, you name it.
Just on this we won’t tax things argument: under this plan, taxpayers are contributing $18bn. Taxpayers are subsidising this transition, rather than heavy emitters (which is the carbon pricing model). No tax suggests no cost. That’s not right @PressClubAust #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) September 22, 2020
Updated
Question: The government has been very prescriptive with private enterprise about building a new power station in the Hunter region. The prime minister has also indicated that you’re ready to go if private enterprise doesn’t step up. Therefore, can I ask you, if you have to carry through that threat, how big would the power station – the gas power station that you’re talking about – be? How much would it cost? How would it be financed? And when would construction start? And it be ready to produce?
Angus Taylor: So there’s a bunch of questions there.
Q: All related.
Taylor:
All related, I understand!
The situation is this: when Liddell closes, we lose an effective 1,000 megawatts of capacity from the market. Economics says you lose a big chunk of supply without replacing it, the price goes up.
So we’ve given the private sector until April next year to get to financial close with capacity that can replace that 1,000 megawatts that’s leaving the market. We will fill whatever gap is left. Now, we have some projects that are on the books, but none have reached financial close.
We have Energy Australia, potentially a great project, but it’s got to get to financial close.
We have AGL working on a gas [investment] in Newcastle, but it has to get to financial close.
We have others in recent days who said that they can invest. Yes, great, but it’s got to get to financial close.
It’s got to deliver power 24 hours a day, 365 day as year. And we’ll step in and fill the gap. Now, the cost of it and size of it will depend on the remaining gap. We’ll do it through Snowy Hydro and finance it, and Snowy already has a gas generator in the Hunter Valley, so this is not new for them.
We’ll finance it. We’ll fill that gap.
We would prefer the private sector get to financial close, but if they don’t, we’ll step up and we’ll make sure that it happens.
Q: And what’s the timeline?
Taylor: The timeline is April.
Q: No, the timeline – if you have to step in, when would construction start and be producing power?
Taylor:
In early 2023. So that’s when it’s got to be completed by when Liddell closes. That’s why April next year is such a critical date, because that’s about as short a time as we can contemplate would be needed in order to get that replacement capacity in place. Let’s be very clear about this: this is partly about reliability, but it’s primarily about affordability.
If you take that much capacity out of the market, it’s a huge amount in a short period of time. We saw what happened with Hazlewood. We saw very, very sharp increases in prices. We’re not prepared to accept that. But we are asking the private sector to step up. The rules are very clear and we want them to get to financial close by April this year.
Updated
Q: I have a question about the soil carbon option. From my quick read of the book, it’s the only option where the potential reduction of carbon is actually stated. It says that improving agricultural practices in 25% of Australia’s agricultural land could result in up to 90 million tonnes a year and it says, “being drawn from the atmosphere”. Ninety million tonnes, that’s almost 20% of our annual. So that’s serious.
Now, what does it mean: “drawing Co2 from the atmosphere?” Is this just about farmers managing their spent crops? Or is it about actively processing fossil fuel emissions and taking it in a truck to the farm?
Angus Taylor:
So, it is essentially photosynthesis; what photosynthesis does. And people understand it from high school science – takes Co2 and puts it into the plant and much of the organic Co2 remains in the plant afterwards.
Now, farmers know how to do that. That’s what they do.
Particularly on pastures. The big job of a farmer is to grow more pasture, and some of that pasture stays in the ground and some of it gets buried very deep, as much as a metre deep. So the job is to get more of that to happen. As I say, farmers already know a lot about how to do that.
The great challenge is to measure it at low cost. Because if we can measure it at low cost, we can actually verify that it is happening.
Farmers are paid for the work that they do, and we can improve the techniques and reduce the costs of storing that soil carbon in the soil. And traditionally, the way that we tested soil carbon, and we still do, is we put a probe a metre deep down into the ground and do it in lots and lots of areas, even in an individual paddock.
And that gets expensive. But we also know that satellite imagery offers us the opportunity to dramatically reduce that cost if we can actually see from satellite imagery, that goes over from a regular basis, how much soil carbon is being reduced and how much is being stored in the soil.
If we can get that technology really working – it already works – but really working as a way of measuring soil ... we can go down to $3 per hectare per year, which is what we’re targeting.
And we see the opportunity here. They’re big numbers there. Ninety million tonnes a year is about 20% of our emissions.
Because we have so much agricultural land in Australia relative to our population, it is a big number and it’s a big opportunity and that’s why we’re pursuing it.
Updated
(That investment he was talking about was mostly solar and wind.)
Updated
Question: Energy policy has probably been the single greatest policy failure over the last decade and that’s probably why no one has built anything, because they don’t know if things will change if [there’s a] change in government. You today are picking winners in the emerging technology space. As you said, you’re going to throw a ton of money behind the chosen technologies to the private sector to do the same. Why would someone look at that and with a change of government and work against that? Would you work constructively with the ALP in a proper bipartisan basis to ensure that some, if not all, would survive a change of government? If not we’ll be back to where we are now.
Angus Taylor:
There’s a couple of parts to your question. The first is, you made the statement that people haven’t built anything. Well, they have. They spent $9bn on energy generation in 2019 and we’re on track to a similar $9bn in energy generation this year. That’s 6.3 gigawatts a year in a grid of about 50 gigawatts. That’s not growing in demand. That’s an extraordinary investment.
It’s completely unprecedented. Now, the challenge with it, and I’ve made this point in the speech, is it’s got to be balanced. So the private sector invests.
We have to make sure that we have the right balance and the right technologies coming through, and of course, I made the point about hydrogen investment, and there’s other areas with very significant investment that we’ve seen in there. Carbon capture and storage.
We’ve got the biggest carbon capture and storage project in the world in Australia. So the investment is happening. We have to make sure that it is balanced. We have to make sure that the signals are strong about that balance, and we’re sending very, very strong signals. As you said, with $18bn, that’s a strong signal to the private sector.
Your point about picking winners: the nature of R and D portfolios is that you have to place bets. We’re placing a bet on a portfolio here. And that’s what companies do. That’s what nations do. That’s what universities do. That is how R and D investment works.
It has to evolve, but as you said, it should evolve in a gradual way, in a very well-informed and well thought through way, which is why we’re locking in this advisory panel.
The private sector can have confidence, whilst we’re in government, we will always maintain that principle of continuing to focus on those priority technologies that are going to bring down emissions.
In terms of bipartisanship, we’ve laid our plan out here very, very carefully. I don’t know what Labor’s plans are. I don’t know what their target is for 2030. I don’t know how they’re going to achieve that target that they don’t have.
They’re questions for them. Do we want to work with them to get this agenda implemented? Absolutely. And I think that there’s much in this for all of us to agree on. So we would very much like Labor to engage with us to deliver this agenda, and there will be opportunities through legislative changes which we’ve outlined here today for Labor to work with us to do exactly that.
Updated
I’ll let Murph clear that one up:
Shorter technology roadmap: no targets post 2030, no meaningful definition of what constitutes low emissions, clean or green technology @PressClubAust #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) September 22, 2020
Question: We have no clarity on 2030. Could we get clarity on definitions. I can’t find in the road map any definition of low or green or clean technologies,
... What is it, the amount of abatement that the technologies drive? And leading from that question, how were the five priorities determined? Down the list, you’ve got technologies like generation enablers that drive renewables into the power grid. Energy efficiency which is a proven, cheap; abateful of fugitive methane emissions which, given the profile of Australia’s emissions, would seem a pressing priority right now. How did you determine the top five?
Angus Taylor:
Because they are the technologies that can move the dial in a significant way in reducing the emissions, helping to achieve the 2030 target and helping us to achieve reductions beyond 2030.
Each one of them backs in technologies that play a significant role in the economy, whether it’s agriculture, whether it’s electricity, whether it’s manufacturing. If you look at aluminium – I don’t need to tell many in this audience, aluminium is one of our highest-emission industries.
If we are to have an aluminium industry that succeeds into the future, we need to work out how to bring emissions down. So we’ve targeted those areas where we can really move the dial, but there are also those areas where Australia has natural advantage. Now we’ll deploy other technologies.
You know, EVs are going to grow in Australia in the coming years and ... we’ve announced last week investment in over $70m in infrastructure support to enable that technology into Australia in a significant way – particularly for fleets, we’ll receive the first big opportunity. So there’s many other technologies that will play a role in this, but what we’ve done is pick the ones that can move the dial, where we have advantage, where we can build industries, where we can create jobs and drive investment – and we can, importantly.
And this is a crucial point: where we can support a global outcome of emissions reduction while strengthening prosperity. And this is the great challenge that the world has to overcome.
It’s not just an emissions reduction challenge. It’s an emissions reduction challenge that’s consistent with enabling countries, particularly in the developing world, to grow their prosperity and decarbonising, finding ways to reduce emissions in industries like agriculture, aluminium and steel, is absolutely crucial to achieving that.
Q: That’s the five, but what’s the definition of green?
Taylor:
The definition: what will bring down, what will move the dial in bringing down our emissions.
Q: So there isn’t a specific definition in terms of emissions intensity?
Taylor:
That’s pretty specific. Bringing down emissions is the goal here. And this is the point: questions are goal-orientated. We want to do stuff that works, do stuff where we can make a difference and bring emissions down, that’s the goal. That’s how the technologies were chosen.
Updated
Question: Is that, in short, “trust us we are the government”?
Angus Taylor:
No, trust us we’re doing it. The whole point about what I’m talking about here is, we have a track record. We’re doing it, it’s building on our strengths and achievements. If you look at hydrogen, we’re already doing it.
If you look at each of these technology areas, I can tell a story about Australia’s achievements to date, and why continuing to push down that path is a great prospect for this country. Not just for domestic emissions reduction, but for jobs, for growth, for export and for developing world-leading technologies. And we’ve picked those priority technologies on that basis.
Updated
That was not clear.
Question: I’m wondering about telling investors, now we’ve got both Germany and France investing huge amounts of money on hydrogen as part of their Covid recovery programs – 100bn euros in France’s case and 9bn euros in Germany.
The problem, it strikes me, in a capital-constrained world, we’re going to be competing for that private sector money with countries like Germany and France and others. And to do that, we’re going to have to be really competitive and people have to be very confident about the outlook. And investors say that they need that emissions reduction target to know what the plan is. It’s fine to have these priorities, but they need to know what the plan is. So how do you reassure investors and drag that capital in, particularly when they’re investing so much more than Australia?
Angus Taylor:
Well, let’s be clear here: we have an emissions reduction target for 2030. It’s a 26% reduction on the baseline of 2005 levels, and we’ll meet and beat that. And we’ve done it before. We have form. We have the track record and we’ll do it again.
But what we’ve also done here is made very clear where our technology priorities are, and we’re putting money where our mouth is – $18 bn of investment. You know, you take hydrogen, which you mentioned – we’ve already committed over $500m. We committed another $70m last week for a new hydrogen export hub. I’m sure that that won’t be the end of the investments.
And that is a very significant amount for Australia. But if you look at Australia, as a smaller country than Germany or France, we have to focus on where we have an advantage.
If I look at hydrogen, we are extraordinarily well positioned. Why? Because we’re one of the biggest energy exporters in the world. We’re the biggest LNG exporter in the world. We opened up the markets into Korea, Japan, China. It was Australia who did it. We led the way. And we’re the biggest in the world as a result. We can do exactly the same with hydrogen. And we’re saying to investors: we’re putting our money where our mouth is and we’re going hard.
Now, we’re already seeing the results. If you take the La Trobe supply chain project – where we’re working through how best to transport hydrogen up into Asia, and north Asian countries want access to hydrogen – we’ve invested $50m. The total investment in that is times 10, it’s over $500m – $500m. Now, if we can get times 10, I can tell you, $18bn becomes a very, very big number.
We’re not planning on times 10 on every project, but we will see projects like that. And hydrogen is one of those areas where we’re signalling very strongly to the private sector: come with us, invest and we see the opportunity. I’m very confident. Others see the opportunity. We’ve had a phenomenal response to that, which is running on R and D investment in hydrogen. And these other areas of technology that I’ve described, I am very confident that the private sector will follow the very strong signals we’re sending.
Updated
OK, we get to the questions for Angus Taylor:
Question: You’ve outlined a plan that will basically guide $18bn in taxpayer money pouring into energy. It’s a huge amount of money. But it’s not clear to me what the benchmark is for success.
There’s no net-zero target by 2050, so taxpayers are being asked to accept $18bn in outlay without a benchmark that they can use to tell whether you succeed at your job or not. Now, globally, you have a 2030 target. You say you’re reaching it in a canter. But globally, talks are moving ahead of that. We’re going to see at the United Nations summits in the future, talk about 2035, talk about 2040.
Now, if, as you say, you’re getting to 2030 in a canter, and if, as you say, you have the good plan to spend $18bn, isn’t it now time for you to say what your 2035 or 2040 target is, and to actually come clean with the Australian voters now about the fact that you’ll have one and how ambitious you can be with it?
Taylor:
Well, we’re very clear with the Australian voters. And you know, I’d highlight the fact that the Opposition isn’t.
We have a very clear 2030 target.
If we look at the Paris agreement, the naturally determined contributions are the 2030 target. In a few years’ time, they will extend out to 2035 – that’s how the Paris agreement works.
And we’re unambiguous in seeking to not just meet that but to beat it. Just as we’ve met and beaten our 2020 target, despite much scepticism about whether we would. To put this in perspective – in 2013, when Labor was still in government, they made a forecast for emissions in 2020 that was 100 million tonnes higher than what we’ll achieve – almost 20% higher than what we’ll achieve, and that was with a carbon tax.
What we’ve achieved in the last 20 years, we’ll do again. We’ll meet and beat the target and create a platform for emissions targets well beyond 2030. The goals are clear.
We have to bring those technologies that can really move the dial into parity with the high-emitting alternatives. That way, it’s just straight economics. We will ensure that we have a strong economy, strong job growth, strong there.
Q: When will you then have a 2035 target?
Taylor:
As it’s required by the Paris agreement – in a couple of years’ time, we will have to extend.
Q: Why not before the next election?
Taylor:
It keeps extending out every few years and that’s the way that it will continue on. But the crucial point here is that you’ve got to focus on the stuff you can do today that works, that we can do now, to set yourself up for that emissions reduction trajectory – not just through to 2030, which we’ll meet and beat, but beyond.
And that’s exactly what we’re describing today.
Q: Why not before the next election? Why won’t you tell the voters what the 2035 target is?
Taylor:
We’ll keep telling voters about what we’re doing and how well we’re doing many times between now and the next election. As you say, I note that the opposition doesn’t have a 2030 target. That is the primary target of the Paris agreement.
Let’s be clear: that is what we have to focus on. We have to meet and beat that and we have to set ourselves up. Not just in Australia. The Paris agreement is about global outcomes. And we have to set ourselves up to achieve those global outcomes. Not just through to 2030 but beyond. And technology is the key.
Updated
We have had “partisanise” from Scott Morrison, now we have “enablement” from Angus Taylor:
Last week, you saw our R and D investment framework in action with $1.9bn including baseline funding.
The technology investment fund that will support green steel, green aluminium and carbon. The future fuels fund that supports EVs, high general in a technology-future approach to transport.
Our first hydrogen export hub. Investment to scale carbon capture and storage and investment in energy efficiency and outcomes.
Our second, alongside investment, we have a legislative lever that is about flexibility and accountability.
We’ve already announced legislative reforms to the mandates of Arena and CFC.
These reforms will give their boards the flexibility to respond to our technology priorities.
We don’t currently have that.
Our agencies are restricted by legislation and regulation to invest in the new technologies of 2010, not the emerging technologies of 2020.
These reforms will enable them to support the technologies that reduce emissions across all sectors of our economy. On an annual basis, we’ll review legislation that’s a barrier to achieving our stretch goals. We’ll table the low-emissions technology statement in parliament each year. Future statements will highlight the impact it is having, the progress against stretch goals and offer a frank assessment of legislative and regulatory barriers.
Our third: we have a regulatory lever that’s about enablement. We’ll provide just over $40m to the clean energy regulator to take responsibility for developing and streamlining emissions reductions fund methods. The regulator already has a target of halving the time it takes to develop new methods and will work closely with industry in doing so. We won’t mandate the deployment of technologies.
We’ve seen the unintended consequences of mandated volume targets for specific technologies and we won’t repeat that. But our regulatory changes will be focused on removing barriers to deployment of these priority technologies. And the final leaver is international engagement and collaboration.
A regulatory lever that is about enablement is possibly my favourite sentence of 2020 #auspol @PressClubAust
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) September 22, 2020
Updated
And here is why he thinks Australia is doing so well (which it is, if you consider all the accounting tricks Australia is deploying to get to its figures).
Angus Taylor:
To that end, we have four core principles behind our work.
The first: a relentless focus on it.
The second: the deployment on activity, not taxes.
Third: respect for consumer choice.
And fourth: a goal to maintain a balance of fuel and technology sources.
We need more horses in the race, not less.
Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP
Updated
Australia shouldn’t damage economy to reduce emissions, Angus Taylor says
Angus Taylor has laid out the government’s main point when it comes to its energy policy:
In emissions reduction, it’s the race for cost-effective, low and negative cost reductions to strengthen our economy, not weaken it.
That’s why the government has undertaken to develop, fund and drive a low-emissions technology road map.
History has also shown us that you don’t tax your way out of a challenge like this. Let’s be clear: there are only two ways to suppress emissions. Either through some form of taxation, or you improve the activities.
There is no third way. Australia can’t and shouldn’t damage its economy to reduce emissions.
We forget that when developing countries ... were asked to sacrifice for the environment, they’ve typically prioritised prosperity.
That was the lesson of Copenhagen. We can’t ask them to make the trade-off.
We should also remember the global emissions reduction is the ultimate goal here, with the Paris agreement seeking to achieve net zero in this century for the globe, or preferably sooner.
Now, the only pathway to global emissions reduction while strengthening prosperity is through developing low-emissions technologies at lower cost than higher-emitting alternatives.
Updated
Angus Taylor has started his address to the press club.
Murph is there, so we will bring you regular reports.
Updated
Melbourne’s weather has now impacted testing sites.
From Victoria Health:
Two outer eastern suburbs coronavirus testing sites have been closed today due to high winds.
The drive-through sites at Casey Fields and Pakenham recreation reserve are open marquees, with potential hazards due to wind dislodging the structures and the problems of staff trying to take down written details in the open.
There are alternative sites nearby for people seeking a test.
The walk-through site at Clyde recreation reserve football pavilion in Pattersons Rd, Clyde, is open daily from 9am to 4pm.
A walk-through site at 7 Gibb St, Berwick, is open from 9.30am to 4pm, and a drive-through site at 20 Woods St, Beaconsfield, is open from 8am to 5pm.
Further details on other available coronavirus (Covid-19) testing site locations can be found on the testing site map at www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/where-get-tested-covid-19
Updated
The Victorian hotel quarantine inquiry has been hearing today from the secretary of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, Simon Phemister. It was his department that was tasked with recruiting security firms for the hotel quarantine inquiry.
Phemister told the inquiry it was not until after the 4.30pm state control centre meeting on 27 March that his department began recruiting security firms. And although the department bears operational responsibility for the use of security guards, Phemister said it was not his decision to use security guards for hotels.
Phemister’s submission to the inquiry states:
DJPR went into the first SCC meeting not knowing whether, and to what extent, private security would be required at hotels, and emerged with a direction: to engage private security to act as frontline security at quarantine hotels.
Phemister, as with every other witness before the inquiry so far, said he was unaware of who made the decision. Victoria police has denied that former chief commissioner Graham Ashton’s preference for security expressed in the SCC meeting led to the decision.
A late-night WhatsApp group chat between Victorian government officials on the day hotel quarantine was announced revealed concern about recruiting security firms to guard returned travellers.
Updated
The Covid committee is hearing some very depressing news on how this pandemic has impacted women:
Peak advisory body to Gov on violence against women just told COVID Ctee what’s needed to prevent FDV & provide frontline services to all who seek help is 1 bil/year over 12 yrs. FDV costs the economy 22bil each year. Do the sums @JoshFrydenberg & fund keeping women safe! #auspol
— Larissa Waters (@larissawaters) September 22, 2020
NSW reports two new Covid cases as testing rates plummet
NSW has reported two new cases of Covid today, but both are in hotel quarantine.
From NSW Health:
There were 7,616 tests reported in the 24-hour reporting period, compared with 7,765 in the previous 24 hours.
Testing numbers have declined in recent weeks.
NSW Health is appealing to the community to come forward for testing right away if you have a runny nose or scratchy throat, cough, fever or other symptoms that could be Covid-19.
If people don’t come forward and get tested, we can’t keep the pandemic at bay.
We would like to see testing levels above 20,000 as achieved last week, particularly in south-western Sydney, and ahead of school holidays. For the sake of your friends and family, get a test. And if symptoms recur even a few days later, test again. It’s free.
While there were no locally acquired cases recorded in the past 24 hours, the virus is likely still circulating and it is imperative anyone displaying mild symptoms get tested immediately and not delay their test.
NSW Health has been and continues to strongly encourage people to wear masks when unable to physically distance, particularly in indoor settings and on public transport, to keep everyone safe. As previously advised, when taking taxis or rideshare commuters should sit in the back and wear a mask.
Updated
South Australia will allow people from New South Wales to enter the state from Thursday on the condition there is no further community transmission that occurs in NSW “between now and midnight tonight”.
The premier, Steven Marshall, acknowledged the case of a taxi driver who drove across Sydney over a span of 11 days while believed to be infectious, but said health officials had made the decision to remove the self-isolation requirement based on health advice received this morning.
Anyone entering SA from NSW up until midnight tomorrow night will still need to self-isolate for 14 days.
On Tuesday morning, NSW Health revealed two new cases in the state, both in hotel quarantine, suggesting that the cases will not impact SA’s decision.
Marshall said:
We are now in a position to advise the people of South Australia that, subject to no community transmission occurring in New South Wales between now and midnight tonight, we will reopen the border with NSW from midnight tomorrow.
So that means that people from NSW wanting to come into SA from Thursday onwards will be able to do that without doing the 14 days of self-isolation. This will be a massive, massive relief for people who have been dislocated from friends, from family, from business opportunities.
Updated
The Australian bourse has fallen 0.85% this morning after overseas markets tumbled overnight.
Markets in both Europe and the US were down by more than 3% on Monday after fears of a new coronavirus wave smashed travel and tourism stocks and reports of trillions of dollars in suspect transfers took a chunk out of the banks.
In Germany, home to the troubled banking giant Deutsche Bank, the Dax index plunged 4.4%.
On the ASX this morning, the UK lender Virgin Money was the biggest loser among top 200 stocks, falling by 5.5% shortly after the market opened.
News Corp was the second biggest loser, shedding 4.5%.
Updated
That’s about it for the Victorian press conference today.
Let’s catch up on what happened in that hour in other areas.
Updated
That then leads to this exchange:
Q: Would you wreck or jeopardise the economy of the state to save lives?
Daniel Andrews:
Well, that’s a choice that we have made as a national cabinet from day one.
Q: [That doesn’t answer the question.]
Andrews:
Well, that’s the choice the national cabinet has made from day one.
Q: If you would answer that ...
Andrews:
How I choose to answer your questions is, with respect, a matter for me. And the national cabinet has made a decision that instead of allowing this virus to spread throughout the entire Australian community, much like it is in Europe, killing many tens of thousands of people, we would fix the health problem first, and then we would all, in a unified way, set about repairing the economic damage this pandemic has done.
No one is denying that. That is a feature of this virus. That’s perhaps another wicked part of the virus. You can do very little for livelihoods until you prioritise saving lives and defeating this virus. That’s the path we’re on.
Six weeks ago there were 725 cases – 725 cases. Today we are at a much lower number. We can be pleased that this strategy is working and the only steps to take, the only steps to take, are safe and steady ones.
Yes, we acknowledge there is significant economic impact but we just can’t get to repairing that. We can’t repair that in a meaningful and lasting way until we have dealt with the health challenge.
This is a public health emergency. It’s called that for a reason. And that’s what is driving all of our response. There is an economic crisis out there as well, of course. But you have got to deal with the health one first.
Updated
There is a back and forth about the economy, and when Victoria opens up, and who is responsible for the federal government subsidies:
That ends with this answer from Daniel Andrews:
We know and understand there is very significant economic damage and financial hardship and pain as a result of this global pandemic. However, if you start trying to use economics to solve a health problem, it won’t work.
If we could do the economic repair first and deal with the virus later, then that would be a choice we would probably make. But this is essentially – ought we be opening up faster because jobkeeper is going to be reduced?
The relevant factor here is that’s not unimportant. It’s not – but it’s not a health issue.
The virus has no awareness of the level of jobkeeper. It will continue to spread. It will continue to spread and it will continue to infect people, and hold us back from opening up, the longer we fail, if we were to fail, to focus on the health issue.
That’s what we are focused on. But beyond that, though, there have been substantial financial supports providing to business – record levels of support there.
Are substantial boosts in funding for a whole range of services that are critically important at the moment, whether it be mental health support, family violence support, homelessness support – the list goes on and on.
We will have a budget later this year that will detail a massive program of investment and support for jobs, for livelihoods, for profitability, for confidence, for infrastructure, large and small, all of those things will be a massive feature. Indeed, there is a federal budget very soon.
And I would, from my conversations with the prime minister, I would anticipate that there will be very significant investment – very significant investment – in that budget.
Victoria will benefit from that. Just as Victoria will benefit from us using the state’s balance sheet in our budget and the state’s budget to protect household budgets.
Updated
Daniel Andrews finishes that answer with:
I wish I could provide an absolutely definitive answer today what was going to happen, you know, very, very soon. That is not the nature of this thing. There is many wicked thing to this virus. The infectivity, the fact it is silent, very, very mild symptoms that is when you are most infectious. The fact that there is that two-week lag, where decisions today – you don’t see what the impact is for couple of weeks. All those things. Then there’s the terrible tragedy of a mortality rate that far exceeds the seasonal flu.
Updated
Is there a chance regional Victoria could take its own steps towards Covid-normal, without Melbourne doing the same? (under the roadmap, it’s both at the same time).
Daniel Andrews:
I couldn’t rule that out. Because we will be based on evidence and data …
The point I would make to you is that – getting the whole state to a unified position is important.
There is movement. There are contacts of Melbourne who live in regional Victoria, close contacts – active cases.
Of course, not everyone who is asymptomatic gets tested. There will be more cases than we think.
That is the nature of the virus. Getting everybody on equality footing is important.
But at the same time, I think what we have shown in regional Victoria, taking two steps and being at step three, when –which is a different position to metropolitan Melbourne – we are prepared to have the rules in regional Victoria reflect the way the virus is actually presenting in regional Victoria.
I’m not making announcements today about that. But we will always be guided by the data. And we will always be guided by the science of it. And what’s actually coming through. And what we think is safe.
So we have got regional Victoria in a different place now. That is a testament to how hard regional Victorians have worked. But to be honest, I cannot today. I cannot today confirm for you the announcements I will make on Sunday.
I’m not in a position – I think you’d understand – not in a position to be able to announce what will be today what will be decided and announced toward the end of October. I simply don’t have enough data. I would be speculating. It’s not safe to do that. You have got to be – you have got to be guided by the science of this.
Updated
Back to Victoria, questions have turned to how NSW is handling the pandemic.
Daniel Andrews:
It is very important to acknowledge that New South Wales and Victoria, from an epidemiological point of view, are in vastly different places.
New South Wales has not had the amount of community transmission that Victoria has. New South Wales has not had the extent of the [infections] between large households and high-risk workplaces.
The virus presented differently. Some community seeding, some chains of transmission, are different in Victoria – certainly in metro Melbourne – different than what occurred in Sydney.
I’m not for a moment making the point that Sydney’s job has been easy. They’re doing a good job. We’re doing ... the best we possibly can to drive numbers down. That’s the only way you will keep them low, to get them low. But we have always said – we have always said – that data trumps any assumption. The actuals always beat the assumptions.
And that’s why modelling gets rerun. That’s why there is a constantly evolving picture where we add in what’s actually occurred to replace some of the well-founded but there’s always – it is always speculative, because they are by their nature – they are not facts, they’re our best estimate of what will occur. There is more than a thousand of them gone into this model. Some of those are absolutely replaced by the actuals.
Updated
South Australia to open border to NSW from Thursday
The South Australian committee dealing with the state’s Covid response has met and decided to open its border with NSW from Thursday.
Yesterday Steven Marshall had said he was watching the Sydney taxi driver case – but they must be assured it is all cool beans.
Updated
Will some people only get 24 hours notice that they can open their business?
Daniel Andrews:
We’re in deep conversations, for instance, with supermarkets, deep conversations and ongoing conversations with the meat processing industries. Some restrictions are not necessarily apparent to customers or to the general public.
So they’re not operating nowhere near 100%. Some are 66%. We are in conversations with them. There are different options. What we have spoken to them, tried to share, is a sense of we will have to pick one of these options. They know and understand and can plan accordingly for what each option means.
Which one we choose in each of those sectors will be a product of numbers, as they present throughout the week. But also the narrative that sits behind the numbers. Is it a contained case? A mystery case? How many cases are there? All of those things. If I can call Sunday right now, I will. But I can’t. I have to wait and see what the data yells us over the rest of the week. Victorians can be confident the strategy is working, the numbers are coming down, and I think we are ahead of where we thought we would be.
Updated
Q: Is there any more detail about who might be able to open come Sunday?
Daniel Andrews:
I don’t want to be coy in any way. Sunday is some days off. That isn’t settled. That is a matter that will be informed by the data I have just reported, plus tomorrow’s numbers, and so on and so forth. We will have – accompanying that, on every conceivable platform – we will have as much information out there as possible. If there is any specific questions you want us to chase up, I am happy to do that. We can chase up specific issues.
Updated
Back to the roadmap.
Q: In regards to the roadmap, why is it that your contact tracing teams can’t handle more than the five cases? Why is that number so low?
Daniel Andrews:
I don’t accept your conclusion. That’s not what the roadmap says at all. It is, however, I think a statement of logic that unless you get numbers low, you have very little chance to keep them low. That’s the experience if other states. It’s the experience, sadly, the other end of that, in so many countries around the world.
While we’re reporting our last four days, 21, 14, 11, 28, that’s less than 20. That is our four-day average. Victorians can be optimistic that the strategy is working. We’re chasing an average of 30. We have still got the rest of the week to go and we’re almost at that now.
All things being equal we are going to meet the target. We will be able to stake some steps – albeit cautious steps – on Sunday. As for how October unfold will have more to say as data comes in, as assumptions are replaced by data. Things that have happened. Case numbers. And the narrative that sits behind it. Our contact tracing meets all benchmarks and exceeds some of them …
Other states will be implementing many of the changes that we have made. So I don’t accept the conclusion you have drawn.
Updated
Daniel Andrews will now appear at the hotel quarantine inquiry on Friday (he was slated to appear tomorrow).
He was asked a little earlier in this press conference if he had heard of any delays for witnesses appearing and whether he would be appearing tomorrow and said he had been notified of a different date:
That’s entirely a matter nor the inquiry. It’s not for me to make announcements about their schedule … It’s not for me to make announcements. I’ll be appearing as the board pleases and that’s a matter for the board.
He’ll now be appearing at 2.15 on Friday and says he had no input on when he would appear:
It’s entirely a matter for the board. They have made a decision. They’re running a schedule. They’re hearing from witnesses. They will make their arrangements.
Updated
Why are gyms still closed?
Prof Allen Cheng:
We are meeting with representatives from the gym industry. I would point out, gyms are relatively high- risk. There have been lots of outbreaks across the world, in Victoria, even despite gyms being closed. Obviously recently. We had an outbreak that had 27 cases linked to it.
In New South Wales, even with their relatively low numbers of community cases, gyms have featured prominently in their outbreaks. So, it is unfortunately a high risk – relatively high-risk setting.
That said, there are things that can be done. So, particularly outdoor settings are things that – is much safer. So, for example, there’s a plan for – you know, boot camps that can be done outside, in a more safe environment to be done.
Updated
The deputy CHO, Prof Allen Cheng, is up now, talking about the infection numbers and why, given that infection numbers are down in regional Victoria, the regions have to wait until the whole state is under control before moving to Covid-normal. The answer is because there are still close contacts in regional Victoria:
I haven’t got the exact figure. Of those 1,173 close contacts, some of those are in regional Victoria. And there is always the possible that people move across from metropolitan Melbourne to regional Victoria for all sorts of legitimate reasons, working and so on.
So, it is a cautious approach to make sure that we don’t seed regional Victoria. And just as an example, Colac – this is going become a number of weeks ago now – one case resulted in more than 30 secondary cases at that time. Even under those settings. So, it’s very important that we make sure that we have a very quick response to anything that happens out there, but there is always the potential that regional Victoria will be seeded. That is – you know, important to just keep that in mind.
Updated
Back in August, this is what Daniel Andrews told a parliamentary committee:
I don‘t believe ADF support was on offer.
It’s been provided in limited circumstances in New South Wales, not to provide security as such but to provide transportation from the airport to hotels.
I think it is fundamentally incorrect to assert that there was hundreds of ADF staff on offer and somehow someone said no. That’s not, in my judgment, accurate.
Updated
Then we get to this exchange, over comments Daniel Andrews has previously made on the ADF offer for support for Victoria’s hotel quarantine program.
Andrews does not want to repeat his statement. I imagine because it was carefully worded at the time for a reason, and he probably can’t remember those exact words.
Q: Do you stand by your statement that the ADF never made [an offer of] support [for hotel quarantine]?
Andrews:
That’s not exactly the statement that I have made. But I can confirm if you the statements I have made I stand by.
Q: Can you clarify those again for us on the record?
Andrews:
No, I will not be doing that, as I have made very clear to you ...
Q: Just to refresh everyone’s memory before ...
Andrews:
No, because where you stopped in your question, you kind of answered your question. Given you’re about to – that’s the key point. I’m about to speak to the inquiry.
Q: On the record. Let’s ...
Andrews:
It’s already on the record. I have sufficient confidence in your research skills, you’ll be able to go and look – listen, you and I both know what I have said.
I’m not going to speculate on what I might or might not say.
Q: I’m trying to get clarification on your position once and for all before we go ...
Andrews:
Everyone gets a go. You can all have a go at once if you like. That’s not the way this normally works. I am not going to speculate about what I’ll be asked or the answers I’ll provide later in the week. That’s the first point. On the second point – my public comments are on the record and I stand by them and I am not going to run through them from A to Z today. I’m not doing that.
Q: From one of those comments you told the parliamentary accounts committee that it was fundamentally incorrect to assert that ADF was on offer. So do you now know that – do you now know given the evidence that’s come before the inquiry that to be an incorrect statement in …
Andrews: No, I’m not making that judgment at all. I made comments on these matters.
Q: What allows you to make that judgment?
Andrews:
I made comments on the matters and I stand by the comments I made and, again, I’m not interested in adding to those comments.
Updated
Q: If the inquiry doesn’t determine who hired the private security, has it done its job?
Daniel Andrews:
You’re asking me to predict or forecast. That’s entirely an hypothetical matter ... You’re asking me to comment on what might be my response if it did happen. That the definition of any fair-minded definition of what hypothetical is.
I’m not criticising you for asking the question, I’m saying it is a hypothetical matter and all of those matters can be settled one way or the other when the final report is handed up and then we can have a discussion then.
Q: How important is accountability in your view, because the public feels there is none?
Andrews:
Well, having established an inquiry to get answers that are necessary, I think my views on that are very well known.
Q: If the inquiry is not delivering answers?
Andrews:
You’re drawing a conclusion there which I don’t think is necessarily a fair one. We can leave that debate to one side – the inquiry is not finished. So trying to predict or hypothesise or opine what will be at the end of the process, I don’t think is a helpful process. It is speculation and nothing more than that.
Q: [There does seem to be] a lot of memory loss, doesn’t there?
Andrews:
You’re free to draw any conclusions you want to. But don’t expect me to provide ... the process is not finished.
When the process is finished, we’ll be able to speak not about what might happen, but what indeed has happened and that I think is a much more productive discussion.
That will be a conversation based in fact and finding rather than the obvious speculation that you’re inviting me and, again, you’re entitled to do that and I’m also equally entitled to say that’s not something I’m going to get into.
Q: Will your memory be as vague tomorrow as your bureaucrats seem to have been?
Andrews:
You can make judgments about the memories of others. When I’ll appear before the inquiry I’ll answer the questions as honestly, frankly, clearly, directly as possible.
Updated
Q: There has been a lot of questions and top bureaucrats seem to have a “I don’t recall” response. Do you think that it is OK for people like Chris Eccles to not really say that they remember what happened in decisions? For example, hiring thousands of people worth of millions of dollars and how that happened? Have you got confidence, if no one is being held accountable?
Daniel Andrews:
The inquiry has not concluded its work and the answers that we need are answers we don’t have is exactly why the inquiry set up. Not for the avoidance of those answers but to get them. Obvious, the fullest and most detailed way in which we’ll get those answers is when the inquiry has concluded its work.
Q: Do you expect at the conclusion of the inquiry Victorians will actually know who was responsible for those crucial decisions? So far in the inquiry, we have just heard a lot of people saying it wasn’t me?
Andrews:
My only expectation is this the inquiry will do its work without fear or favour. As to what’s in their report, what findings they make, that’s entirely a matter for them. And the final report is still some way off. But I’m very confident that they’re thoroughly examining all the issues they believe are relevant and set out in the terms of reference.
Updated
Daniel Andrews is then asked about Chris Eccles, his department head, being “unaware” of who decided to use security guards in hotel quarantine:
Andrews:
As I said consistently there’s a process going on at the moment. It’s important that process runs to its logical conclusion and that will be findings, guidance, all sorts of material that will come out of that, they’ll make recommendations, I would think, about what next steps should be and I’ll leave it to the inquiry which I’m assisting later this week to do that important work.
Q: Will you answer those questions tomorrow if asked?
Andrews:
Well, what I’m asked is a matter for counsel assisting. I can confirm to you that I’ll be truthful. Absolutely honest and direct.
Q: Obviously you’re not answering the question in this forum.
Andrews:
This is not the forum to do it, with the greatest of respect. There’s a process going on and I’ll be part of that process. And it is not appropriate for me to be essentially duplicating that process from this podium.
Updated
Daniel Andrews is asked about comments from the University of Melbourne professor Tony Blakely, who helped shape the Victorian modelling, about taking “cautious” steps to lifting restrictions (as well as the calls from federal government MPs to lift restrictions):
He remains someone who is advising the government but today’s not the day to be announcing what would be occurring in October because we have many days to go where we need to drive these case numbers down. In terms of the federal government, our partnership is a strong one. It’s very important that we’re not – any of us – playing politics with these things.
It’s all about making sure we defeat this virus and popularity or pride or politics is not a vaccine against this virus. Only getting the job done with an absolute determination to make sure that everything that every Victorian has given, everything that every Victorian has done, must count for something.
And if we don’t do this properly, if we open too much too soon, as many other experts today have spoken about, then we will be pinballing in and out of restrictions all through 2021. I don’t want that. We’re going to do everything we can to avoid that.
Updated
Victoria will spend an additional $30m on aged care, updating facilities.
There are 32 active cases in Victoria’s aged care facilities.
There are four cases in NDIS settings.
There are 83 Victorians in hospital with Covid – eight are in intensive care and five of those people are on a ventilator.
Updated
Daniel Andrews says testing rates increased in the last 24 hours, which is a good thing – there were 11,123 tests, which, for a Sunday, is great news.
Andrews:
If I can just pause on that point for a moment – that for a Sunday, and these will be almost exclusively from Sunday – is a result that is higher than recent weekends that we have seen.
So I want to thank each and every one of those 11,123 Victorians who on Sunday got and get tested just as we asked them to do.
The key point here is, if you got any symptoms, any symptoms whatsoever, please don’t put off going and getting a test. Don’t wait an hour, don’t wait a day, please go and get tested as soon as you possibly can. It’s a simple thing but a massive contribution to our fight against this virus. I have made this point a few times but I want to make it again – extra positive cases because of a higher testing rate will not hold us back from taking safe and steady next steps.
But a low testing rate could – if authorities aren’t confident they are receiving enough data about how much virus is still in the community – that could be enough to hold back the lifting of restrictions.
Updated
OK, six of Victoria’s 28 cases are under investigation (mystery cases, usually meaning community transmission).
All three people who died – a woman in her 70s, a woman in her 90s and a woman in her 100s – were linked to aged care.
Updated
Daniel Andrews is about to stand up for his 82nd consecutive press conference.
Updated
Dr Jeannette Young says she is watching the case of the NSW taxi driver to see whether that has spread the virus within the Sydney community, before she makes any decisions about opening the border to the rest of NSW.
That is also the line South Australia was taking yesterday.
Queensland is about to enter its caretaker mode – the election will be held on 31 October, but that won’t impact Young’s decision-making too much. Under the Queensland Public Health Act, the CHO is the designated decision-maker, not the executive. (Which is different to other states, hence some of the confusion when Young was making the decisions on quarantine and exemptions, not the premier.)
Updated
Queensland chief health officer Dr Jeannette Young says the low number of cases north of Sydney has given her the confidence to extend the border zone into northern NSW.
Updated
Queensland police are also investigating a man from Victoria who has popped up in Townsville. He has been charged for breaching restrictions and has a date with a Townsville magistrate.
(There is no suggestion he has Covid)
So, recapping, from 1 October, at 1am, if there are no changes or outbreaks, the Queensland border zone will include:
Byron Shire
Ballina Shire
Lismore Council
Richmond Valley Council
Glen Innes Shire
Queensland expands border zone to include northern NSW
Queensland is adding five new areas in northern NSW to its border zone, which means people can travel between the areas – which includes Byron Bay – without quarantining. You’ll still need a border pass though.
That will come into effect on 1 October (all going well).
Updated
Queensland has recorded no new cases of Covid - I think that makes about 11 days since the last community transmission case was reported
A thought to keep in mind ahead of Angus Taylor’s energy policy ‘roadmap’ speech today:
The support for renewables is hardly surprising it has been at this level for years - Australians know how effective clean energy is, after all we have the highest penetration of rooftop solar in the world. As for coal - a vignette from my book https://t.co/rFOdoM8ikZ pic.twitter.com/GA5gSHe3VQ
— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) September 21, 2020
So what is the all-important rolling 14 day averages?
For 8 Sep – 21 Sep 2020:
Metropolitan Melbourne
Total cases: 459
Average per day: 32.8
Regional Victoria
Total cases: 23
Average per day: 1.6
Overseas, interstate or no fixed address
Total cases: 2
Average per day: 0.1
Total cases: 485
Average per day: 34.6
Updated
Daniel Andrews will hold his press conference at 10am today.
Updated
Victoria reports 28 new Covid cases and three deaths
Victoria health has reported the data collected over the last 24 hours:
#COVID19VicData: Yesterday there were 28 new cases & the loss of 3 lives reported. Our thoughts are with all affected.
— VicGovDHHS (@VicGovDHHS) September 21, 2020
The 14 day rolling average & number of cases with unknown source are down from yesterday as we move toward COVID Normal. Info https://t.co/eTputEZdhs #COVID19Vic pic.twitter.com/8NkTWU489K
Updated
The Senate committee looking at the government’s Covid response is meeting today.
On the agenda: how the pandemic has impacted women.
If my eye twitch is anything to go by, it hasn’t been the best of times, let’s put it that way.
Updated
We knew this from the Australian Bureau of Statistics data, but it is worth pointing out again, especially in light of the tax cuts which are about to be brought forward. We, on the whole, are not spending any extra money we get, we are saving it. Which is not great in a capitalist system, because you know, money has to keep flowing to keep those wheels greased.
But you know who does keep money pumping in the economy, on local goods and services, even in a recession? Low-income earners. That’s the reason the government gave two lots of $750 payments, as well as boosted the unemployment payment with a supplement payment. And now that supplement has been cut.
Anyway, here is what IbisWorld, who are paid to watch these trends had to say this morning:
The savings rate among Australian households has surged in 2020, as a collapse in consumer sentiment has driven consumers to retain cash and cut back on retail spending. In 2019-20, household savings as a share of gross disposable income reached a high of 7.9%, relative to only 2.7% in the prior year. At the same time, Australian household indebtedness is among the highest in the world, with the ratio of household debt to assets expected to surge in 2020-21, to total 21.1%.
Several factors have contributed to the increased savings rate of households. “The largest component of household expenditure is rent and other housing costs such as mortgages. Rent and mortgage relief provided by landlords and banks since April 2020 has constrained spending in this area, which accounts for 20% of total household spending,” said IBISWorld Senior Industry Analyst, Matthew Reeves.
Spending on recreation and culture declined by 15.7%, as Covid-19 restrictions have forced event cancellations and forced consumers to remain at home. Spending on health also declined by 20.2%, as people avoided medical premises for fear of infection. State and territory governments have also heavily restricted the ability of hospitals to carry out elective surgeries.
Updated
To be fair, the government do seem to want to announce something in this space – Scott Morrison tried multiple times, almost defying the Speaker’s ruling, to get out “good news” in response to an unrelated question in question time last month, but there has been no actual announcement as yet.
Updated
Pension rates have not increased with indexation, because the economy is in recession – there is no indexation increase.
Bill Shorten and colleagues want you to know what that will mean for people on the disability pension:
On Sunday, for the first time in 23 years, the pension was not indexed.
The pension is typically indexed twice a year on 20 March and 20 September.
The freeze will impact over 754,000 disability support pensioners and almost 295,000 carers:
- In New South Wales – over 239,000 DSP pensioners and over 108,000 carers;
- In Victoria – almost 184,000 DSP pensioners and over 72,000 carers;
- In Queensland – over 158,000 DSP pensioners and over 59,000 carers;
- In South Australia – over 66,000 DSP pensioners and almost 23,000 carers;
- In Western Australia – almost 57,000 DSP pensioners and almost 19,000 carers;
- In Tasmania – over 27,000 DSP pensioners and over 9,000 carers;
- In the Northern Territory – over 8,000 DSP pensioners and over 1,800 carers;
- In the Australian Capital Territory – over 8,400 DSP pensioners and almost 1,800 carers.
Updated
We are going to get the payroll figures today.
But if you are still trying to make sense of the August unemployment figures, which showed an improvement, despite, you know, a pandemic, Greg Jericho helps explain what happened:
By this time yesterday, Victoria Health had released the daily tally of Covid-19 cases.
I wouldn’t start worrying just yet though – if we don’t know by 9am, something is up. But it usually takes a bit of time to collate all the data.
Updated
Majority of Queenslanders support Palaszczuk's pandemic response
The Newspoll, first published in the Australian, has also shown a majority of Queensland voters – 68% – think Annastacia Palaszczuk has managed the virus response well. It also shows 53% agree with the border closure.
The Queensland election will be held in 39 days.
You can also listen to our Full Story podcast today, where Guardian Australia’s Queensland correspondent Ben Smee outlines the potential pitfalls of running a presidential-style campaign during a pandemic.
Updated
There are a lot of deadlines coming up at the end of the year, when it comes to government subsidy programs running out – including the Covid supplement for the unemployment payment. That supplement gets cut at the end of this week – losing it altogether would be a blow not many people will recover from.
Updated
Labor’s Jason Clare and Kristy McBain want the home-building subsidy deadline extended for people who lost their homes in last summer’s bushfires:
At least 750 families in Eden-Monaro had their homes burn down over summer. Those that can’t sign a contract for the rebuild by December 31 will not be able to access the $25,000 homebuilder grant.
“If anyone deserves help to rebuild, it’s people who had their homes burn down,” Clare said.
“We’ve had feedback from a number of local people keen to access the homebuilder scheme that the prime minister trumpeted during the byelection,” McBain added.
“The timelines around accessing these funds are just too tight for people rebuilding their homes and lives.”
Updated
And you can catch up on what has happened this week at the Victorian hotel inquiry, with Josh Taylor’s report here:
Guardian Australia’s political editor Katharine Murphy has the latest on the Essential poll (you know the drill).
Australians are sceptical that bringing forward tax cuts in the October budget will stimulate the economy, while two-thirds of voters would prefer the Morrison government to support renewables rather than new gas plants, according to the latest Guardian Essential poll.
While voters in the survey continue to give the prime minister the thumbs up for his management of the pandemic, there is less enthusiasm for the general direction of the Coalition’s much-vaunted “gas-led recovery”, or for bringing forward tax cuts that benefit high-income earners.
According to the latest survey of 1,081 respondents, 61% of the Guardian Essential sample rates Scott Morrison’s handling of the coronavirus crisis as very good or quite good, which is up from 59% in the previous survey.
But only one in five people (21%) believe that tax cuts for higher income earners will be very effective as economic stimulus. A further 41% says the strategy will be moderately effective while 38% says it won’t be effective at all.
Updated
It’s Gladys Berejiklian’s birthday today.
The NSW premier received an early birthday present yesterday, when a Nationals MP quit the party and joined the Liberals.
I hope she grabs an extra Cheds in celebration.
Updated
Good morning
While New South Wales authorities keep a watchful eye on any cases linked to a taxi driver who worked while infectious with Covid, Victorian authorities are still working their way through the hotel quarantine inquiry.
The Victorian health boss, Kym Peake will front the inquiry today. The main event in that inquiry though, will come tomorrow, when premier Daniel Andrews will appear.
Victoria has had two days of case numbers in the 10s, which is excellent news given where we were, but the number of community transmissions is still high enough to create cause for concern. The latest Newspoll (usual poll caveat etc, etc) has Andrews approval rating for handling the crisis up by five points to 62%.
We should have the latest case numbers soon, as well as the news as it happens, from the hotel quarantine inquiry.
In political news, Angus Taylor is at the press club, talking gas. We’ll have that for you too.
You have Amy Remeikis with you for most of the day.
Ready?
Updated
