Scott Morrison suggests ‘remarkable similarity’ between China and Solomon Islands rhetoric – as it happened | Australia news

I hope that final submit left you with a candy style, and that your urge for food stays whetted for the weekend. The Labor marketing campaign launch on Sunday can be attention-grabbing if there’s a brand new announcement, and perhaps much more so if not… and the Coalition is perhaps eager to attract consideration away from it. Right here’s a summary of the various issues that occurred at this time:

• The Labor chief, Anthony Albanese, emerged from Covid isolation, going through taunts from the prime minister, Scott Morrison, about how energetic he was.
• Tensions over the deal between Solomon Islands and China escalated … once more. And guess what? Climate change is a big deal for the Pacific.
• Pauline Hanson’s One Nation bought into bother over a cartoon, and a candidate, and preferences.
• Inflation is hovering, and rates of interest are set to comply with. What does that mean for you?
• And what’s going on with power prices?
• The “broad church” within the Coalition retains redefining “broad” in terms of climate change policy.
• Apologies, there’s more rain on the way. And, in case you missed it, there was a critical kangaroo attack on a Gold Coast golf course.

We’re three weeks in to a six week marketing campaign, it’s going to get sooner (and extra livid). Guardian Australia will maintain you posted over the weekend, and into the beginning of the second half of this election palaver.

Nino Bucci

Social media firms have eliminated a deceptive video posted on-line by Pauline Hanson that confirmed cartoon Labor figures discussing voter fraud.

The Australian Electoral Fee confirmed it had contacted Fb, TikTok, Reddit, Twitter and YouTube after the video, the newest in a controversial One Nation satirical series, was posted on Friday morning.

The video depicted cartoon figures of the Labor chief, Anthony Albanese, and senator Penny Wong.

The AEC responded to a tweet asking whether or not the video was unlawful by describing it as “deeply disappointing”.

In a press release, the AEC stated:

Freedom of speech is vital and we don’t regulate reality in campaigning or political communication. Nevertheless, we’re involved with any communication, whatever the supply, that doesn’t precisely mirror electoral processes or integrity measures we implement.

We’re energetic on social media to precisely mirror how we administer the federal election and refer items of on-line communication to social media organisations for his or her consideration when mandatory.

Fb and TikTok eliminated the video, whereas it was flagged as deceptive on Twitter. It was believed to nonetheless be accessible on different platforms.

The AEC stated:

There isn’t any proof that the extent of obvious a number of voting in Australia has ever been adequate to overturn the margin in anybody contest. If it was to happen the outcome could possibly be referred to the courtroom of disputed returns.

We repeatedly obtain information from births, deaths and marriages to take deceased Australians off the roll. We additionally validate postal vote purposes towards the roll previous to distribution and once more upon receipt of a accomplished postal vote.

We’re conscious that Meta [Facebook’s parent company] and TikTok have taken the video down because it violates their insurance policies. [We are] not sure of motion on different channels at this stage.

Hanson stated in a press release to Guardian Australia that comparable allegations to these depicted within the video had been made a number of instances in Senate estimates, however a spokesperson was unable to supply particular examples.

Hanson stated:

This type of corruption depicted within the cartoon has been occurring for years, it’s been uncovered in Senate estimates earlier than.

Clearly, it’s being uncovered once more, and the AEC has been embarrassed by that, and the ALP have been embarrassed by that, in order that they put strain on the AEC to get it taken down.

A spokesperson for One Nation added:

It’s a disgrace these platforms can’t recognise satire for what it’s. Those that shut down free speech worry free speech as a result of they don’t perceive it.

Remark was sought from the Labor party.

Daniel Hurst

The Workplace of Nationwide Intelligence (ONI) has promised to supply any related briefings to the federal government and opposition in step with caretaker conventions.

Readers could have seen there was a blow-up between Labor and the Coalition this week over options by the house affairs minister, Karen Andrews, that China may need timed the announcement of the signing of Solomon Islands’ safety settlement to affect the Australian election.

The shadow house affairs minister, Kristina Keneally, wrote to Andrews to remind her of the necessity to temporary the opposition through the caretaker interval on any important rising issues of nationwide safety – or in any other case to make clear her feedback.

The ONI – Australia’s high intelligence company – declined to touch upon that particular problem. However when requested by Guardian Australia to elucidate how it might deal with the bipartisan briefings through the caretaker interval if the Australian intelligence group gained info or fashioned a view about an act or try of international interference, a spokesperson for ONI stated:

Any ONI briefings to the federal government and opposition could be undertaken in-line with the caretaker conventions.

Late on Thursday, Andrews appeared to again away from her authentic feedback, arguing that they had been misinterpreted. Andrews informed Sky Information:

I used to be very cautious with my phrases and what I indicated is that questions severely needs to be requested in regards to the timing of that settlement, and I feel that what has occurred since then is that there was some commentary from some fairly vital folks about what they suppose the choices is perhaps …

I feel what I stated yesterday was solely cheap and I’ve had plenty of suggestions from many individuals I’ve spoken to since then they usually’re very firmly of the view we needs to be questioning the timing of those agreements and what the long run goes to be in that space. That’s, in my opinion, a wholly cheap line of questioning.

Notably, Andrews didn’t state that her authentic remarks had been primarily based on intelligence briefings.