Författare: Michelle Grattan Professorial Fellow University of Canberra

Jim Chalmers likes to boast, or marvel, that he is the first treasurer since Ben Chifley to deliver four budgets in a term.

If Labor wins the May election, the treasurer will reckon the budget will be done and dusted for this year. But actually, we really need another budget post election.

That’s for two reasons. First, because this one will be short on any hard reforms or big savings, because it is all about chasing votes.

From roads to health, this year has been give, give, give from the government. Much of the spending has been matched by the opposition. Just in recent days, the Coalition has said yes to the government’s initiatives to boost bulk billing and to reduce the price of pharmaceutical scripts. At the weekend, it instantly embraced the announcement to extend energy bill relief (A$150 dollars off bills in the second half of 2025).

Secondly, the budget could, to an extent, be quickly overtaken because it is being delivered days before the Trump administration’s April 2 tariff announcement. That announcement could have big implications for the world economy, which would flow through to the outlook for Australia.

The international fallout would be more serious for Australia than any direct hits we might take – there are worries around beef exports and pharmaceuticals – although the politics would centre on what happened to our industries.

Given the election context, you will have to look hard for specific “nasties” in this budget. The main negative is likely to be the overall uncertainty about the future.

So specifically, what should we look for on Tuesday? Independent economist Chris Richardson suggests, in an interview with The Conversation, five things to track.

1. The big ‘off-budget’ number

This is where the cost of initiatives does not directly show up in the underlying bottom line (which will be deficits through the forward estimates).

Putting large commitments off budget has increased over the years. Richardson says the Albanese government inherited about $33 billion off-budget spending (over the forward estimates), and in this budget it could be more than $100 billion. This includes spending on student debt relief, the NBN, some housing areas, and infrastructure programs.

Putting lots of items off budget “means less scrutiny and accountability,” Richardson says.

2. Tax reform (or lack thereof)

Richardson’s second item won’t involve much of a search. He asks rhetorically, “Will there be any hint the government is trying to do anything about the narrowing base of the tax take?” That is, anything to lighten the very heavy weight we place on personal and company taxes to raise revenue. As an advocate for tax reform, Richarson expects the budget will contain zero in this area.

3. NDIS spending

What is really happening with reining in spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme? The government has made much of its progress towards bringing the growth in its share of spending on the scheme down to a projected 8% annually.

But Richardson says this is looking at only part of the story. Considerable responsibility is being pushed back onto the states; the federal government agreed to finance half the cost of new services to be delivered through state education and health systems for children with developmental disabilities to curb the burden on the NDIS. “To focus only on the federal spend on the NDIS is to miss the wider cost picture,” he says.

4. The mid-year mystery

How will the budget deal with the “mystery” that existed in its December mid-year update? That update did not seem to account for a rise in wages for public servants, even this was clearly in the pipeline.

5. The Trump factor

The budget will discuss the risks on the downside for the economy, but how will it deal with what is to come from Donald Trump? What assumptions will it contain on the likely actions of an unpredictable president?

Peter Dutton’s Thursday budget reply will draw almost as much attention as the budget itself.
AAP Image/Bianca De Marchi

With the election so close, there will be almost as much interest in Peter Dutton’s Thursday budget reply as in the budget itself.

The understanding is it will contain some new policy. It could hardly do otherwise. But will whatever Dutton announces stand up to scrutiny? If it is too thin, it will reinforce an impression the opposition is not presenting a credible alternative. In last year’s budget reply Dutton announced his proposed migration cuts and that quickly became mired in an argument about whether his numbers fitted together.

Under the spotlight in budget week, the opposition also has to be careful with precisely what is being said and committed to. We’ve seen the confusion over its divestiture policy and about a possible referendum to facilitate the removal of dual citizens.

On Sunday finance spokeswoman Jane Hume gave Labor some material for a scare campaign on the NDIS.

She told Sky, “The NDIS, for instance, is one of those areas in the budget that has run out of control; it was growing at 14% per annum.

”It’s been brought under control somewhat. We think that there’s more that can be done.”

Chalmers immediately jumped on her comments, demanding detail. Labor’s spinners and ad team would have been rubbing their hands. Läs mer…

In the Trump age, how the next government, whether Labor or Coalition, will handle foreign affairs, defence and trade is shaping as crucially important.

It’s a weird time when your friends become almost as problematic as your potential enemies, but that’s the situation we face.

As many have observed, Donald Trump’s long shadow hangs over our election, at a time of multiple other uncertainties. Australia, like other countries, has already felt the brunt of the president’s tariffs policy, and the government is bracing for what may be worse to come with the next round of Trump announcements in early April.

So what face would a Peter Dutton government present to the world? And how would he handle Trump?

On Thursday at the Lowy Institute, the opposition leader brought his international policies together. He presented a mix of bipartisanship and differences with the government. Some of the latter weren’t so much fundamental disagreements as claims Labor had failed and the Coalition would be more competent or effective.

The most frustrating part of Dutton’s speech and answers to questions was the same old problem. For crucial details, particularly on defence spending but also on the future of foreign aid under the Coalition, we were told we’d have to wait for announcements that always seem over the horizon.

Dutton says as prime minister he wouldn’t resile from taking on the United States when necessary. With fears about US drug companies spearheading a war on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, he declared, “I will stand up and defend the PBS […] against any attempt to undermine its integrity, including by major pharmaceutical companies”.

In arguing that, in general, he’d be able to deal with Trump, Dutton invoked the previous Coalition government’s success with Trump Mark 1 (though Mark 2 is very different), and the power of AUKUS to anchor relations. His early priority would be to visit Washington.

The question Australians should ask themselves is this: “Who is better placed to manage the US relationship and engage with President Trump?” I believe that […] I will be able to work with the Trump administration Mark 2 to get better outcomes for Australia. I will talk to [Trump] about how our national interests are mutual interests.

But, as he acknowledged, “Australia’s national interests do not always align perfectly with the interests of partners – even of our closest allies”. The way Trump is operating at the moment, it may be that a PM of either stripe will find him impossible on certain issues.

Dutton was once an uncomplicated hawk on China. Now, he is a mix of hawkish and dovish. It’s true things have changed greatly in Australia-China relations in recent times, but another reason for Dutton’s more nuanced position is highlighted by the line in his speech that “Australia has a remarkable Chinese diaspora”. The opposition leader has an eye to the vote of Chinese-Australians.

Dutton now walks a line that is critical of China militarily, but anxious to promote and expand the now-restored trading relationship.

A Anti-Nuclear demonstrator is removed by security during the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s address to the Lowy Institute in Sydney.
Bianca De Marchi/AAP

Currently, there are two major, hot conflicts in the world: the Ukraine war and the violence in the Middle East.

On Ukraine, the Coalition and Labor are at one in their backing for President Volodymyr Zelensky, although Dutton criticises aspects of the government’s delivery of support. But they are at odds over Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s willingness to contribute to a peacekeeping force.

“Australia can’t afford the multibillion-dollar sustainment price tag for having troops based in an ill-defined and endless European presence,” Dutton said.

The “multibillion-dollar” price tag was overegged, but many would agree there are sound arguments for not deploying Australian forces on such a venture. On the other hand, if an Albanese government did so, you can bet the commitment would be relatively token.

The big gulf between Labor and Coalition is over the Middle East. This has grown from a marginally different reaction after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israelis to a major disagreement now.

Dutton claims Labor “has viewed our relationship with Israel through a domestic policy lens and with a view to its political imperatives” – that is, the Muslim vote.

Based on what Dutton says, a change of government would bring a substantial recalibration of Australia’s Middle East policy. One of Dutton’s “first orders of business” would be to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “help rebuild the relationship Labor has trashed”. He added:

Israel will be able to count on our support again in the United Nations. And given UNRWA [the Palestinian relief agency] has employed terrorists from Hamas who participated in the 7 October attacks, the organisation will no longer receive funding from a government I lead.

The Coalition repeatedly says Australia needs to spend more on defence. It has announced $3 billion to reinstate the fourth squadron of F-35 joint strike fighters, but not said the size of the defence envelope it believes is required. Dutton said:

We need to do nothing short of re-thinking defence, re-tooling the ADF, and re-energising our domestic defence industry, and that’s exactly what our government will do.

That sounds like a massive task, and so it’s more than time we saw the plan and cost of it. Would the Coalition be willing to go to around 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence spending, as the Trump administration wants? That would require a lot of sacrifice in other policy areas.

The Australian Financial Review this week reported Coalition sources saying it is weighing up boosting defence spending to at least 2.5% by 2029.

When the Coalition talks up its record in defence, one should also remember the failures, chief among them the delays and chopping and changing in its submarine program. A sub-optimal performance has been bipartisan.

Dutton was questioned on his position on aid to Pacific countries. Should Australia step up given the void left by the US shutting down aid? If a Dutton government did that, would it mean an overall aid increase, or cuts in the aid budget elsewhere?

This was left as another black hole, although he did say the Australian government should make representations to the US for the reinstatement of particular aid programs the US had cut.

I don’t agree with some of the funding that they’ve withdrawn, and I think it is detrimental to the collective interests in the region, and I hope that there can be a discussion between our governments about a sensible pathway forward in that regard.

Good luck with that.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion the overall aid program would be an easy target for the Coalition in the search for savings.

When leaders talk, what they don’t say can be as important as what they do. Läs mer…

The Albanese government will make another pre-election offer in health, promising that if re-elected it will legislate to ensure people pay no more than $25 for a script under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The measure, to be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Thursday, would start on January 1 next year.

The government says it represents a cut of more than 20% in the maximum cost of PBS medicines, and would save Australians more than $200 million a year. Four out of five medicines would become cheaper.

The measure, included in next week’s budget, costs the government $689 million over the forward estimates.

Pensioners and concession card holders will continue to have the cost of their PBS medicines frozen at $7.70 until 2030.

This is the latest in a range of initiatives the government has taken in health, including promising billions of dollars to expand bulk billing and adding a number of drugs for women’s health to the PBS. The opposition, which matched the government’s bulk billing policy, will be under pressure to do the same with this latest measure.

Anthony Albanese said: “With cheaper medicines, more free GP visits and a stronger Medicare, we say to Australians, we’ve got your back”.

Health Minister Mark Butler said the last time Australians paid no more than $25 for a PBS medicine was more than 20 years ago.

Butler said when Peter Dutton was health minister in the Abbott government “he tried to make medicines cost more”.

“The contrast in this election is clear: cheaper medicines with a re-elected Albanese government or the frankly terrifying legacy of Peter Dutton, who wants medicines to cost more, not less.” Läs mer…

Peter Dutton, when he gets on his favoured ground of security, too often goes for the quick hit, and frequently over-reaches.

His suggestion of running a possible referendum to facilitate the removal of bad eggs who are dual citizens is a prime example.

Apart from the substance of the proposal, why would an aspiring prime minister be talking about a referendum after the experience of the Voice?

As Dutton knows very well – and to his advantage in that case – referendums don’t succeed without bipartisan support, and this one certainly wouldn’t get backing from a Labor opposition. They cost a fortune, and they distract prime ministers. Dutton would have enough to do in government without going down this side track to a predictable dead end.

Although this focus on booting people out of the country sounds Trumpian, it has long been a preoccupation of Dutton’s – something he pushed in the Coalition years.

The Coalition amended the Citizenship Act, enabling a minister to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual nationals (so depriving them of the protection from removal that citizenship affords).

But the High Court in 2022 struck this down, so a minister has to apply to a court in the course of a trial relating to a listed offence. The court makes the decision on citizenship as part of sentencing the person.

Fast forward to the present, and Dutton sees advantage in any issues that go to security, of individuals or the country. Hence his talk of attempted constitutional change if the objective can’t be achieved by legislation.

On morning TV on Tuesday he kept repeating that he wanted to keep people safe.

He told Seven, “I want to keep our country safe […] it’s the first responsibility of any prime minister, and at the moment we’ve got people in our country who hate our country, who want to cause terrorist attacks. My argument is that if you betray your allegiance to our country in that way, you should expect to lose your citizenship.”

“What we’re proposing here is a discussion about whether we’ve got adequate laws, whether the Constitution is restrictive, and ultimately, what I want to do is keep our country safe and keep communities safe. I think there are a lot of Australians at the moment who are worried about the rise of antisemitism and what we’ve seen in our country, and elsewhere, which just doesn’t reflect the values that we’ve fought for over many generations.”

Apart from the fact a referendum would fail, the proposal itself has no obvious benefit. It is out of proportion to the problem it is supposed to be addressing, would be unlikely to act as a deterrent, and would stir a divisive debate. On Tuesday Dutton’s senior colleagues Michaelia Cash, who is shadow attorney-general, and Angus Taylor sounded less then enthusiastic about the move.

For Dutton’s campaign, it carries a special danger. It gives the impression of a leader who comes up with extreme proposals. If he is suggesting this today, what will be think of tomorrow? More to the point, what might he suddenly propose when in government?

This close to an election, Dutton needs to give voters the feeling he is predictable, that they know him, not that he produces ideas out of left field (or right field, in this case).

Former Liberal attorney-general George Brandis, who was around for the earlier debate, summed up the situation succinctly, when he wrote in the Nine papers, “An unwanted referendum, without bipartisan support, to overturn the High Court? It is as mad an idea as I have heard in a long time.” Läs mer…

Next week’s budget will have cost-of-living assistance that will be meaningful and substantial but “responsible”, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has said.

In a Tuesday speech framing the budget Chalmers said, “it will be a responsible budget which helps with the cost of living, builds our future, and makes our economy more resilient in the new world of global uncertainty”.

He said the budget would have five major priorities:

helping the recovery and rebuild following Cyclone Alfred, for which it will provide $1.2 billion
helping with the cost of living and finishing the fight against inflation
strengthening Medicare and funding more urgent care clinics
putting money into every stage of education
making the economy more competitive and productive.

In the question-and-answer part of his appearance at the Queensland Media Club Chalmers refused to be drawn on whether the cost-of-living relief would include more help on power bills, as is widely expected.

He was also put on the spot about his future leadership ambitions, initially being asked whether, given federal Labor’s poor showing in Queensland, it would do better with a leader from that state.

After diverting the question with a joke and a vigorous defence of Anthony Albanese’s “practical pragmatism” and his appreciation of Queensland, he was asked directly, “So you don’t have aspirations to become leader one day yourself?” “No”, he replied.

Chalmers is lowering expectations of extensive new initiatives being announced next Tuesday, because big spending measures in health, education and infrastructure have been announced.

The budget will project deficits throughout the forward estimates. But Chalmers said Treasury did not expect the bottom line this year or the coming years to be substantially changed from the mid year update.

In the mid-year update release in December, Treasury said it expected the deficit this financial year to be $26.9 billion. The deficit was forecast to increase further next year to $46.9 billion, compared with $42.8 billion forecast in last year’s budget.

Chalmers sought to scotch incorrect predictions he said had been made.

“For example, some commentators have made wild and wide-of-the-mark predictions about big surges in revenue.

”Some wrongly predict the tax-to-GDP ratio will go up this year, when Treasury expects it to be stable or even a bit down.

”Revenue upgrades have actually come off very significantly since the highs of October 2022.”

Chalmers argued the Australian economy “has turned a corner” but acknowledged “a new world of uncertainty” in which it was operating.

“The global economy is volatile and unpredictable.

”There’s a new US administration disrupting trade, a slowdown in China, war in eastern Europe and a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East, division and dissatisfaction around the world.

”Overnight, the OECD downgraded its growth expectations for next year and the year after.”

The OECD cut its forecasts for GDP growth to just 1.8% in 2026, down from an earlier forecast of 2.5%.

“Treasury forecasts in the Budget will have Chinese and American growth slowing to around 4.5 and 2 per cent next year, respectively.

”The forecasts for the US are the same as the mid-year update but the downside risks are weighing more heavily now.

”Unemployment is rising overseas from higher interest rates, and in the UK inflation is going up again.

”This is the global backdrop for the Budget.”

Chalmers repeated the government’s criticism of the US failure to grant an exemption from the steel and aluminium tariffs.

He said Treasury had modelled the impact of tariffs on our economy, both before the US election, and after the inauguration.

“Treasury estimates the direct hit to GDP from steel and aluminium tariffs would be less than 0.02 per cent by 2030. So the direct overall impacts on Australia should be manageable.

”But when you add in the indirect effects, the hit to GDP could be more like 0.1 per cent by 2030.

”In fact, over a range of scenarios, Treasury found the indirect GDP impacts of a trade war could be up to four times larger than the direct effects of tariffs on our economy.

”In a world of retaliation and escalation, the impacts of tariffs are amplified, they linger for longer, resulting in a bigger reduction in GDP and a bigger increase in prices.” Läs mer…

The Greens have heaped a lot of pressure on the government during this term, from issues of the environment, housing, and Medicare, to the war in the Middle East.

With the polls close to a dead heat and minority government appearing a real possibility, would the Greens push a minority Labor government even harder in pursuit of their agenda?

To talk about the Greens’ policies and prospects, we’re joined by South Australian Greens senator Barbara Pocock, who is the party’s spokeswoman on employment, the public sector and finance.

After their efforts in this term, Pocock says the Greens would be just as tough in pushing a possible Labor minority government next term:

People can judge us on our record in the last few years. People saw us really fight hard on housing – we wanted to see something meaningful. It is the most significant post-war crisis in housing that is affecting millions of Australians’ lives and certainly an intergenerational crisis.

So we held out for a long time to try and push Labor to improve its offering on public housing [and] on housing spending and we achieved some real wins there. We will fight hard for the things that matter.

We will push very hard on those core issues of a better health system, putting dental into Medicare. We pushed very hard on that in the last time there was a minority government and won it for kids. We want to see everyone be able to get to the dentist, and we really want to see reductions in student debt.

However, Pocock stresses that keeping Peter Dutton out of government remains a key focus:

We are very focused on preventing a Dutton Coalition government, because everything we hear from that stable sends a shiver down my spine.

Pocock did a lot of work during the Senate inquiry investigating consulting services and she warns Dutton’s policy to cut 36,000 public servants would lead to a return to consultants:

In that last year of the Morrison government, we saw a spend of $20 billion on consulting and labour hire and a hollowing out in the public sector. We are still seeing a slow regrowth of the capability of the federal public sector following the scandals relating to the consulting industry and the way it worked with government.

I am very worried about the Coalition’s proposals for a 36,000 cut in the public sector. That’s one in five public sector workers gone and that means services like Centrelink, Veterans Affairs, services that Australians depend on cannot deliver on what they suggest. And we also need to remember that a very significant number – something like two-thirds of our public service, federal public service – actually live outside Canberra.

All they would be doing is taking that money, which pays for public servants, doing a whole range of many different things and taking it across to, in many cases, their supporters and buddies and donors in the consulting and labour hire industry and it’s a very bad value-for-money proposition for the Australian voter.

As spokeswoman on employment, Pocock is a strong advocate for the Greens policies on a four-day work week:

If we go right back to 1856 when Australia led the world on reducing working hours, and the eight-hour day, now we were the first to adopt that internationally for stonemasons in Melbourne. And in the last 40 years, [we] have not seen any reduction in average working time. It’s been 38 hours now since 1983. In that 40 years, we’ve seen massive changes in technology. We have seen increases in productivity. And in the last 10 years, we’ve seen private profit increase by 97% while wages have gone up by 50%. And what we’re saying is, let’s look at the length of the average full-time working week and let’s see how we can move the dial on that.

We’d certainly like to see a wide range of pilots, diverse experimentation, real change, working with those who are ready for it, who are up for it, but making sure we collect the evidence and then move over time towards a national test case, which is the way in which over decades we have slowly ratcheted back the length of the working week.

On the attack from the opposition and others that the Greens are anti-Semitic, Pocock defends the Greens as an anti-racist party.

I think there are diverse views out there in the community and certainly, and we can see it every day, but I think that there are also many people, including many Jewish people, who understand that you can have a critique of a war that’s had such a terrible consequence for civilian women and children in Gaza, and you can still take a very strong position in relation to the kinds of attacks we’ve seen on the Jewish community, for example.

We are an anti-racist party. We want to call out behaviour which is wrong wherever it happens and we have certainly been critical of the behaviour of the Israeli state, their military, and the way they continue to conduct a war against the civilians in Gaza. Läs mer…

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would introduce legislation, based on an American law used to pursue the Mafia, to enable police to target the “kingpins” of criminal organisations such as outlaw motorcycle gangs.

This follows new allegations by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes about the rogue union the CFMEU. The allegations include “the employment of ‘baseball-twirling violent people’ on the [Victorian government’s] Big Build, where women have been bashed and then black-banned after they complained”.

The Nine investigation further alleged that “gangland and bikie-linked figures are receiving large payments from companies on publicly funded projects looking to gain favour with union insiders, leaving state and federal taxpayers in effect underwriting payments to the underworld.”

The Coalition said Monday the proposed new offences would “be based on the highly effective Mafia takedown laws in the US”. Dutton and shadow ministers Michaelia Cash and James Paterson said in a statement:

By targeting groups that engage in a pattern of criminal behaviour, these offences will put police in the position where they can target the criminal organisation and its leadership.

This  means the bosses and kingpins of groups such as outlaw motorcycle gangs can be jailed even if they distance themselves from the crimes their organisations commit.

Dutton described the CFMEU as “a modern-day mafia operation”. He added:

The culture of criminality and corruption is so entrenched, and it will never change – especially under the weak and incompetent Albanese Labor government.

Dutton claimed the CFMEU affair was the “biggest corruption scandal in our country’s history”.

The opposition said it would also set up an Australian Federal Police-led taskforce that would bring together federal law enforcement agencies and state and territory police forces to target criminal behaviour.

After the latest revelation surfaced in Nine media at the weekend, Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt said on social media he would refer the allegations to the police.

On Monday, Watt condemned Dutton’s proposal for a new law.

We don’t need to import an American racketeering law – we already have our own laws to go after ‘kingpins’, such as section 390.6 of the Criminal Code, which already deals with directing criminal organisation.

He also condemned the opposition’s long-standing policy to deregister the union, saying this would mean there was no regulation.

Peter Dutton’s reckless desire for a headline puts at risk the investigations and crime-fighting that the Coalition never bothered to commence in their decade in office.

Victoria police is undertaking an investigation into the fresh allegations.

The US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (RICO) Act, dating from 1970, enables prosecutors to take down whole mob-related organisations rather than having only the power to deal with figures individually. It is intended to deal with mob bosses who could not be directly connected to the crimes.

Its use, however, has extended well beyond mob prosecutions to a range of targets, from street gangs to politicians.

US President Donald Trump was charged under Georgia’s RICO act for “knowingly and willfully joining a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the [2020] election”.

The construction and general division of the CFMEU has been in administration since last August.

The union’s national secretary, Zach Smith, said on Facebook: “We cannot  let our union or our industry be a safe haven for criminality of corruption”.

He also said that “violence against women is completely unacceptable to our union”. Läs mer…

Cyclone Alfred will cost the March 25 budget at least A$1.2 billion, hit growth and put pressure on inflation, Treasurer Jim Chalmers says.

In a Tuesday speech previewing the budget, Chalmers will also say that on preliminary estimates, the cyclone’s immediate hit to GDP is expected to be up to $1.2 billion, which could wipe a quarter of a percentage point off quarterly growth.

“It could also lead to upward pressure on inflation. From building costs to damaged crops raising prices for staples like fruit and vegetables,” Chalmers says in the speech, an extract of which has been released ahead of delivery.

The treasurer says the temporary shutting of businesses due to the cyclone lost about 12 million work hours.

By last Thursday, 44,000 insurance claims had been lodged. Early modelling indicated losses covered by the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool were about $1.7 billion.

The estimated costs to the budget, which are over the forward estimates period, are preliminary.

The government has already co-sponsored with the states $30 million in support for immediate recovery costs, Chalmers says. Millions of dollars are being provided in hardship payments.

“The budget will reflect some of those immediate costs and we’ll make sensible provisions for more to come,” he says.

“I expect that these costs and these new provisions will be in the order of at least $1.2 billion […] and that means a big new pressure on the budget.”

This is in addition to the already budgeted for disaster relief.

“At MYEFO, we’d already booked $11.6 billion for disaster support nationally over the forward estimates.

”With all of this extra funding we expect that to rise to at least $13.5 billion when accounting for our provisioning, social security costs and other disaster related support.”

Chalmers will again argue in the speech his recent theme – that the economy has turned a corner. This is despite the global uncertainty that includes the Trump tariff policies, the full extent of which is yet to be spelled out.

Australia is bracing for the possibility our beef export trade could be caught in a new tariff round to be unveiled early next month.

Despite last week’s rebuff to its efforts to get an exemption from the aluminium and steel 25% tariffs, the government has vowed to fight on for a carve out from that, as well as trying to head off any further imposts on exports to the US.

In seeking the exemption, Australia was unsuccessful in trying to leverage its abundance of critical minerals, which are much sought after by the US.

Trade Minister Don Farrell told Sky on Sunday:

What we need to do is find out what it is that the Americans want in terms of this relationship between Australia and the United States and then make President Trump an offer he can’t refuse.

In Tuesday’s speech, Chalmers is expected to say the budget will contain fewer surprises than might be the case with other budgets.

This is because this budget – which would have been avoided if the cyclone had not ruled out an April 12 election – comes after the flurry of announcements already made this year and before further announcements in the campaign for the May election.

Those announcements already made include:

$8.5 billion to boost Medicare
$644 million for new Urgent Care Clinics
a multi-billion dollar package to save Whyalla Steelworks
$7.2 billion for the Bruce Highway and other infrastructure
funds for enhanced childcare and to provide some
student debt relief
new and amended listings for contraception, endometriosis and IVF on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Read more:
Labor and the Coalition have pledged to raise GP bulk billing. Here’s what the Medicare boost means for patients

Deloitte Access Economics in its budget monitor predicts the budget will have a deficit of $26.1 billion for 2024-25.

Deloitte’s Stephen Smith said that although a $26.1 billion deficit was slightly smaller than forecast in the December budget update, the longer-term structural deterioration should be “a reality check for politicians wanting to announce election sweeteners in the weeks ahead”.

Deloitte projects a deficit of nearly $50 billion in 2025-26.

Open to a ‘small’ Ukraine peacekeeping role

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took part in the “coalition of the willing” virtual meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in support of Ukraine.

The meeting also included Ukraine, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and New Zealand. The United States did not participate. President Donald Trump is trying to force an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the conflict.

Albanese reiterated after the meeting: “Australia is open to considering any requests to contribute to a future peacekeeping effort in support of the just and lasting peace we all want to Ukraine”.

He added the obvious point: “Of course, peacekeeping missions by definition require a precondition of peace”.

Albanese said that any Australian contribution to a Ukraine peacekeeping force would be “small”.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has opposed sending Australians to a peacekeeping force.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Peter Dutton on why he’s not Australia’s Trump – ’I’m my own person’ Läs mer…

Australian politicians on both sides of the house say protectionist policies are bad, right? That Australia, as a country, believes in and benefits from trade being as free as possible.

But what about some voluntary protectionism in the wake of the government’s failure to win an exemption from Donald Trump’s tariffs? Not counter tariffs of course – the government has ruled out that brand of retaliation. But it is looking to find ways to encourage consumers to buy locally-produced products rather than defaulting to (often cheaper) imports.

Anthony Albanese flags this will be a feature of the March 25 budget. All in the name of supporting “Team Australia”.

“I would urge Australians, if they’re in a local shop, to look to buy Australian,” the prime minister said on Thursday. “That’s one way that consumers can assist to create jobs here and to support our local industries.”

Despite the unfortunate circumstances in which it comes, this exhortation actually fits with the government’s pre-Trump policy of “Future Made in Australia”, with its incentives for projects especially in the clean energy area. Critics thought the policy was too interventionist, indeed protectionist. The government argued it was securing Australia’s place “in a changing global environment”.

Just as he seems to be wreaking havoc around the world, Donald Trump is now embedded in Australia’s domestic politics in the run-up to the election. Both sides are struggling to deal with the consequences of that.

Albanese is trying to contain the damage of the exemption failure, while pinning the “Trumpist” label on Dutton, accusing him of being “a cheer squad” for the Trumpites. “He had a choice yesterday of backing in the Trump administration in this decision or backing Australia. He chose to not back Australia”

Dutton is attempting to exploit the government’s inability to sway Trump but duck the accusation of not being on the national team.

The opposition says the tariff affair shows Albanese is weak, using this latest problem to feed into a general theme it is running about the PM. Dutton (though without evidence) claims he could get the Americans across the line. Kos Samaras from the political consultancy Redbridge, which does extensive research, says voters do think Dutton would be the better leader to deal with Trump.

Dutton’s challenge on the tariff issue is to criticise the government while not appearing to exult in Australia’s misfortune. It’s just one of the fine lines the Opposition leader is needing to walk at the moment.

Dutton is tantalisingly close to power, but the last steps will be the hardest.

A Newspoll finding published the week must give him cause for worry. More than half (55%) doubted the Coalition was ready for government. The poll found while this feeling was strongest among young voters, 61 % of those aged 35 to 49 doubted its readiness.

No wonder some Coalition MPs are worrying Dutton has left it too late to release and flesh out much of his policy,

He contests claims of a policy vacuum, pointing to the nuclear policy, housing measures and some other initiatives.

Nevertheless, because Dutton has run a basically small target strategy (nuclear apart) there will be a feeling among some voters that in government he could be a surprise packet. We know more of what he is against than what he is for, what he would do.

Many voters would recall Tony Abbott going out of his way to reassure people in the 2013 election campaign, and then unleashing the shock 2014 budget. A logical (and reasonable) question is, what would Dutton’s first budget be like?

If Dutton wouldn’t act like Abbott, would he follow the example of John Howard, whom he highlights as a role model?

Howard promised before the 1996 election that there’d “never ever” be a GST under him, then unveiled one (which he took to the following election).

In such uncertain times, it will be particularly important for Dutton to be able to reassure voters that they will get what they vote for, not something completely unexpected.

For an opposition, especially one with the smell of possible victory in its nostrils, there is always a tension between spelling out what it would do in office, and leaving itself flexibility.

For example it’s clear that Dutton has strong views on education policy. He told the Conversation’s podcast he thought this was “one of the most important areas”, and pointed to declining school completion rates and the need for a more back-to-basics approach.

But what would this mean in detail? How much would he seek to impinge on the states, which have prime responsibility for government schooling?

The more general point is that it is not clear whether Dutton would be an incrementalist or have his eyes on radical reform in government. Yet voters want more signals. Samaras says Dutton in recent weeks has been looking “flat-footed”, that he is not going to be able to get away with the small target strategy. “He needs to build a case for change.”

In some areas, the Coalition is leaning to potential heavy intervention. It has said it would break up supermarkets if they exploited their market power.

More recently Dutton has ventured further, saying (and re-confirming on the podcast) that insurance companies could also face divestiture.

But on the insurance issue there has been open division and confusion.

Some Liberals were unhappy with the supermarket divestiture policy, which was substantially driven by the Nationals.

On insurance companies, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and deputy leader Sussan Ley both asserted divestiture was not opposition policy, before Dutton brought the team into line.

That raises another problem Dutton has. His team remains weak. Taylor still can’t stack up effectively against treasurer Jim Chalmers. This is a potential vulnerability in the election campaign.

Politicians facing elections often liken their situation to climbing Everest. For Dutton the last stage will be treacherous. Läs mer…

On current opinion polls, we are looking at a very close race at the May election. As voting day draws near, Peter Dutton will face more forensic questioning about his policies and how he would run government.

At the same time, He’s fending off Labor attempt to define him as Trumpian.

The opposition leader joined the podcast to discuss what a Dutton government would look like and how he would tackle problems both domestically and abroad.

On his main priorities would be, Dutton says;

I want to be a Prime Minister for home ownership. We’ve announced a plan which will create 500,000 new homes. I want young Australians to be able to achieve that dream of home ownership.

I want to make sure that we have a safe and secure country. Not much else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own homes and if we feel vulnerable as a country.

I want to make sure that we’ve got a back to basics economic agenda so that people can afford to pay the bills in their own households and small businesses can stay afloat and help contribute to growth in the economy. So, they would be three areas that I would see as a priority and ways in which we could change the country for the better.

Asked if Australians would be better off in three years’ time under a Dutton government, Dutton says,

The short answer is “yes”.

On government waste, Dutton outlines the need to reduce the size of government:

there’s been phenomenal growth in the public service. Why? Because the Government’s trying to please the Commonwealth Public Service Union. It’s not about service delivery or outcome. There are 36,000 new public servants at a cost of about $6 billion a year. Now, that is a staggering amount of money that is going into the economy, and it should be spent on either debt reduction or helping get the budget back into balance.

We’ve supported the government in cutting back on some of the concerns in [the] NDIS and making aged care more sustainable so that there is a recurrent built-in save year-on-year compounding in those two areas. […] And so we can identify areas where we can have better outcomes, and I think Australians, frankly, expect that from a Liberal government, and that’s what we would do.

Wouldn’t consultancy fill any gap left by cutting public servants?

If you’ve got a good skill set within the public service, then there’s no need to bring in additional outside support. But if you can spend money more efficiently by investing in an efficient delivery mechanism, then that is something that you would do.

On the government’s relationship with the Trump administration, Dutton leaves the door open to replacing current US Ambassador Kevin Rudd, and doesn’t scotch the idea of appointing Scott Morrison,

Well, I’m interested in making sure that the incumbent can do his job to the best possible degree and making sure that that’s in our country’s best interests. I think that’s the default position. We’ve got an incumbent in the position. I think the Ambassador’s there for another 18 months or so, and I hope for our country’s sake, that he’s able to achieve what he hasn’t been able to achieve to date and I hope that there can be engagement. It is quite remarkable that neither the Prime Minister nor Ambassador Rudd have been able to secure even a phone call

So what about the possibility of making Morrison ambassador?

Well, I’ve got a high regard for Scott Morrison. I’ve got a high regard for a number of other colleagues and others. If there was a vacancy, then you could consider other applicants or other people for that job – but at the moment, there is no vacancy. I think the important aspect is to lend every assistance to the Ambassador because obviously he’s struggling at the moment.

Talking about the criticism from Labor and others that he is aping Donald Trump, Dutton says.

I’m my own person […] I was able to stand up to Trump [after Trump’s criticism of President Zelensky] and I think that’s one of the important qualities in the next Prime Minister of our country. I want to make sure that I stand up for my values.

I base my political instinct more on John Howard and Peter Costello than I do on President Trump, with all due respect to him and to other world leaders.

On fears that the American economy could fall into recession, Dutton outlines why Australia should adapt to the changing global realities,

As we know from history, if America has a cold, it’s pretty contagious and economically, that can be devastating for jobs and economic growth in our own economy.

So we have to deal with whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, whether the US strengthens or it weakens. That’s been the approach of every predecessor of the Prime Minister, but it seems that our Prime Minister is not up to the task of being able to adapt to the prevailing conditions and the Prime Minister of the day, the Government of the day, has to deal with whatever is laid out before him or her and that would be the approach I would take.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The formal election campaign was delayed by Cyclone Alfred, but the faux campaign continues at full bore, with the opinion polls showing a very close race, and now Donald Trump’s tariffs throwing a new issue into the mix.

A few weeks ago, we brought you an interview with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, on today’s podcast, we catch up with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Peter Dutton, Paul Keating used to say, ‘change the government, you change the country’. How would Australia be different under a Dutton Government? Can you talk about, say, just three big changes we’d see in a first term?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, I want to be a Prime Minister for home ownership. We’ve announced a plan which will create 500,000 new homes. I want young Australians to be able to achieve that dream of home ownership. I want to make sure that we have a safe and secure country. Not much else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own homes and if we feel vulnerable as a country. I want to make sure that we’ve got a back to basics economic agenda so that people can afford to pay the bills in their own households and small businesses can stay afloat and help contribute to growth in the economy. So, they would be three areas that I would see as a priority and ways in which we could change the country for the better.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, just taking up the last one, you’re saying to voters that they’re worse off financially than three years ago. But can you realistically promise that they’ll be better off under a Dutton Government in three years’ time? Apart from anything else, the world is just becoming incredibly uncertain.

PETER DUTTON:

The short answer is yes, and I’d say to people, don’t look just at what politicians say, but what they do. Our track record as a Coalition in government has been a very successful one. John Howard was able to clean up Labor’s mess in 1996, and we were able to do it again after the Rudd-Gillard years, and we’ll have to do it again after the Albanese Government. We make rational economic decisions that are in the country’s best interests.

There are 27,000 small businesses who have closed their doors under this Government’s watch. That didn’t happen when we were in government. So, I think look at the report card and make judgements about who is best able to manage the economy, as you say, in very uncertain times. I honestly believe that the Coalition has a much greater capacity to manage the economy effectively, and that’s what we’ll do if we’re elected.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The Trump Administration is now warning that its policies could produce a recession in the United States in the transition period to its new protectionism. What would be the implications of this for the international economy and for Australia, in particular?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, as we know from history, if America has a cold, it’s pretty contagious. Economically, that can be devastating for jobs and economic growth in our own economy. The Government’s ramped up spending dramatically. I don’t think inflation has been dealt with in our country by any stretch of the imagination, and there’s a great prospect of interest rates going up again under a Labor-Greens Government because they’ll spend a lot of money, which will be inflationary.

So, we have to deal with whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, whether the US strengthens or it weakens. That’s been the approach of every predecessor of the Prime Minister, but it seems that our Prime Minister is not up to the task of being able to adapt to the prevailing conditions. The Prime Minister of the day, the Government of the day, has to deal with whatever is laid out before him or her. That would be the approach I would take. We would default back to our instinctive economic management skills and that’s something that I’m very proud of.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But this does make it hard to give promises and guarantees of things getting better, doesn’t it?
PETER DUTTON:

Well, I think we have to have an honest conversation with the Australian public about the times in which we live. I think people instinctively get it. People know that China is in a very different place today. The Prime Minister talks about the risk of China, and he talks about the most precarious position since the Second World War, and then he takes money out of Defence. We don’t have the urgency that you would expect from a Prime Minister having made that comment.

We live in the most difficult economic circumstances if the tariffs continue to be applied and there could be another wave of tariffs against Australia. We don’t know the answer to that yet. All of that makes for an uncertain period that needs a steady hand and a reliable approach. I believe that that’s what I can deliver as Prime Minister and what a Coalition Government can deliver over the course of the term.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So, on those tariffs, if you were elected, would you make an early trip to Washington? And what would you offer President Trump? And do you think you could obtain an exemption where this Government has obviously not been able to, or indeed any other government?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, the United States is our most important military partner. I don’t agree with what President Trump has done in relation to the tariffs, and I vehemently oppose the tariffs. But the Government has to deal with the realities before it. For the Prime Minister at the moment, not to be able to get a phone call or a detail agreed about a visit to the United States is quite remarkable.

So, absolutely, I would make it a priority to engage quickly with the Administration and not just with the President, but with others with whom we have a relationship in the Administration. We need to make sure that we’ve got every touch point covered, as we did in 2018 when the Coalition Government was able to negotiate with President Trump in his first Administration to gain an exemption.

We’re a country with a trade surplus and we have a unique circumstance because of the military alliance and the Prime Minister hasn’t been able to leverage any of that into an outcome where Australia has been exempted this time. Unfortunately, it’s jobs and economic activity that suffer in our country. So, the short answer is yes, early engagement and an early visit to discuss what a deal looks like with the US. I would make it an absolute priority in my Government.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, Labor says that in its research, people see you as being Trumpian, and don’t some of your policies, for example, your attacks on the public service and the like, reinforce this perception? And indeed, won’t your attacks on the Government over the tariff policy play into Labor’s attempt to paint you as a cheerleader for Donald Trump?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, firstly, I’m my own person, and I think you wrote a very good piece, if I might say, the other day, talking about this issue. I think the point, in part, that you made is that I was able to stand up to Trump, and I think that’s one of the important qualities in the next Prime Minister of our country. I want to make sure that I stand up for my values.

The most important influence in my life and the values that I obtained first up in politics came from John Howard and Peter Costello and that was to spend prudently, to make sure that you manage the economy well, that you spend within your means and that you make sure that you can prepare for a rainy day. This Government has spent a lot of money, it’s why we’re behind other OECD countries, it’s why interest rates have already started to come down six or eight months earlier than what they did in Australia and it’s why the Reserve Bank Governor has pointed out that there is a spending problem with Labor in Australia, both at a state and federal level, which is fueling inflation.

So, I base my political instinct more on John Howard and Peter Costello than I do on President Trump, with all with all due respect to him and to other world leaders. That’s been my experience.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

You did call Trump a ‘big thinker’ initially. What are your views on him now?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, the President obviously has an America First policy, and people think that that’s an election slogan or that it’s rhetoric, but I think that they now realise that it’s being played out and that that is what we will have to negotiate over the course of the next four years. We have to make sure that we’re making decisions in our country’s best interests, that we’re respectful of the points of difference between our two Governments, but ultimately find common ground and alignment in relation to national security matters and economic matters and other matters of mutual interest.

You need the personal relationships to make that happen. Part of the reason that the Government’s faltered in the relationship is because the key players, every one of them, including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Ambassador to the United States, have all made consistent derogatory remarks about the President. I don’t think that has allowed them to have the conversation that I would be able to have with President Trump or my colleagues.

In 2018, we found every point of influence within the Administration, within the private sector, within think tanks to try and influence the outcome that ultimately we were able to achieve to exempt Australia from the tariffs at that point. So, I think we can have a constructive and productive relationship with the President under a new government here in Australia. I know one thing for sure, we have to, in an uncertain time, strengthen the relationship, not weaken it. And unfortunately, through their own words, that’s exactly what Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese have done.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, on personal relationships, obviously Scott Morrison’s got a pretty close relationship with Donald Trump. Would you consider making him ambassador to the United States, if he wanted the job?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’ve made comment before in relation to making sure that we can put every support behind Ambassador Rudd because he’s in the job at the moment and we need to make sure that he is armed with every possible tool to see Australia exempted from the tariffs. Now, obviously that has failed and the Government needs to double down on its efforts and I hope that the Prime Minister, on our country’s behalf, is able to achieve success and that will happen if doors are opening for Ambassador Rudd.

I’m just not close enough to knowing what has been said to Ambassador Rudd and whether he’s persona non grata or whether he does have access to the Administration. I think all of that would be influential in any decision that you were making around how the Ambassador was being effective or there was a problem in the relationship. I think it’s a discussion probably for another day.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So, would you be interested in putting Scott Morrison in there at some point?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’m interested in making sure that the incumbent can do his job to the best possible degree and making sure that that’s in our country’s best interests. I think that’s the default position. We’ve got an incumbent in the position. I think the Ambassador’s there for another 18 months or so, and I hope for our country’s sake, that he’s able to achieve what he hasn’t been able to achieve to date and I hope that there can be engagement.

It is quite remarkable that neither the Prime Minister nor Ambassador Rudd have been able to secure even a phone call. There wasn’t even a courtesy phone call to the Government to say that this decision was being handed down. Penny Wong has confirmed that she found out about this through the press sec at the White House Briefing Room. That is quite remarkable. That is a real thumbing of the nose, and I think the Prime Minister’s got a real problem of his own making.

I want to make sure that we can get a better outcome for our country because we need to provide support to Australian steel workers and to economic activity in our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

As we move on, I just note that you’re not saying Scott Morrison is a ridiculous suggestion.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I’ve got a high regard for Scott Morrison. I’ve got a high regard for a number of other colleagues and others. If there was a vacancy, then you could consider other applicants or other people for that job – but at the moment, there is no vacancy. I think the important aspect is to lend every assistance to the Ambassador because obviously he’s struggling at the moment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, a Newspoll has found that more than half the voters doubt that the Coalition is ready for government. Now, you say you’re holding policies back, essentially so they have maximum impact when they’re announced, that people don’t forget them. But isn’t the risk that this delay adds to this perception that you’re not prepared for office yet?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, all I can say is that, again, look at the track record. The track record is that in relation to the Voice, we had lots of critics to say that the Coalition should come out immediately and declare support for or against the Voice. We took our time, and in the end, we got the outcome that was the best outcome for our country. We went through it methodically.

I can point to the policies that we’ve announced already, which have been significant – a $5 billion plan to create 500,000 new homes so young Australians can achieve the dream of home ownership again. Our plan to stop foreign ownership of Australian houses so that we can put Australians first in buying those houses. The effort that we’ve done in relation to the energy policy, which would be the most significant policy an Opposition has ever taken to an election in relation to nuclear firming up renewables – that is revolutionary. We’re paying almost the highest cost for electricity in the world and the Government’s renewables only policy is a disaster.

The final point I’d make in relation to policy is that we have been working day and night over the course of the last almost three years looking at policies. We’ve had different policies costed backwards and forwards with the Parliamentary Budget Office, and we will have significant policies to announce at the right time. But we also don’t want to pretend that we’re going to rewrite the tax system or rewrite large swathes of government policy from opposition. That is not the way to achieve success at the election. We are going to have one hell of a mess to clean up given the wreckage that Labor will leave behind, but we’re going to do it in a sensible way and we’re going to get our economy and our country back on track through a proven formula that Coalition Governments always bring to the table. We’ll do that through prudent economic decisions that we can make, and we’ll make them quickly.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

That does, however, leave many people with the feeling that maybe they don’t really know what a Dutton Government would be like. That we could be in the situation where we were with the Abbott Government where he came in with a certain platform and reassurances and then we got the 2014 Budget. Are we at risk of another 2014 Budget which produces many shocks?

PETER DUTTON:

No, Michelle, I think people again can look at my track record. As Defence Minister, we negotiated the AUKUS outcome, which will underpin security for our country for the next century. As Health Minister, I invested a record amount into hospitals, established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, and we had the ability to put more money into general practice through training places, many of those doctors graduating and out practicing now. As Home Affairs Minister, I kept our country safe by deporting violent criminals and managing our borders effectively. As Assistant Treasurer to Peter Costello, I was part of an economic team which was the most successful in recent history here in Australia. So, I have a skill set to bring to the role of Prime Minister, but I’ve also learnt the lessons of Prime Ministers, both Liberal and Labor, over my term in Parliament and I intend to learn from all of that.

We’re at a period where families are cutting back in their own household budgets. As I say, there’s a record number of small businesses that have gone broke on this Government’s watch. People are tightening their belts and people are cutting the fat out of their budgets and they’re struggling to pay their bills. I think at that time, more than any other time, people expect the government to cut back on wasteful spending as well. So, we’re not going to have families who are really struggling to pay their bills working harder than ever paying their taxes and allowing waste to take place.

I want government services to be efficient so that we can get more money onto frontline services and have more GPs and have more educators and have a better outcome in terms of defence and national security in a very uncertain time.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But you wouldn’t have big shocks for the community post-election?

PETER DUTTON:

No, but we do want to identify where there is waste in the system, and I think Australians would expect us to do whatever we can to cut back on waste so that we can provide support to those Australians who are most in need.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, let’s just go through the areas of waste. Can you give some specific examples?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, in relation to the Canberra Public Service, as we’ve pointed out, there’s been phenomenal growth in the public service. Why? Because the Government’s trying to please the Commonwealth Public Service Union. It’s not about service delivery or outcome. There are 36,000 new public servants at a cost of about $6 billion a year. Now, that is a staggering amount of money that is going into the economy, and it should be spent on either debt reduction or helping get the budget back into balance or making sure that we can meet the costs that we’ve got. That is one area and…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, that’s the figure you would cut. Is that right? The 36,000?

PETER DUTTON:

That’s correct, and we’ve been very clear about that. We supported the Government, for example, as John Howard did with Paul Keating over the course of this term. We’ve supported the Government in cutting back on some of the concerns in NDIS and making aged care more sustainable so that there is a recurrent built in save year on year compounding in those two areas. That’s something that the Labor Party never did when they were in opposition.

So, we can identify areas where we can have better outcomes and I think Australians, frankly, expect that from a Liberal government and that’s what we would do.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

How would you stop the consultancies just moving back in to fill the gap, because that’s what we saw before?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, again, if you’ve got a good skill set within the public service, then there’s no need to bring in additional outside support. But if you can spend money more efficiently by investing in an efficient delivery mechanism, then that is something that you would do. I want to make sure that we empower our public servants to be able to make decisions. I think sometimes, and certainly this has been my experience, if there’s not good direction and leadership from the Prime Minister and Minister, then you end up with a situation where public servants are at sixes and sevens about what they think is the government’s direction. So, providing that clarity and that understanding of purpose gives a much more efficient outcome to the public service activity as well.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

On the skill set in the public service, Steven Kennedy, the head of Treasury, has been involved in some controversy with some of your front benchers. Would he be safe under a Dutton Government?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I think you’re about 10 steps down the track, Michelle. We’ve got to win the election first, and then we have to work out the key appointments. I’ve worked very closely with Steven Kennedy, particularly over the COVID period, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I think he’s a very capable public servant, and I think he’s done a good job, particularly over that period when we were in government. But in relation to personnel changes and who would be secretary for what department, I think that’s all saved for another day.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Your working from home policy has created some controversy. Is your aim that almost all federal public servants should return to five days in the office? And if there are to be carve outs, what would be the circumstances?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Michelle, we want to bring it back to something akin to where it was pre-COVID. About one in five public servants, or about 21 per cent of Canberra public servants, were working from home, and it provided that flexibility. At the moment, it’s over 60 per cent. There are people who are in important roles, who have been asked to come back to work, who refuse to come back to work. Now, that is not an acceptable position when taxpayers, who are paying the wages of our public servants are out working second and third jobs just to be able to afford to pay the grocery bill. They’re seeing their tax dollars not being spent efficiently.

So, there’s a sensible approach to it. There’s an accommodation of flexible work arrangements for women and women returning back to work or taking time off – and we can accommodate that. But at the moment, six out of 10 public servants working from home in Canberra is not an efficient public service. I want to make sure that we can drive the efficiencies, and therefore, drive the better outcomes for Australians.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, your tax policy is on the wait and see list, but just in general, do you think that Australia’s taxation system needs a thorough overhaul or just some tinkering at the edges? And are more tax cuts inevitable in the next term of government, whoever wins because of inflation, putting people into higher brackets?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I don’t think they’re inevitable because in government, we introduced stages one, two and three. So that was a comprehensive reform of the way in which the tax brackets operated and the tax rates as they applied, trying to address anomalies within the system, including bracket creep. So, there was a genuine and concerted effort.

Now that’s what we did when we were in government, the Labor Party didn’t do that when they were in government. The Labor Party under Anthony Albanese tweaked the stage three, but hasn’t introduced any of their own tax cuts otherwise.

So again, it’s not inevitable that there would be tax cuts under a Labor government, and the Government’s objective, it seems, is similar to what is happening in Melbourne and in Victoria under Jacinda Allan, as it happened under Palaszczuk and Miles in Queensland, they will tax and spend, and they keep spending, and therefore they need to find new things to tax.

That is not the approach of a Coalition government. We spend efficiently, we tax at the lowest possible rate and we try and simplify the system. If we can introduce tax cuts and make the system simpler and fit for purpose, then that’s our every instinct.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

On health, you took over the government’s bulk billing policy, holus bolus, but isn’t that just tactical expediency rather than good policy formation? Surely the Coalition should have some ideas on health policy itself rather than just adopting what’s been put out there?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, a couple of points. Firstly, I’m very proud that when I was Health Minister, we increased hospital funding, we created the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, as I mentioned, we invested into GP training, into regional health, and the bulk billing rate was 84 per cent when I was Health Minister, it’s now 78 per cent under Labor. So, we’ve got a good track record in relation to health.

Next point is that we have done a lot in terms of policy offering in the health space, well before the Government made its most recent announcement on Medicare. We promised an overhaul and additional investment in relation to women’s health, particularly around endometriosis and a number of other areas, including GP training – a commitment of $400 million. That was picked up, actually, by the Government in their Medicare announcement most recently.

We believe in a strong general practise Network, because primary care and early detection means that we have greater survival rates from cancers, etc, and it also means that we’re saving money down the line when people otherwise turn up with higher acuity and greater health needs in the health system, particularly in the tertiary part of the health system.

So we have seen fit to invest significantly – as we’ve announced – into general practice and into Medicare, but also we believe that mental health is a very important area of investment in the health system. The Government hasn’t yet matched the $500 million additional dollars that we say we will invest into mental health. I hope that they do, because I think there are many people who are missing out on services at the moment, because the Government cut back on mental health and we’ve restored that funding that they cut out of Medicare.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

We haven’t heard a great deal on education policy from your spokeswoman. What changes do you think are needed to the higher education system, or indeed the education system more generally that the federal government can drive?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think this is one of the most important areas, obviously, of public policy. We’ve got one in three children at the moment failing to meet basic proficiency levels in reading, writing and maths under NAPLAN, the average year 10 student is one year behind in his or her learning compared to two decades ago, the year 12 completion rates have declined from 82 per cent in 2019 under our Government to 78.7 per cent now.

So, we do need to invest, and this is why, when I spoke before about having an efficient public service and getting more money back to frontline services, this is one area that we should be looking at, where we can provide support to teachers. But we also have to have a focus on curriculum and we have to make sure that our teachers are teaching our young children the basics through explicit instruction and making reading, writing, maths and science a priority. We’ve invested more into school funding and we’ll continue to do that into the future.

So, there is a real focus, and not just on primary and secondary education, but also on apprentices and trainees. We have to make sure that we’ve got incentives and that we develop a culture again, that it’s acceptable to do a trade or a traineeship, whereas the Government’s focus seems to be solely on getting people into university degrees, which is fine if that’s the choice people make, but for a lot of young Australians, they would be probably better in a pathway with a trade.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

The Opposition recently has got rather tangled – to put it mildly – on the question of what it would do about insurance companies. Can you just very briefly clarify what your policy is on this? Would you go down the divestiture road if that was necessary?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think we’ve been very clear in relation to it, and I’ll spell it out very clearly now. As I move around the country, there are countless stories I’ve heard of what’s happening in the insurance space. Now, we know that people can’t get insurance coverage, we know that people are paying astronomical prices for premiums, and it is one of the great grievances that people have in their own household budgets. So, there is a significant problem.

Now, the Government says that they can’t do anything about it, and our argument is that if, in government, we’re presented with evidence that because of a concentration of market share within a big player or big players within the insurance market, and that is what is leading to a significant spike in premiums or a lack of competition in the marketplace or the inability for people to get insurance coverage, then we will act, and that does include the prospect of divestiture, because that is what happens in the United States, in the United Kingdom and frankly, it’s a statement of the obvious, that if you’ve got a market failure that is leading to people not being able to afford insurance premiums or that they’re being denied insurance, then that is a complete and catastrophic failure of the system that would need to be addressed. I’m absolutely astounded that the Government wouldn’t agree to that.

I’d also make this point, if two insurance companies decided to merge today, the ACCC would make a decision about whether or not that was in the market’s best interests. My Government will be there to serve the Australian community, not to serve the big business community or anyone else. I want outcomes for consumers, and I want to make sure that our policies are helping, not hurting consumers. If the ACCC made a decision that those two companies merging was going to compromise on competition in the marketplace and drive up the cost of premiums or make it difficult for people to get insurance cover, they wouldn’t allow the merger to take place. It’s simply an extension of that principle.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now on climate change, now that the U.S. is out, are you still definitely committed to staying in the Paris Agreement and to the net zero by 2050 target?

PETER DUTTON:

Yes, we are, and I believe that we’re the only major Party going into this election with a credible policy to achieve net zero by 2050. The Government, as they turn off coal and gas, is relying on green hydrogen. Nobody can tell you when green hydrogen will be a commercial reality, and in actual fact, all of the indicators at the moment are that money is being withdrawn from green hydrogen. So, I think the Government’s prospects of net zero by 2050 diminish as each day goes by.

The Coalition – like the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party has signed up to more nuclear, like the United States, where the Democrats and Republicans have both signed up to more nuclear – we have a credible pathway to net zero by 2050, we can bring electricity prices down. The Government’s policy of relying on green hydrogen and more hydro projects – that have not even been identified, let alone construction started – their recipe, I think, is for higher emissions and an inability to achieve net zero by 2050, which is a stark contrast to where a Coalition government would be able to take our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

But on this question of bringing prices down, isn’t this really pie in the sky hypothetical, because you’re talking decades on with nuclear. There are all sorts of variables in the years to come, so where prices go is surely unforeseeable, it’s no good just using modelling?

PETER DUTTON:

But that argument can apply to the Government’s renewables only policy…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Well, precisely. Both sides.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, and if you look at the expert analysis, which we’ve had undertaken by Frontier Economics – the most preeminent energy economist in the country, used by Labor Governments, including in South Australia – their judgement is that the Coalition’s policy compared to Labor’s policy would be 44 per cent cheaper. It is quite a remarkable figure. But that’s the independent analysis, not analysis that we paid for, but analysis that was undertaken by a modeller used by the Labor Party.

Importantly, Michelle – I think this is a really important point, we’ve now had, what, two, three months since that analysis was handed down, since that report was released? The Government has not made one criticism of the assumptions or the outcomes. They’ve never disputed that 44 per cent figure. I think it’s telling. I think it also demonstrates that the policy we’ve put together has been thought through, it has been robustly tested and it is in our country’s best interest.

We also, in the near term, need to invest a lot more into gas and I think the Government’s starting to realise this as well. We have to make sure that there is more gas to allow for electricity production and that is how we can have some downward pressure on prices in the near term.

Also – just to pick you up on one of the points you made – the Government now is investing in an overbuilding of the system, a cost that consumers are bearing now in their electricity prices. So, the government’s renewable only policy over the period between now and 2050, the fact is that that is contributing to an increase in the cost of electricity and gas prices that consumers are paying right now.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Just on your 44 per cent figure, though, we’re talking here decades on. The Government used, before the last election, another reputable modeller, and as it turned out, it couldn’t even produce a figure that stuck for two or three years. So, it does suggest, does it not, that trying to put precision into these undertakings is a very dubious proposition?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, let’s look at the world experience – the international experience, so in Ontario, use of nuclear underpinning renewables in that system, they’re paying about a third of the electricity costs we are in this country. In Tennessee, similar story in the United States. In the United States, in towns like in the Hunter Valley or like in Collie that have no future after coal goes, they are revitalising and rejuvenating those regional centres, and we can do that here in Australia.

Out of the top 20 economies in the world, Australia is the only one that isn’t using or hasn’t signed up to nuclear. Indonesia has committed to significant investments into nuclear. I pose this question, why is it that of the top 20 economies in the world, 19 of them see the economic and environmental benefit out of using nuclear, but the Albanese Government is the only one that doesn’t? So we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here, we’re looking at a proven technology.

The Government has no concerns about safety or disposal of waste, because they signed up to the AUKUS submarine deal, which has a nuclear propulsion system, and no Prime Minister in his or her right mind would do that if they thought there was a safety concern for our sailors and the defence force personnel who will crew these submarines.

So, the only criticism that I think commentators frankly can make in relation to the nuclear debate at the moment is of the Labor Party, and why isn’t there a bipartisan position in relation to nuclear so that we can achieve it more quickly? I think Peter Malinauskas in South Australia is biting at the bit to be involved in the creation of a civil nuclear industry and he’s been very supportive of nuclear in past, as is Keir Starmer in the US, as is Joe Biden and many other significant figures who would be cited on most other days by members of the Labor Party, including Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I want to turn to the broad area of defence and foreign policy. Malcolm Turnbull’s organising a conference to look at where Australian strategic policy should be in the new Trump era. Do you think that a realignment of Australia’s security and strategic policy is needed, now that President Trump is treating alliances in Europe in a very different way than the past? Or do you have confidence in the strength of the alliance we have with the United States? And if you take the latter view, what do you base that on?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, I have total confidence in the relationship with the United States when it comes to our military alliances, and I believe very strongly that our stars align with the United States as they have done historically and will do into the future, and not just the United States, but our Five Eyes partners otherwise, and new partners, particularly I speak of Japan and of India.

We live in a precarious period, there’s no question of that, and we have to do everything we can to keep our country safe, and we need strong leadership to be able to do that. The Prime Minister talks about the threats in this century and then takes money out of defence. It’s anomalous and it’s dangerous.

So, we have, what I believe is a sensible approach to the relationship, we have relationships with key players within the Administration, long standing supporters within the Congress on both sides of the aisle, and we can have, I think, a very productive relationship going forward. But it is a new world under President Trump, there’s no question, and we have to consolidate the relationships that we have. But it’s hard for relationships to be built when the United States doesn’t have any respect for our Prime Minister and when the Prime Minister and key Ministers have repeatedly used derogatory language about the President. That is not conducive to a productive relationship.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I think to be fair, we have to point out that no country’s got an exemption from the tariffs, so we don’t know that…

PETER DUTTON:

Well, Australia did in 2018.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Yes, but no countries now.

PETER DUTTON:

Well, again, we did that as a Coalition Government, and there’s no doubt in my mind that we could do it again as a Coalition Government. That is exactly the task that I set myself.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

I see the other day that Kim Beazley said Australia should boost its defence spending to 3 or 3.5 per cent of GDP. Do you think we need to go above 3 per cent of GDP?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Michelle, firstly, I have a great deal of respect for Kim Beazley, and I have met with him and discussed defence matters before, and he was a great Ambassador for our country in Washington. I think the Labor Party, frankly, probably misses not having him in Washington at the moment. He is one of the most astute observers of matters defence here and globally. I do think we should listen to his warnings about the threats that could face Australia over the course of the next decades or century.

There is a compelling argument to invest more into defence. What that number is, that has to be considered in time, and in part, it’s a discussion that we would have to have in government with the agencies, not just defence, but with the central agencies as well, and that’s exactly what we would do.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

So you won’t put a number on it before the election?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, we’ll have more to say in relation to defence, and we’ve done a lot of work in defence policy during our period in opposition. But, again, I think look at the track record in government, and in government, we were able to invest more into defence, we put $10 billion into REDSPICE, which was the beefing up of the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and not just our defensive capability, but also our offensive capability in cyber, which makes the calculation for an adversary much different if they know that we have the ability to strike in the cyber world. We do have a lot of capability that we have enhanced through that investment into Operation REDSPICE, and I’m proud to have been the Minister that made that decision. We also had, obviously, the ability, the capacity, to negotiate AUKUS, which I think has been revolutionary for our country.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

You were quite forward leaning in criticising Donald Trump over his treatment of the Ukraine President, but unlike Anthony Albanese, you’re reluctant to contemplate Australia contributing to a peacekeeping force if one comes into being for Ukraine. Why is that?

PETER DUTTON:

Michelle, I think the Prime Minister has shot from the hip here, because it’s quite telling the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, as well as the Assistant Defence Minister, have both walked back what the Prime Minister had said. No European nation has decided to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, and yet the Australian Prime Minister is making that pledge. Now, it’s why the Prime Minister hasn’t really spoken about it since then, he hadn’t spoken to the Chief of the Defence Force about our capabilities or what that would look like, and ironically, it came at a time when the Australian Government had to rely on a Virgin pilot to advise it of naval operations from the the People’s Liberation Army Navy in our own waters and yet the Prime Minister’s talking about sending our troops to Europe. It just doesn’t make any sense.

So, we’re a strong supporter and ally of Ukraine, and I’m very proud of that and proud of the fact that as Defence Minister I was able to work with the Ukrainian Ambassador to deliver the Bushmasters, which have saved lives – the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and men and women in that country as well.

So, we’ve got a lot to work on and a lot to contribute to in relation to peace and stability and restoration of life in Ukraine, but putting boots on the ground, I think was an off the cuff remark by the Prime Minister and it just shows his lack of experience in the national security space.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Now, just finally, people of course these days have little trust in politicians, we see that in survey after survey, and many people probably listening to this podcast will think, ‘well, politicians don’t keep their promises and how can I believe what Peter Dutton says’. So, we will hear a lot of promises, a lot of commitments, from both sides during this election campaign. In what circumstances do you think a leader is justified in breaking a promise, a core promise, that they made during the campaign?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Michelle, the first point I should make is it’s not just politicians, it’s also, I think, journalists and used car sales people…

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Point taken.

PETER DUTTON:

…Real estate agents and others who don’t bear up too well under that same scrutiny, but I think politicians, Members of Parliament, by and large, want the best for their country and whether they’re Labor or Liberal, I think people have a desire to see the best outcome for their community and their country. Sometimes they make mistakes and they should be held to account for that, but by and large people do their very best for our country and I think we recognise that.

In terms of the question you ask, I think it’s very difficult to see a circumstance where there is an excuse for breaking a promise – perhaps a national security reason, if we had to make a decision that was in our country’s best interests to save lives, that went against something we’d committed for or against before an election, then that obviously would be a circumstance where you could conceive of that. But I think if people make a commitment, as the leader of a major Party, or indeed a teal or whoever it might be, then there is a reasonable expectation that they follow through on that commitment.

MICHELLE GRATTAN:

Peter Dutton, thank you very much for talking with us today, as we approach the more intense part of what’s been an election campaign that seems to have gone on forever!

That’s all for today’s Politics Podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but goodbye for now.

[ends] Läs mer…