Författare: Michelle Grattan Professorial Fellow University of Canberra

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…

Anthony Albanese didn’t mince words in responding to Donald Trump’s refusal to grant Australia an exemption from the United States’ tariff on aluminium and steel. “This is not a friendly act,” the prime minister declared bluntly.

It’s hard to think when an Australian government has used such strong language about the United States.

The not-unexpected decision is less important for itself – we only export $800 million-plus worth of aluminium and steel annually to the US – than for its wider implications and portends. These are economic and political, but how far reaching they’ll be is near-impossible to predict.

Australia could be hit by future tariffs Trump has in mind. More generally, if the American tariffs trigger an international trade war, that will have serious fallout for us.

An even more basic question is: will the realignment the Trump administration is bringing to the US’s international outlook lead to a weakening in the Australian-American relationship?

There are differing views on how Australia should handle Trump.

One approach suggests assuming (or hoping) the Australia-US relationship is so grounded in common interest, military ties and history that things will return to normal after a few disruptive years.

Another view says we must accept the US is becoming an unreliable partner and that, while its national interest might mean it would come to Australia’s aid if needed, we have less reason than before to assume it would do so. On this view, Australia has to put aside the old “great and powerful friends” mindset and understand it is likely to be much more on its own than it has previously thought.

Crossbencher Jacqui Lambie says, “America is no longer a reliable ally – hopefully that will change, but in the meantime we can’t keep assuming that America has our back, Trump clearly doesn’t have anyone’s back except his own”.

Similarly, there are varying opinions on how an Australian government should approach the Trump administration. Some argue, don’t poke the bear. Others say, stand up to a bully.

Albanese started by attempting an accommodating stance. He said he wouldn’t provide a running commentary on the president’s statements. He emphasised the positives from his February phone call with Trump, in which he argued the case for an Australian exemption and Trump said he would consider it.

The softly-softly line was not surprising when Australia was hoping for a carve out. But having found the special Australia-US relationship doesn’t make us “special”, now Albanese and his government are not pulling their punches, at least in their rhetoric. Albanese said the tariff rebuff was “against the spirit of our two nations’ enduring friendship”. Industry Minister Ed Husic went a lot further: “Let’s call a spade a spade. I think this is a dog act after over a century of friendship.”

Wisely, the government won’t retaliate with reciprocal tariffs, which it rightly says would only be self-defeating, hurting Australian consumers.

The government insists it will fight on for the exemption but success is surely unlikely (with the caveat nothing is certain with Trump).

In the difficult economic times looming, Australia will need where possible to team up with friends. Lowy Institute’s lead economist Roland Rajah points to potential opportunities to work with like-minded countries, including the Europeans, Japan and Canada for common interests. He notes Australia’s collaboration with other nations during Trump’s first term to push for a Trans-Pacific trade agreement after the US pulled out.

The Coalition immediately jumped on the US rebuff to argue it showed Albanese’s weakness, highlighted by the PM being unable to obtain another call with Trump.

“I want to make sure that we’re a government that can deal with our trading partners effectively and clearly the prime minister hasn’t been able to do this,” Peter Dutton said.

Dutton points to the Coalition’s success in getting an exemption under Trump Mark 1. It’s a more convenient than convincing argument. Joe Hockey, who was ambassador, reported how unhappy American officials were with that carve out. Given the universality of this tariff, there is no evidence there was any way of avoiding it.

Trade Minister Don Farrell is likely right in saying the administration probably decided from the start against exemptions.

When pressed on how the Coalition would have dealt with the issue, Dutton said: “We would have looked at a more comprehensive trade deal with the United States, I think in relation to the civil nuclear industry, in relation to rare earths and critical minerals. There is an enormous play for us in that space.”

Dutton is presumably putting this forward as what the Coalition, if elected in May, would pitch to the Americans.

The longer-term response from either side of politics to the Trump administration on key issues is not clear.

How would the Albanese government deal with US pressure to lift defence spending more or faster than the present plan of taking it from about 2% of GDP to around 2.4% by 2033-34?

Former Labor defence minister Kim Beazley told The Australian, “we do have to bear in mind what Trump’s saying and the others are saying. We have to up our spending to 3, 3.5%”.

We don’t know how high the Coalition would push defence spending. It is committed to an increase beyond Labor’s, but is yet to provide detail.

Malcolm Turnbull, in a frank character assessment of Trump this week, sent a megaphone message that Australia must stand up to him.

Turnbull spelled out a shocking truth about Trump. “It appears the more dependent you are on the United States, the closer you are to the United States, the more he feels he can extract value from you […] stand over you, extort you.”

International affairs expert James Curran, professor of modern history at the University of Sydney, was amazed at the strength of Albanese’s “not a friendly act” words. Curran describes it as a “gross overreaction”, given that so many countries will be subject to Trump’s tariffs. He says there are far bigger issues at stake in the relationship.

Curran doesn’t believe the Australian-American relationship will be seriously undermined by the Trump administration – although things will be “rattled and unsettled for a while” – because it is “so thick and deep”. But, he says, “forget the sentiment and talk of mateship, because they don’t count with the president”.

“With Trump, ”you have to find a middle path, between poking him in the eye and getting down on your knees.”

Not an easy brief, for whomever forms the next government. Läs mer…

The 2022 election catapulted a new movement into Australian federal politics, with the election of six “teals”. The teals are part of a broader wave of “community independents” who are challenging the major parties, especially the Liberals and appealing to voters who want politics done differently.

As the 2025 election draws close, the Community Independents Project, which was founded in 2021 to support the grass root independents, will not only seek to retain the gains made but to increase the representation in the lower house.

We are joined on the podcast by the executive director of the Community Independents Project, Tina Jackson, who was a key figure behind Zali Steggall’s successful campaign against Tony Abbott in Warringah. Steggall was a forerunner of the teals.

On what makes a “community candidate” different from other Independents like Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Tasmania) or Dai Le, (Fowler, NSW) Jackson explains,

What distinguishes a community independent is that they’re selected by their communities through a grassroots process. It’s […] ground-up and not top-down. So communities decide they want better representation.

They listen to their communities. For example, they hold kitchen table conversations to find out what matters to them, their values and their issues, and then they search for a candidate that represents those issues and values. They run selection processes, then select and campaign for their chosen candidate. So every community has their own tweaks on this community-before-candidate theme, but at its heart, this bottom-up approach is what defines a community independent.

On the kind of issues these independents might be campaigning on now that the “Morrison” factor is gone, Jackson says each campaign will decide what issues to tackle, and a lot of the issues from the 2022 campaign aren’t going away,

The issues are not always the same. The need for climate action hasn’t gone away nor has the issue of integrity in politics nor equality. […] The community independents are already pursuing action on these in parliament. Concerns around cost of living obviously have grown [and] is going to be a much bigger issue this election.

In regional areas, they will be driven by their particular issues – might be education, might be health, local infrastructure and so on, and all of the community independents will be reflecting those issues and values that they’re told about by their communities. The other thing to say is there might not be the Morrison factor, but there is concern about Trumpian politics coming to Australia and there is a real sense that democracy is fragile and that we need to do everything to protect it. I think that is another layer this time around.

Jackson nominates three candidates she is most hopeful about and how they are challenging the notions of safe seats,

There are a lot of really exciting campaigns, but there are three in particular that I think [are] worth keeping an eye on. So one is Caz Heise in Cowper, and that’s in the mid-north coast of New South Wales around Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. The second one is Alex Dyson in Wannon in rural southwest Victoria. And [there is] Nicolette Boele in Bradfield in Sydney’s north.

These three, I think, are three in particular to watch. But if I could also add, no matter how many community independents win, communities have already won by being engaged in the political process, they’re making their seats marginal and there’s now no such thing as a safe seat.

While funding from Climate 200 remains a strong asset for the group, Jackson says it’s the “people power” that helps the most,

Well, it’s important to clarify […] that Climate 200 is a crowdfunding platform, and they have around 35,000 donors, and [Simon Holmes à Court’s] contribution is relatively small. So it’s Climate 200, not Simon, that helps fund campaigns. But Climate 200 is only one source of funding, and [in] reality, the campaigns need to raise a huge amount themselves, and they raise that directly.

There are also other funding sources like the Regional Voices Fund for regional campaigns. Cash is important because there are hard costs like signs and tee-shirts and flyers and so on. But what really drives the movement is the volunteers. It’s their time and their talent, not the cash. The value of the human capital behind the movement, it really is immense. So I’m not trying to underestimate the funding, because funding is, of course, important, but the real driving force behind the movement are the tens of thousands of volunteers. So without this people power, campaigns simply would not get off the ground, let alone succeed. Läs mer…