Dutton defends Liberal party’s vetting process
Emily Wind
Asked if there is “anything wrong with the Liberal party’s vetting process”, Peter Dutton defends it:
If you look at the standard of candidates we have selected across the board, I think we have selected some amazing people. Manny Cicchiello [candidate for Aston] is someone who is been a teacher for 25 years, providing support to young Victorians as they grow and I want to make sure that we can select good candidates so we can get rid of the bad candidate.
Another reporter asks about a candidate in the Labor held seat of Wills.
Dutton refuses to answer the question, despite other reporters pushing him to. He instead tries to turn the heat on to Albanese.
I think Anthony Albanese has been deceiving as many people for the last three years he has lied about the $275.
Key events
Coalition won’t abandon nuclear policy if it loses
What would the Coalition do on its nuclear policy if it loses the next election?
O’Brien is asked if the Coalition would take a rejection at the polls as a rejection of its nuclear policy, but he says that’s a “wild hypothetical”.
He backs the policy in and says there’s “no intention” of changing tack – even if it’s an additional three years before they get to make a move on it.
We have no intention of changing our view on that. We’ll have to focus always on what is right for Australia.
Australia is already behind the eight ball when it comes to zero emissions nuclear energy. The sooner we get going the better… we can’t delay, we need to get on with it and remember it’s not just about nuclear, it’s working and just working as a balanced mix.
The energy minister’s debate, through the lens
While the debate at the National Press Club rages on, why not take a look at how it’s playing out for the cameras?
Bowen and O’Brien continue to spar over what cost impacts their policies will have.
Bowen says that the Coalition’s modelling is cheaper because it anticipates 44% less demand in the system:
Only because it is 44% smaller. You could print a cheaper education system with 44% less students in 2050. It would not be accurate but you could do that and that is what you have done.
While O’Brien says there’s evidence of nuclear lowering power prices in other countries and jurisdictions.
When I sat down with a Japanese department, looking at their details, they say nuclear in the mix brings prices down. Ontario Canada brings prices down. What is it that Anthony Albanese and you know that the United States doesn’t know, Canada doesn’t know, Japan doesn’t know…
The next question goes to 2030 emissions targets
Bowen is asked whether, following his concession that their previous modelling by Reputex is no longer relevant, sticking to the 43% emissions reduction target is still appropriate.
Bowen says the government is still on track to meet the target, and the latest estimate – done independently – shows Australia will get to 42%.
43% is an appropriate level and there have been many people including friends outside who would say it should be higher. It is substantially higher than what could be achieved by the Coalition and I am proud of the fact that we have back on track to achieve that.
Meanwhile, the Coalition hasn’t yet said what its 2030 target would be, and O’Brien is asked whether a Coalition government would lower the target under Paris Agreement O’Brien says emissions haven’t moved despite what Bowen says:
They probably, hand on heart, believe they are saving the planet to when they came to office the Coalition had reduced emissions by 29% from 2005 levels. Do know what it is now? Around 29% … they have not budged. This is the problem. Emissions are not even going down.
But the substantive question is whether the Coalition would back away from the Paris agreement. O’Brien says they’ll commission “analysis” on those targets.
We will do the analysis and then we will work out what is going to be the impact of emissions reduction on families in Australia, on regional Australia and on businesses in Australia…
We will not be setting targets from opposition.
Statistical confusion at the energy debate
This is genuinely difficult to keep up with – both Bowen and O’Brien are talking over each other a lot.
We’re still on what both energy policies will do to prices. Even the host Tom Connell says, “frankly voters get pretty confused”.
O’Brien says the Coalition’s nuclear costings show prices will reduce by 25%, and the pair argue over whether the numbers reflect modelling that’s been done separately by the CSIRO (and there’s a lot more argument on that point).
Chinese menu v Chinese fortune cookies
Sorry, what?
We’re getting some interesting insults here today, with both parties throwing shade at the others’ modelling. Bowen says:
You mentioned opposition modelling which I think is generous term. This is the document. I’ve seen more detail in [a] Chinese menu.
O’Brien retorts:
This is coming from the minister whose own plan wouldn’t fit in a Chinese fortune cookie. If anything, that’s probably where it would belong because you crack it open and all it would be would be a slogan. No numbers, no plan, no modelling.
Look I have few words for what … that … was, but I’ll get to more of the substance in a moment.
Who will bring down energy prices?
It’s the question that most people around the country want to know right now. The energy minister and the shadow minister are asked point blank if prices after the next election will go up or down.
Bowen doesn’t exactly answer but says “energy prices will be cheaper under Labor than under Mr O’Brien”:
Anybody who predicts energy prices in this complicated geopolitical environment, I think, is making a punt so I will not do that. I will say that when the alternative plan is to introduce the most expensive form of energy available in the world, which is nuclear.
(This is of course off the back of Labor promising a $275 cut in energy prices at the last election … which did not happen).
O’Brien says the Frontier economics analysis – that his party commissioned – shows there will be a drop in gas prices. He takes aim at Bowen not being able to provide a figure on what Labor’s plan will do to energy prices.
They [Labor] don’t have anything. They’ve done no modelling. His decision-making is based on gut.
Climate protester interrupts Coalition opening address at energy debate
Our reporter Dan Jervis-Bardy is in the room for the debate, and has some more details on the heckler we heard.
He says:
A climate activist demanding a stop to new coal and gas projects has briefly disrupted the election debate between the climate change minister, Chris Bowen, and his counterpart Ted O’Brien at the National Gallery in Canberra.
The protestor loudly interjected just as O’Brien was preparing to make his opening statement before security escorted him out of the venue.
Climate protester temporarily interrupts Coalition shadow energy minister
As O’Brien starts, he gets heckled loudly by a member of the crowd calling on the Coalition to stop coal and gas investment. It’s hard to hear exactly what they’ve said.
They soon stop, and O’Brien starts his opening statement again. He agrees with Bowen that we’re at a “fork in the road”, but calls Labor’s policy an “all eggs in one basket” and “renewables-only” policy:
There is not a country in the world trying to go down the path that Labor is trying to go down. A predominantly wind and solar grid. This is unheard of and already [in] early days it is failing, failing on every single count and Australia knows that because they feel the pain. Families are on their knees because they cannot pay the bills.
Bowen addresses the ‘many’ problems with Coalition’s energy policy as energy debate starts up at National Press Club
The energy minister, Chris Bowen, is going head-to-head with the shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, for the National Press Club.
Bowen has just given his opening statement, saying we’re at a “fork in the road when it comes to energy and climate”.
Energy is a key area where the two major parties have completely different policies – between renewables and nuclear. Bowen says the Coalition model doesn’t account for higher levels of EVs or household batteries and leaves coal running past its use-by date.
He says the Coalition’s lack of action over the last decade it was in government was “a Sunday picnic” compared to their nuclear plan:
The problem with their plans are many, it is a bizarre approach that argues the answer that needing more and cheaper energy now is to introduce the most expensive form of energy even, by their own admission, in 12 years time. And in reality we know it will be much longer than that.
Over the last lost liberal decade they watched for gigawatts of energy leave the grid and only replaced it with one. That would be a Sunday picnic compared to the damage caused by the liberal’s risky plan now.
Emily Wind
Wong says Australia ‘prepared to engage’ US on tariffs but won’t compromise on range of issues
A little earlier, foreign minister Penny Wong was up on Sky News to chat all things tariffs.
Asked if she wants the US ambassador Kevin Rudd to “go in and keep the pressure on to get a deal,” Wong made the point that “we’re not where Peter Dutton is.”
Peter Dutton has made clear he would cut a deal, no question, which leaves very open the question of what he will give away to cut that deal.
What we have said is we will continue to engage, but what we are not prepared to give ground on is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and our biosecurity system, both of which have been raised by the US trade representative to the congress.
Now the prime minister has made clear, the trade minister has made clear, I’ve made clear, we’re not in the world of compromising on those issues. And the question for Peter Dutton is, are you?
Wong reiterated there has “not been much change for Australia, because we already had the best position of any country.”
We are prepared to engaged. We are not prepared to give ground on the issues which the administration has indicated they are seeking us to compromise on.
Coalition’s proposed future funds ‘a recipe for bigger deficits’ says Chalmers, Gallagher
The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, have said the Coalition’s proposed future funds will lead to more gross debt, not less.
They’ve also claimed the opposition could use the funds to “rort” money into politically aligned projects.
Chalmers and Gallagher argue their budgets have returned about 70% of tax upgrades to the budget, compared to the previous Liberal government that they say banked about 40%.
In a statement, they wrote:
This is a recipe for bigger deficits and more gross debt, not less. These new funds will mean that future revenue won’t be used to directly improve the bottom line or pay down debt.
Instead, taxpayers money will be parked in new funds that we know will be rorted.
No further details provided on costings for Coalitions public service plan
Peter Dutton has still refused to release the costings for his public service plan, which would see the sector shrink by 41,000 staff over five years.
The Coalition clarified on Monday that the cuts would only happen through hiring freezes and natural attrition, but promised that all had been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, and there was no change to the savings they’d been promising from the measure.
Dutton pins some blame on the government for not releasing some of their own costings, and says his numbers will be released during the campaign.
The government have not released their costings in relation to their promises on the campaign and parties release costings in accordance with the rules. We will do that. We said that. We’ve had ongoing discussions with the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Would the Coalition “join hands” with China, as its ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian is suggesting?
Dutton says Australia should have a “strong trading relationship with China”, to secure jobs and investment.
But at the same time, he says Australia needs to have a “rock solid” relationship with the US and UK through Aukus and Anzus.
I believe that we can work very closely with China on building our trading relationship and have a respectful relationship with China. As a country, we have to stand up for our interests and we can’t do that with a weak prime minister.
He accuses Labor of having taken out $80bn in defence funding (though Labor says it’s added $50bn to the defence budget over the next decade).
Dutton also says Albanese is having his “strings pulled by a junior coalition partner in Adam Bandt”, who has repeatedly called for the end of Aukus.
Dutton addresses comparisons between proposed public service policy and Doge
The comparisons between the Liberal’s public service policy and Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Doge keep coming.
Dutton is asked about his shadow assistant treasurer who said in a Facebook post that if the Coalition wins government, then Doge will be implemented and senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price will be the minister in charge.
Dutton says that Nampijinpa Price’s role will be heading a process similar to what the Howard government did with an expenditure review process.
Where I find waste in the federal budget, I will make sure we can cut it so we can support Australian workers and that we can support frontline workers and that we can support the doctors and nurses and the medics and the police officers.
Earlier, the PM was asked about the comparison, and whether he agrees with his treasurer that Dutton is “Doge-y”. Albanese wouldn’t say the word, but told voters to look at the opposition’s words.
Dutton defends Liberal party’s vetting process
Emily Wind
Asked if there is “anything wrong with the Liberal party’s vetting process”, Peter Dutton defends it:
If you look at the standard of candidates we have selected across the board, I think we have selected some amazing people. Manny Cicchiello [candidate for Aston] is someone who is been a teacher for 25 years, providing support to young Victorians as they grow and I want to make sure that we can select good candidates so we can get rid of the bad candidate.
Another reporter asks about a candidate in the Labor held seat of Wills.
Dutton refuses to answer the question, despite other reporters pushing him to. He instead tries to turn the heat on to Albanese.
I think Anthony Albanese has been deceiving as many people for the last three years he has lied about the $275.
