← The Morning Edition
Loading summary
Transcript163 lines
- [00:02]
A
I'm Paul Sakal and you're listening to Inside Politics from the Age and the City Morning Herald. Our host, Jacqueline Mail is away this week, so we've got the new leader of the National Party to try fillo big shoes. Matt Canavan's a former minister acquit the cabinet under the previous government turning into arguably the leading conservative opponent of net zero and the broader renewables agenda. The coalition controversially dumped the net zero target last year, so Canavan was willing to enter the fold once again. He took the reins from former leader David Littleproud, who gave his last major interview on this podcast last month. Canavan, a former Marxist from the suburbs who was once a productivity commission economist and then a firebrand right winger in the Senate, joins us at a time when his party is battling for survival against an ascendant one nation party.
- [00:50]
B
Welcome, Matt. Good to be with you, Paul.
- [00:53]
C
First off, we'll go deeper, but just to start, I don't think you've commented yet on the arrest of Ben Robert Smith. We're what was your instant reaction to it?
- [01:02]
B
Look a little bit shocked. I suppose it's been building for some time. I find myself in a very uncomfortable position, though. I don't feel like I can pass judgment on anybody that has served in our military that has put their life on the line and found themselves in these difficult, most difficult of circumstances. I haven't done that. So, you know, it is this strange feeling where, you know, I have great respect for everybody that puts themselves in these dangerous positions. I realise we're a country of laws and have standards, but I feel deeply uncomfortable in any way passing judgment on anyone that's served. Obviously, this is a case before the court, so I can't comment anything on its particularity. I do now have some questions I've asked colleagues about about, I mean, why, why are these cases handled by the civilian courts? I think the basic principle of our justice system is you should be judged by your peers. Goes back to the Magna Carta and the question is, I suppose, who are Ben Roberts peers? As I sort of hinted at, I don't view myself as a peer of anyone that served in our military cause I haven't done what they've done. So I think there was a time where we used to handle these cases through military tribunals. It seems to have been passed to the civilian side of things. I'm not, I don't know, I'm a little bit uncomfortable about that.
- [02:25]
C
Important, I think in the conversation to remember that there were 21 former SAS soldiers who testified against him. But did you think there was potentially a case here for, I guess, institutional forbearance?
- [02:37]
B
I don't quite know what you mean by that. I mean, I think, you know, we have to have standards and we have to have an ability for people that have evidence of those standards potentially allegedly not being upheld to come forward and put their case. I suppose my comments are about where they put their case and how those issues judged. And as I say, if I were ever selected on a jury trial, and I'm not commenting on this case, but if I were ever selected on a jury and had to pass judgment on somebody who acted in these situations, I'd find it very, very difficult. I would. Dunno, I'm not in their circumstance and I don't quite understand the pressures are under.
- [03:13]
C
Let's go dicey topic to dicey topic. You've been pretty forthright really from the outset, before mainstream opin shifted sharply on the wisdom of this war in the Middle East. You've been clear that this was a miscalculation on the part of the US and questioned the strategy. Given that, do you think it's time to have a conversation about how we manage the alliance and where we fit into the US military apparatus?
- [03:44]
B
Look, I think it would be too long ago to say, because of this particular conflict, that we should then put into question the entire alliance. I think our alliance is strong enough that we could have differences of opinion from time to time on the wisdom of certain actions. In saying that, I mean, despite what you said about my perspective, it was just one perspective. It wasn't the perspective, I don't think shared by the Australian government. They seem to be all in favour of it from the get go.
- [04:15]
C
Does that surprise you?
- [04:16]
B
Look, probably not. Cause they don't seem to be doing much as a government right now.
- [04:22]
C
It's just a matter of.
- [04:23]
B
I just think he didn't want to rock. They didn't believe that for sure.
- [04:25]
C
Cautiousness.
- [04:25]
B
Yeah, they're very cautious. I don't think they're taking radical enough action on a range of fronts to fix things. But anyway, it is what it is. They had that view and I had my view. It was expressed at the time, before I was in this role. And it's a matter of record. And I'll let the historians debate now what was right or wrong. But now we've got to decide, okay, what's in the best interest of our country. And I don't think just because of this particular incident we should throw the baby out with the bath water. We clearly still benefit from having a strong relationship with the world's greatest military power. There's still the United States is our greatest friend in this area, in this region which is becoming more volatile. So we should try and keep friends, not lose them. But in saying that, and I'm not drawing this conclusion from this last few months, it's very clear that we face a much greater degree of threat militarily, economically in our region. And whether it's been true at all before, we can't just rely on another country to solve those problems. Whether it's the US or anybody else. It would be mad just to say, oh, the US has always got our back. I mean, the United States will always act in its national interests and I do think often its national interest is to help us in this region. We do offer them a great partnership, but it is just unwise to rely exclusively on that. So just to be clear, again, I'm not drawing that conclusion from this latest source of events. This is something I think that's been building for a long, long time and we need to become much more independent on a range of fronts, including our own defence.
- [06:03]
C
How do we become more able to self defend in a, in a region where China is a ever growing threat and the US is a less stable partner?
- [06:13]
B
Yeah, sure, I think sometimes we over exaggerate or underestimate, over exaggerate the threats and underestimate our ability to respond to them. I mean, keep in mind that Beijing is closer to Bonn than it is to Brisbane. Right. So yes, it's in our time zone and it's in our broad Asia Pacific region and we're definitely greatly affected by what happens obviously given China being our biggest trading partner. But this, it should not be an impossible feat to provide adequate defence for our country from indigenous sources. We have this great benefit of being a long, long way from a lot, a lot of countries. It's longer than you think. We have the resources of a continent. We're the only country in the world that has its own continent and they've got pretty much everything you need to feed ourselves, to defend ourselves. I think we have got ourselves into a position of somewhat dependence because we've become reliant on a global trading system, on a global alliance system, on a multilateral international system through the United nations which is clearly breaking and under strain and people are I suppose struggling to think of some alternative that might exist. I think there are clear alternatives that we can move to, which is, which are ones that are more focused on Our own country, our own defence, our own productivity, our own self sufficiency. And yes, that will be a challenge for us and some parts of that adjustment will be costly. But it's not insurmountable and we've done this before. We'll be perfectly fine.
- [07:45]
C
Again, we'll get to your perhaps contentious views on global trade in a sec. Just quickly on the military and maybe pegging this off to Ben Robert Smith saga. No matter where the prosecution lands and whether the charges are successful, there's no doubt the saga has diminished the standing of the military for years. Really. We've seen institutions that are important for conservatives, including the Church. You're a devout Catholic be become dented in the, in the public sphere. People often say that politics is downstream from culture. You've been talking a lot about a more nostalgic vision, a family oriented country, a less kind of cosmopolitan, cosmopolitan country, a reversion to rural and regional values. Do you think there's a chance that you can push against the cultural grain and convince a majority of Australians of that vision? Or are you. Is it a fanciful idea to try and revert?
- [08:46]
B
Short answer is yes. Look, just, just a couple of issues with the question. I think it is important to stress that to my knowledge, no Australian soldier has been found guilty of these crimes to date as allegations, and we'll let those play out. It is also very much that regardless of the outcomes in these cases, we're talking about a very, very small minority. And as I said earlier, I've got enormous respect for the sacrifice that our military engages in on a day to day basis. And the final point I make is let's not let the political class off here. It was a political decision to expose our armed forces in such a constant way to these pressures and issues across what was the longest war we've ever been involved in, the global war on terrorists. I don't pretend to be an expert in this field, but from listening to others and speaking to others, we put a lot of pressure on a very few number of our armed forces to play in the front lines effectively of that war. The contribution we made to help our allies, the United States. And again, regardless of the outcomes in these cases, that's put understandable pressure on people. So I don't blame, well, I don't absolve, I don't want to absolve, you know, this town, myself and all the roles we played. I came a bit late to all of these issues in my political career. But you know, one thing, one firm conclusion I've come to is that a lot of mistakes were made during the response to September 11 decision that's caused a lot of loss of life for people and also destruction of their own, their own mental capacities. So through the pressures they were placed under. So it was our decision. So we've got to take that in terms of the broader cultural issues. Well, look, I detect, and you're right, politics is downstream of culture. So I don't think I can play a major role influencing this. Others will be much more influential. But I do detect that there is a shift back to more patriotic outlook. Yes, to some degree, more tribal outlook. And that's pretty understandable given the pressures we face whenever a society, communities placed under external pressure, there is a tendency to bunker back down within the tribe, within the nation in the modern parlance. And so we're seeing that, we think we saw that during COVID and now we're seeing it through this conflict in the Middle east, but we're seeing it with a breakdown in the international rules based order. And so there's a great outpouring of preference for things that are Australian and that are close to our hearts and homes. And yeah, I think you see that most among young people more than anything else that's very much on the cards. We're seeing that.
- [11:41]
C
What do you see with young people?
- [11:44]
B
Yeah, look, obviously the major issue for young people is being able to own their own home and establish themselves in their own country. But they are then seeing that dream be shattered, at least in part because of an uncontrolled border. Where, you know, we saw this week, apparently, apparently the labor party's giving the 5% deposit schemes to newly arrived migrants, people on permanent residency. And ok, they've got permanent residency but they're not Australian citizens. And so why don't they get some migration borders? Why are they getting a leg up on that? So that's causing that issue. I think you're seeing on another slightly different issue, the realisation that excessive government spending does lead to outbreaks of inflation, high interest rates. And so you're starting to see that shift that people realise that the ndis, the fraud and scams are saying all these programs have a real cost even if you don't pay the direct cost. Indirectly, people are paying now through a weaker economy and higher interest rates. We're seeing that. And on the energy front, we're also seeing a big wake up in people realising that constraining our energy options comes at a massive, massive cost. We're saying that directly with the liquid fuels crisis We've got, but more generally a loss of industry and manufacturing Capab. So all of those issues are kind of trending in a more conservative direction. Our issue politically is do people still believe that we will provide conservative solutions? We have somewhat damaged our brand name by seeking short term political gain in recent years.
- [13:22]
C
What are some examples of that?
- [13:23]
B
Well, net zero is top of the tree, top absolute. I mean, in terms of why we've lost trust with people, we've I think, forgotten why we are in politics and that's not to win elections. We're in politics. I joined the Liberal National Party because I believe in unleashing enterprise, in controlling and being disciplined with spending, supporting families and developing our nation, all those things. That's why I got involved. Winning elections as a means to those ends.
- [13:53]
C
Winning elections isn't the ultimate end.
- [13:55]
B
It's not the end. No, it's not why I do this. I wouldn't spend.
- [13:57]
C
Need to get in there first though.
- [13:58]
B
Exactly, exactly. It's a means to an end. But I wouldn't do this just for that. I wouldn't spend half my time a year, basically, probably more than that now, in this role, away from my family, just to get a title or have a ministerial office. I've had that and it was a great honour. But it's not that important unless you can do things, unless you do things that you think are good for your country. And you know, the most frustrating thing for me in the debates about Net zero on our own sort of politics was it almost invariably was not about what's best for our country, it was best for us. How are we going to win seats? And you know, if we do this or that, we won't win that. Well, it turned out to be a complete disaster politically and has also not been great for our country economically. And then on top of that, during COVID we saw similar outbreaks of that in a sometimes insipid response to various lockdowns and, and state government overreactions. Although overall the Morrison government wasn't too bad on that. The bigger issue was the unleashing of the treasury and spending public debt, which had to happen at first, but then we got a bit addicted to it and that. Yeah, that's what I talked.
- [15:02]
C
You talked earlier in that answer about a kind of tribal instinct in Western societies.
- [15:07]
B
Oh, I'd say it's all human societies, but yeah, sure.
- [15:10]
C
So is your sense that there is a, a conservative majoritarian movement across much of the world at the moment, perhaps being exemplified by Pauline Hanson in Australia? But it's not clear to Australian voters that the coalition parties are actually leading that charge, that they actually are true conservatives.
- [15:29]
B
Yeah, look, I think generally, I suppose, in Western societies we're seeing that trend because it's Western societies being placed under this enormous pressure alone.
- [15:36]
C
Yes.
- [15:37]
B
Turkey. It's happening elsewhere. Although I probably struggle to comment a bit, I suppose, about what's happening in those other countries. Politics are very different, society's very different. But yeah, we are similar to European countries, North American countries, Japan as well, probably should be a little bit more culturally aligned since World War II. So, you know, we're seeing all of that in those countries now. That doesn't mean that it'll always result in, you know, right wing political parties being elected. You can see it. It's affecting the Labor Party too. Suddenly the Prime Minister's talking about progressive patriotism. What does that mean? I don't know. I don't think we really know what it is.
- [16:10]
C
Came up a year ago. He actually said it on this podcast first, but he's.
- [16:13]
B
Oh, did he?
- [16:14]
C
He's resurrected since One Nation.
- [16:15]
B
That's right. That's right. So you can see they're reacting to this too.
- [16:18]
C
Peter Malinawskius.
- [16:19]
B
Peter Malinaskas. Exactly, exactly. So that is the trend now. Yeah. Going back to your question, people will have understandable questions about our bona fides. But look, I've taken a pretty strong patriotic approach leading the Nationalist Party. Now, Angus Taylor's always had a very sensible approach to these issues and I think we'll see him come out of his shell. So, look, the challenge is there for us and opportunity's there for us. But I'm not underestimating the anger that's out there and the threat that one nation poses to us politically. But that's not the main game. The main game is making sure we do a good thing for the Australian people.
- [16:59]
C
What will that look like when Angus Taylor is out of his shell on these issues?
- [17:04]
B
Well, look, I'm not going to speak for Angus. It's a matter for him. But what I can say is that I've always been impressed by Angus's instincts. He's got great gut instincts. I worked with him very closely in the Turnbull and Morrison governments, particularly when we were resources and energy ministers respectively. So, yeah, he has a deep understanding for Australia. He grew up chasing brumbies not far from here, but then of course had a very successful business career as well. So I think we need somebody like that at the helm right now who is very steady but firm in what he believes Yeah, I think he'll. In terms of coming out of his shell, that'll naturally happen as being leader, you know, to date hasn't been leader and sometimes probably had to do some things that he may not have been 100% behind.
- [17:57]
C
Is that net zero?
- [17:58]
B
I just. I don't know. You'll have to ask him. But I just left. I just, you know, he lost the energy. Angus probably did something more honourable.
- [18:06]
C
Yeah, well, Angus Taylor is arguably one of the leading avatars in the current political establishment for kind of Howard ear economic thinking. That's what you know, most analysts I think would say. I'm not suggesting that he's the target of your commentary on economic orthodoxy, but you've just come from a national press club speech where you declare the end of what you describe as the hawk Howard era economic model. You say new an economic revolution is required, not just a reset. You call for across the board. Unclear. If you're calling for this. I think you hint that across the board tariffs should be looked at. Not just ad hoc.
- [18:49]
B
Let's finish the question. Yeah.
- [18:51]
C
Not just an ad hoc approach to anti dumping, but kind of more consistent trade barriers in critical industries. You were a avowed Marxist at university. That young Marxist might have. That young Marxist might have a smile on his face.
- [19:09]
B
Well, look, I don't think I have to reach back into the Communist Manifesto to find support for the protection of domestic industry. It certainly is a relatively strong foundation of the Liberal Party and maybe not the foundation of the country party, but certainly it's one of its principles as it grew and developed under John McEwen. So look, it's. These things do go a little bit in cycles. Just to clarify, I didn't. I'm not calling for across the board tariffs per se, but I am calling for something more permanent and coherent in response to the competitive and protection protective threats we're seeing from other countries. My basic principle here is that our current anti dumping model. So we do apply tariffs. Right now they're just a dog's breakfast.
- [19:59]
C
And they're not called tariffs.
- [20:00]
B
Well, some people call them tariffs, but I mean it's a charge that we put on the importation of goods from certain countries which has done the same effect. Same effect. Same effect. And although I would argue it's much, much worse because it's extremely difficult to calculate these tariffs or these charges, if you want to call those duties. The formulas are extremely opaque. Some of the information that the formulas are actually confidential cause they go to individual companies pricing schemes. And so we've got 28 of these right now, 28 commodities are covered, although there are sub tariffs under each of those for different countries, different businesses. Even so it's very, very complex. And maybe that was a reasonable response in the situation where you might have a country take opportunistic action to dump products in Australia for a year or two, a short period of time as they got rid of excess production. That's clearly not what's happening now. There are stated explicit goals from China, from the United States, our friends that want to steal our industry and our jobs, they want to take these productive activities to their own country. And so in that environment I do think we need something more permanent and coherent. Indeed the nationals party felt this. We released a paper on this five years ago, some kind of relaunching this today, saying exactly this thing. And so it would be targeted but it would be coherent and it would be more and most importantly structured on their long term goal of sustaining certain key industries in this country.
- [21:23]
C
Where would you apply them and how would they look at who would decide the rates?
- [21:27]
B
I think. Well, we suggested in this paper that the Anti Dumping Commission could do that work and all of it would be therefore legal under our world trading obligation commitments that they would look at what the protective measures are in other countries. And there is a basic principle that you can take reciprocal action. If another country is going to subsidise or protect its own industry, well, we can do the same and that happens to our industries all the time. So we should. It's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. So as I say, there are 28 commodities at the moment. One that really needs to be looked at closely is steel. But maybe we could be more comprehensive. Keep in mind, I mean we just signed an Australian EU Free trade agreement and the EU likes to run around and say they support free trade.
- [22:10]
C
You called it the worst trade deal.
- [22:12]
B
Well, we can come to that if you like. There's lots of reasons for that. But just on this point, the EU likes to say it believes in free trade. Just before, just before it signed that deal, the EU upped its steel tariffs from 20% to 50% or they were going to come into effect soon. Then that wasn't dealt with in this agreement. So it will still, our steel industry will still pay that 50% tariff. And so why does Europe get to act like that? But apparently we can't take some sort of similar action where we say, okay, we want a steel industry here, the biggest exporter of coke and coal, of iron ore, It's a key commodity for any basic country, any modern economy. Let's not end up in the same position as liquid fuels and not have some of it during a crisis.
- [22:52]
C
We know that China spends a huge amount of its GDP on state subsidy to create oversupply and flood countries like Australia with product like steel. Should we be using our trade relationship with China to exert pressure on that government, for whatever that pressure would be worth, to stop doing that?
- [23:09]
B
I don't know if that would work. I mean, look, countries have the sovereign right to develop these industries. Honestly, I'd much prefer, if we're going to target a country for that kind of countervailing pressure or action, it would be the EU and their subsidies on agriculture, which are unbelievable and not dealt with again in the Free Trade Agreement. We sign with them. And look, if we can't convince our friends to do that, and the US and Canada are almost Canada's best, probably as bad, US almost as bad in terms of its subsidisation of farming. If we can convince our friends to that, I don't see we've got much hope in convincing China to take a different course. So it's probably just what they're going to do.
- [23:48]
C
If you started erecting trade barriers in government, would that not risk other countries putting barriers on our farming product and hurting our own?
- [23:58]
B
I mean, I think China tried that. It didn't work out too well for them. Right. Look, as I say, I'm not suggesting we take any action that's not taken by other countries. It would be reciprocal in nature. So we have very strong legal grounds, very strong moral case too for the situation that should all be explained and be clear about what we're trying to do. And it's also not anything. Action we take on this front is not of huge risk to other countries. So for example, on the steel issue,
- [24:25]
C
we're a small market.
- [24:26]
B
We're a small market. We have 12 million. We need to use about 12 million tonnes of steel a year. We can produce about six now with only two steel mills left. I think the goal should be self sufficiency in steel. Like why not? China produces a billion tonnes of steel. So yeah, like extraordinary. It's not, it's not that much problem. I do think there's a broader issue here, which I didn't mention the press club, but I've spoken about elsewhere, is the broader issue here is, is it good thing for the world for one country to have 60% of steel production, to have 80% of rare earth production, to have across 18 of 20 key commodities the IEA has identified China has a majority supply of, is that good? Now, we can't rebalance that situation alone. So I take your question about putting pressure, but alone we're not going to do that. But there probably is scope for us to play a role as part of the world to try and rebalance this thing. We try and do a bit of that through the critical minerals agenda, which I started as Resources Minister and this government's continuing. It's hard yacka, but there's probably a role we can play in doing that. But there's also this other issue about our own needs and self sufficiency, that we can control ourselves.
- [25:27]
C
Yeah. Government's ploughing billions into critical minerals for that.
- [25:30]
B
Yeah.
- [25:31]
C
And it's look for that purpose to diversify for that purpose.
- [25:35]
B
The problem here is again, I mean, I'll go back to my point around the tariffs and that, right. Like see if we're pouring billions in, right. That's costing us a lot of money. And then, mate, you know, plenty of us consumers in particular turn around, just buy the cheapest product. A lot of talk about it, but yeah, even that Lynas facility in Texas, I think that's not going as well as hoped. It's just really hard here because, you know, I don't think we're fighting fire with fire. China doesn't muck around. They'll do whatever it takes to protect their industries, put up the barriers. We'll throw, you know, we'll announce a few media releases, throw a few billions of dollars here and there and a lot of it gets wasted and we still lose the markets.
- [26:20]
C
Just one more on Angus Taylor. He's shown no sign of shifting on his economic principles. You made a point in your speech today of dismissing the idea that you're here to talk for the Liberal Party. You're a National Party first leader. I've heard Tim Wilson say after your election, in response to a suggestion that, you know, you would drag the Liberal Party to the right, I've heard Tim Wilson, who's a leading moderate, say that your ascension to the leadership allows the Liberals to be Liberals again and the National Party to be the National Party. Is that your view? That you're in deep opposition? You need to reconnect with your bases, your respective bases. Do you think that your leadership is of the nationals and nationals first approach allows people like Tim Wilson to go and be. To cleave further towards their identifying core identity?
- [27:09]
B
Look, I mean, I don't know. I haven't thought deeply about that. I do think that it serves the coalition well and our country well, if the Nationalist Party is not shy about speaking up. I thought that was a mistake before the 25 election, that we did sort of turn the volume down on ourselves a little bit in this naive view that that would somehow allow us to win city seats. I mean, that didn't work, obviously. But when we have had a strong voice on issues as a Nationalist party with beat on the carbon tax a decade ago, Darnie, in 2019, you know, we've done pretty well. So I don't think it's hurt us the ability to win city seats, so to speak. I mean, I said the other week, I grew up in Brisbane, in suburban Brisbane. I don't think. Read through my speech today about bringing manufacturing back, you know, doing things for Australia again, focusing unashamedly on our own country, building dams and new areas, being pioneers. I don't know. I think that goes down pretty well in the cities, too.
- [28:15]
C
Your former leader, David Little Broward, sitting in that seat, actually said a month ago that he expected the Gnats to finish, probably finish in fourth place in Farah. What's your sense? You're camping out in the seat.
- [28:26]
B
Yeah, I brought my swag.
- [28:27]
C
Yeah. Recently held by Susan Lee. Do you reckon you can lift the party's fortunes there, or are you bound to?
- [28:33]
B
I'm gonna try. I'm gonna try. Look, I say the press club. I'll just say it again. But, you know, I take the.
- [28:39]
C
Be more honest here.
- [28:40]
B
I take the. Well, I do. I take the approach. It's like a racehorse. They don't know their own odds. They just race. And that's what I'm gonna do. I don't. You know, other people can predict where we're gonna finish and what we're gonna do. I think we're going to win. That's what I think.
- [28:52]
C
You think you'll win?
- [28:53]
B
Yeah, I mean, that's how I approach every fight. I don't go into fighting thinking I'm going to lose. I mean, who goes on?
- [28:58]
C
You don't actually think you're going to win, though.
- [28:59]
B
Yeah, I do. I do now. I might not, but that's how I probably.
- [29:02]
C
I think you're polling as you're in last spot.
- [29:04]
B
So it can change. Polling can change. It can change very quickly. Yeah, absolutely, it can. So, I mean, I wouldn't go in a race not thinking I can win or will win. You know, that's. You know, you start every game with that attitude. And this is more Important than a game. And so I still have that attitude. We've got a great candidate. It's given me a great opportunity to reconnect with a wonderful part of Australia. I've spent a lot of time there over the years. We're fighting very hard for it. Already we've taken up the issue of Narendera who don't have clean drinking water, like for God's sake. We've pushed that very hard. We've got a commission of inquiry up for. Well, we're pushing for that into the Murray Darling to look at, particularly the water infrastructure that is starting to decay and we need to invest in that. And next week I'm holding a community forum in Albury on the Albury Hospital which is just in a shocking state of disrepair. It's deeply affected. Talking to doctors and nurses there. So look, it's not rocket science, Paul. I believe the Nationalist Party is the best party for Farah because we listen to people, we act, we deliver and that's all I've got to do. We've spoken about a lot of grand philosophical issues which are very important to our country too. But I've always been a locals first politician where I have a constituency, I have a responsibility to those people and I fight like hell to get them better, a better deal from our country.
- [30:21]
C
I think people in your party expect that either one nation or the climate 200 backed independent will probably win that seat. If one nation does win it, and particularly after the South Australian election result which was where they polled a higher primary vote than the very dishevelled Liberal opposition, that will prove just once again that one nation is embedded in the. In the.
- [30:44]
B
Yeah, but there'll still be hope. I mean obviously one nation have talked themselves up. You know, I think they're probably the favourites. I haven't looked at the odds recently, I don't know. But yeah, they've definitely presented themselves as being the favourites for the seat. So good luck to them. I say I think we can win. I don't know if they're favourites but I think we can do it and so if they do it, good luck to them. The key thing though, Paul, will be who's going to be able to win seats off labor, you know, if we want to change the government and I think one nation of voters do, I do. I think we need to change. We've got to win seats off the other side. Farah is not one of those. Labor's not even running. I haven't looked into the South Australian election for the last Couple of seats they won, but I think all the seats they won might have been formerly Liberal held or, you know, in sort of areas that Liberals would normally hold.
- [31:28]
C
It took a bit of skin off labor, but they won Liberal seat and Independent seats.
- [31:32]
B
That's the test. Can they do that?
- [31:34]
C
In your gut, are you worried about the National Party dying out as a brand and being supplanted by one nation? Look, it's happened in other countries with racial violence.
- [31:44]
B
It's very serious for our political movement. People are very angry. I don't take as a given somehow that we as a political party, that we as members of Parliament deserve our seats for life or forever or anything like that. We've got to work very hard every time to gain the trust of people. As I said earlier, we have lost some trust, we've lost some skin from people. I suppose I'd ask people to look again at us, given I never. I felt I never deviated from the convictions and principles I started with. That's what I focus on trying to do. And now, as Nationals leader, I'll do
- [32:21]
C
that more around the country, you've tried to draw clear battle lines at Pauline Anson. From your first press conference onwards, you made a sharp criticism that her brand of racial politics stokes division. My understanding is that you copped some pretty severe backlash from her base when you made those comments. What does that say about the salience and the migration question and your ability to fight her online?
- [32:42]
B
I mean, I knew. I knew I was going to cop backlash from that.
- [32:46]
C
What was it like? Can you explain it?
- [32:48]
B
People said mean things to your face or on. Oh, no, no. I. I mean, I could probably count on one hand how many times people have come up to me in my whole political career and said a mean thing to my face. Doesn't really happen. I don't think it's happened in the last couple of months, but you'll get the converse online. Online. It's every. Every second person. So. Look, I knew that, mate. I just. I'm always gonna say what I believe, and nothing more fundamental to me than trying to treat all human beings as sacred individuals and great members of our society. I'm very patriotic, but if you're in the Australian club, I will protect your rights to the hilt, no matter where you're from and what faith you are. And I particularly found Pauline's comments on Muslims not consistent with that approach to our country. It is divisive and it needed to be called out. And I'm always going to do that, regardless of the consequences for Me, because it's the right thing to do. Yeah, look, I've got a track record of that too. I mean I was one of the very few people, I think in politics who said we should bring Indian Australians back during Delta. You remember we left them stranded there. It's like crazy, like they were Australians, they had Australian passports. And I wasn't saying just bring them back and let them roam free, but they could do their quarantine, et cetera. We should have tried to do something for them. So I'll always stick up first rides. And you know, we've had, we do have a great country, but it is being tested at the moment. We've got to respond to the issues and concerns people have, legitimate issues and concerns people have. But we will change our country if we go down this, as I call it, if we go in this identity politics on the right where we divide people into tribes groups, that's going to end our country if we do that.
- [34:36]
C
So it sounds like you set a clear guardrail on your migration policy, which we've been expecting for a long time now that it will not be shift from a non discriminatory approach. But there are a lot of people in your party. Not a lot. There's a group of people in your party debating whether to change rules around permanent residency and citizenship to make it more difficult to get those statuses, to make it to put some clearer criteria around employment, criminal history, make it a longer period of time. What do you think about those?
- [35:03]
B
I think those are all legitimate contributions. But I think the immediate focus needs to be fixing up the student visa situation, which I know the government's been trying to. But it's also trying to do so in a way which exempts the large universities. When they tried to put that bill through the other year, they basically exempted the group of eight from any serious cuts, just not right. I mean they're some of the worst villains here, making a heap of money.
- [35:25]
C
I'm not sure that's right. I don't think they did exempt them.
- [35:27]
B
No, look, it wasn't fully exempt but if you go, look, they skewed the reductions to the vocational education sector and not concentrated on the group of eight. And so look, I think there does need to be significant cuts there because our Australian universities should primarily be for Australian students. That would make a big difference in the number of people. It's about 100,000 a year extra coming in through the student visa program at the moment, which don't think is justified anyway. And then on this broader question yes, there are legitimate issues there. One thing that struck me, you know, I was a suspected Italian there for a little while. Got out of that.
- [36:02]
C
On your mother's side.
- [36:03]
B
Mum. Mum. Mum. Nonno and Nonna came from Italy after the war, as many did. And one thing that really struck me because when I did that, I went to the National Archives and got all the details about my Nonna Wynonna. And to become Australian citizens, they had to go through the mill, they had to get letters from their priests, from the police officer, go through all these checks. This is the 1950s and it seemed a pretty intense process. They'd give up their Italian system.
- [36:30]
C
What could we do now to strengthen.
- [36:32]
B
Well, I don't know. Why don't we kind of. We don't seem to do that. Like, it seems to be a bit more of a tick and flick and I think it's a pretty exclusive club and it's perfectly reasonable. A pretty, pretty high hurdles to get into it. As I say, non discriminatory hurdles. Yeah, but. But yeah, you should. You should have fit and proper person tests of very, very stringent levels to become Australian citizen.
- [36:59]
C
You led the move to kill Net Zero and the Nats last year after years of campaigning. I don't think you could argue that there's no evidence yet in polling that it's had any effect on your party's popularity. You haven't yet really campaigned on it, but to date, I don't think there's any evidence that it has had any positive effect. I wonder, how do you differentiate from Barnaby Joyce and Pauline Anson on the Net Zero question? Is your policy a direct mirror of theirs?
- [37:24]
B
Look, I don't know. You have to. I mean, I'm not in the business of just comparing my policies with other political parties. I can tell you what I want to do and what we want to do. I think we're winning this debate, though, overall. Obviously a whole lot of things are happening on the polling front and a lot of that goes back to probably the broader trust issues I spoke to earlier that we need to fix.
- [37:43]
C
Are you winning the debate across the whole community or within the right?
- [37:47]
B
You tell me. Tell me. Why didn't the Prime Minister net mention Net zero at the press club last week?
- [37:53]
C
Did he not?
- [37:54]
B
He didn't. I only watched it last night. I watched it on the way down. Thought I better watch this.
- [37:58]
C
I don't think there's great evidence that the government is shying away from its renewables.
- [38:02]
B
Well, they just. Hey. They just dropped the 82% target. You see that they did. I think there's a question on that platform.
- [38:08]
C
That platform is a kind of high level document. I'll take your point. I'll take your point.
- [38:11]
B
But it is. I mean, look, I was a bit shy. I watched this from the Prime Minister at the press club. Yeah. Big speech. And most of the speech was on this future made in Australia agenda, a lot of which shares similar goals and objectives to what I spoke about today. But the centrepiece of that agenda, if you go back to its inception, the future made in Australia, the policy they released out of the 22 election that they're still implementing, the whole reason for it was net zero. Like that's the foundation stone. Because their argument, Labour Party's argument should do net zero. And then we have all these opportunities in clean energy, new energy markets like hydrogen and that will lead to heaps of manufacturing jobs, et cetera. Be a future made in Australia. Well, last week he did talk about that a lot, but he didn't mention the words net zero once. Not once.
- [38:57]
C
Do you think it's a dirty word now?
- [38:59]
B
I do. Labor Party doesn't do anything with it. They're very ruthless with this stuff. They're very politically astute. And that to me, as soon as I listened and thought, I don't think he mentioned it's there. And I went back and had a look and searched for it. Nope, didn't. Hmm.
- [39:12]
C
I think we'll need to keep watching all that.
- [39:13]
B
They're dropping it. They're dropping it like a stone.
- [39:15]
C
I think that's highly contestable. Just keeping on green energy. I know you need it.
- [39:20]
B
Well, I'd love them to campaign on it. Let's have an argument. Cause it's absurd. The whole thing is ridiculous. The thing will win.
- [39:26]
C
You guys campaigned against their green energy agenda at the last election, particularly in regional areas where there's offshore wind and there were no swings to your.
- [39:33]
B
Wait. We supported net zero at the last election.
- [39:35]
C
That is true. So it wasn't as full throat.
- [39:36]
B
The emperor has no clothes here, Paul. So we just have to push, push, push and it'll fall over in its own weight of absurdity.
- [39:43]
C
Under the last coalition government, there were several oil refineries that shut down. We're obviously having this big debate about self sufficiency given the crisis in the Middle East. Several oil refineries shut down under the last coalition government. I was reading a 2018 article where you were at the press club, you know, eight years ago now, talking about drilling off the great Australian Bight. That went Nowhere. Why didn't you turn the tide on fossil fuels and green energy when you had the ch?
- [40:07]
B
Yeah, I had some successes, but I had losses as well. I don't know if you're around then, Paul, but certainly your political, your newspaper outlets, the ABC ran a concerted campaign against fossil fuel extraction and you know, well done, congratulations, you won some of those debates. You did, you ran a campaign against them. And I'm not blaming you individually, but your masthead did. And so I'm not going to cop lectures from not sorry you, but from institutions that didn't support this back in the day. So I did, I had some wins. We got the Adani coal mine going, that's going very, very well and making a lot of money for our country employing 2,000 people. It's great, it's expanding.
- [40:44]
C
Arguably lost labor the 2019 election.
- [40:46]
B
Yeah, that's right, that's right. Possibly. But you know, I didn't win the debates on oil and gas extraction. Clearly these activists, often foreign funded campaigns had an impact on the companies that operated in this area. They blame commercial factors, but there's no doubt the political environment played a huge role as well.
- [41:09]
C
Shareholders putting pressure on or there's that
- [41:11]
B
too, that's a slightly separate issue, but no doubt there's that too. Although that's not so much an issue for BP anymore. They're back to petroleum big time. But. And Equinor was in a different situation. Probably not so much the shareholder pressure, but definitely the local political environment was not conducive for them. And so yeah, look, I, I didn't win that debate but that doesn't mean I'm going to give up because the only solution for us long term here is to produce more liquid fuels domestically. We can definitely find new basins. That will take some time, but we also have shorter and medium term options as well, like coal to liquids we clearly should invest in sooner rather than later.
- [41:47]
C
I think it's totally plausible that this crisis will add weight to arguments for energy self sufficiency, energy of all types. I imagine there'll be a new debate about nuclear energy off the back of this I do question though, those making the argument for greater self sufficiency with oil and other fossil fuels like yourself to leave out of that argument the point that renewables are a form of energy.
- [42:13]
B
Yeah, I totally agree.
- [42:15]
C
Does the oil crisis make the case for greater renewables as well as other forms of energy?
- [42:20]
B
In theory, yes. The issue in practice is we've already done it, you know, we've probably got sort of at the limits of too much renewable energy in our grid most, you know, at least in the electricity
- [42:28]
C
grid, we're still nowhere near the targets. You'd argue the targets are way too high.
- [42:32]
B
Well, that's right. What does that mean, the targets? Who came up with that?
- [42:36]
C
I don't think most economists would say we're near the upper range.
- [42:41]
B
So the problem is you look around the world. You look around the world, Paul. Any country that starts getting above 30% penetration of solar and wind, and I'm talking about solar and wind, not hydroelectricity, not stuff that's not as variable, but it's variable renewable energy like solar and wind. If it gets above 30, definitely 40%, you have huge problems in your grid. Electricity prices go up. It's happened to every country.
- [43:02]
C
Bucks this trend at all.
- [43:03]
B
No, it doesn't. It's got very high electricity prices. I'll show you the chart after this. But Denmark is the highest in the world on this chart at least and it's got the highest solar and wind. It's a pretty constant relationship. And so look, yeah, I'm not against renewables. I funded them when I was Northern Australia minister. We funded the Kidston Hydro Power Pumps Hydro project which included solar panels. There's places where they're appropriate to go through. But the situation is where overweight that type of energy right now and underweight energy that can always be relied on, whether it's coal or nuclear, the like. I'd also add to this something you might find a bit strange for me. I mean I love electric cars for a start and we should look to.
- [43:41]
C
You own a Tesla?
- [43:42]
B
No, I wanted to. We don't get the tax benefits. Politicians.
- [43:46]
C
You do have an EV though.
- [43:47]
B
No, no, no, because I want one. But. But I went and I was going to get one and then these stupid Nova. I'll come to this ridiculous tax scheme that the government's put in place. But I'm like Kerry Packer, I'll use whatever I can to minimise my tax. And I went to get it and politicians can't. So. No. Well, we don't get the benefits you think. But do you accept it? So I didn't get it because I don't like spending money on cars. They're a depreciating asset.
- [44:10]
C
What car do you have?
- [44:11]
B
Well, I've got a work one, a government one, that's Toyota Landcruiser. So that's my sins. And then to repent for my sins, I was going to get Tesla to replace the 15 year old Hyundai Santa Fe. Which is definitely getting to the end of its life after five kids. But anyway we're persisting with that at the moment and saving money. So look, I'm all for going towards this, I just, I really don't like the way the government's going about it. It is, I mean it's not really middle class welfare, it's upper class welfare. Like I just told this tax scheme as I said I'd use it if it's available and I could do it for my own interest. But mate, I mean why are we got a tax scheme which really only gives you a major benefit if you're on the top tax rate, the 50 cent tax rate. It's crazy. The people who potentially need the help to maybe buy a new electric car are people on battling incomes and it's often these areas in the suburbs where the electric cars make more sense. Electric cars don't make a lot of sense in the inner city because it's very hard to charge them and that. But if you've got a shed, if you've got. That's what we would have done, just charge overnight coal fired power primarily great. But all more renewables given you just
- [45:13]
C
open the door on the mat, they're
- [45:14]
B
not on at night.
- [45:15]
C
Well there's, there's batteries. That's what batteries are for, batteries for. You roll your eyes but I don't understand why you roll your eyes. There's clear signs.
- [45:23]
B
Fair point, fair point. So you can, this is the other problem we've got. Right. So you know at a household level you can put in some batteries, solar, you can kind of get by. I wouldn't say it's very economic if you take out the tax benefits, I mean battery systems, 10,000 to $15,000. I mean your average electricity bill for families is roughly 2. So even if you save half these
- [45:44]
C
things are getting cheaper every day.
- [45:45]
B
Well they're still pretty expensive and, and the government's again the battery scheme's been a complete disaster. It's blown out $10 billion but anyway it's marginal whether that's economic or not and it's a big upfront capex cost for poor and struggling families. But okay, I'll give you that, maybe you can do that. The problem we've got is businesses in Australia use four times the electricity that households do. Four times.
- [46:09]
C
It's one part of the equation.
- [46:10]
B
Yeah, this is the problem that people go okay, I can do it at my home. So why can't the smelter do it? Why can't the refinery do it why can't we run? Why can't we have liquid fuels based on renewables? It doesn't scale and that sort of domesticised thinking about energy has let us down a bunch of dead ends. So I'm not against that. I'm not like go for your life if you want to do that. As I say, I don't like giving large amounts of taxpayer subsidies to rich people. They don't need it. Any subsidies we provide on this front should be given to and skewed towards poorer and middle class families, proper middle class families. But still it's only one part of the equation. It can't, I mean we can't electrify our entire economy and still well have the living standards we have. But more importantly, even just defend ourselves,
- [46:57]
C
even labor acknowledges the need for gas to be part of the system for a long time. Just finally we've gone way over time. So I imagine they're going to cut a lot of your good content. If I don't wrap up, I'll wrap up. On a personal note, something I don't think you've talked about much since coming to the leadership is your personal faith. You're a devout Catholic. How much does your religion influence your way of viewing policy solutions and political questions?
- [47:23]
B
Maybe in a few ways. I think most importantly it's my attitude and maybe I'm too carefree but particularly taking on like it's a big burden, responsibility being leader of a political party. But I found my faith a great degree of strength that look, God's got a plan and I, I just do my best to work within that. So don't stress too much. I remember when I did tell you when I had that citizenship issue, very, very lucky I was reading the Bible in a year. It took me about three years to read, but did do it. And just before it happened I read the Sermon on the Mount where God, sorry, Jesus Christ, was God saying that, you know, God looks after the birds and looks after the flowers, you've got nothing to worry about. And that put me in a very Zen state. And I was telling my wife this as we're driving down the road a couple of days after I was in the high court and well, I've kind of lost it and said, well, Jesus can't pay a mortgage. That's a fair point. It's a fair point. It brought me back to reality but it does mean a lot to me in my faith, in the attitude I bring to things. Look, in terms of policy questions, I suppose there is an ethical underpinning to Christianity that I think is very important to our culture, whether you believe in God or not. And that's rooted primarily in the idea that there's a natural law. You don't have to be religious to believe in a natural law form of ethics, but if you do, you generally will subscribe to views like I expressed earlier on this podcast, that every human being is sacred and has individual merit. And that's an underpinning, I would say, of our Christian society. It comes from Christian teachings. I would argue that the Catholic principle of orto amoris is a very important conservative principle. The idea that society is best well ordered when we look after our immediate area first and then have kind of concentric circles out from that. So look after your own family, your own backyard, do that, and then we'll have a better society and community and country. Whereas I would argue sometimes, not all, but sometimes on the left side of politics, there's a tendency to say, let's fix the starving poor in Africa and we sort of forget about the people that are doing it tough in our own country. And finally, I suppose the other Catholic principle, subsidiarity, which is partners that principle of auto omerus, but the idea that we should seek to devolve political power to the smallest political unit possible, if you want to know, like a big influence on my politics is Rerum Navarrem, which is encyclical around 1890, which did, I think, very neatly marry the emerging industrial world with broad Christian principles. And it does mean looking after the poor and the downtrodden, but also not going full Marxist like I did in my misspent youth.
- [50:16]
C
I was going to ask about your views on abortion.
- [50:18]
B
Right.
- [50:19]
C
You made a pretty narrow argument against one form of one part of the abortion debate being the born alive question. What's your view on mainstream abortion laws in most states? Are you against those laws?
- [50:30]
B
Well, look, it's a state issue, so I'm not. It's not going to be part of our platform and never would be in any case, because we've always taken a conscience position on these issues, which I fully support. So every member of the Nationalist Party, and it's true for the Liberal Party as well, has the right to come forward with their own particular perspectives on this or never form part of our platform.
- [50:52]
C
But you're uncomfortable.
- [50:53]
B
Something I'll push as leader. Look, one thing that happened to me during the Babies Born Alive debate is that I moved. That's the one thing I've moved a bill on that in any way relates to this issue. It doesn't actually change any abortion practices or laws. It just provides care for babies that are born alive during a termination procedure or after a termination procedure. Yeah, look, one thing that sort of affected me a bit is we had an inquiry on that and it's the first time I really spoke to doctors who conduct terminations. And, and yeah, you can go and read the transcript, but the description of how late term abortions occur is a little bit concerning. Some of the chemicals they use we don't use on animals. We know fetuses at a late stage can feel pain, they respond to stimuli, they laugh, they're pretty human. And so I think we're in this situation where we don't like talking about this much because it's very, very hard to handle. But the fact that we don't like talking about it probably, probably raises some issues about do we really think that's right. And so just to be clear that these are late term abortions and how that occurs. And I know they're not. Well, they're not, they do happen. They're not, they're not the majority of cases or anything like that.
- [52:12]
C
Some of your critics in this case say that and on this matter say that proponents, advocates in this, on this issue, like yourself overstate the extent to which this occurs dramatically.
- [52:21]
B
Well, I don't know if it was, if, if it's what was described to me, if it's one case, it's pretty, pretty horrific to think about. But yeah, so look, as I say, it's deeply uncomfortable but that usually on moral questions, if you find yourself being a little bit uncomfortable speaking about it, explaining it, it's probably an issue there. But as I say, it's a matter for the states. It's not going to come up, this particular issue is not going to come up at the federal level. But you know, that's my position, that's my honest, honest view.
- [52:49]
C
Politics for this episode, maybe theology for the next one.
- [52:52]
B
I love that. I love that.
- [52:53]
A
Thank you.
- [52:54]
B
Epistemology too. I've actually written, I wrote a Senate committee report. We've quoted Plato and Thomas Kuhn. So yeah, that was my last one as a backbencher. So I'm impressed by that.
- [53:07]
C
Well, you've got a post politics career in the academy.
- [53:10]
B
Yeah, it won't pay. We'll pay about as well as this.
- [53:12]
C
Thank you for joining us. I appreciate it.
- [53:14]
B
Cheers.
- [53:20]
A
You can read all of our political news on our websites theage.com au or the smh.com au Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Paul Sakal. Thanks for listening.