|
March 30, 2025
DAVID SPEERS: James Paterson, welcome to the program.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, David.
SPEERS: So have you seen this modelling that Peter Dutton is talking about there?
PATERSON: I've been briefed on it and as Peter Dutton said yesterday we will release it. But if you're in any doubt about what this policy will do, recognise the fact that both supporters of the policy, like gas users like Bluescope Steel and critics of the policy, like the gas producers, all agree it will reduce prices. And as Phil Coorey just said on your panel, this is the law of supply and demand, it is basic economics. We're going to force more gas supply into the domestic market, and that will bring down prices for Australians.
SPEERS: If it's so straightforward, why does the modelling, the detail, even a press release have to be hidden away? Why can't we see this?
PATERSON: We're not hiding anything, David. It'll be released.
SPEERS: Why can't we see the model today?
PATERSON: You'll see it very soon David, we'll release it. The work has been done, we've been working on this plan for more than a year. Extensive detailed work has happened on this, and it will drive prices down.
SPEERS: So it will, by how much?
PATERSON: We're not going to make the same mistake that Anthony Albanese did before the last election when he lied to the Australian people 97 times and told them that their electricity bills would go down $275. That's not the experience of Australians on this government's watch. They're paying up to $1,300 more for their electricity than the Prime Minister promised them before the last election. We're not going to mislead them like that.
SPEERS: So you won't put any dollar figure on it?
PATERSON: No, we're not planning on putting a dollar figure on how much your personal bills will go down, but we do know on this government's watch that there's been a 30% increase in gas prices for households. Industry has been smashed. No wonder 29,000 businesses have failed on this government's watch.
SPEERS: So you'll say prices will be lower, but you won't be telling voters by how much, you'll just be asking them to trust that they'll be better off.
PATERSON: Well we've already referred to the analysis in terms of the price per gigajoule. It's about $14 a gigajoule right now. We say it will get down to about $10 a gigajoule. But we're not going to make a specific household price promise because we're not going to lie to the Australian people as Anthony Albanese did. We don't think that's an adult or decent way to engage with the Australian public.
SPEERS: Okay, but we will see the modelling?
PATERSON: Yes.
SPEERS: Done by Frontier?
PATERSON: Yes.
SPEERS: You are campaign spokesman, you haven't seen it, you've been briefed on it, are you convinced?
PATERSON: Yes, I'm absolutely confident it will lower prices, but don't take my word for it, the gas producers themselves are out there complaining that this is a bad policy because it will lower prices. I don't agree. I think it's a good policy because it will lower prices.
SPEERS: There are some market experts who have their doubts about this as well. Just tell me, how does it work? How do you actually force those gas companies to direct more gas into the local market?
PATERSON: So, David, on the east coast, we produce about 2000 [petajoules] of gas every year. About 1500 of that is exported, about 500 of it is consumed locally. Of that 1500, which is exported, we are going to require that gas producers divert 50 to 100 of those petajoules into the domestic market to drive those prices down.
SPEERS: How?
PATERSON: Well, we will develop a mechanism in consultation with the industry, we'll legislate it, and it will require them to divert that into the domestic market.
SPEERS: So this is separate to the existing big stick gas, domestic gas security mechanism. This will be a separate mechanism?
PATERSON: Correct, and I heard the Prime Minister say that he's already got this, well if he has it's not working because the Prime Minster said there's a price cap of $12 per gigajoule, well why are prices, in his words 13 per giga joule or 14 in some other market analysis. It's clearly not working, and that's why households are paying 30% more than they were before the last election.
SPEERS: So you'll have two mechanisms to get more gas into the domestic market.
PATERSON: Well, we require from that spot market, those short-term contracts, 50 to 100 petajoules to be driven into the domestic market to drive down those prices.
SPEERS: And how will this new mechanism work? How does it work? Is it a penalty, a fine? How does that work?
PATERSON: Well we will legislate using the Commonwealth's significant legislative power here to require that that happen. I would hope the gas producers would work with the government to make sure that happened, frankly it's in their interest to. But we also have measures to increase supply, as well, David. We need to fast-track approvals in this country; they're being held up far too long.
SPEERS: Sure.
PATERSON: The north west gas shelf is a good example. Six years of environmental approval and assessment by the state government and this federal government has kicked that can down the road, refusing to grant that approval.
SPEERS: Ok, But coming back to the question of this east coast problem, this mechanism, you legislate, force them to provide 50 to 100 petajoules, if they don't, what happens?
PATERSON: Well, there'll be consequences for them. There'll be penalties for them.
SPEERS: What are those, fines?
PATERSON: Yes, if that's what's necessary to bring this gas into the market, we'll do it. But we're also investing in supply and transportation and exploration. So we have a $1.3 billion plan for more exploitation and exploration of gas and moving the gas around the country where it needs to be, particularly in the southern states. So it's a billion dollars on gas pipelines.
SPEERS: Yeah, and just on that, so the $10 that you've set on, like why $10, not $9 or $8?
PATERSON: Well that's the analysis that we've got, that's what it says the effect of diverting the 50 to 100 petajoules into the domestic market will do.
SPEERS: And does that include the cost of getting it from Queensland down to Victoria?
PATERSON: Well, we're spending a billion dollars on gas infrastructure to help move it.
SPEERS: That'll take years to build.
PATERSON: Well, we think you can move quickly on this.
SPEERS: We're talking by the end of this year, Peter Dutton saying you'll get $10. Does that include the transmission or the transport of the gas, or is that just the price?
PATERSON: I'm from Victoria, the Victorian State Government is contemplating spending $800 million on a gas import terminal in Victoria. We've got years and years of supply of gas underneath our feet that we're not taking advantage of. We want to get more gas into the market.
SPEERS: I understand that, does the $10 price include getting it to Victoria?
PATERSON: David, the $10 price is the analysis that we've got from Danny Price from Frontier Economics of the effect of diverting that gas into the east coast domestic market. And that's the benefit that households and businesses will see. That is why manufacturers are so enthusiastic about this and have backed it because it's going to reduce prices for them.
SPEERS: Okay, but to get it to Victoria where it's needed, it could be more than $10.
PATERSON: Well, the Victorian government has locked up the gas that they have underneath our feet. And that is just madness.
SPEERS: I understand that, but your policy, to get that gas down to Victoria, will it be more than $10?
PATERSON: Look David, I've just said that the market price for gas domestically in Australia will be $10 a gigajoule compared to what it is right now.
SPEERS: In Victoria?
PATERSON: Yes.
SPEERS: Look at a few other things. The Liberal Party is meant to be the party of free markets and lower taxes. Here you are intervening in the gas market. You want to break up supermarkets and potentially break up insurance companies. And this week we saw you're now opposing lower personal income taxes. You want to push that tax rate higher. Is this still the party of John Howard?
PATERSON: Well, just quickly on supermarkets, because I heard your interview with the Prime Minister before. His plan hasn't survived three questions or three minutes. It fell apart because he couldn't define price gouging. Now, he says he's going to ban price gouging, but if he can't tell you what price gouging is, how on earth are they going to do it? The truth is, this is an insulting policy to the Australian people. It's their fifth committee or review into supermarket prices. If it was such a good idea, why didn't they do it three years ago before a 30% increase in grocery prices for Australians?
SPEERS: Do you think price gouging should be illegal?
PATERSON: Well, we're very happy to make price gouging illegal.
SPEERS: Why didn't you ever do it? You were in office for nine years.
PATERSON: We've got a better plan for this, David. We've got a plan to introduce targeted divestment powers for the supermarket industry. So if they're abusing their market power, if they are stifling competition, we can have that last resort power, which would be a very tough incentive. The Prime Minister has nothing to accompany his policy at all. There's no enforcement at all, he won't contemplate divestments.
SPEERS: We seem to have moved away from the question which was about why the Liberal Party is promising to increase personal income taxes. Are you comfortable with that?
PATERSON: Well David, you can't spend a dollar twice, and we're not being honest with the Australian people if we can say that we can do it all. We think we've got a better plan, which is to reduce petrol excise now. Not to wait 15 months to provide people a 70-cent-a-day tax cut, but right now, every time you fill up a 55-litre fuel tank, you'll save really significantly, $14 a week if you're filling up every week.
SPEERS: For one year only. For one year only.
PATERSON: $28 a week If you're filling two cars up every week.
SPEERS: It's a temporary relief, though, isn't it?
PATERSON: That's right, and we'll review that in government if we're successful at the end of that period.
SPEERS: So you might extend that longer?
PATERSON: As I said David, we're promising it for one year. We'll review it in government, if it's still necessary.
SPEERS: Well that's interesting, so that could see the budget go further into deficit if you do extend it?
PATERSON: Well, David, we plan to get the cost of living under control, we plan to get inflation down, and every time you go to the petrol station under a Dutton government, you'll be getting a tax cut.
SPEERS: So now it's you might extend that fuel excise relief beyond 12 months?
PATERSON: Well, Peter Dutton has already said this a couple of times, David, that's not a new statement. Of course we will look at the circumstances at the time when we're in government, but what we're committing to is a 25 cent reduction per litre of fuel every time you go to the petrol station.
SPEERS: Okay, I want to ask you about a couple of things closer to your portfolio. Migration. Peter Dutton in the Budget Reply repeated that the Coalition would reduce the permanent migration intake by 25%. How will you do that?
PATERSON: So in the first year, we're proposing the permanent migration come down to 140,000. Again, in the second year, 140,00. Up to 150,000 in the third year and 160,000 in the fourth year. Over the forward estimates, that's about a 25% reduction from what Labor is proposing to do. But I note that Labor hasn't actually met their own targets. They've exceeded them on every single year. And they've brought in over a million people in their time in office. But the signature housing policies like the HAFF haven't built a single home and no wonder our rental and housing markets are out of control.
SPEERS: Let's just stick with your plans, though. I guess I'm asking how you reduce it. I mean, take a look at the makeup of permanent migration, as you know, it's mostly skilled migrants, 71%, 28% are family reunion, and then you've got a small number of special eligibility. So which part will you cut?
PATERSON: We'll be announcing our policy on how we're going to reduce both permanent migration and also temporary migration so that net overseas migration is reduced from what it is now.
SPEERS: But I'm just asking about permanent migration, you've said you'll cut it by 25%. So will that be across both skilled and family?
PATERSON: The good news is, David, Australians don't have long to wait. Our policy on this will be released very soon. It will be open to scrutiny, happy to discuss it with you at that time.
SPEERS: Well, we've only got three weeks before people start voting in early voting, and we're waiting for how this gas plan's going to work.
PATERSON: No, no, we told you how the gas plan is going to work.
SPEERS: Well, the modelling.
PATERSON: Yep and that's going to be released.
SPEERS: And this will be released? Are you giving people a fair go to have a look at your plans?
PATERSON: David, long before the first Australian casts their vote, these policies will be out in the public domain for people to scrutinise.
SPEERS: Ukraine, look, you were on this program four weeks ago, we talked about Ukraine, you were arguing Australia should continue strongly supporting Ukraine, and you said it was too early to speculate on the question of sending peacekeepers. Why, four weeks later, or only a couple of weeks later, has Peter Dutton decided that Australia should not be involved in sending peacekeepers?
PATERSON: Well, David, we're very proud of the support that we offered Ukraine when we were in government. When we were in government, we were at the top of the international league tables for per-capita contributions to the war in Ukraine. We've fallen down that list on Labor's watch. They promised M1 Abrams tanks, but they haven't delivered them. Instead of providing the Taipan helicopters to Ukraine, they buried them in the ground. They left our embassy closed for three years in Ukraine when other countries reopened theirs within a matter of months. So we strongly support the war in Ukraine. But there is no more grave decision for government than to deploy Australian troops to a war zone. And this is the front line of a warzone with a nuclear power where hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives. And it is not clear at this stage whether there would be an implicit or explicit American security guarantee. Now there is not a time in recent decades that Australia has deployed troops without an American security guarantee, and frankly, that's a reckless thing to do for the Prime Minister in a press conference before an election when he's trying to beef up his credentials and look tough. to say that he'll contemplate deploying Australian troops in those circumstances.
SPEERS: If there was a US security guarantee, would you be okay with Australians going?
PATERSON: Well, David, the ADF is very stretched on this government's watch. The Prime Minister has just admitted he's reduced the target for defence spending from 2.4% of GDP, as it was last year, now down to 2.3% of the GDP. And we can't even track a People's Liberation Army-Navy Task Group in our own region without the help of Virgin Australia pilots.
SPEERS: If the US has a security guarantee behind any force in Ukraine, would you be okay with Australia sending personnel?
PATERSON: David, we're saying the ADF is more stretched than it needs to be right now. We will spend more on defence, we'll spend it more quickly. But until we've made that investment, we are not in the position to be just deploying Australian troops to the front line of a war zone on the other side of the world.
SPEERS: So, if we're so stretched and we need to have people here, should we bring back the 100 personnel training Ukrainian troops in the UK?
PATERSON: No, we think that's an appropriate investment, an appropriate contribution, but the Prime Minister is talking about an additional contribution on the front lines of a war zone when we can't even track a PLAN task group in our region without the help of Virgin Australia pilots, David.
SPEERS: Defence spending, you're obviously critical of the government. Will the coalition increase defence spending beyond that 2.3 or 2.4 per cent?
PATERSON: Yes, we will spend more and we'll spend it faster because the Prime Minister just said on your program that we're spending enough right now for the challenges we face. We don't agree. We don't think we're spending enough. We will spend it more, we'll spend it faster. The $3 billion at least that we promised to spend on an extra squadron of F-35s is extra defence spending that we've already committed to, and we will make further announcements in the course of this campaign.
SPEERS: So we'll find out in the next few weeks what level of defence spending you will get to and when.
PATERSON: Correct, yes.
SPEERS: Okay, 2.5% has been speculated.
PATERSON: I would have a short-lived career as campaign spokesman if I announced it here in your program today, David.
SPEERS: Alright, no, look, fair enough. We did see, just a couple of other things finally, some protesters yesterday disrupted both Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton's campaign events and apparently security protocols are going to be changed. Are you concerned about this? Will it change campaign planning?
PATERSON: I'm very concerned about this, David, because it comes in the context of the Federal Police saying that threats to parliamentarians and other high office holders are the highest they have ever been, and it means actually police have to divert significant resources to protecting politicians at campaign events that could otherwise be out there solving crimes in the community. And it's very regrettable. I don't think we want to move to a style of politics we see in some other countries where our political leaders are cocooned in a security bubble and can't interact with Australians. So these ratbag protesters who are turning up at events might think they're being clever, but all they're going to do is make our politicians more removed from the public, and I don't think that's a good thing.
SPEERS: Finally, Peter Dutton yesterday said he is prepared to negotiate with crossbenchers in the event of a hung parliament. What does that mean? What is the Coalition willing to trade?
PATERSON: Well, it's just an honest statement. I don't know why the Prime Minister lied to you a few minutes ago on this panel, where he said he wouldn't negotiate with the Greens. If the Prime Minister falls short of a majority, which many polls predict that he will, there is nothing that will stop him from negotiating with the Greens.
SPEERS: Just asking about the Coalition, coming back to you guys. What will you trade?
PATERSON: Well, unlike the Prime Minister, we're being open and honest about that. Peter Dutton has been clear. We will negotiate if we have to, if we find ourselves in those circumstances.
SPEERS: Are there any red lines, any no-go areas?
PATERSON: Of course, we're aiming to form a majority government in our own right, and we're confident about our ability to do so, but if we fall short by a couple of seats, we will have a negotiation with the crossbench. We're very clear about the policy agenda that we're taking to the election, though, and we will stand by that policy agenda in those negotiations.
SPEERS: Would gas be negotiable? Would climate targets be negotiable?
PATERSON: David, we are taking an agenda to the Australian people. We're seeking a mandate from them. If we're able to form government after the election, we will implement our election commitments exactly as we have outlined them in the campaign.
SPEERS: All right, Senator James Patterson, thanks for joining us at the start of this campaign.
PATERSON: Thank you, my pleasure.
ENDS