|
April 22, 2025
Transcript – Doorstop at Channel 9 Leaders’ Debate
22 April 2025
E&OE
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, I think that was the third debate of the campaign and objectively, the biggest win yet from Peter Dutton over the Prime Minister. There are a couple of really key moments in the debate, but I think the really critical ones came early, particularly when Peter had the opportunity to directly challenge the Prime Minister on the many lies he's told in this campaign. In particular on our record on health and education, and challenged the Prime Minister directly on the fact that bulk billing rates have fallen on his watch and were higher under us. I also enjoyed Phil Coorey's live fact check of the Prime Minister's exaggerations of his budget performance, which really put the Prime Minister on the spot. I think the key and critical moment was when Peter Dutton outlined why the Prime Minister's reliance on the discredited partisan organisation, the Smart Energy Council, for their so-called $600 billion costing on nuclear energy, blew away the centrepiece of Labor's scare campaign. Because it's very clear. The CSIRO does not cost our nuclear energy plan at $600 billion. They cost our nuclear energy plan at $116 billion. And the Smart Energy Council, which has made donations to the Labor Party and is a partisan campaigning organisation, has inflated that by almost five times. So my challenge to the Labor party and the Prime Minister tonight is: stop the lies. Stop the lies about our nuclear power plan. Let's rely on the objective facts set out by the CSIRO. Let's agree for that to be the standard. You don't have to agree to our plan, but please stop lying about it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr. Dutton used the term recession in the debate. Is it the Coalition's view that Australia is heading towards a recession?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, if the Prime Minister is re-elected and if he forms government in minority with the Greens and the Teals, I fear that's exactly what's happened and what will happen. And Jim Chalmers himself raised the prospect of this several weeks ago after the chaos on the markets, where he said it's possible that the Reserve Bank would have to have emergency large rate cuts. Now, the only reason why the RBA would do that would be to stave off a recession. So I think it is Jim Chalmers who has put recession on the agenda, and I fear, under a Labor government, that's exactly what will happen.
JOURNALIST:
Senator Paterson, Peter Dutton during the debate said that there were no rate cuts expected unless there was a recession. Now, markets are currently pricing in about four rate cuts over the next year. In addition to that, they're not expecting a recession. So, how do you explain the difference between what the Opposition Leader is saying and what the markets are saying?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, I hope that's right. And certainly under a Dutton Coalition government, we would have strong economic growth and moderating inflation, because we've got a very clear economic
plan that would deliver that, particularly by driving down the cost of energy. But if the Labor party behaves in a second term of office, how it has behaved in its first term of office I think there's a very great risk that those interest rate cuts won't materialise unless a recession materialises. Because, as we know, over the first three budgets in office, they added $425 billion of extra spending. And it's no wonder why the independent Reserve Bank Governor, Michelle Bullock, has called out the fact that inflation in this country is a home-grown phenomenon.
JOURNALIST:
But the markets are pricing in the current Labor policies, not a future Coalition government's. So that is their current take on the situation. No recession, four interest rate cuts. Are you saying the markets are wrong?
JAMES PATERSON:
Markets price in uncertainty about election outcomes. It's not clear who's going to win the election. It's not clear which agenda is going to be implemented. And they'll be able to make a much firmer view on the policy agenda once we have an election result.
JOURNALIST:
Mr. Dutton said again tonight, as he has a number of times, he believes it's impossible for Labor to govern in its own right. If Labor does get to a majority, does that mean that his position as opposition leader would be untenable?
JAMES PATERSON:
I don't want to do the post-election analysis in the middle of the election campaign. Only a fraction of Australians have started voting today in early voting, and there'll be millions more to vote over the next ten days, and they have got a very big choice ahead of them. Do they want three more years of the same under Anthony Albanese, or even worse, in a hung parliament with the Greens and the Teals? Or do they want a strong Dutton Coalition government that has a plan to get our country back on track?
JOURNALIST:
Senator Paterson, just on the question about making deals with independents and such in a hung parliament, the Prime Minister ruled out making deals with the crossbench, and Peter Dutton said he would do so with anyone but the Greens. Just clarifying. Does this mean that any independent or crossbench would be, you know, in negotiations with the Coalition?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, both leaders were asked that question tonight, but only one leader gave an honest answer to that question. Does anybody seriously think if the Prime Minister falls short of a majority and has the opportunity to return to government, but in a coalition with the Greens or the Teals, or a combination of the two, that he would refuse the opportunity to do so? That he would either hand government to a Dutton Coalition government or would force Australians back to the polls in another election? I mean, that is a ridiculous answer and another lie the Prime Minister has told. There is nothing that would stop him from doing a deal in those circumstances. Peter was being honest. If we fell short, we would have to talk to the crossbenchers. Sadly, I'm not sure that all of them would be open to forming government with us, but any who was, who are able to engage in that sensible conversation, we would have that conversation with them.
JOURNALIST:
The Deputy Prime Minister, just then, refused to talk about the now deleted tweets by the Candidate for Flynn. Are you surprised by that? What do you think should happen to the candidate?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, Labor politicians have a lot to say about opposition candidates in this election. But when their own candidates are caught out engaging in reprehensible conduct, they run and they duck for cover. So I thought that was a failure of leadership by the Deputy Prime Minister tonight to not call out those appalling tweets by their candidate in Flynn. He wasn't able to say whether or not they stand by her. He wasn't even able to clearly condemn what she had said. If the Prime Minister is sincere, and I believe he is, about his affection for the Pope and his leadership, then he shouldn't want someone on his team who said those awful things about the Pope and the only option for Labor is to disendorse their Flynn candidate tomorrow.
Thanks everyone.
ENDS