April 17, 2025
TOM CONNELL:
Joining me now is Shadow Home Affairs Minister and Coalition Campaign Spokesman James Paterson. Thank you for your time. On a briefing, what are you seeking to find out here that's urgent? Obviously, there are a lot of matters going on all the time where we need advice on the longer term, but what's urgent you need a campaign briefing on?
JAMES PATERSON:
Tom, it's not a campaign briefing. It's a caretaker convention briefing, and the caretaker conventions are very clear. When there's a significant international relations issue, foreign policy issue, national security issue, defence issue, it is completely routine and standard for a briefing to be provided to the opposition, especially when it's requested. We requested one 48 hours ago, and it has still not been provided or agreed to be provided by the government. And the question for them is, what are they afraid that we might learn in this briefing, what is it that they are trying to hide? And it appears very clear that there is something that they don't want us to be briefed on.
TOM CONNELL:
It's not something actually involving Australia, though, is it, in terms of an incident? How clear is that precedent? This is, you know, this is something going way back-when is it? There are always people demanding caretaker briefings, and they're often denied.
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, Tom, it's nice of you to try and mount a defence for the government, but potential Russian Air Force access to a base in Indonesia affects Australia directly and profoundly and seriously, and that's why it has generated so much attention and interest. The Prime Minister has said that he has been briefed on it. The convention is in an election period that those same courtesies are extended to the opposition because of course the election outcome is unpredictable, it could go either way, and it could be the opposition leader and his shadow ministers who are soon making critical decisions on this issue and should be briefed on this issue. And the public service is effectively in neutral mode for an election campaign and should be offering those briefings on an equal basis. So there is no good reason for the Prime Minister to deny this unless, of course, there is something that contradicts what he said publicly that might come out in those briefings.
TOM CONNELL:
The idea put forward by your leader, by Peter Dutton, is to index income tax rates. Has this gone through any sort of party process? Has it been costed, or is this just a thought bubble?
JAMES PATERSON:
We've had extensive discussions over a range of tax reform options over the last couple of years in opposition, and Peter's made it clear on previous occasions that dealing with bracket creep is a high priority for him, it's something that he wants to do and indexation is one good way of doing that. But as Peter has also made clear in the interview in The Australian today, it is not something that we can do from opposition, and it's also not something we could do straight away in government because Labor has left a terrible fiscal mess which we will have to clean up. They've added $425 billion of new spending over their budgets, and there are deficits as far as the eye can see and debt of $1.2 trillion that the government plans to rack up. So this would be a cleanup exercise, as it has often been for previous coalition governments, and once we've cleaned it up, then we can look at options like this.
TOM CONNELL:
But governing is about priorities. I mean, this, in the initial years, is not that expensive. It obviously ramps up. If you hadn't rolled out LMITO, for example, and the fuel excise cut, you could do this. You've just chosen not to.
JAMES PATERSON:
No, Tom, that's not right, because this is an ongoing, baked-in structural cost to the budget, whereas LMITO, as we proposed it, the tax cost of the living offset, is just one year, as is our fuel tax cut, is also just one-year. So, you're comparing Apples to Oranges here; they're not interchangeable.
TOM CONNELL:
But you could pay them over forwards. If you're going to do this any time soon, surely you're going to be doing it by the next election. So there you go. Those two policies will be sorted out over the next three years, and then the better economic managers will sort it out beyond that.
JAMES PATERSON:
No, I don't agree, Tom. This would be a significant structural change to the budget. It's something that we aspire to do because the principle is an important one. You shouldn't be pushed into a higher tax bracket just because inflation pushes your wages up. If you've had no real wages growth, if you haven't got a promotion or a pay rise, you've just gone up a tax bracket because the cost of everything has gone up, you shouldn't pay more tax. That's a critical principle which we believe in. But this is not something we can do from opposition. It's not
something that can do straight away. Peter was asked a direct question; he gave a direct answer. He'd like to see us be able to do this one day, but it's going to take time.
TOM CONNELL:
So in terms of that budget repair, is that starting in the short term? We've heard before Angus Taylor say the budget bottom line in the forward estimates, when it matters, will be significantly better than Labor's. Is that still the case?
JAMES PATERSON:
Yes, of course it is, Tom, I'm not going to reveal our costings live on your program today, I'm afraid, but they will be announced in the normal way, at the normal time.
TOM CONNELL:
I didn't even ask that, I'm not ambitious, maybe.
JAMES PATERSON:
I'm just anticipating that possible follow up question Tom, but we'll be announcing that in the normal time, in the normal way.
TOM CONNELL:
What I will ask is, are there more savings to come beyond the public service?
JAMES PATERSON:
It's not for me to disclose policies we're yet to announce and as I said in my previous answer, our costings will be disclosed in the normal time, in a normal way.
TOM CONNELL:
But this isn't just about them going beyond that, you don't have to say what it is, but presumably there's more to come, given all the spending outline and defence spending to come as well?
JAMES PATERSON:
Points for effort, Tom. Creative way to approach the same question slightly differently and hope to get a different answer, but I'm only going to give you the same answer. You know it's not my
role as Campaign Spokesman to foreshadow potential future anticipated announcements. That'll be done by the relevant shadow ministers at the relevant time.
TOM CONNELL:
Negative gearing, this was something looked at through Treasury, under the Coalition, and they said no, not a good idea. Haven't Labor just done exactly the same thing?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, no, the Labor Party's done something different about it because the Prime Minister has lied about it. I mean, last night in the debate, he said very clearly that his government did not commission this. The Treasurer contradicted him when asked today. He admitted that they sought advice from Treasury on this issue. And if the Prime Minister is lying about this, I think we're entitled to ask; why is he lying about it? If it was indeed the case they looked at it and dismissed it and had no intention of doing it, then just be honest. Just say that. But this guy has got a track record of lying on a range of issues, but especially on tax. Before the last election, he said dozens of times he would make no changes to Stage 3 tax cuts. We know that was a lie. He did make changes to stage 3 tax cuts. He also said he'd make no changes to superannuation. That was another lie. They have made changes to superannuation, attempting to tax unrealised gains on people's superannuation, violating a fundamental principle of tax law in this country. So you can't trust this government when it comes to tax, and you should be worried about their secret plan to do negative gearing after the election.
TOM CONNELL:
The superannuation plan, by the time it kicks in, effectively it will be voted on, so they're making the change, but you're still allowed to make changes from term to term.
JAMES PATERSON:
No, Tom. At the last election, they said they'd make no changes to superannuation. In this term of Parliament, they have introduced a bill and sought to pass it multiple times, which makes changes to the taxation of superannuation. It is not a defence to say it begins at some future date. Had they told people prior to the last election, we will be introducing tax changes to superannuation, but we won't tell you what they are, many people might not of voted for them.
TOM CONNELL:
I think time matters when they come in, I understand though you make your point as well about when bills are introduced, maybe we'll call that a draw. Quickly, very quickly, is it fair to say if people are really concerned about climate and that's a number one priority, that would be fair enough for them to vote Labor over the Coalition? You've got more of an economic focus if you like?
JAMES PATERSON:
No, if you care about climate change, you should vote Liberal and National at this election because we are the only party offering a serious plan to sustainably reduce emissions by transitioning Australia over time to emissions-free nuclear technology. It's the only way that developed countries around the world are sustainably reducing emissions. It's a way that the UK and so many other countries around the world do so. We've got a plan to do so, the government's renewables only plan will not get emissions down.
TOM CONNELL:
Ok, that is a big topic, but I introduced it.
JAMES PATERSON:
You did.
TOM CONNELL:
But I've got to leave it there. We will delve into that another time. Yeah, it was a big one to end with, my fault.
JAMES PATERSON:
I look forward to it.
TOM CONNELL:
James Paterson, talk soon.
ENDS