Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister for the Public Service, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General
TOM CONNELL, HOST: Well, it is that time on a Monday, and that means we bring you the Assistant Prime Minister, or Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, I should say, nearly gave you a promotion Patrick Gorman, one day, and the former New South Wales Liberal Party President, former MP Jason Falinski, thank you both for your time. I'll start with you, Jason, because we thought we were getting the detail today from Dutton. Not so. Peter Dutton, that is, on nuclear energy policy. I'm just interested in your thoughts. As a bit of a hard headed economist, you'd surely be waiting to actually see the figures on this and what it would cost the government to support the policy to make sure it's worthwhile.
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER NEW SOUTH WALES LIBERAL PARTY PRESIDENT: Sure, Tom, of course, we need to see the policy details before we can make any sort of judgement about it. But I mean, what we do know is that these policies in other parts of the world, or these nuclear reactors in other parts of the world, are having a very successful and meaningful impact on reducing emissions driving economies towards net zero, and ensuring that we can ensure the future of the planet. That's what this is all about.
CONNELL: So whatever that government amount of money needed, you'll have a read of it, and think whether it's you know, represents value for money or not.
FALINSKI: Well, what we know already from the CSIRO reports and some of the unpacking of those reports is that nuclear energy, compared to renewables, is very cost effective. In fact, it may be cheaper than renewables, but we'll have to wait to see what the final figures are before we can make any sort of real determinations of this issue. But Tom I keep going to these things with people like yourself and others, which is, if we are so afraid of nuclear energy and it's such a bad idea, why do you need to ban it? Because we know what's really going on here. We know that this is actually the renewable energy sector, the billionaires that have put millions of their dollars in there, that the only thing that is keeping those investments afloat is the flow of taxpayer funded subsidies, and they are desperate to make sure that those flows continue.
CONNELL: Pat on Labor's plan. I mean, one of the big unknowns is how the transition goes, where demand actually ends up. So if the renewables side of things falls a bit short, it's a bit more difficult. It's behind. The only way to make that up in the short term is gas, isn't it? So Labor's plan might have a lot more gas and therefore emissions than you're planning.
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: Our plan is to get to 82% of our energy generation by renewables by 2030 and we're already working on that plan. I've been down to Collie to see the big batteries we announced recently here in the West. Offshore wind zones, to get that new, affordable, reliable energy into the grid. I think that really is the contrast here, which is our plan is happening right now, displacing old forms of generation, such as coal, getting new, clean, reliable, affordable energy into the grid. And our plan is happening now in 2024.
CONNELL: Labor's behind on that 82%, that's everything I read around the sort of forecasts.
FALINSKI: Yes, it is.
GORMAN: We continue to make progress towards that 82% renewables by 2030. We never said that this was an easy transition. When we talk about the transition to net zero, we're talking about the largest economic change since the Industrial Revolution. It's bigger than the internet, bigger than the space race. It is a big project, and we all need to work together, but we also need to hold people who are putting false solutions to account. Mr. Dutton is putting forward a false solution, he's so embarrassed that he can't even release the costings. I mean, I thought today at CEDA, of all places, that we would see the costings. Maybe we're getting it one day.
CONNELL: We can't wait. Jason's going to read it and give us his honest assessment. So we are looking forward to it. We'll have a special version of the panel, maybe that day, because you're both so keen on it. Let's talk about the RBA.
FALINSKI: I might start, well, maybe the day after Tom.
CONNELL: The day after, okay. Patrick, the RBA, the Greens actually saying there'll be no deal on the RBA reforms, unless you use section 11 and just cut interest rates, that sort of radical move. Does that make you think, gee, we're in trouble when this hung Parliament inevitably happens after the next election?
GORMAN: Look, it's just such a silly proposition that I don't think anyone who's followed Australia's economic history would take it seriously. I think even Adam Bandt would struggle to say that with a straight face, which is why he sent one of his junior shadow spokespeople out to say it. It's a ridiculous suggestion. The Greens are out of control when it comes to what they are putting forward. They're putting forward all of these ideas that will just make the problems they seek to address even worse. It is not in Australia's national interest to have that sort of intervention on the Reserve Bank. It's an independent body. That's the decision the Parliament has made time and time again, to have it as an independent body. And as for the shape of the Parliament after the next election, I think this is another reason that shows actually what I'm seeking to do, what my party is seeking to do, which is to remain a majority government, because that is in the best interests of Australia. There are, you know, some of these ideas. I mean, I feel like as I said, I don't even think Adam Bandt can say it with a straight face. That's why he sent out someone else to say it.
CONNELL: Well, that's what they're putting out there. You know, majority government, maybe not on 31% of the voters. Jason, you must be torn here. You're going to support Pat or back the Greens in? You like radical ideas every now and then.
FALINSKI: Look, I love radical ideas, and I don't think Pat's being fair. This idea has been tried before. It was tried in Germany in the 1920s. Turkey and the Argentinians have been trying this recently, inflation of 80%. I mean, you know, why is everyone so down on the Greens today? I mean, seriously, such innovative thinking. You know, they've gone around the world and they've tried to find someone who's doing even worse than we are. And why don't we implement their policies? They are economic vandals at the bottom of the garden. They really are.
CONNELL: They should at least be giving away wheelbarrows for the cash we'll be carrying. Jason, is that what you're hinting at there?
FALINSKI: I mean, you know, does anyone still use cash these days Tom? But yes, you're right. You're right. If people were using cash, we'd need, we'd need wheelbarrows, recycled of course.
CONNELL: I mean, the issue is, regardless, you have to deal with the Greens in the Senate. Patrick, is your sense that nothing will get done between now and the election? They're just determined to sort of go to war with you. So the rest of this parliamentary term is basically pointless?
GORMAN: That's a question both for the Greens and for Mr. Dutton and the Coalition. We continue to put forward policy in the national interest. We believe our reforms to the Reserve Bank, to have both a governance board and a monetary policy board, is the right call. That's why we've put it forward. On Help to Buy, again, where you saw the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation and the Greens all ganging up against Help to Buy. I mean, help to buy has helped thousands of people in my electorate buy their first home. It's a really good plan. I know that Adam Bandt is coming over to WA in a couple of weeks, people will laugh at him for blocking Help to Buy, because the Keystart program here in WA has been a huge success. He can't explain why he's blocking it, other than for the pure politics of opposing, always seeking to block rather than to build.
CONNELL: Quickly on that. Jason, so your super, well, not yours, but your party's superannuation for houses means you can borrow more money, take money out of your super and then pay your super back later when you sell the house. Labor's Help to Buy would be the same thing, but the government, the government pays a part of it. You pay the government back, so why not support Help to Buy?
FALINKSKI: Because essentially, Help to Buy doesn't actually achieve what super for housing does. Super for housing allows, particularly young Australians, whose greatest barrier to entry at the moment is the fact that we're not building enough houses for people to buy while running one of the largest immigration programs in our nation's history, while re-electing people like Clover Moore, who clearly hate anyone new coming in to her part of the city. So all of those things are driving up the price of housing, which creates a situation where young Australians are unable to save for the cost of the deposit for a new house. Help to Buy doesn't actually achieve that. It subsidises it, and it creates a situation where you're pumping yet more money into the housing market coming from taxpayers. So it's not achieving what it needs to. But Tom, as we've pointed out previously, while these policies are good, they don't have supply functions.
CONNELL: No, I know we need supply. Sorry, we're out of time. I'm in trouble. I shouldn't have asked that last question. Jason, Patrick, talk again soon.
