TRANSCRIPT: ABC Afternoon Briefing
11 November 2024
E&OE
Topics: Cost of Living & Labor's Dangerous Misinformation Bill
Greg Jennett
More on that as it comes to hand, but we are going to push on now and it's time to introduce our political panel. Joining us from Melbourne, Labour member for Macnamara, Josh Burns is back. Good to see you Josh, and out of our studio in Adelaide. Liberal member for Sturt, same to you. James Stevens, welcome back. Why don't we start out, Josh, on Jim Chalmers? He's reminded us or will be reminding us in a speech tonight that he's had 143 international meetings since taking office. More importantly, though, on the Trump tariff proposals, he's got a small reduction in our output. That's our GDP and additional price pressures, which is to say inflation. Josh Burns, what's he trying to do here, build forward defences and blame Donald Trump if interest rates don't come down as quickly as anticipated next year?
Josh Burns
I think, I think Greg, that the Treasurer will outline the full text of his speech later today. But people know is Jim Chalmers a straight talker and he's been honest with the Australian people about the range of economic pressures that were faced, from the war in Ukraine that drove up oil and gas prices to a lot of the other international pressures that have led to the economic circumstances that we've faced. But one thing that Jim has also done is steer the economy in a way that has meant that we've maintained 2 budget surpluses while also bringing down inflation. Used to have a six in front of it, now it's got a 2. But we also know that it's still really hard for people. And until we give people a little bit more breathing room, we've got a deal with the reality of the world that we live in and the reality of the economic the economic settings that we find ourselves in and do our best to manage it so that Australians can get by.
Greg Jennett
All right James Stevens A small reduction in output and additional price pressures is the view of Treasury. Does that sound tolerable? Is this something Australia can just wear?
James Stevens
Well, look, Jim Chalmers should stop talking about the things that are outside of his control and worry about the things that are inside of his control. We know that the cost of living crisis that we've had in this country over the last few years has been very much domestically created by the policy settings of this government. And yes, there's going to be a change of administration in the United States. Yes, that will obviously be relevant to all nations around the planet, not just Australia. But more importantly, Jim Chalmers is the treasurer of Australia. We'd love to hear what he plans to do with the policy levers within his control to help struggling families right now.
Greg Jennett
All right, and could Josh Burns, Australian consumers in a perverse kind of way, actually benefit from the bilateral proposal that is the 60% proposal by the US on China? This is the displacement theory, isn't it? That says goods that might have accessed the US market come to countries like Australia more cheaply. Is that in play?
Josh Burns
Well, I mean, look, I think it's a little bit early to tell. Obviously the US election happened last week and the inauguration of the new president will happen in January, of which then though I'm sure there'll be a series of economic policies that are introduced and Australia will deal with them in that time. So I think it's a bit early to say, Greg, beyond that, you know, what we have done since coming to government is try and restore, you know, a bit of leadership and, and frankly, acting like adults in the foreign affairs department. We're not going to do what the previous government did and try and play politics with foreign affairs. What we're trying to do is make sure that Australia's national interests are represented on the international stage. The Foreign Minister did so in the Pacific and has done so in restoring trade relations on a whole range of fronts from barley and wine and, you know, minerals and resources to China. We've, you know, stabilised the relationship there. Obviously, the relationship with the United States is incredibly important too, and we'll continue to make sure that Australia's relationship with the United States is strong and that we continue to act for Australia's national interest as well.
Greg Jennett
There are many people grappling with these questions. James Stevens, I'll put this one to you as we change tack away from tariffs to other impending decisions of a second Trump administration if it pulls out of the UN climate framework. James, what should Australia's approach be at least on evaluating and then announcing 2035 targets? Should that be slowed or revisited?
James Stevens
Well, the central element of our climate change and energy policy position we're taking to the next election is of course to introduce civilian nuclear generation in this country. And that's only a policy position you can pursue when you're seeking to get to net 0 by 2050. And we obviously stand by that commitment regardless of what other countries do. We've got to do what's in the best interests of our nation and achieving net 0 by 2050 in an Australian way.
Greg Jennett
Just on that, James, do you anticipate that a Trump administration might, from a regulatory alignment point of view or in other ways be helpful to your programme on nuclear?
James Stevens
Well, obviously, regardless of who's in power in the United States, they're a nation with significant nuclear technical capability. The sorts of companies that we would probably be partnering in to build nuclear reactors in this country could well be American. And I would think that a Trump administration would be very positive towards working with Australia to achieve, you know, an increase in at the flow of investment and technology sharing. Obviously the AUKUS agreement gives us the underpinning of trust when it comes to that topic. And we look forward to any way in which the Trump administration might be interested in helping us and working with us to implement the pillar of our policy when it comes to not only addressing energy security in this country, but also getting emissions down and getting to net 0 by 2050, which is nuclear generation.
Greg Jennett
All right, you got your way through that one, Josh Burns, not you individually, but the Labour government, that there might be momentum behind nuclear in Australia under the scenario that James sketches out here.
Josh Burns
I mean, we've had the nuclear debate over and over. This is the most expensive form of energy. And if Peter Dutton wants to subsidise, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars towards power bills, I mean, ultimately it's Australian taxpayers are going to be paying for it. And it's going to mean the higher power bills, higher power prices. It's just ludicrous. And we're not going to have any nuclear reactors in the next 20 years. But let's put that aside for one second. The other thing to say with climate change and, and you know, the geopolitics of it is that the National Party right now literally having parties in the party room, you know, demanding that Peter Dutton dropped the, the 2050 net zero target. I mean, Barnaby Joyce and I think Colin Joyce and yeah, Keith Pitt. And I mean, you know, these names may not be as familiar with some of our ABC viewers, but you know, the whole National Party room is demanding that Peter Dutton drop commitment to climate change because we know that these people don't believe in the science and they are living in a backwards world. So I can understand why James is a bit nervous in Sturt because his colleagues in his coalition are calling for us and the alternative government of Australia to drop climate targets all together. All right and to live under a rock.
Greg Jennett
We'll take that on then. James, since you've been so provoked by Josh Burns, this is non negotiable right? You will not touch that 2050 net 0.
James Stevens
Not only that, but our whole nuclear policy, as I say, is underpinned by the fact that it's a 0 emissions base load technology. So the nuclear policy that we've made very clear, we've announced, we've got more detail to come at that we are unambiguously taking to the next election is completely predicated on the fact that it is what gets us to net 0 by 2050.
Greg Jennett
All right, now, I'm sure I could keep asking you Trump related questions all afternoon, but let's move on to something that is totally within the remit of the Australian Parliament. I'm talking here about information disinformation. So you both saw that dealt with and participated in the debate in the House of Reps It would penalise information that is reasonably verifiable as false and it has to cause serious harm or have the potential to, Josh potential problems here with the Constitution? There seem to be some suggestions from witnesses today that could be the case.
Josh Burns
No, I mean, what this is, this is about making sure our social media companies have higher standards and more transparency around the way in which they're managing the content that's on their platforms. I mean, what we regulate our media companies for the content that they publish. The ABC is regulated. You know, the commercial news outlets and the commercial publishing outlets are regulated. But if you're on a social media company right now, which is, you know, by far the most widely used platforms where people are engaging at the moment, it is a free for all basically. And when you've got potentially information that is being used to incite violence, I mean, the thresholds of what categorises misinformation is extremely high. And when you, you know, it's about inciting violence, it's about potentially causing, you know, serious threats to democracy, to elections. We're talking about information that may be put in by malicious players in a very sophisticated way and that the platforms that are responsible for the content that they provide, that they are publishing have a, you know, greater responsibility to ensure that it's not being used maliciously. I don't think that's too high a principle. And if the Liberal Party wants to be a part of, you know, allowing this free for all online, well, then they can they, you know, they voted for that in the House. And clearly that's what they're looking to do in the Senate as well.
Greg Jennett
Well, let's put the question to James. I mean, is there room for negotiation and amendment here? Do you not see or do you see a case for any attempt to filter false information that is seriously harmful?
James Stevens
Greg, there's no room for any negotiation on this whatsoever. We are implacably opposed to it is completely against the values of the Liberal Party and anyone that believes in that free speech and the democracy that we live in. Josh, has just hit the nail on the head when he talked about the way in which we regulate journalists under this legislation, journalists are exempt from coming under it. We've got a situation where the made the big social media companies will have ACMA say to them, we'd like to have a look at or investigate some post that James Stevens has just put on his Facebook. We may or may not have an issue with it. And they're just going to immediately remove something that I might say in the course of engaging in a free and fair public debate in the middle of an election campaign, because they're not going to want the cost or the risk of having to go through an investigation and particularly deal with penalties. So a government bureaucracy, we'll basically be sanitising what we can and can't say through social media. It's completely against the values of the Liberal Party and anyone that thinks this is a free country.
Greg Jennett
I see you shaking your head there Josh Burns. Why wouldn't it work as James describes it or even worse, to have that chilling self censoring effect on people like yourselves?
Josh Burns
Greg, no one is self censoring online. I mean, it is an absolute cesspit right now where there is a whole range of, you know, anger and, and abuse that is hurled in all different directions. And not only that, we know that there are malicious players who are putting out very specific bits of information that are potentially having, you know, dangerous effects on society and, and on our democracy. So what this says is that the social media platforms need to have a higher standard. And James is right, it doesn't apply to media outlets because there's already regulation that governs them. So it won't affect our media outlets, It won't affect our journalism. It won't affect those publications that are already abiding by the high standards of information and public standards and public interest that exists right now. So this is about ensuring that online is not just a, you know, a platform for misinformation and potentially harmful information that's going to affect our democracy. This is about saying that if you're Twitter or X or whatever, whatever it's called and Facebook, you know, you have a greater responsibility for the content that is on your platform. And I don't think that's such an unreasonable proposition.
Greg Jennett
All right, the Senate's pouring over that now. I'll get a quick and final thought from both of you, not so much talking to your respective policies, but maybe veer off with the Greens example today. Student debts, Greens suggesting that the whole lot be wiped out. I guess that would be superficially popular with many, but James Stevens case for or against?
James Stevens
Well, Greg, let me unbelievably quote Paul Keating of all people. I remember when the hecs system was introduced and he made the point there's no such thing as free education. If you're giving education for free, someone else is paying for it. And what the Greens want to do here is essentially put the burden of that education onto people that might have started their first job at 15 16 years old. They've never gone to university. They work really hard. They're not on the highest incomes. And it's their taxes that will have to go up if the Greens get their way. And just put the debt of people that are probably earning quite high incomes or have the chance of earning high incomes into the future, give that debt to some of the lowest paid in our society. It's really appalling.
Greg Jennett
And a quick one from you, Josh.
Josh Burns
I remember, Greg, at the last election, the Greens said that they were going to support a shared equity scheme for home ownership that would allow people to get into the housing market with a lower a lower deposit. That's actually in their platform. And right now there's a shared equity scheme that allows people to get into the housing market that that the Greens are not only blocking, they're working with Peter Dutton to block it and have done so for months. This is a classic Greens play, but all they've been interested in doing is blocking Labor legislation and standing up and in rallies supporting John Setka. These people are not the party of Bob Brown anymore. They've become far more radical than something else. And I'm not surprised by their latest attempt to try and jump Labour.
Greg Jennett
And I know that it cuts, cuts deep in the home front there in Mcnamara. Josh Burns, James Stevens. We'll wrap it up there. Thanking both of you. See you soon.
Josh Burns
Thanks, Greg. Thanks, James.
James Stevens
Thanks, Greg. Thanks, Josh.