Peter Dutton’s speech, and let the election begin

In this early episode of Inside Politics, we come to you soon after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton gave his budget reply speech on Thursday night, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese all but certain to call an election on Friday morning.

Did Dutton's speech, which moved to intensify the contest over household budgets, one-up the government's budget earlier in the week?

Inside Politics host Jacqueline Maley dissects all the news with chief political correspondent David Crowe and senior economics correspondent Shane Wright.

Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

S1 (00:01):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Usually we bring
you this podcast on Friday, but we're bringing this episode
on Thursday, March 27th. So it's Canberra's version of Christmas,
Federal Budget Day. On Tuesday, the Albanese government handed down
its fourth federal budget. We got a tax cut, which

(00:21):
the opposition has labelled a cruel hoax and a largish
deficit in the forward estimates. With a little bit of
something for everyone. It was very much a pre-election budget.
But will it win voters over? But first up, we're
bringing you this episode soon after Peter Dutton gave his
budget reply. And so we'll dissect the opposition leader's speech
before delving into the issues of the week and the

(00:42):
government's budget.

S2 (00:44):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, to Australians listening tonight,
thank you very much for your time. Soon you'll have
a say in determining the future of our great country.

S1 (00:53):
So we're coming to you. Late on Thursday night, after
Peter Dutton's budget reply speech in the House of Representatives
and zipping over from the house to the press gallery,
we have Shane Wright and David Crowe. Meanwhile, I'm at
home in Sydney. Hi, guys.

S3 (01:08):
Hello, both.

S4 (01:09):
Hello to all.

S1 (01:10):
Okay, so let's talk about the Peter Dutton speech. First
of all, just David, you just want to give us
a quick, quick run through of the main measures or
main promises. He made.

S3 (01:19):
The main messages in terms of policy were things that
he has mostly already announced. We already knew that he
was going to cut fuel excise, for instance, and we
heard more about that in the speech. Um, but clearly
he's decided not to go anywhere on personal tax cuts.
So it was the absences in the speech that were
as interesting in a way, as the things that he

(01:41):
talked about. He also had a big message about passing laws, um,
in the first days of a Dutton government to do
things like manage community safety, manage migration, uh, address the
housing shortage and guarantee funding for things like health and
the NDIS, tried to defend himself against Labour attacks about

(02:02):
spending cuts. However, what he didn't have was clarity about
his migration target. Um, an actual policy about housing supply
or in fact, any really new policy about community safety,
even though that was a big theme of the speech.
So he's clearly keeping his options open for further policy

(02:23):
announcements during the campaign.

S1 (02:26):
Yeah. Shane, what did you think about the sort of
funding side of things? Because he did announce, I mean,
they're meeting or matching labor on a lot of the
sort of more social measures, right, like the Medicare funding, PBS.
They're also promising the fuel excise cut. And he said
generally that he wanted to make Australia a mining and
agricultural and manufacturing powerhouse again, and they would invest in that,

(02:46):
and that would boost the economy and make more money
to spend on services. But I mean, is is that
a sort of solid enough commitment?

S5 (02:54):
I wouldn't want to build your house, let alone my own.
On that foundation. Um, Jackie. It was interesting because, for instance,
one of their big saving has been we're going to
get rid of somehow 41,000 public servants. And only a
few weeks ago he said. Right. It will save 6
billion a year. Four times that we save 24 billion,

(03:15):
which will mean we are able to pay for a
whole host of things in the speech. He's actually conceded. Right.
We get rid of them eventually. It'll cost. It'll save
us $7 billion a year, but it will take us
over the next four years. That will only save us
10 billion. So you've immediately got a $14 billion issue.
He outlined some of the things that they're going to cut,

(03:37):
which we knew, such as the National Reconstruction Fund. But
that's off budget. So that doesn't hit the bottom line.
During the speech he. This is about fuel excise. And
this was just dropped in while he was speaking. He
said yes, we'll provide fuel excise relief. Uh, it'll cost
us $6 billion, and then we'll review it. The we

(04:00):
will review. It was added. So he's given out this
hope that you will get a continuation of the fuel
excise reduction. And I'm glad you picked up on the
other key economic issue, which I want to read it
out because he said my intention is to make Australia
a mining, agriculture, construction and manufacturing powerhouse. Again.

S2 (04:20):
The revenue generated from these revived sectors will create more
money to build new infrastructure, to fund health and education,
and importantly, to equip our defence forces.

S5 (04:31):
That like it's straight out of a like almost out
of a Donald Trump speech where you'd say, we're going
to make these great areas again. Strong agriculture employs fewer
than 300,000 people. Mining employs 300,000 people, manufacturing 881,000in construction,
a bit larger. But that's only 20% of the workforce.

(04:52):
Force who's going to save the rest of the country?
We didn't get a mention of, say, the people working
in healthcare there. The biggest number employed by 2.3 million.
Nothing about the education people. 1.3 million. Professional services. Another 1.3.
So really it's a harking back like we are talking
about where Australia, the Australian economy was 50 years. 60

(05:16):
years ago when Bob Menzies was watching a Holden FJ
roll off the, uh, off the the plant down in
Fishermans Bend in Melbourne. It's really interesting in what he's
trying to hark into, and also papering over the fact
that there is a lot of there's absence, a lot
of detail.

S1 (05:35):
Yeah, that's what I found interesting about that. Um, that
claim or that sort of the generality of it, that
all of these industries, they're just going to grow somehow magically,
without any real policy detail, and they're going to fund
all of the things that we need to fund. And,
you know, the problem of the structural deficit. David, let's
talk about the sort of vibe of the speech before

(05:56):
we were on air. Shane and I were sort of
talking about how at the beginning it was a little
bit dark because he sort of was talking about Australia
under labor, and he was saying that aspiration has turned
to anxiety, National confidence has turned to uncertainty. So he
did paint a little bit of a scary picture. Did
it come out more hopeful? What was the overall atmosphere
of the speech?

S3 (06:16):
Oh, I think in these speeches you have to offer hope.
At the end. You have to offer a better Australia
as your proposition going into the election. So I think
the speech ticked off on that. It's a fundamental requirement
in the budget reply speech, but it was overwhelmingly negative
in terms of the picture it painted of Australia today
and this urgent need to change direction. And he did

(06:38):
lay it on pretty thick.

S2 (06:40):
Now every election is important, but this election does matter
more than others in recent history. It is a sliding
doors moment for our nation.

S3 (06:49):
But he didn't have dramatic new policies to claim a
quick turnaround. So it was a funny combination of some
of the kind of rhetoric that we're accustomed to from
Peter Dutton, negative rhetoric about how bad the government's been
and about how bad they've left Australia without enough detail

(07:10):
about what he would do instead, even on migration. We're
now meant to wait for later in the campaign to
find out what his net overseas migration target will be. Um,
so there's some vagueness there. Um, but let's face it,
he's in a fluid situation, I think. Um, he was
sometimes hesitant in his delivery of the speech as well.

(07:33):
And there were signs that there were some late changes made.
There were some things in the draft speech that we
received under embargo, which then he didn't say. And there
were things that he added to the speech. That's a
sign of late changes and a process where there's been
some editing of the message, and I can understand that
for a clear reason. Late on Thursday, it became very

(07:57):
clear from Labour briefing that Anthony Albanese was going to
call the election early on Friday. We began to get
more clarity about Anthony Albanese's plans, even to the point
where at around the same time we were getting a
draft copy of Peter Dutton's speech. I was getting an
indication that the election would be on May 3rd. So

(08:18):
in that situation, Peter Dutton's not the only part of
the news story is he. And I think in that situation,
when they know that the election is about to be called,
they know not to put all their policy announcements into
this one speech on Thursday night, because there's still some
time to go in the election campaign.

S5 (08:36):
I just want to add, Jackie, and this goes to
what we didn't hear. Like there's this commitment right near
the end of the speech about we will announce significant funding,
extra funding to defense. And you go. Yep. Within two paragraphs,
he'd moved on to schools. And so it's a really
unusual structure. We go from we're going to save the

(08:58):
country from, as he says, asymmetric. We need asymmetric capabilities
to deter a larger adversary. And within 25 seconds, he's
then talking about we need to restore a creek, a
curriculum that teaches core fundamentals. And they are critical thinking,
responsible citizenship and common sense. I wish I had a

(09:21):
class at high school at Cootamundra High in common sense.
I may have got further in the world than just
being an economic journalist, but it was such a, um,
at such an interesting combination of defense into, uh, social,
not social cohesion. This is about social unity and schools.
It's really jarring.

S1 (09:41):
It moved across a lot of subjects very quickly, I thought.
And one notable absence for me was, you know, we
didn't really hear much about nuclear energy. We heard a
lot about gas. And make sure that we have a
gas supply, particularly in the eastern states, and that's going
to bring down energy prices. But what did you think
of that, David? No, no real detail on the nuclear plants.

S3 (10:00):
There has been this question in recent weeks about why
they're not talking much more about nuclear. Um, they're clearly
aware of the electoral or potential for electoral blowback. The
gas policy itself is something that I think does cut through,
in a sense better than nuclear. It's Australian gas. For Australians,
that'll be a popular message for people who have concerns

(10:22):
about how much gas is being shipped off to overseas customers,
when they want lower prices for their winter heating here
at home. The great complexity there is how he tells
gas companies, sorry, you can't sell that gas on the
spot market and make a huge profit because I'm going
to force you to sell it in Australia at a
lower price. so there's a lot to be worked through

(10:44):
on how that actually works and whether it can be achieved,
but I think it does get into a big environmental, uh,
fight that he is ready and willing to have about
shutting down the environmental defenders office, stopping the agitators from
blocking new gas projects and unleashing more gas across the

(11:06):
country for the domestic market. Some people love that idea,
but a lot of people hate it.

S1 (11:11):
Let's just talk very quickly now about the personal pitch
that Dutton made right at the end of the speech.
It was very much a pre-election budget reply. It couldn't
be more pre-election. It's literally on the eve of it
being called. But Dutton got a bit personal towards the end.
He said that he's going to lead with conviction, not
walk both sides of the street. You know, very pointed
reference to his, um, assessment of Albanese's character. He said

(11:36):
that he'd been a policeman, that he'd protected the community,
especially women and children. He'd been a small business owner.
He came from a working class family, and he's a
parent and, you know, believes that family is the most
important unit in society. I mean, that made him a
pretty relatable sort of everyman, don't you think, Shane?

S5 (11:56):
Yeah. And and that's where he was talking, say, about
his wife Kirrily. And he. There was the only joke.
It was a good joke talking about Curly's at home.
She's had surgery on her wrist. She may be watching
this or she may be watching MAFs.

S2 (12:10):
I want to give a shout out to curly tonight,
who's just had surgery on her wrist and is at
home watching with Rebecca, Harry and Tom. Unless maths clashes
with this broadcast.

S5 (12:21):
Because he does have a sense of humour. It's just not.
It's not very often on display. Um, and so you're right,
like I found it interesting, as David mentioned, he was
going to finish up by referencing John Howard, but the
John Howard reference got got dropped.

S1 (12:37):
It was a really it was a personal pitch. pet.
It was like, you know, this is who you're going
to be voting in. This is the kind of man
that I am and is. This is the kind of
man you want for Prime Minister. Vote for me. Right.

S3 (12:46):
So I regarded some of that as well. It's an
essential element of the budget reply speech, telling Australians more
about who he is as a human being. You've got
to do that because you're seeking the highest office in
the land. But, you know, let's face it, he goes
hard against Anthony Albanese and often Anthony Albanese goes hard
against him. So we saw that personal contrast. In some

(13:08):
ways it was a lot of the usual hard rhetoric
we get from from Peter Dutton. Um, we heard we
heard more of that with only a judicious amount of
new policy.

S1 (13:29):
Let's just talk really quickly through the budget measures. Obviously,
the tax cut was the only real sort of new
thing the opposition has already said that they are going
to oppose it, and if it is legislated and they
win government, they will repeal it. It is a pre-election budget,
whether we like it or not or whether it's typical
or not. David, is it likely to contain enough promises

(13:50):
and enough largesse to win over the public as we
go into an election campaign?

S3 (13:54):
I think it's a pretty good foundation as a political document,
and that's when you look at it more broadly, not
just focusing on the new news from Tuesday night, which
was the tax cut. When you think about it in
terms of the $8.5 billion for Medicare. The action on
student debt. There's $2.5 billion for aged care across the board.

(14:16):
There's a range of measures on childcare, for instance, on
urgent care clinics, a school funding deal with the states,
hospital funding agreements and so forth. Across the board. You
see a pretty good foundation there to go to the election.
And bear in mind, I don't think that they were
ever set on the election being turned on the budget

(14:39):
night itself, because if if they hadn't had a budget,
they would have had an economic statement with the tax cut. Um,
and there's a view within the government that they need
weeks and weeks and weeks for this message to sink
in throughout the electorate. So I think the days are
gone where you get a major announcement just two weeks
out from Election Day, because people are now voting early

(15:00):
at those pre-poll places. So you've really got to get
ahead of the game with your message and let it
sink in over the full length of the election campaign.
And that's why I think most of it's out there now.
I have great concerns about the state of the budget
underneath all this, whether the spending is affordable, whether the
deficits can really continue in the way that they're meant

(15:20):
to continue for the next decade. But if you look
at it as a political document, it's actually a reasonable
foundation for the campaign.

S1 (15:29):
Shane, the coalition has made a lot of criticism over
the deficit, which for this financial year, it's about 1.5%
of GDP. How bad is the deficit historically?

S4 (15:40):
So say the forecast is 42.1 for the coming year.
That puts you in the top 1011 budget deficits of
all time.

S1 (15:48):
Okay.

S4 (15:49):
So it is a substantial deficit by. I actually have
doubts whether that's what you'll end up with because some
of the assumptions around commodity prices, they are the ones
that have been changing so much and delivering like delivered
Josh Frydenberg a lot of money and it's delivered, uh,
Jim Chalmers a hell of a lot of money that
hadn't been expected. So I will bet with you now

(16:11):
that we will not end up with a budget deficit
of $42.1 billion. I, I always say like, everyone gets fascinated.
We've got all these figures, but there's always a huge
asterisk because that's not where we end up. It's the
general vibe of things that we're looking for. Okay. And
that's where the issue is that there is these series
of deficits And unless there is a change in tax policy,

(16:36):
if there's a lift in terms of general economic policy
to get the economy growing faster, that would bring down
some costs and also lift revenues, then you are stuck
in this world of ongoing debts and deficit.

S1 (16:53):
David, where do you think voter sentiment is at with that?
Because the coalition is obviously very critical of Labor's economic management.
They say the deficits are too large. They've intimated that
they will make some cuts to the public service. The
government's intimated or strongly implied that they're planning a whole
bunch of other cuts that they're not telling us about.
Do you think average voters are just going to be like, look,

(17:13):
we're in a cost of living crisis. I don't care
too much about the deficit at the moment. I just
want the hip pocket relief. Or will they be looking
at things more holistically?

S3 (17:22):
I think it's more about the hip pocket relief and
not worrying about the bottom line. And partly that's we're
coming out of the pandemic era where there was just
incredible amounts of spending and we haven't returned to the
focus on, you know, what you might call budget discipline
and fiscal discipline from the era before the pandemic. But
there's another thing as well, which is that a lot
of households are really hurting from the cost of living crisis,

(17:45):
and living standards have gone backwards, have not been rising,
and therefore there's a greater expectation on the government to
help those families. And that makes it very hard for
the government to say any government to say sorry, but
we're not helping with that because we've got to focus
on the budget. Bottom line, you can see this across debate.
The budget bottom line does just it just does not

(18:06):
matter in the way that it did a decade ago
or so.

S1 (18:10):
Looming over this entire budget is the very large and
somewhat ominous presence of President Donald Trump in the white House.
His administration is set to introduce more tariffs on April
the 2nd. They're calling that Liberation Day. Trump, of course,
has not mentioned by name in any of the budget documents.
But where does he show up in terms of Economic
and fiscal projections or concerns. Shane.

S4 (18:33):
You can see it in the forecasts around growth for
the US and China. That's the the most obvious aspects.
And it is like we're talking on a day where
Trump has confirmed that he's going to impose 25% tariffs
on the automobile industry, which has a huge impact on

(18:54):
Canada and Mexico. If you're in Treasury, you're trying to
work out what does that mean to our most important markets.
So an extra tariff on Chinese cars like BYD is
the biggest. I think they're now technically the biggest electric
car manufacturer in the world. Their chances of getting exports
into the United States have now been changed because of

(19:18):
a Trump tariff. Does that mean we end up with
cheaper BYD vehicles in Australia? That's why for Treasury and
any economists trying to work out Trump, and what he
will deliver on Liberation Day is so difficult. And so
that's why, again, huge asterisks over all the economic forecasts

(19:39):
in this budget. All the bottom line forecasts. And it's
also an asterisks over whatever Angus Taylor and Peter Dutton
propose because and it's not a fault of them because
we are in a such an uncertain period.

S3 (19:52):
Could I just add just a quick thing on that?
One of the things in the budget lock up is
you get to talk to officials, and I think it's
important to convey, I guess, what you might call just
the the sense of concern from officials. It may not
be written in the budget document, but they're very concerned
about the state of the world economy in the second
half of this year. And, of course, there's total unpredictability

(20:14):
about what happens because of Donald Trump. But let's not
underestimate the level of concern about how bad things could get.
And I don't think that's fully reflected in the budget
numbers simply because there's so much that's unknowable.

S1 (20:31):
Gentlemen, thank you both very much. As we have just heard,
the election will most probably be called on Friday. So
we're going to be seeing everybody again very soon.

S3 (20:41):
Cheers, jacki.

S4 (20:41):
Always a pleasure, jacki.

S1 (20:45):
Today's episode of Inside Politics was produced by Tammy Mills
with technical assistance from Debby Harrington and Josh towers. Our
head of audio is Tom McKendrick. Inside politics is a
production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. To
support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting The Age
or smh.com.au. And sign up for our newsletter to receive

(21:07):
a comprehensive summary of the week's most important news, analysis
and insights in your inbox every week. Links are in
the show. Notes. I'm Jacqueline Maley. This is inside politics.
Thank you for listening.