Budget Special

DAVID SPEERS

Tonight, we’re live in Canberra for a budget special. We look at what’s on offer from both sides – who wins, who misses out. And that brutal takedown of the Prime Minister from one of his own. Welcome to Q+A.

Hello. I’m David Speers. We’re coming to you live from the ANU’s Llewellyn Hall in Canberra tonight. And joining me on the panel: independent MP for Warringah, Zali Steggall; Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers; Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce; independent Senator Jacqui Lambie; and editor-at-large at The Australian, Paul Kelly. Great to have you all here.

And it is wonderful to have so many of you here in the room tonight, and a special thanks to those of you who’ve travelled from Goulburn to be here in Canberra tonight with us as well.

Now, remember, you can stream us on iview, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. #QandA is the hashtag. Please get involved.

Now, before we get to our questions, we’re at the end, nearly, of budget week, the election campaign will soon begin. I just want to get a quick show of hands, if I can – who is yet to lock in their vote at this election? Put up your hand. Alright, a reasonable number still in play for both sides.

We’ve got some great questions tonight. Our first comes from Jean West.

JEAN WEST

Why is it that before the general election, regardless of how much we owe, each party can find billions of dollars to entice the general public to vote for their party?

DAVID SPEERS

Barnaby Joyce, let me ask... We’ll go to you first on that one.

BARNABY JOYCE, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Well, what we’ve got to do is make sure that we earn the money. If you want to spend the money, you’ve got to earn the money. And I suppose my portfolio is going to the parts of our nation where we earn money. And the first rule of being an accountant is, if you’re making money in the Pilbara, then you should invest more money in the Pilbara. If we’re making money out of our agricultural sector, remembering eight of our ten biggest exports, and look at everything you’re wearing that’s imported, the clothes, the car you drive, the fuel you use, the television you watch, it’s all imported, somebody somewhere has to put something on a boat and send it in the other direction.

So we do spend money because we invest in those areas so that we can get our nation into a stronger position, as strong as possible, as quickly as possible. And in light of the circumstances before us as well – you’ve all seen President...Prime Minister Sogavare and President Xi Jinping shaking hands in the Solomons. They’re going to build a naval base there. And you see what’s happening in the Ukraine, and we have...we have a completely different circumstances that are before us, so we’ve got to invest to make our nation strong, and we have to earn money. And in some areas, we’ve got to invest to earn money so that we have the capacity to pay for all the things that are so evident in any of the discussions that are happening by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. So... And also, running a government is a very expensive thing, and you’ve got to balance things up.

DAVID SPEERS

Well, let me jump in there, Barnaby Joyce. There are some things in this budget that you yourself have argued against. A couple of weeks ago, you said a fuel excise cut wouldn’t be a good idea – it wouldn’t help cost of living, it would just take money away from roads. So why is that now a good idea?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, because we’re going to maintain our funding in roads. It’s vitally important. It’s an incredibly important piece of infrastructure for our nation. I think that a lot of the issues that... You know, obviously, Cabinet is a collegiate process and you...

DAVID SPEERS

You win some, you lose some.

BARNABY JOYCE

In everything you do. In everything...in every part of life, isn’t that the case?

DAVID SPEERS

And this one you lost?

BARNABY JOYCE

Uh... No, I don’t think it’s a case of losing it. As you also know, with the Cabinet, the decision of one is the decision of all. And that’s... You know, I just want to make sure that we clearly understand the pressures that are coming on us. The reason fuel is going through the roof is 40% of Europe’s fuel requirements, energy requirements, come out of Russia through the Ukraine. There’s an incredible restriction on supply. It’s forcing up prices, and won’t just do it to fuel, it’ll be doing it to food, because 30% of the world’s grain – barley and wheat – come out of Ukraine and the western part of Russia. This is going to have massive effects on our nation and how the globe works.

DAVID SPEERS

We’re all noticing that. Jacqui Lambie, let me ask you, would you actually like to see the government spending more than it is in this budget?

JACQUI LAMBIE, INDEPENDENT SENATOR FOR TASMANIA

No, what I’d like to see is our money being a lot better targeted. That’s what I’d like to see. I mean, if you use JobKeeper as an example, it was great and it helped many people out there, but there was many corporate companies that ended up making massive profits and keeping what we gave them, and they didn’t actually need that money. That is not well targeted. That is a problem.

You know, whereabout next year, or after this financial year, some of the lowest income earners, or all of them, are actually going to be paying a little bit more tax. Yet, in 2024-25, those Stage 3 tax cuts for anybody earning over $200,000 is going to get a nice big tax cut of $9,000. Let’s be realistic up here. I have yet to hear from either side that they’ve got the guts to pull the plug on the Stage 3 tax cuts, and that is what needs to be done. And sometimes it takes courage. And where you lose votes, you will gain them with respect from others.

And it’s time to make some tough decisions. And it’s time to hit those big people who are already on enough money in this country and make sure the ones down the bottom are...we can sustain their living. That is what needs to be done.

DAVID SPEERS

Zali Steggall, Jacqui Lambie has suggested where you could find some savings – not proceeding with the Stage 3 tax cuts. What about you? Are there areas... Just coming back to Jean’s question – this money that gets spent before an election – are there areas where you think there’s been wasteful spending in this budget?

ZALI STEGGALL, INDEPENDENT MP FOR WARRINGAH

There is, but I’d like to first come back to Jean’s question, which I think is incredibly important. Because here we are, after three years of ignoring a lot of the needs that the community are calling for from the government, you get this...this just avalanche of promises come election time, and all this spending, to basically get your vote. But there really isn’t the follow-through, and I think that’s the frustration and the lack of trust in government, because all these promises are made but very little is delivered. I think, yes, there is...there was an absolute sweetener in this budget – we’re talking $3 billion on that excise pay...cut to fuel, for example. I mean...

DAVID SPEERS

Are you opposed to that?

ZALI STEGGALL

Look, I just don’t think it’s wise spending. It’s not... It’s across the board. I am not confident that it’s going to be passed on in full to consumers, because we have very fluctuating fuel prices. It will be incredibly hard to regulate. I think, like JobKeeper, it will probably result in not a very effective way of helping people.

If you compare it, it’s $3 billion to our bottom line. For that, you could be assisting a huge amount of households to reduce their power bills. You could have, you know, solar panels on roofs for low-income earners, and they could save up to $1,000 a year on their energy costs. So there are such more effective ways of helping people with the cost of living.

DAVID SPEERS

Jim Chalmers, Labor did back the fuel excise cut and the other cost-of-living benefits in the budget. Tonight, Anthony Albanese, in his budget reply, has also announced further...a boost in aged care services that I think is worth – you can correct me if I’m wrong – is it an extra $2.5 billion?

JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW TREASURER

It is. It is.

DAVID SPEERS

So, look, well, tell us, is this also, as Jean suggests, a pre-election spending measure?

JIM CHALMERS

No, of course not. And I think what Jean asked, what Zali said about trust, and what Jacqui said about waste really get us closer to the nub of the issue here. Yes, a lot of people are concerned that we don’t have enough to show for the trillion dollars in debt that is in the budget that future generations will have to pay off. But I think their primary concern is really about whether we’re getting value for money for all that money that’s being borrowed.

Jacqui’s right that there has been tens of billions of dollars wasted in the budget, which would have been better off invested in a better future for the economy or to provide genuine cost-of-living relief for people. So, our issue – the quantity of the spending matters, but the quality of the spending matters as well.

And that’s why I’m really proud with the announcement that Anthony Albanese just made a short time ago, to put the care back into aged care. The aged care system is in crisis. It’s hard to imagine a better use of $2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money than to make sure that we’ve got nurses in aged care 24/7, that we’ve got the right amount of care minutes, that people are getting decent food, that workers are getting decent pay, and that we’ve got transparency and accountability, so that we can do the right thing by older Australians in our community.

DAVID SPEERS

And if a 25% pay rise is recommended by the umpire for those aged care workers, Labor will pay for that?

JIM CHALMERS

Well, the reality is that whatever the Fair Work Commission decides about aged care workers – I think they’re going to make their decision later this year – a government of either political persuasion will have to fund that. The Prime Minister has made that point. The difference is, as Anthony Albanese said today, we enthusiastically support a pay rise for aged care workers. A lot of aged care workers earn $22 or $23 an hour to do one of the most important jobs that we have in our entire community – look after older and more vulnerable Australians – and we don’t think that’s right. The next step is the Fair Work Commission. They will nominate a pay rise and they will nominate a time frame, and whoever wins the election in May will have to fund that increase in pay.

DAVID SPEERS

Paul Kelly, let me... And again, coming back to Jean’s question, it’s about the sort of pre-election spending that we see. At the end of this budget week – we’ve heard from both sides now – how do they compare? Who is being more responsible, do you think?

PAUL KELLY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE AUSTRALIAN

Well, I think we’ve seen a fascinating situation this week, David, with two very different economic presentations. Tonight, from Anthony Albanese, we saw a personal manifesto. We saw him speaking from the heart, filled with emotion, about the sort of economy he wants. And he made clear he wants an economy that cares about people. He wants an economy that puts people centre stage. So he’s talking about the lived experience of the Australian people when it comes to the economy. He’s talking about wages, aged care accommodation, and childcare.

Now, on Tuesday night, we saw a very different presentation. We saw Josh Frydenberg deliver a pre-election budget, and that budget showed strong economic recovery, very good numbers, a great surge in jobs, a very significant improvement in terms of the bottom line. But he was talking about the macro economy, and the macro economy looks very good, but the problem for the government is how people feel about the economy. The problem for the government is the lived experience of the people.

So, essentially, what you’ve got here is, you’ve got the government talking about and documenting the economic recovery, and you’ve got the Labor Party talking more about the people and having an economy that’s people-centred. Now...

DAVID SPEERS

Is either one more responsible, though, given where the economy is at and what the people need?

PAUL KELLY

I thought that the budget on Tuesday night was responsible, and all you’ve got to do is follow the numbers. So, if you look at the increase in revenue, over the forward estimates, about 70% of that went to improve the budget bottom line. That is an extra $100 billion, reducing the deficit over five years. About 30% or a bit under went in tax and spend, that is, went in government decisions in the context of the election. So what that shows is, it shows a budget geared to both the politics and the economics. But Frydenberg knew he had to get a much better bottom line, and he did.

DAVID SPEERS

Let’s get to our next question, which comes from Liam Busst.

LIAM BUSST

If the war in Ukraine exceeds six months, will the government extend a temporary...the temporary fuel excise relief? If not, what strategies will be put in place to reduce the cost-of-living pressures faced by families and small businesses in relation to fuel?

DAVID SPEERS

Liam, thanks. Jim Chalmers, let me come to you first on this. If you are treasurer in six months’ time, and that oil price is still high, what would you do?

JIM CHALMERS

Well, the reality of how the legislation that passed the parliament is designed is that petrol prices will go down in the next couple of weeks and they will come up again in September, when the excise relief comes off. And what I’ve tried to do is to be really up-front and say it will be difficult for a government of either political persuasion to fund that petrol tax relief indefinitely.

Now, we don’t know what the budget will look like. We don’t know what the economy will look like. We don’t know what the situation will be in Ukraine. We don’t know what the petrol price will be, necessarily. But it’s important to recognise that what the government did on budget night was to take a big problem in our economy – high energy prices, particularly petrol – and to take it from one side of an election and just push it to the other side of the election.

DAVID SPEERS

So, it’s just... Coming back to the question, though, just to be clear what you would do – it sounds like you’re leaving a bit of room there to...mm, do whatever.

JIM CHALMERS

Well, I’ve been consistent since Tuesday night, and I’ve said that, you know, we don’t pre-empt the conditions that we would inherit, we don’t know what the economy will look like, but my inclination is to be up-front and tell you, whether Josh Frydenberg is the treasurer or I’m the treasurer, or somebody else, it will be very difficult to afford to continue that excise relief forever. Now, I could sit here on one side of the election and tell you what you want to hear – that it could continue forever and all of the rest of it – but one of our criticisms of this budget is that it hasn’t been up-front with you about the economic circumstances or the budget circumstances. There’s $1 trillion in debt, not enough to show for it. This government will go to the election with the worst set of books that any government in the history of federation has taken away from...

DAVID SPEERS

OK, I think we’re getting a little bit away from the question. We’ve heard the point.

JIM CHALMERS

And so we have to take that seriously...

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

JIM CHALMERS

...and that means being responsible and being up-front with you.

DAVID SPEERS

Barnaby Joyce, will you be up-front? If the Coalition’s still in power, would that fuel excise go back up in September?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, it’s, you know... No, I’ll be completely up-front. We’ve said it’s a measure for six months, and that means it’s a measure for six months, and it seems very similar to what Jim has said. It’s the same position. We have to be realists – that’s what you want, you want the truth. We’ve got to...we’ve got to pay for anything – anything you want has got to be paid for. And I think the big difference we have is we tell you how we’re going to earn the money and the Labor Party tells you – and a lot of things that have merit – how they’re going to spend the money...

DAVID SPEERS

OK, I think you’re getting a little bit away from the question, and into the politics.

BARNABY JOYCE

But you’ve actually got to earn the money before you spend it, otherwise you’re just borrowing.

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

JIM CHALMERS

It’s all borrowed money, Barnaby.

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, we’ve had the...

JIM CHALMERS

That’s the point that Jean was making and others have made – it’s all borrowed money.

BARNABY JOYCE

We’ve actually had a massive turn...

JIM CHALMERS

You haven’t made the money.

BARNABY JOYCE

We’ve had a massive turnaround in what was predicted and where we are, we are bringing that. And the biggest increase in the trajectory of debt was after the Rudd years, 30% per year – if that trajectory had continued on, we would never have had the money to support ourselves through the COVID pandemic.

JIM CHALMERS

(LAUGHS)

DAVID SPEERS

OK, we’re going to come to debt very shortly in a separate question. But I just want to make the point too, that a lot of what’s happening with that oil price is because of what’s happening in Ukraine, and people would have noticed that late today we had Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy address the Australian parliament. Paul, I just wanted to get your thoughts on this address. He called for more support, the Prime Minister has tonight announced another $25 million in military support. How significant was this address?

PAUL KELLY

I think this was a really special event tonight for this country and for the Australian parliament. The President of Ukraine spoke in an inspirational, highly effective, moralistic and pragmatic way. He talked about the evil that his country faced from Russia, said that if Russia was not stopped now it would have to be stopped at some point down the track. He drew the comparison between Australia and Ukraine – we’re separated by this enormous distance, but we’re united by our sense of freedom and democracy. And he then made a series of requests. He wanted more action on sanctions, he wanted Russian ships denied access to international ports, he wanted more military assistance from Australia, and, very significantly, he said, when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine in the future, he wanted Australian involvement in that.

Now, the Prime Minister indicated there will be more military support coming from Australia, but I think that we do need to do more. I recognise that the contribution from the Australian government has been significant, but this war is likely to go on for quite some time, and democratic nations are going to be under pressure to do more, and we should do more.

DAVID SPEERS

Well, I want to go to the next question, which does come...bring us back to this question around debt. It comes from Talia Shevchenko.

TALIA SHEVCHENKO

So, with the current tax breaks and the short-term budget handouts, this is just going to add to the rising debt in Australia. Are you expecting my generation to pay back this debt?

DAVID SPEERS

Barnaby Joyce?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, we are, actually...as I’ve said, we’re turning the situation round at a rate of knots. You know, don’t judge my view or judge Jim’s view. The people you have to listen to are Standard & Poor’s, Fitch’s, Moody’s, who have Australia with a AAA rating. So, their perception about Australia, what that means, we’re up there with Sweden, Norway, we’re better than the UK, better than the United States of America. So the independent arbiter is the ratings agencies, and they say we’re doing a very good job.

DAVID SPEERS

What about what you’ve said in the past, though, Barnaby Joyce? When you were in opposition, net debt was around $90 billion at the time, you said this, “We’re in hock to our eyeballs to people overseas. We’re getting to a point where we can’t repay it.” Net debt is now $700 billion for the coming financial year.

BARNABY JOYCE

OK, well, the thing I said, and, in fact, I’m very aware of what I said at that point in time, I said the amount’s not the issue, the trajectory is the issue, and the trajectory was out of control. And...and that is the trajectory that, before the COVID pandemic, Treasurer Frydenberg had taken us back to a balanced budget. So that is an incredible thing to do in the circumstances we are, it’s something the Labor Party before us, in the terms before us, hadn’t done.

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

BARNABY JOYCE

And going back to the point, ‘cause I think it’s really important we answer the question, we need to talk about your generation – the base of the age of people at ANU, where my daughter goes. One of the biggest things, we’ve got to make sure... You can see what’s before you on television tonight. You can see it there, and it’s just mentioned there. That’s the big issue that’s before you. And if we...have got to be so adroit in this space, because when a person can just arbitrarily, as a tyrant, go into another country, a democracy of 44 million people, and start murdering people, and when you look at the heroic figures that are trying to deal with that...

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

BARNABY JOYCE

...and when we look at the circumstances and our position in the world, if we get this wrong, and we don’t want to – that’s why I always say become as strong as possible as quickly as possible – you are the people who are going to have to manage that.

DAVID SPEERS

OK, I want to come back to the debt point, though. Jacqui Lambie, are you at all worried about what’s being piled on to the next generation?

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah, I’m not... I’m quite sure that you don’t have any children, but the trajectory that we are heading, it won’t be just you paying for it, it will be your children – that’s how I see it. I can tell you there is a lot of waste in this country. You’ve only got to look at those submarines – my goodness me. You might as well write them off, ‘cause by the time they’re built, they’re obsolete. We’ve got Buzz Lightyear running around where we’re going to spend $1.3 billion...

DAVID SPEERS

(LAUGHS)

JACQUI LAMBIE

...on an imaginary space station. You know, I don’t mind playing Woody here, but seriously?

PANELLISTS

(LAUGH)

JACQUI LAMBIE

You know, it is about priorities in this country, and we are not prioritising where the money should be going, and that is the problem. Stop with the pipeline dreams that are never going to happen and get down to reality, and start helping people out, ‘cause that’s what needs to be done.

DAVID SPEERS

Jim Chalmers, let me ask you, on the question about, you know, the next generation...

JIM CHALMERS

Yeah.

DAVID SPEERS

...being saddled with this debt. You know, as I mentioned earlier, you’ve backed in all of the budget spending this week, tonight more spending that Labor has committed to on aged care. Would you also do something more urgently about debt to stop the next generation and, as Jacqui Lambie says, the one after that having to pay it all off?

JIM CHALMERS

Well, I think that is the big risk, that we’ve got this generational debt without a generational dividend. And so our responsibility to you – or certainly how we see it in the Labor Party – is to make sure that we have a longer-term view about this country, its communities, its economy that goes beyond the next election. Our criticism of the budget is that it’s only got a shelf life of six or seven weeks, and at the end of it, we’ve got all this debt, but what do we have to show for it?

And so our responsibility is to say to you, you know, how do we ensure that our society and our economy is stronger after COVID-19 than it was before, so that what you inherit from us is not just $1 trillion in debt, it’s an economy where people have a genuine role to play, and a community that’s inclusive, and all of the rest of it. And so that’s why our policy agenda goes well beyond the next election, it’s why it’s about...

DAVID SPEERS

But on debt – sorry, just to come back to debt – would you do anything more urgently about it?

JIM CHALMERS

Well, we said that the key to the debt that’s in the budget right now – $1 trillion in debt in the budget right now – the key is what we have to show for it, right? And so if we want to make an investment, like we said today, in the aged care workforce, or if we want to invest in TAFE and training, as we’ve announced before, childcare, the digital economy, cleaner and cheaper renewable energy, then our responsibility is to see where else in the budget we can make room for it. And we’ve already said there’s a role for trimming the billions of dollars that federal government spends on contractors and consultants.

DAVID SPEERS

But just on...

JIM CHALMERS

There’s a role for cutting back on some of the waste that Jacqui Lambie has rightly identified.

DAVID SPEERS

If you cut all the consultants, right – and this town, Canberra, knows well how this works – would you then have to backfill...beef up the public service?

JIM CHALMERS

Well, the issue with that, David, and I’m pleased you ask, is it’s actually cheaper to have full-time public servants doing a lot of this work than paying consultants to do it. There’s always a role...

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yep. Yep.

JIM CHALMERS

There’s always a role for expert advice.

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yep.

JIM CHALMERS

Nobody’s saying we take the contractors’ bill from here and make it zero. What we’re saying is the public service here in this town has been hollowed out, a lot of the functions that people would rightly expect the public service to deliver is being done externally, and that’s not getting value for money, because it costs more to do it externally than it costs to do as public servants. That’s one example of a saving that we have said that we would make.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright.

JIM CHALMERS

I think there’s also an opportunity to get some of these big multinational corporations to pay their fair share of tax...

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yep.

JIM CHALMERS

...in Australia, to work with other countries to make sure that some of these big mobile companies pay their fair share of taxes – that’s another way we can repair the budget.

DAVID SPEERS

Zali Steggall, let me come to you, and coming back to Talia’s question about debt, would you support more urgent budget repair?

ZALI STEGGALL

I would like to see more fiscally responsible spending. So, for example, in the budget, when we talk about debt and the intergenerational debt, we now know the price of Barnaby’s consent for net zero before COP26 – it was between $15-20 billion on the budget bottom line.

DAVID SPEERS

Is that right?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, I think it’s really important that we understand that we are making sure our economy is stronger. When we invest in the Pilbara, it’s because we export iron ore. We invest...

DAVID SPEERS

Just quickly, is the price tag right? $15-20 billion?

BARNABY JOYCE

I don’t see it as a price.

ZALI STEGGALL

Billion. Billion.

BARNABY JOYCE

I see it as an investment to make us stronger. Tonight, in Mr Albanese’s budget reply speech...

DAVID SPEERS

Well, let’s not get to the budget reply.

BARNABY JOYCE

...he didn’t mention the word ‘regional’ once, or actually tell us once how he was actually going to earn more money for this economy. And what...

DAVID SPEERS

I just want to be clear on this – this was the deal, though, the net zero by 2050 deal you did.

BARNABY JOYCE

And what Zali’s talking about is an investment that we are making so that we can export more iron ore, export more beef, build the dams, export more coal so we can actually pay for your NDIS, pay for your Social Security...

DAVID SPEERS

But some of that spending, Barnaby Joyce...

BARNABY JOYCE

Because if people don’t talk about how they’re going to earn the money...

DAVID SPEERS

OK, OK.

BARNABY JOYCE

...then you can’t spend it.

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

ZALI STEGGALL

That is just spin. We know, for example...

BARNABY JOYCE

What...?

ZALI STEGGALL

...you’ve got about $7 billion allocated to dams that don’t pass the sniff test – like, they have not been approved by the body that was resp...

BARNABY JOYCE

But, Zali, Zali, they were...

ZALI STEGGALL

I’ve listened to you, so just a moment. They, for example...they have not got a business case. There is no sound business case backing you up. It’s the usual promises before an election. The question of how much will ultimately get built is probably questionable. But for your generation, what you could do with $7 billion is huge in terms of actually investing into future infrastructure that will reduce the cost of living.

BARNABY JOYCE

But...but...

ZALI STEGGALL

For that price, do you realise...

DAVID SPEERS

Can I just clarify something with you, Barnaby Joyce...

ZALI STEGGALL

...that 860,000 households could have solar panels on their roofs...

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

ZALI STEGGALL

...and save $1,000 a year?

DAVID SPEERS

The dams...

ZALI STEGGALL

Now, that is help.

BARNABY JOYCE

Zali, we have more...

DAVID SPEERS

The dams that Zali Steggall’s talking... Barnaby Joyce...

BARNABY JOYCE

...solar panels per capita...

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

BARNABY JOYCE

...than any other country in the world.

DAVID SPEERS

Let me just ask you about the dams.

BARNABY JOYCE

Rooftop solar panels. So we’re doing quite well.

DAVID SPEERS

Barnaby Joyce, one of those dams is $5.4 billion.

BARNABY JOYCE

That’s correct.

DAVID SPEERS

You’ve committed to the Hells Gates Dam in Queensland. It doesn’t have a finalised business case or environmental approvals.

BARNABY JOYCE

That...

DAVID SPEERS

Wouldn’t it be better, before you spend our money, to make sure the business case stacks up?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, David, it was actually recommended by the Queensland government. It was an item of critical infrastructure by the Queensland Labor government. And now...

DAVID SPEERS

You still do a business case, though.

BARNABY JOYCE

And now we hope for the Queensland... And we are doing a business case. Now we are hoping that the Queensland Labor government actually backs their rhetoric up. I’ve got a feeling, because they’re basically owned by the Greens...

DAVID SPEERS

Wouldn’t it be better to get that business case before you spend the money?

BARNABY JOYCE

David, I’ve never seen a dam in Australia... I haven’t seen one dam that people want to pull down. Because, ultimately, as you get... Water is wealth, a dam is the bank. You’re going to get your hydroelectricity if you want renewables, you’ve got the water for hydrogen if you want to produce hydrogen as a renewable, you’ve got 60,000 hectares of further irrigation to help feed Australia and feed other people in the world, it’s about 150,000 acres...

DAVID SPEERS

But you’ve got to make sure it’s worth the investment.

BARNABY JOYCE

...it brings other mineral precincts on board – it earns money...

DAVID SPEERS

Jim Chalmers, would you back this Hells Gates Dam?

JIM CHALMERS

We want to see the business case.

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

JIM CHALMERS

You know, we’re inclined to support big water security projects in regional Queensland, but I think it’s reasonable that we see a business case. The other thing that’s important to remember, and this is across the infrastructure budget, the government puts in the newspapers these big multi-billion dollar numbers – in the budget, over the forward estimates, I think there’s only a few hundred million dollars for that particular dam.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright, let me... Talia, just... We’ve probably lost the microphone. There it is. Talia, are you, I don’t know, comforted at all by what you’ve heard about the debt and the next generation having to wear it?

TALIA SHEVCHENKO

(CHUCKLES) If I’m being honest, Mr Barnaby Joyce, I don’t really think you answered my question. I believe that you...I believe that you said that we are in a better position compared to other countries.

DAVID SPEERS

Right.

TALIA SHEVCHENKO

But just because we are, shouldn’t we still strive to be better?

DAVID SPEERS

Yeah, quick answer on that one?

BARNABY JOYCE

With... On the financial side, that’s why we’re investing in how we actually make money, so that we are in a stronger position. They talk about, Talia, expanding the economic pie. You hear that all the time. We’ve actually shown you in our budget exactly how we’re going to expand that pie.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright, let’s get to our next question, and we’ll come back to some budget questions shortly. Our next one, though, is on another topic that made some headlines this week, and it comes from Stuart Loughton.

STUART LOUGHTON

Thanks. When Scott Morrison’s own party says that he is a bully, a liar, he has no moral compass and is unfit to lead the country, how can he expect the Australian public to consider himself fit to lead the country?

DAVID SPEERS

And, Barnaby, we’ll get your thoughts on that in a moment. But, Jacqui Lambie, let me go to you first on this.

JIM CHALMERS

(LAUGHS)

DAVID SPEERS

Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells this week called the Prime Minister an autocrat, a bully, unfit for office. Did that ring true for you in your dealings with the Prime Minister?

JACQUI LAMBIE

I think for, especially some of the females… I haven’t heard any of the men stand up yet, but that may be just a male thing, but certainly for females up there, I cannot take anything away from what Connie Fierravanti-Wells said straight out of her mouth and straight to the point. And I can tell you she did it very, very well. It was not nasty. It was just the truth. And that is the truth of the matter.

DAVID SPEERS

So, from your perspective, what’s an example of that? What’s the evidence of...? These are strong accusations.

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah. So, for me, it was when I was trying to do the refugee deal job, you know, it was, it really... And I’m...I’m just going to say it, but it was like dealing with a two-year-old, to be honest with you, on a tempy tanty. That’s what it was like. I... It was either his way or the highway – I refuse to move and I refuse to budge. And I can tell you, I can put up with a fair bit. I’ve spent ten years in the military. I was one of those first girls trialled in those combat units. But, you know, sticking your chest out at me and trying to intimidate me is never going to end up in a good result. Now...

DAVID SPEERS

So what did he do, for those who aren’t across what happened?

JACQUI LAMBIE

So, for me, I had no choice. What you would usually do is, if you’re in the armed forces, you’d probably jump the table and just about grab hold of them. But, for me, this was about humanity and about making sure over 1,000 people were dispersed off Nauru and given a second chance at life. So it was worth me just shutting up and taking what I had to take. And I can tell you now, I look back and it brings me into tears that every bit of that and knowing that Nauru is nearly cleared, apart from a few hundred people, that New Zealand is going to take the last of them, and some of those in hotel detention, it was worth taking every bit of it.

DAVID SPEERS

Zali Steggall, just a couple of things I wanted to ask you in relation to this – one, is this what independents should do? These...a secret deal, one issue trade for another issue. Is that how you operate?

ZALI STEGGALL

Well, it’s... No, it’s not how I operate. Look, I welcome that the refugees have now got a resettlement plan.

DAVID SPEERS

Mm. But a part of the deal was Jacqui Lambie voting...

ZALI STEGGALL

I am incredibly frustrated that it took three years and, let’s get real, it’s going to take another three years. It’s only 150 per year for the New Zealand deal. So I find it entirely unacceptable that these poor people have another six years...have had six years in this process. So I personally do have issues with that. No, but what you find – independents, and, I would argue, the crossbench, break the status quo and hold the major parties to account on so many issues. It’s not about secret deals, it is about advancing the issues that our communities want us to advance, that the major parties are avoiding because it’s not popular in the backroom deals.

DAVID SPEERS

And the question from Stuart was about the Prime Minister’s character. Tell us about your experience with Scott Morrison.

ZALI STEGGALL

Look, I have to say, all my experiences with Scott Morrison have been professional. But... And so I don’t have any personal complaints to make. But if I could say as...and I still have trouble thinking of myself as a politician, but as a person coming into this parliament, I have been shocked by the conduct I’ve witnessed in the chamber, in the House of Representatives, where we are there on behalf of so many in our communities.

DAVID SPEERS

What’s shocked you?

ZALI STEGGALL

The slouching, the turning your back to people speaking to you. I think there’s images of the Prime Minister making fun and turning his back to the debate. I think it is disrespectful. I think some of the language used in parliament, some of the throwaway lines, are disrespectful, and not becoming of a person in that role.

Everyone would be really surprised – we have no code of conduct in parliament for parliamentarians. A sportsperson is pulled up by a code of conduct if you bring the sport into disrepute, and we have nothing in parliament. I find that quite shocking.

DAVID SPEERS

Mm.

ZALI STEGGALL

And we know from last year, with the allegations, that parliament has a culture problem. We have a workplace problem, and it has to come from the top. Change has to come from the top. Respect, better standards. And I think it is an indictment on the Prime Minister that so many, and including the Deputy Prime Minister, made those...made comments as well about the Prime Minister’s character.

DAVID SPEERS

This was a text message.

ZALI STEGGALL

That, you know, at a time where we need leadership – we have floods, we have bushfires, we have an unstable international arena, we need a head of state, we need a Prime Minister that commands respect and is trusted...

DAVID SPEERS

Well, just on that, Barnaby...

ZALI STEGGALL

...and it raises grave concerns.

DAVID SPEERS

OK, Barnaby Joyce, let’s get your response, then, to the question – it’s about the character of the PM. There’s the comment you made. Emmanuel Macron called him a liar as well, and so on. I mean, do you understand voters having a bit of a concern about his character?

BARNABY JOYCE

Look, no. I think it’s incredibly important that we understand it’s an incredibly tough job. And politics, by its very nature, by the moment you sign that you’re going to stand for pre-selection, you understand what you’re buying into. It’s not... It is, it is not for the weak-hearted, because you’re running a country, you have the responsibility of 26 million people before you. And it’s a tough game. And so often, as they say about politics, as an adage – and I didn’t make it up, it’s been around forever – it ends in the four Ds, so often. That is death, dishonour, disillusionment or disendorsement. It’s only the lucky ones that actually stand and give their valedictory speech.

DAVID SPEERS

So what do you say to Jacqui Lambie, then, who’s had a different experience with the PM?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, I’d say that...

JACQUI LAMBIE

I...

BARNABY JOYCE

...we can all, in every section…we’ve seen it with so many issues recently, which scream at us, “We can do better.”

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah.

BARNABY JOYCE

And that’s why we had the Kate Jenkins report, because we can do better. We’re not...you know, it’s not saying that’s acceptable. It’s saying that needs to be fixed and we need to work on it. And that’s precisely what we are doing.

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah, well, I’m sorry, but the truth of the matter is that Connie Fierravanti-Wells got done over. She’s one of the best performers up there, she always has been. Because she speaks her mind, because she stands up as a woman, for that, she pays. She is punished for that. And that is why she has not had a ministry for so long, and that is why she was not selected...pre-selected. And that is the truth of the matter. That’s how it went down.

DAVID SPEERS

Paul, what is the context of what Concetta Fierravanti-Wells said this week, and how damaging do you think it is for the PM?

PAUL KELLY

I think it’s very damaging. I mean, this was the week of the budget. This was yet another week when the government wanted to get clean political air. The government wanted to set the agenda around the budget, focus on the economy, and the budget on Tuesday night looked as though it was going to do that. Then we had yet another attack on the Prime Minister, this time from his own ranks.

This was an extraordinary attack, I think, particularly damaging, accusing the Prime Minister of being unfit for high office, of being a bully, of lacking a moral compass. And this is particularly damaging because it feeds into the debate about the Prime Minister’s character, which has been going on now for quite some time. And we did see, for quite a long time last year, one of the Labor Party’s major themes of attack on Scott Morrison was about character. And this is showing up. This is showing up in the focus groups. So there’s no doubt it is a problem for the government and a problem for the Prime Minister.

DAVID SPEERS

Let’s get to our next question, which comes from Ken Moylan.

KEN MOYLAN

My question’s for…mainly for Zali Steggall. From this distance, the Voices For movement appears to be small-L liberals who are open to working with both sides of politics. If, in the next election, you have the role of kingmaker and must choose between the Coalition or Labor, who would it be and what conditions would you attach to your support?

DAVID SPEERS

Zali Steggall.

ZALI STEGGALL

Thank you, Ken, for your question. Look, I would say first and foremost, we need to focus on the job we’re doing now, focusing on the issues, and that is my primary focus for Warringah, to represent them on their issues. And I would argue that if Warringah chooses to re-elect me, it is because they put their trust in me to keep prosecuting the issues that matter to the community. And that is climate change, our transition to emissions reduction, a federal integrity commission and better fiscal discipline around spending. The quick... You say kingmaker – it may be queenmaker! So there is always a lot of implied assumption in people’s thinking.

DAVID SPEERS

I think it’s Scott Morrison or Anthony Albanese this time.

ZALI STEGGALL

Well, again, I think it’s very difficult to deal in hypotheticals. We don’t know the outcome. I think stable government is incredibly important. And so the outcome of the election really does play a big part. But, Ken, you mentioned the Voices Of movement. Now, the question I think that’s interesting is, why are so many communities turning to the Voices Of movement?

DAVID SPEERS

Well, Ken’s question, if we can just stick to that, is actually who you’d back if it’s a hung parliament. This is not an impossible scenario, so who would you back?

ZALI STEGGALL

And, again, this is not a binary choice of... I know you always want to make it a binary choice of blue team, red team.

DAVID SPEERS

Well, Ken’s asking which one you’d choose.

ZALI STEGGALL

Well, I’m telling him...

DAVID SPEERS

I’m assuming he means either Labor or Coalition.

ZALI STEGGALL

I cannot answer that for you because I don’t know the make-up of the Senate, I don’t know the numbers of the outcome, I don’t know the final policy of both sides. What I do know...

DAVID SPEERS

So what would be your conditions?

ZALI STEGGALL

...is my promise to my electorate that I will be strong on climate, I will be strong on integrity and I will absolutely be continuing to be honest and open to my community, to represent their views on the issues that matter.

DAVID SPEERS

So those are sort of the condition areas that you’ll be weighing up in any decision like this. Before the last election, you actually said your preference would be to support the Coalition on supply and confidence in the event of a hung parliament. So has that changed, given the term we’ve just been through?

ZALI STEGGALL

Well, where it’s changed is the conversation we’ve just had around leadership, and I do have grave concerns in relation to Scott Morrison’s leadership. For me...

DAVID SPEERS

Interesting.

ZALI STEGGALL

...I know there are deep, deep concerns within my community about some of the things that have occurred in the last three years.

DAVID SPEERS

So if it was a different leader of the Liberal Party in a hung parliament situation, you might back the Coalition.

BARNABY JOYCE

Josh Frydenberg is paying a lot of attention to this answer.

DAVID SPEERS

Let me just get an answer.

ZALI STEGGALL

There’s a lot of people! Look, I think it’s really important to look to the substance of what government will deliver.

DAVID SPEERS

You’ve just said leadership, too. I just want to be clear on this. If they had a different leader, you might support them into a minority government.

ZALI STEGGALL

That is obviously an open possibility.

BARNABY JOYCE

I’m very frustrated by that because it’s actually the one thing that Ms Steggall can actually give a straight answer on.

DAVID SPEERS

I think we got to a pretty clear answer at the end.

BARNABY JOYCE

The Australian people want to know when they vote for you, if it comes down to you, are you going to put in Mr Albanese or are you going to put in Mr Morrison? And it’s the one question that you actually can answer. I mean, everything else you can commentate on, but this is something that, you are a competent person, you should be able to give a precise answer.

ZALI STEGGALL

Well, with respect, part of the difficulty with the answer is sitting right here – Barnaby Joyce. The difficulty...

BARNABY JOYCE

Is that the answer?

DAVID SPEERS

Let’s just, yeah, explain what you mean by that.

BARNABY JOYCE

Does that mean you’re supporting Labor?

DAVID SPEERS

Let’s just let Zali explain the answer.

ZALI STEGGALL

The difficulty is for a…traditionally a seat that has…for example, Warringah, a traditionally Liberal seat, is incredibly frustrated at the stranglehold the Nationals, led by you, have over government policy, in particular around climate. Now, you didn’t answer the question before around whether or not that $15 to $20 billion was the price Australia paid for a fake announcement at COP26.

BARNABY JOYCE

I can... I can...

ZALI STEGGALL

And there was no money left to deliver it.

BARNABY JOYCE

I can give you a direct...

ZALI STEGGALL

So these are the important questions my electorate do want me to keep fighting for.

DAVID SPEERS

So if Barnaby Joyce is still the Nationals...

BARNABY JOYCE

I will give you a direct answer on that. That is the price of making Australia stronger so we can deal with the issues that are before us in the Ukraine, before us with a naval port in the Solomons. That’s the price. But I’m still... I don’t know, are you going to support Labor or are you going to support the Coalition? It’s something you actually can answer tonight.

ZALI STEGGALL

And, again, I say, no, I won’t be just giving a blank cheque to the Nationals, for example, tonight to do anything they wish.

BARNABY JOYCE

So when people vote...

ZALI STEGGALL

I will consider each legislation on its merit, Barnaby, which is something that I think communities would like to see so many more people in parliament do.

BARNABY JOYCE

Who goes to Government House and gets sworn in as prime minister?

DAVID SPEERS

Barnaby, let me just ask Zali Steggall, because you did suggest there was an issue with Barnaby Joyce’s leadership as well. So would you under any circumstances support a minority Coalition government if Barnaby Joyce is still the deputy prime minister?

ZALI STEGGALL

Again, I’m not in a position to answer that at this point. It will depend on policy.

DAVID SPEERS

OK.

ZALI STEGGALL

Now, for me, net zero by 2050 – incredibly important. Strong emissions reduction by 2030 – incredibly important. We know Barnaby, it holds Australia to ransom on that.

DAVID SPEERS

Paul...

ZALI STEGGALL

So the question will be – what does the party room want?

DAVID SPEERS

Paul, what do you make of this? Should independents be clearer about their intentions?

PAUL KELLY

Look, I understand the difficulty for independents, because clearly they want to attract support from both Liberal and Labor voters. But the single most important decision an independent would have to make if there was a hung parliament is whether to put the Coalition or Labor into office. And of course, we saw this after the 2010 election. So because this is such a fundamental decision, I think we should get something more from the independents. I think we should get some indication about what might be the conditions or the guidelines that they would use to make this decision.

When it comes to the independents who are not incumbents, that is people who are not sitting in the parliament, well, I think then we should get some indication of their political philosophy. It’s no good just saying we believe in climate change and we want a national integrity commission. We need to learn more about where they’re coming from, what their political philosophy is, and I think they do need to be put under pressure and they do need to provide a more coherent answer in terms of how they would line up in the case of a minority parliament.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright, let’s get to our next question, which comes from Jasper Combs.

JASPER COMBS

This question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Shadow Treasurer. Like my peers, I’m faced with the stark reality that I may never be able to own my own house. Faced with this, what are your respective parties putting forward in this budget to help us in this housing affordability crisis?

DAVID SPEERS

Jasper, thanks. And we’ll come to Jim Chalmers and Barnaby Joyce, but let me come to you first, Jacqui Lambie, because this is a big issue in Tasmania, I know, housing affordability, rental prices as well. What needs to be done?

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah. So, unfortunately, in Tasmania, I think in Burnie itself, buying a house has gone up just over 30%. Down in another rural regional area down the south, it’s gone up 64% in the last two years. Rent has gone through the roof. There was many buyers down there that sold out and therefore pushed the rent out. We have a lot more homeless people out there. Our public housing, I can tell you, I can’t even get people emergency housing down there. It is shocking. We’ve got them crying in our electorate every day of the week. It is just godawful. We just cannot keep up with it. For you people out there, I don’t know. I don’t understand how on a normal wage you will be able to possibly pay rent and save money and put money in the bank. It’s just not practical and it’s just...

DAVID SPEERS

Well, Jacqui Lambie, what about negative gearing rules? Where do you stand on that one?

JACQUI LAMBIE

Well, you know, the best thing that we can do is we know that you’re never going to be able to buy in the city, so we need to push youse out into the rural and regional areas. But we need to make sure out there that there is jobs, there is public transport, there is childcare, there is services available. That’s what we need to be doing. And I just don’t think we’re doing that, and the infrastructure is not keeping up with it either. But right now, it is really difficult. And even if you borrow now, it is so expensive.

We’ve got no idea, I’m sure Mr Kelly’s probably got more idea than what I have, I cringe to think what interest rates are going to look like in three or four years’ time. I’m not an economist, but if you go and borrow money now or you go and get a loan for $500,000 or $600,000 – that’s if you can buy a house for that – those interest rates go up by a couple of per cent, you’re going to go under. It’s as simple as that.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright. Jim Chalmers, coming back to Jasper’s question, what is Labor’s strategy to solve this housing crisis?

JIM CHALMERS

Well, we understand that the price of rent and the price of buying a house is going through the roof. The Prime Minister was asked about this earlier in the week, he was asked about challenges facing renters, and he said, “Well, it’s easy enough – go and buy a house,” is the solution to that. And that’s obviously absurd, and shows...

DAVID SPEERS

Well, he was pointing to their First Home Guarantee policy to help people into...

JIM CHALMERS

Yeah. No, I understand, David. We’ve got a couple...

DAVID SPEERS

What’s your plan?

JIM CHALMERS

Yeah. So, we’ve got a couple of policies. We think that it’s important that we begin with social and affordable housing. So, we’ve got a policy to build 30,000 new homes. Our Housing Australia Future Fund is all about that, including making sure that people can live closer to where they work, particularly essential workers, that we can find a home for people who might be fleeing domestic and family violence.

DAVID SPEERS

That’s important. Jasper’s asking about owning a house, though.

JIM CHALMERS

I beg your pardon?

DAVID SPEERS

Jasper’s asking about owning a house.

JIM CHALMERS

Yeah. And so the housing challenge is renting, it’s buying and it’s social, right? And so you’ve got to work out where to begin. And we’ve said we’ll begin with social and affordable housing. We’ve also got a policy to help people save for their first home by tweaking, upgrading the government’s policy. The government, in welcome ways – we genuinely welcome this – copied part of our policy when it comes to people in regional areas. But we’ve also got a policy for people in the suburbs and cities of Australia, which makes it easier to save a deposit, so you can buy a home.

DAVID SPEERS

You did at the last election, though, have that plan, of course, to curb the negative gearing rule. You said this was all about levelling the playing field. Do you no longer hold that view?

JIM CHALMERS

We’re not going down that path, as you know, David. As you’ve asked me on your other show a couple of times.

DAVID SPEERS

But have you changed your view?

JIM CHALMERS

Beg your pardon?

DAVID SPEERS

Have you changed your view?

JIM CHALMERS

I have. Yeah, I genuinely have. We don’t intend to change the negative gearing rules. We do intend to build a heap of social and affordable housing. We do intend to make it easier to save for a home, and we’ll have more policy on this, too, in the election campaign.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright, Barnaby Joyce, what’s the plan to help someone like Jasper own a home one day?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, for the people who are doing it really tough, for homelessness, in that area – and I used to work for St Vincent de Paul – we’ve got about $5.5 billion in the forwards that we’re trying to obviously target on that. Then the next step up is we do believe that the greatest form of security is a house, and so it’s saying, you know, to a single mother, if you can come up with 2.5% – I understand many times that’s incredibly difficult – we’ll underwrite the deposit to 10% to assist you to get into that house. The greatest capital gain you would have got lately is if you owned a house. This is part of our policy. And then there’s another section which...

DAVID SPEERS

Just on that one, though...

BARNABY JOYCE

…I think it’s really important, which was never mentioned tonight, is that we’ve got to make sure that there are opportunities in other areas of our nation where housing is cheaper and more affordable. That’s why we want to develop regional areas. And you have to also work hand in glove with both local government and state government, they’ve all got a role in this.

DAVID SPEERS

On the First Home Guarantee, which you referenced, it allows single parents to only have a 2% deposit.

BARNABY JOYCE

2.5.

DAVID SPEERS

2.5. Would you recommend someone, given what, you know, Jacqui Lambie was saying about interest rates in the next few years, would you recommend someone buy a home with a 2.5% deposit?

BARNABY JOYCE

I know a lot of people who have and I would obviously ask them about where their circumstances are going into the future. I’m an accountant, I’ve done that numerous times. You’d have to look at the circumstances they’re in, the debt they’re taking.

DAVID SPEERS

You’ve got to be careful, in other words.

BARNABY JOYCE

What their forward cash flow position is like. And it’s just like how you do a budget, you’ve got to know what you’re earning and you’ve got to know what you’re spending, and that’s how you make prudent decisions.

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah, the stark reality is this, you can’t get a tradie for the next two years. OK, shipping is going through the roof, materials are costing more. Even if you try putting money away now, if you think you’re in reach of building a house now, you give it another three or four years on the trajectory we’re in, good luck to you, you’re never going to... Your owning an Aussie house, your dreaming of doing that has gone out the window. You’re just never going to do it. You can’t pay rent and save, OK? You just can’t do that, we all know that. Not on minimum wages, it’s just unrealistic.

BARNABY JOYCE

I disagree with that. First house I bought cost me $67,000. Now...

JACQUI LAMBIE

Jesus, Barnaby, I don’t know what planet you’re on, but you’re looking at 600,000 bucks now, and that’s on a good day, fair dinkum.

JIM CHALMERS

Good news, everybody, ‘cause Barnaby bought a cheap house a long time ago, you’ll all be sweet.

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah, your lives are made.

BARNABY JOYCE

What I think I’m explaining is there’s... We have to acknowledge, and I know that people don’t want to, but in areas of regional Australia, housing is a lot, lot cheaper. We’ve got to make sure the opportunity arrives where those cheaper houses are.

DAVID SPEERS

Jasper, does that give you much help, do you think?

JASPER COMBS

I just intended to say that since then, Barnaby, the government has pumped the housing market to the point where that’s a completely unrealistic goal, especially for somebody like me. And whilst I do agree with you that the lower levels of housing are essential, if you want that market to grow, you need early buyers like me and my thousands of peers around the nation.

BARNABY JOYCE

If I go back to that same town now, you can still buy a house for about $200,000.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright. Well, let’s move to our final question tonight.

BARNABY JOYCE

Werris Creek. Werris Creek.

DAVID SPEERS

Werris Creek, there you go.

JACQUI LAMBIE

Is there any jobs there? Is there any manufacturing left?

BARNABY JOYCE

We’re actually...

JACQUI LAMBIE

OK. Thanks.

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, funny you ask that, because we are doing that, and we’ve had a big...

JACQUI LAMBIE

Is it there now? Or are you doing that? Which one?

BARNABY JOYCE

It’s there now.

JACQUI LAMBIE

It’s there now? OK.

BARNABY JOYCE

We’ve got a major distribution hub – Crawfords. We’ve upgraded Quipolly Dam. We’re actually building the economy of New England and the economy of Werris Creek.

DAVID SPEERS

Alright. Let’s move, then, to our final question tonight, which comes from Larissa Karpish.

LARISSA KARPISH

Good evening, everyone. I’m wondering, is it time for Australia to start to cap the maximum term of individual MPs and senators? And I ask the question because of what is often seen by Australians as long-entrenched incumbency, especially when it comes to both major political parties, and I’m wondering if perhaps that is adding to what we are learning more and more about recently in the way of what is seen as insular politics, destructive factionalism and infighting. I think a bit of bullying as well, if I’m not mistaken from what the press tells me. And I’m interested in your views. Thank you.

DAVID SPEERS

Larissa, thank you. This is a really interesting question, particularly to finish on. Paul, I want to come to you. You, of course, watch very closely American politics, where there are term limits, for the president at least. What do you think about this idea of some sort of term limit for the very long-serving members of the Australian parliament?

PAUL KELLY

Look, it’s a fascinating idea, and it’s a really good question. I guess I’m a little bit of a traditionalist on this, and I’m quite suspicious of incorporating American ideas into our politics because generally they don’t work. Look, there are arguments both sides. There are some time-servers in the parliament, there’s no question about that, and the parliament would be better off without them. But on the other hand, there are...

DAVID SPEERS

Do you want to name any names there, Paul?

PAUL KELLY

No, I won’t.

DAVID SPEERS

Present company excluded.

PAUL KELLY

I’ll talk to you when the program’s over, David. But on the other hand, there are a number of very experienced MPs who’ve built up a lot of expertise over time. This is how the Westminster system works, this is its strength. If you look at the way that, over a long period of time, people like Paul Keating or John Howard developed enormous expertise and then became prime minister, you can see that there are ongoing virtues within our system. I mean, I like the idea of having a debate about parliamentary reform, but I think there are problems about how we would actually apply this idea in the Australian system.

DAVID SPEERS

Look, it’s interesting because Larissa’s question also goes to what, you know, a job for life in parliament does in terms of the internal, you know, factional wars and the bullying and so on. I’m keen to bounce this around everyone here tonight. So, Jacqui Lambie, what do you think – term limits on senators and MPs?

JACQUI LAMBIE

Yeah, no, God forbid if you set it in terms of, whether it’s four years, and you’re stuck with a heap of drongos – that’s not going to help the country at all, that’s my first issue. This is what I’d like to see...

DAVID SPEERS

But, just to be clear, a term limit on how long you can serve in parliament – how many years?

JACQUI LAMBIE

Well, it’s not about years, this is more what is going to fix parliament. What you have is a big chunk of the talent pool that is missing out there. Your teachers, your fireys, your police officers, your military, anybody that’s living on just a normal wage out there that’s got a contract with the government, because you are profiting from the Crown. And unless those people give up their jobs to have a run in politics – and if you have a family, there’s no way you can afford to do that – you’ve just kno... You have knocked out a chunk of Australians who can never be or will never be able to run in politics. It’s as simple as that. We need to get rid of that part of Section 44 and give every Australian, no matter what job they’re in, an opportunity to run in politics. And that is when you’ll see real-life people in parliament, and that is when you’ll see a better-running parliament. It’s not about time.

DAVID SPEERS

Well, and that’s a good point too. But if we can just come back to Larissa’s question, Barnaby Joyce. You’ve been in parliament for, you know, around 18 years, a couple of interruptions along the way, but what do you think about a maximum time you can spend in parliament?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, I think it’s a bit like saying the maximum time you can spend as an accountant or the maximum time you can spend in the Defence Force. I don’t think it’s an appropriate thing. I think that what you should be doing is the best job you can, because the people who give you a job are these people, and when they think you’ve spent enough time in politics, they will move you out. And in between that, you also have preselectors, and if they think you’ve been in politics long enough, they will move you out. And that’s what happens. That’s the attrition rate and how it works. Generally...

DAVID SPEERS

Is it working well, do you think?

BARNABY JOYCE

Sorry?

DAVID SPEERS

Is it working well, the party system? We’re seeing a lot of friction at the moment, aren’t we?

BARNABY JOYCE

Well, there always is. I mean, you can go right back to Roman history – if you’ve got politicians, you’ve got friction. It is just the nature of it, and it’s never going to change.

DAVID SPEERS

Jim Chalmers, what do you think about this idea?

JIM CHALMERS

Oh, I don’t think, Larissa, you lightly give away the experience that some of our colleagues accumulate over time – I think a point that Paul was making in one way or another. You know, today, the last day of parliament for the term, one of my colleagues, a guy called Warren Snowdon’s been there since 1987, and he’s one of the great... He’s from Central Australia. I go through communities with him in…you know, on the Northern Territory-WA border. He’s one of the great parliamentarians I’ve ever come across. And if you’d said to Warren – they call him Jilpi in these communities, it means ‘wise old bugger’, actually – if you said to Jilpi, “We would have had you from 1987 to 1995,” then we would have done the country and his community out of all of that service.

So I’m not up for term limits, but I think that there is a role for political parties in ensuring that there’s generational change. And what you want is a really good mix in your team of newer members and members that have been around a bit longer. Some members that have been ministers, some that haven’t. In your cabinets and shadow cabinets, you want people, you know, in their mid-60s down to their late 30s or early 40s. You want a great mix. And so there’s a role for the parties to do the job that I think that you want to see, which is to get the parliament churning a little bit to make sure that there’s that generational change, which is desperately needed at times.

DAVID SPEERS

But just back to Larissa’s question, though. It also links in what this does to the, you know, destructive factionalism, as she puts it. Is there a point there?

JIM CHALMERS

Yeah, I think there’s a role for the parties to make sure that everybody who’s there is making a good positive contribution and that you’ve got a good mix of experiences. And even the point that Jacqui made about getting more people from more diverse life experiences, I think that’s right, too. There’s a role for the parties there as well.

DAVID SPEERS

Zali Steggall, what do you think?

ZALI STEGGALL

Larissa, I think maybe your question comes from that frustration. Do you feel the government and the parliament reflects our society and our community? Personally, I don’t think it does. I think it is very... We don’t have gender equity, and we certainly don’t have ethnic and diversity of professions, as Jacqui said, and certainly are not representative of the community. I think, personally, the party system has failed because it entrenches an unconscious bias. It is a patriarchal system. And you only have to look at the make-up of parliament to see that it is not representative.

I know Labor has made efforts to improve that. I see from the Liberals they are incapable of really having a system that properly preselects. And I think that’s why so many communities are turning to independents. They don’t want the backroom deals, they don’t want the preselection fights of who’s going to owe who what for their preselection. They actually want a member of parliament that will represent the community. So I don’t know that it’s a question of fixed terms for members, but I do think it’s a question of what skills do you bring into the job? And the lifetime, you know, adviser to politician that has never had a career outside of their party room, I think, is a major problem. It does not bring the diversity of life experience that we need in the parliament to tackle the big issues we have ahead of us.

DAVID SPEERS

Ex-staffers aren’t all bad, are they, Jim Chalmers? Well, just quickly before we go – any idea how long you would like to spend in parliament, Zali Steggall, if voters are willing?

ZALI STEGGALL

Well, that will be for the people of Warringah to determine.

DAVID SPEERS

But seriously, you know, you have, like, a career, you know, “I want to do 10 years and then do something else.” Or not something you’ve thought of?

ZALI STEGGALL

I am absolutely committed to see our country embrace the opportunities of a transition to net-zero emissions, right? We have so much opportunity, but we also have challenge. As our east coast is flooded, we have to address the climate risk. And, at no point, of anyone being willing to talk about it, and it was 55 seconds on Budget Night from the Treasurer. So, let’s talk about where our challenges are in the future and where our opportunities are. So, I’m committed to keep delivering on that.

DAVID SPEERS

To sticking around for that. OK, alright. Well, thank you. That is all we have time for. Please thank our panel: Zali Steggall, Jim Chalmers, Barnaby Joyce, Jacqui Lambie, and Paul Kelly. And thanks to our terrific audience here tonight for sharing your questions – some really good ones. Next week, Virginia Trioli will be with you live from Melbourne, and you can join me on Insiders on Sunday morning. I’ll be joined by the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg. Until then, goodnight.