Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash
Shadow Attorney-General
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Senator for Western Australia
TRANSCRIPT
ABC Radio Perth
TOPICS: Text messages, Defence spending, AUKUS, Tariffs, Nuclear Power, Tax cuts, Election night
30 April 2025
E&OE
Nadia Mitsopoulos
From the Labor side, we have Matt Keogh, Member for Burt and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Defence Personnel. Welcome.
Matt Keogh
Good morning, Nadia. Good morning to the audience here with us and everyone listening at home.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
And from the Liberal side of politics, we have WA Senator Michaelia Cash. Good morning to you and thank you for joining us.
Senator Cash
Great to be with you. Hello everybody. And of course, hello to Matt.
Matt Keogh
Hello Michaelia.
Senator Cash
Now if you do have a question, just pop your hand up. We’ll try to get through as many as we can this morning. But I just want to start with those text messages that voters have been getting carpet-bombed with. Now these are coming from Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots Party, and people cannot opt out of them. They cannot make them stop. Anthony Albanese has this morning said he’d be happy to ban these texts, or any texts from political parties. Do you agree it’s time to ban them?
Matt Keogh
Oh look, I think they’re certainly annoying the hell out of people. So many people have raised them with me, and people get very frustrated by getting these texts and not being able to opt out of them. And I completely see where the PM is coming from. If we can find a way of getting them out of people’s lives, I think everyone would be happier.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Because the reality is, politicians have actually exempted themselves from the rules and regulations and the legislation that covers this. So, Michaelia Cash, is it time to ban them from all political parties once and for all?
Senator Cash
I’m a huge believer in freedom of political communication, and I think one of the criticisms would be from voters if they didn’t hear from us, is that “we’re not hearing from you, we don’t know what your policies are.” So, I think, as Matt said, I mean, I keep getting them from this particular person. You can read it or not. I often choose to read it out of amusement and nothing more. But certainly, I think one of the great features of our democracy is freedom of political communication to ensure that people do know what the varying parties stand for, and you are then able to make an informed choice.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Should we at least be able to have the option to opt out of them or make them stop?
Senator Cash
I’m not going to disagree with that. Personally, I think, but for me, it’s delete.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
People don’t like them.
Matt Keogh
Look, people don’t like them, and they’re getting very annoyed by them. And I think that’s what the PM has picked up on in what he said there. More broadly though, and it’s not just about text messages, it’s things in people’s letterboxes, its emails, its radio ads, its television, it’s video. But it is important that we make Australians vote, it’s compulsory here. We need to make sure that they are informed, and that political parties, candidates, independents, wherever they are, can provide that information to people so they can make an informed decision. Now, people will read that, whatever it is that they’re receiving and seeing, and they’ll come to a view about whether they like them or not. And maybe the annoyance factor of these particular methods of communication will inform how people decide to vote as well.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Alright, let’s look at Australia’s place on the world stage, because data for more than 400,000 Vote Compass respondents on the ABC suggests that they want Australia to be less close to an unstable United States led by an unpredictable Donald Trump. Are we too close to the US?
Matt Keogh
Well, the United States is our closest ally and has been since the Second World War, and that is a long and enduring friendship and partnership. It has existed through changes of government here and changes of government in the United States, and it has provided great global stability, which Australia, as a trading nation, with trades across the globe, has definitely benefited from. I think what we’ve seen recently, you heard the PM say putting tariffs on Australia is not the act of a friend, and that’s something that’s caused concern for people. And I think that’s probably what you’re seeing reflected in the Vote Compass results there.
Senator Cash
You know, absolutely. And it doesn’t matter who is actually in the White House, we actually work with the United States of America. And as Matt said, they are our greatest ally. I think from me, the key perspective is that an Australian Prime Minister governs for Australia, full stop. That’s it. But at the same time, you do have to have that relationship with other governments, and in particular at this point in time with the United States. Because when decisions are made, and they were made when we were in government, so for example, to place the tariffs on steel and aluminium, we had a strong enough relationship at that personal level with the United States that we were able to successfully negotiate an exemption from those tariffs. On any analysis now, you do not have that working relationship with the White House. Put aside who’s in it, it’s the working relationship with the White House. And that, I think, is what a number of people do find disturbing. You need that working relationship regardless of who is in it, which we successfully had when we were last in government.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
So should there be concern that the Prime Minister at the moment can’t pin Donald Trump down for a phone conversation?
Senator Cash
Absolutely. I think it’s almost abhorrent that the only thing we’ve had out of this Prime Minister… I think one of the big problems is that they have made such atrocious personal comments about the person who is now the President of the United States. And it’s not just the Prime Minister, it’s also senior ministers. He is now the President of the United States. Whether you like it or not, the American people did elect this particular president. You need the working relationship. You now have firsthand experience, we actually have a tariff on us. As I said, because of the relationship we had, we successfully negotiated that there would be no tariff on steel and aluminium. But more than that, you’ve still got the AUKUS relationship. We need to know that when it comes to AUKUS, the relationship is strong so that at all times, each one of us are acting in the best interests of our own nation, but at the same time working together for a more safe and secure global environment.
Matt Keogh
Well I think Michaelia might be trying to overplay what her team’s capacity would be in circumstances where every country got at least a 10% tariff, which is what happened to Australia. Also happened to Heard and McDonald Islands separately, everyone noted as well. But even overnight, the President acknowledged that he will have communication with the Australian Government directly, but we’re in an election at the moment. That’s important also to remember, we’re in the caretaker process. But at an official’s level, there is continued engagement. And when it comes to AUKUS, you know, the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister met with the Defence Secretary. He was the first defence minister to meet with the Defence Secretary when the new administration came in. There was complete support and engagement from him, and also from President Trump, in relation to the AUKUS relationship. And that continues to be strong and continue forward.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Okay then, let’s look at China, because Peter Dutton is saying China is our biggest threat to Australia’s national security. And given they’re our biggest trading partner, was that a wise comment?
Senator Cash
You have just had a warship lapping Australia. Clearly, China was flexing its muscle, there is no two ways about that. But in particular, conducting a live fire exercise, and the Australian Government only found out about it after a Virgin airline pilot notifies us. I mean, that is actually unacceptable from a government, that they do not have the knowledge that these types of things are happening before they do. But it also gets us to the investment in defence. Someone I’ve always respected, actually, is obviously a luminary within the Australian Labor Party, both at a state and federal level, and that is, of course, Kim Beazley. Mr Beazley has always been incredibly strong on defence. He wants the government to increase defence spending as a share of GDP. That is something that we have said we will do.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
And you’re outspending Labor on that front.
Senator Cash
Well, it’s not so much outspending, it’s out-investing. It’s $21 billion. We’ll take it to 2.5% and then we’ll take it to 3%. What worries me about the Australian Labor Party is that they’ve actually walked away from their commitment to even get it to 2.4%. So, I think when you’ve got people like Kim Beazley, and I think he’s one of the most respected people in politics, saying you have to, as a matter of Australia’s sovereignty and security, increase defence spending to at least 3%, that is something that you need to listen to. And that is certainly what our commitment to the Australian people is.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Are Peter Dutton’s comments unwise?
Matt Keogh
I think what is actually really important is it goes back to the problem we inherited from the last government. Relationships had been destroyed under the previous government. We had no relationship with the Pacific, we had to rebuild those relationships. We saw the trade relationship with China undermined in so many different areas that impacted directly on WA, whether it was barley, whether it was crayfish, whether it was wine. We’ve spent this term of government rebuilding those trade relationships, certainly having engagement where, if we need to disagree, we do but also being able to build stable relationships not just with China, but across the region. That’s in everybody’s interest, including Australia’s interest. When it comes to defence spending, though, what we saw when we came to government was that the previous government had made some $42 billion worth of spending commitments but not actually funded them. And it actually siphoned some $20 billion worth of cuts out of defence during its time in government. What we have done, through the Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy, as well as focusing on things like statecraft, is make an additional investment of $57 billion over the decade. That’s the biggest increase in defence spending since the Second World War. And we’ve done that through reprioritising capability acquisition to the things that we actually need to confront the geostrategic circumstances that we now face. So not just things like AUKUS, but also long-range missiles, which we’ll be building in Australia from this year, things like doubling the size of the surface combatant fleet in the Navy, things like giving Army an amphibious capability. These were things the previous government was not delivering on. They were talking about the problem, but they weren’t actually doing the things necessary in defence. That’s what our spend is going to. And given their track record, it’s great to talk about some other numbers in defence spending, but they haven’t actually said what they’re going to do with it.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
I mean, there is a lack of detail. But just on Peter Dutton and those comments, do you then agree that our biggest trading partner, China, is also our biggest threat to national security?
Matt Keogh
So what we’ve always been very clear about is that we are facing the most difficult set of geostrategic challenges since the Second World War. And that is because there are changing dynamics across our region in particular. But what’s also important is that we are operating in a way that is to maintain the status quo, that is, to maintain that stability. We are not acting in a way that is to destabilise those relationships across our region or the globe.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Okay, let’s go to some questions, there’s a few coming through from our audience. And I should mention too that we’ve got some students from Mercedes College that have just joined us. Mark is a former submariner, keen to get your question, Mark. Good morning and thank you for joining us.
Mark
Thanks Nadia. This is for the minister. I’m a fourth-generation veteran with over 100 years continuous service in my family, protecting this country and everyone in this room. As the minister in the current government, will you place enough money towards those who protect your freedoms? You simply haven’t in the past, and I don’t see enough in the budget now.
Matt Keogh
Okay, so thank you very much for the question. It’s a great Andrew Hastie t-shirt you’re wearing there as well, appreciate that. But it goes to the core point that Michaelia and I were just discussing we need to make sure that we properly resource the Defence Force, and we need to make sure that we’re resourcing it in a way that goes to the capabilities we actually need. What we inherited was a situation where the funding wasn’t actually there. There were lots of things committed to, lots of nice media releases about the investment the previous government would make, but it didn’t actually put the funding there in the budget to support that. We’ve done that. That’s a $57 billion increase in spending above what the previous government was going to do, to make sure that we deliver on those important capabilities we actually need to have. Prioritising those appropriately, as you would appreciate as a submariner, and a big part of that is AUKUS, but it’s not the only part. Making sure we have a modern surface combatant fleet in the Navy is incredibly important. When we came to government, the Navy had the oldest fleet it had had since the Second World War. We have now set about a process of modernising that, replacing those ships, and doing it through a continuous ship build both in South Australia and here in Western Australia. So, it means that we’re not only going to be getting the enhanced capability we need through the right spend, but we’ll be creating intergenerational job and industry opportunities here in WA.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
But they need to be looked after. That’s Mark’s point.
Matt Keogh
Sure. But having the right capability is all about how we look after our people when they’re in service as well. Looking after our people after they’ve been in service has also been incredibly important. When we came into government, there were some 42,000 veteran claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs that had not been looked at by anybody. We employed an additional 500 permanent public servants to get through that backlog of claims, and we have. We’ve also subsequently employed another 141 permanent public servants to make sure that we can process those claims more quickly. The Department of Veterans Affairs is now the best-funded it has been in three decades. We are now working through, as we’ve agreed in principle to the recommendations from the Royal Commission last year, to make sure we are delivering the best system to support our veterans. We made critical reforms to the veterans entitlement system legislation at the beginning of the year, the biggest reform in at least four decades. We are absolutely committed to doing this work.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
I want to go to Janice with your question. Where are you, Janice?
Janice
I’d like to know what Mr Dutton plans to do with the nuclear waste that will come from his nuclear power plant. Humans are very good at making lots of waste, but don’t seem to think down the track what they’re going to do with the waste.
Senator Cash
That’s a very good question. And thank you for your question in relation to our plan for cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy in Australia. As you’d be aware, we have on a bipartisan basis signed up to the AUKUS agreement, which means we will have nuclear submarines here in Australia, but in particular here in Western Australia. It’s actually the Albanese government who have said that, yes, we will be disposing of that waste, and so we will be working with the Albanese government in relation to determining where that waste is disposed of. That’s the mechanism that would be used in relation to eventual nuclear power plants here. But can I just be clear, our plan is for cheaper, cleaner, consistent energy. That means further investment in renewables, obviously getting more gas into the system, in particular on the East Coast to bring prices down, and then moving towards nuclear to ensure that, as part of that transition, when you take coal out of the system, you have the consistent baseload power.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
So at the moment, you actually can’t answer Janice’s question?
Senator Cash
Well, I’ve said I can answer Janice’s question.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
But have you not discussed, have you not thought about this when it comes to nuclear power plants?
Senator Cash
We’ve just said, basically, there will be a mechanism for disposal in relation to AUKUS, and that’s the mechanism that will be used.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Wouldn’t you have identified sites?
Senator Cash
Well, that’s actually, currently the government is in power. They were the ones identifying the sites.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
We’ve never had a nuclear industry in Australia.
Senator Cash
We actually have. You’ve got Lucas Heights.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Okay, but not to the scale that Peter Dutton is proposing with nuclear power plants. Do you really believe the first one can be built in 10 years?
Senator Cash
That is our plan, absolutely. As I said, though, it is about a plan for cheaper, cleaner, consistent energy. Out of the 20 advanced economies, we are the only one that currently does not have nuclear or is bringing nuclear online. You look at somewhere like France, and I saw the bizarre comments of Madeleine King yesterday, France currently has 56 nuclear reactors. Seventy per cent of France’s energy is derived from nuclear. Why? Because they have a policy of consistent baseload power. So, we will be out of those 20 economies the only one going down a path of renewables only. And you have to ask yourself, hey, hold on, why in Australia are we so different? The fact of the matter is, we are not. It is going to literally cost the country, you just have to look at your power bills now. But more than that, it cannot provide Australians with what they desperately need: consistent baseload top-up power when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
And Matt Keogh, surely Madeleine King saying that a nuclear power station in Collie is going to impact the Margaret River wine region was a bit of scare mongering?
Matt Keogh
Well, I think that, you know, going to Michaelia’s point, the important thing is actually, Michaelia, how are you going to pay for it? And how is it consistent if it’s not going to arrive before those coal-powered stations come out of the system?
Senator Cash
Because of the gas in the system.
Matt Keogh
It’s expensive now, because of the old system that we’re running. We are moving through a transition, yes, using gas, to a renewable age of energy. And right now, solar rooftop is the biggest provider of electricity in the system in WA, as it is nationally as well. But you’re talking about comparing us to France, which has been running nuclear power plants since the 1950s. You’re trying to stand up an entirely new industry, as opposed to one research reactor in New South Wales, where you can’t say how much it’ll cost.
Senator Cash
Well we can say how much it will cost.
Matt Keogh
Everyone knows that that costing is completely out of the ballpark.
Senator Cash
That is an outright lie. It is an independent costings mechanism.
Matt Keogh
But also it implies your costing suggests that we will have an economy, an electricity system, that’s 40% smaller. So given the actual experts that looked at this and said it’s going to cost $600 billion,
Senator Cash
No they didn’t, Matt. That is a complete lie.
Matt Keogh
Even if it comes in a decade, and if it comes in a decade, that still leaves a massive gap from when the coal-fired power stations come out of the system and when your nuclear powered come online. How are you stopping the blackouts?
Senator Cash
Let’s go to the costings, that is more Labor lies. The costings that Matt is referring to is from a Labor Party firm that does work for the Labor Party. They have done campaigns against the Liberal Party before. The costings are completely unrealistic. We have had our plan modelled against Labor’s plan by Frontier Economics. On any analysis, they are the most independent modellers you can get. Our plan comes in, between now and 2050, at 44% less expensive than Labor’s. That’s $263 billion. The total cost of our plan is just over $330 billion, with the capital costs included of around $130 billion. So, it is 44% cheaper than Labor’s renewable-only plan, which will not provide the consistent baseload power that Australia needs. But more than that, that is independent modelling by Frontier Economics.
Matt Keogh
And in that Frontier report, it expressly says they didn’t model Western Australia.
Senator Cash
Neither did you, Matt.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
That’s a valid point though, surely?
Senator Cash
And you know why? Because we had Frontier Economics model Labor’s plan, which was modelled on the East Coast and itself did not include Western Australia, Matt, because Western Australia, as you know, is on a completely separate system. So enough of the Labor lies.
Matt Keogh
So you’re talking about different systems, Michaelia.
Senator Cash
Enough of the Labor lies, Matt.
Matt Keogh
It’s in the Frontier report that it didn’t include WA. We are seeing the WA Government and private industry provide renewable energy in Western Australia. You’re talking about the federal government paying for and establishing this entire industry. So, you should have modelled Western Australia and included that in the costs, and you didn’t.
Senator Cash
Let’s be very clear. To ensure that we modelled like-for-like, we modelled your plan.
Matt Keogh
But you haven’t included the cost here.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Why follow something that Labor should have done but didn’t do?
Senator Cash
Because you needed to include a like-for-like concept.
Matt Keogh
But they’re not like-for-like because our model doesn’t involve the federal government setting up an entirely new energy system.
Senator Cash
Our model comes in at $263 billion cheaper than yours. And ultimately, let’s talk in the language that the Australian people understand. Did you get $275 off your power bill like Mr Albanese promised before the last election? No, you did not. In many cases, you are now paying $1,300 more. Australians will look at their bills and they will know what their reality is. Their bill is more expensive. It is certainly not $275 cheaper as was promised.
Matt Keogh
They did just receive $700 of energy credits, and we’re committing to another $150. But in addition, the first increase was hidden by your government.
Senator Cash
Oh, please, Matt.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
This is a good feisty debate. We’ve got four minutes left, and I just, look, I will give people in the audience an opportunity maybe to comment on what they’ve heard after nine o’clock. But just on that point, you talk about electricity rebates and these little sugar hits, and I think people are getting a little sick and tired of politicians and governments working in three-year cycles. And there seems to be an appetite for somebody brave enough, a government brave enough, to think beyond the three-year political cycle and start looking at economic and tax reforms that underpin things like housing, restricting negative gearing, capital gains tax, dealing with that intergenerational wealth. When will we find a government that is bold and brave enough to start tackling those long-term issues?
Matt Keogh
So if you look at the things that we’ve rolled out with our $43 billion housing package, that’s looking at things, exactly those longer term as well as the short-term issues confronting housing. Our tax reform agenda, which we’re bringing forward with additional tax cuts, that is going long. That is long-term change. When you look at the $1,000 instant work expenses deduction that people will be able to claim, that’s a long-term change to the tax system.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
What about restricting negative gearing? That’s what people want. They want capital gains tax dealt with as well. I mean, they are the two things that keep coming up and that there is no government brave enough to look at some serious tax and economic reform.
Senator Cash
Well, we’ve been very clear in relation to, say, the housing market, one of the serious taxation reforms is actually to change the way the taxation system works in this country and to allow people to actually deduct, for the first five years of their mortgage, their mortgage repayments. That’s around $12,000 a year. That is something that will be there long after Matt and I have actually left politics. That is a good thing, in particular for younger people who want to get into the housing market.
Matt Keogh
But what it doesn’t do, unfortunately, it’s a tax change that will actually push up house prices. It’s not much by anything to deal with supply, whereas things like our,
Senator Cash
Yes, it is, Matt. You’re just lying again.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
More supply is not making houses cheaper.
Senator Cash
Because there is no supply at the moment. That is one of the problems.
Matt Keogh
We do need more supply. That’s a critical part of what all the economists have spoken about. And so, our investment through the $43 billion housing plan, including 100,000 houses specifically for first home buyers, but also the build-to-rent scheme so that we’re getting more houses available for people to be able to rent affordably, those changes are incredibly important as well.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Okay, my final question. Michaelia Cash, is ABC and The Guardian really hate media?
Senator Cash
Absolutely not. I’m here today. I think that’s proof of it. And you and I have always got on well. Well, I hope we have, that’s my analysis of our relationship.
Matt Keogh
I’m glad Michaelia is an ABC lover. Obviously, we can’t say the same for Peter Dutton, who, seemingly every press conference recently, is attacking the ABC and other media.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Well he did actually say this morning that on election night, don’t watch the ABC.
Senator Cash
Oh well, I’ll be on Channel Seven. I hate to tell you. Sorry about that.
Matt Keogh
Well, I’m always watching Antony Green. I mean, I’m sorry it’ll be his last one. But even more reason if you’re watching Antony Green.
Senator Cash
I actually agree with you there. It is a great shame that Antony Green, because he is, without a doubt, there is no two ways about it. I think everybody does tune in to see Antony Green’s analysis on the night. He is literally a stalwart of Australian politics. And it will be sad to see him go.
Nadia Mitsopoulos
Totally agree. That’s the other thing the two agree on. Michaelia Cash and Matt Keogh, please thank them. Thank you, both of you, for coming in.
ENDS
Recent Comments