TOM CONNELL, HOST: Let's get a bit of the politics of the day, joining me now, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Patrick Gorman and former Liberal MP, Jason Falinski, thanks both for your time. I might start with you on this, Jason, because we've got this National Climate Risk Assessment. Not sure what you've managed to read of it, but given this report and polling today from Newspoll saying more Australians seem concerned and want more action, rather than less, on climate. Is it going to be enough if the Coalition, the lines we hear from them generally, after 2035 are, well, 'Australia's a small country, let's not overdo it'?
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MEMBER FOR MACKELLAR: Sorry Tom, well, that's true. We are a small country. Secondly, people do want more action. Thirdly, we have to come up with a plan that's better than Labor's, and certainly Barnaby Joyce's idea of getting rid of net zero doesn't equal that. So, there's a lot of work for us to do, but I've got to say that Chris Bowen's energy plan has so utterly failed, and is failing even faster that there's massive opportunity for us to present to the Australian people a better way forward in terms of reaching net zero, leading the world and playing our part in reducing the risks of climate change.
CONNELL: Does Labor, Patrick Gorman, believe in 2035 enough to actually try, whether you fail or not, try to legislate a target?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER: What we believe is that we will do what we said we would do, which is to get the advice from the Climate Authority. And Minister Bowen has said that he's considering that advice right now. We will do that in the thorough, methodical way that we did in setting our 2030 target. Of course, Australians want to see us do our part to fight climate change, and we are doing that through really practical means, including the Home Batteries Program, which has been a huge success. And I just want to pick up on something that Jason just said, where he said, 'Oh, Barnaby's push to abandon net zero'. Now it's not just Barnaby Joyce that wants to abandon net zero. It is a huge part of the Liberal Party. We have seen motions passed at conferences for the Liberal National Party in Queensland, here in Western Australia, the Liberal Party, cheered on by Andrew Hastie, put through a motion saying they should abandon net zero. This is not just Barnaby Joyce out on the fringe. This is the heart and soul of the Liberal Party who wants to abandon climate action, and this report is just another reminder that they're on the wrong track.
CONNELL: What about green hydrogen? Is Labor having to abandon that and how does that affect the 2035 target, or the cost of it?
GORMAN: What we know is that green hydrogen does have a role to play in some of the things that I've spoken to people here in Western Australia about the opportunities when it comes to green iron. Transforming the iron ore we already get out of the ground, transforming it into iron that we can then ship off and sell at a higher price, potentially created through green hydrogen, fuelled by our excellent sun and wind resources. Green hydrogen has a role to play -
CONNELL: - But that's not stacking up right now is? Maybe it'll keep, maybe the technology will get better. It's just not viable at the moment.
FALINSKI: Nothing they've ever planned stacking up, Tom. Nothing is stacking up.
GORMAN: Well, there are technologies that are working right now in homes across the country. Some 50,000 homes, more than that in fact, have taken up our home batteries subsidies to help get home batteries in to more homes in Australia. One of the best years we've ever had in terms of home battery installations. Now, that is making a difference. That is using existing technologies that are right there on the shelf. You can call up a supplier today, you can have it installed in a couple of weeks time. And the Albanese Government is there on the journey helping households reduce their emissions and reduce their energy bills.
CONNELL: Not sure you get anything in a couple of weeks in Australia, but anyway. Good luck to if you want to do that, we won't put phone numbers up, that's for advertisers. Jason, let me ask you about this. Not so much, you know, what's deeply analysed just today's Newspoll, but the figure of 27% for primary vote, is there a concern that a concern that the Coalition is just being seen as uncompetitive, that it's almost a, I don't know, self-fulfilling downward spiral here? Is it getting that dire?
FALINSKI: Well, that's certainly the narrative of the left wing. I don't think that's where we're at, Tom. But look, I think what the last three weeks demonstrates is, if the Liberal Party wants to go off and fight cultural wars instead of actually doing the hard work of talking about economic reform and the values that underlie our country, then this is what you get. You get about two thirds of our vote bleeding to Labor and the Teals, and about a third of it bleeding to One Nation. So to those people who were involved in the last three weeks, I think they should congratulate themselves on such a wonderful achievement. It's almost as good as Chris Bowen's failure as Energy Minister to reduce emissions in Australia, Tom.
CONNELL: So, it's all on that brief - well, that sort of - 10 days of rolling issues over migration, and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price? Is she, I mean -
FALINSKI: It's not rolling issues, it was one issue. And immigration, I think, is out of control under this government. But the way, if you want to approach it as an issue about, how do we ensure a orderly immigration programme that benefits both the people coming here and the people who are already here, otherwise known as Australians, then that is a question about values and economics. If you want to go and have, you know, an immigration debate on the base of race, creed or ancestry, then you go, that's a culture war. It's something that the left wing loves indulging in, and it's something that will only see our vote bleed to people who are specialists in culture wars, and that's not the Liberal Party.
CONNELL: Alright. Seemed only one side was keen on that cultural war from where I sat. But anyway, Pat, you don't get to talk about that one, because we know your answer. What about defence spending? Can you be clear for us? Is Labor still committed to 2.4% of GDP by 2033?
GORMAN: We will keep doing what we've always said we'll do, which is to spend on defence in our national interest, based on the expert advice that we receive as to what Australia needs. Now, if your viewers want to see a big, significant investment in defence, they should look at the announcement the Prime Minister made here in WA, just yesterday - $12 billion for the Henderson Defence Precinct. This is massive. Supporting 10,000 jobs. It is going to support our submarines for the future. It is going to support the ship building that's been happening in that region for decades. It is going to support Western Australia, it is going to make sure that we can do everything that we need here in the West to do our part to support our national defence capability -
CONNELL: Yeah, okay, 2.4 though. This was a figure we used to hear. The Minister didn't want to repeat it today. So is that, no, you said we'll spend it on the projects we need. So does that mean 2.4 is no longer the figure Labor is saying it'll do?
GORMAN: Well, we've been open for a number of months, Tom, that we're not focused on the figure. We're focused on doing what is needed to make sure that we have the defence capability that Australia needs for the strategic circumstances ahead -
CONNELL: Well, that was questioned about whether an increases of 3%, because of Donald Trump, not on whether you'd stick to your previous pledge of 2.4.
GORMAN: Well, you mentioned increases Tom, what we have done is increased defence spending from where we found it when we came to office, by some $70 billion over the decade. That's new capabilities, like what we're going to have here in WA at Henderson. That's good news for Australian jobs. It's good news for protecting Australia's interests in our home and in our region, and it's good news in terms of making sure that we're doing what you'd expect from a sensible government, which is spending on what is needed, not doing what we saw from the Coalition at the last election. I don't know if you remember, but I do, when Andrew Hastie came out and said, 'Oh, we're going to spend an extra $21 billion' and then couldn't tell us what he was gonna spend it on. I mean, that is a ridiculous policy. I think the Australian people saw through that -
CONNELL: Alright, but equally, you did say 2.4. Anyway, had a go at that. Jason just quickly, nuclear subs - once we signed up to them, were they always going to crowd out other spending needed, in terms of their pure cost is just so massive compared to what it would do for Australia's actual physical defence?
FALINSKI: No Tom, no. That's not the case. And look, Tom, you know, I've noticed a pattern for the Labor Party, and Patrick is repeating it today. Every problem, their answer is spend more money. So they spend a lot more money on net zero, even as our emissions went up. Under the previous government, they went down by 19%, under this government they've gone up by 3%. Their answer on defence is to spend more money while delivering less. And you know, to try and blame the AUKUS agreement and nuclear powered submarines, which are a small part of that agreement, for that problem is just unrealistic. They are spending like drunken sailors, pardon the cliché, but at the same time, delivering less than they have ever delivered before.
CONNELL: Alright, Jason, Pat, always appreciate your time. Talk again soon. Thank you.