Speaker 1: You two have known each other a very long time.
Speaker 1: I've witnessed you both over the dispatch box in Parliament.
Speaker 1: You're able to have a chat. You seem to get on.
Speaker 1: I just want to ask.
Speaker 2: I don't want you to ever state it so for
Speaker 2: the kiss of death for both.
Speaker 1: What I wanted to ask is it would really be
Speaker 1: a disaster for the country or is this just a
Speaker 1: bit of political hype if the other guy won.
Speaker 3: Mister Albanzi, I think there are very different values that
Speaker 3: we have.
Speaker 4: In the second leader's debate last night, those different values
Speaker 4: and the two leaders opposing visions for Australia were stark.
Speaker 3: I'm really optimistic about Australia's future if we seize the
Speaker 3: opportunities that are right in front of us.
Speaker 4: Anthony Albanesi continued his pitch to voters that they should
Speaker 4: trust him with another term.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 4: Peter Dutton continued to press the line that Australians have
Speaker 4: gone backwards.
Speaker 2: As we approach the third of my many Australians will
Speaker 2: be asking themselves are you better off today than you
Speaker 2: were three years ago?
Speaker 4: And around, But Albanie and Dutton were united on one thing.
Speaker 4: Neither leader really landed a blow or won the night
Speaker 4: from Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM today.
Speaker 4: My co host Daniel James on the biggest moments from
Speaker 4: the debate, from energy to housing, to diplomacy and defense,
Speaker 4: and why Dutton has had to admit another mistake. It's Thursday,
Speaker 4: April seventeen. Daniel, the debate itself. It started with this
Speaker 4: question about housing and the new housing plans that both
Speaker 4: major parties have released in the last week, and there
Speaker 4: has been widespread criticism from analysts that both plans run
Speaker 4: the risk of driving up house prices. What did you
Speaker 4: make of the way that both men defended what their
Speaker 4: plans are.
Speaker 5: I thought Albanzi was able to speak to his plan
Speaker 5: a little bit more clearly. He was able to mention
Speaker 5: things directly, like building one hundred thousand year homes.
Speaker 3: What we have is a reservation of one hundred thousand
Speaker 3: homes just for first home buyers. That will give them
Speaker 3: an opportunity because they won't be competing with investors.
Speaker 5: And we see that the five percent deposit.
Speaker 3: Now a five percent deposit rather than twenty will mean
Speaker 3: that instead of paying off someone else's mortgage, they can
Speaker 3: pay off their own mortgage.
Speaker 5: Whereas Dutton's planned around being able to claim tax rebates
Speaker 5: on interest rates paid for mortgages is a little bit
Speaker 5: more convoluted and difficult to cut through.
Speaker 2: For the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of
Speaker 2: your mortgage that will be interested, you could claim against
Speaker 2: your income. So for an average couple that will be
Speaker 2: about eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year over five years.
Speaker 5: It'll be a lot more for high income. But they
Speaker 5: were both also not willing to go near things like
Speaker 5: negative gearing.
Speaker 1: Neither of you seem willing to touch the negative gearing
Speaker 1: or capital gains tax breaks at this election. You've both
Speaker 1: been property investors over the years. Can you understand younger
Speaker 1: Australians locked out of the market feeling that it is
Speaker 1: people like you who are to blame for the fact
Speaker 1: that systems rigged against them. Mister Albinezi, Well, could I
Speaker 1: make this point David.
Speaker 5: And both lives not willing to go near it with
Speaker 5: a barge pole.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And there was this question that was put to
Speaker 4: both men around what they'd want to be remembered for
Speaker 4: if you know, they were the Prime minister for the
Speaker 4: next three years and Dutton's answer was basically, energy policy.
Speaker 2: Energy use, the economy. David, everything we use, everything around
Speaker 2: us is either running or has been created because of
Speaker 2: the use of energy farming.
Speaker 4: So what's your read on which leader had the most
Speaker 4: realistic and best version of our energy future.
Speaker 5: I'd have to say that neither leader was particularly convincing
Speaker 5: when talking about their own energy policies. Dutton really struggled
Speaker 5: with being able to explain the detail about how much
Speaker 5: water would be used for modular reactors compared to the
Speaker 5: larger scale nuclear reactors.
Speaker 2: I mean, we could spend all night on what I
Speaker 2: think it's really improve. Yes, but but there are different
Speaker 2: depending on the small modular reactor as well, and obviously
Speaker 2: the size of the as to the amount of water
Speaker 2: that's required of the.
Speaker 1: Large reactors you're talking about, and you've got one plan.
Speaker 5: When David Spears pressed to Alban Easy on when he's
Speaker 5: planned for renewables would bring down the cost of energy
Speaker 5: prices for consumers, he couldn't nentwer.
Speaker 3: That Peter Ray's gas is now thirteen dollars. It was
Speaker 3: thirty dollars, and when we came off, thirteen is cheaper
Speaker 3: than thirty.
Speaker 1: When do we see the bill come down.
Speaker 3: Well, what we need to do is to roll out renewable,
Speaker 3: to make sure there's energy security, make.
Speaker 5: Sure which is pretty symptomatic of the way that this
Speaker 5: entire sort of election is being run. Both leaders, when
Speaker 5: it comes to the cost of living in particular, really
Speaker 5: seem to struggle around the edges as to what their
Speaker 5: policies would mean for people in everyday life.
Speaker 4: Coming up after the break, Peter Dutton is not a scientist.
Speaker 4: Let's turn to foreign policy. That is where Albanize started
Speaker 4: to make this case that Dutton was being reckless or
Speaker 4: immature in his responses to world events.
Speaker 3: Diplomacy means engaging seriously in a calibrated, serious way Indonesia
Speaker 3: with respect as we do other nations that we deal with.
Speaker 4: Do you think that he landed that idea.
Speaker 5: We've had the big funeral in the last seventy two
Speaker 5: hours around Dunton claiming the Indonesian President I had spoken
Speaker 5: about having Russian military resources placed in Indonesia, something that
Speaker 5: the Indonesians have refuted and there is no actual evidence
Speaker 5: of the president actually having said that. It plays into
Speaker 5: a broader narrative around Dutton around being a ball in
Speaker 5: a China Shop for one of a much better phrase.
Speaker 5: When it comes to world affairs and policy affairs. He's
Speaker 5: someone who, I think, over the last three years in particular,
Speaker 5: and maybe over the course of his entire political career
Speaker 5: now that I think of it, has been someone that
Speaker 5: has been willing to shoot off at the mouth when
Speaker 5: it comes to particular issues and not really think through
Speaker 5: either the policy or political consequences.
Speaker 4: I think the way that Dutton spoke about his previous
Speaker 4: comments around Russia and Indonesia was interesting. He admitted that
Speaker 4: he had made a mistake.
Speaker 2: So was that a mistake? It was a mistake and
Speaker 2: I'm happy to a bit what we've got.
Speaker 4: This is not the first time we've heard an apology
Speaker 4: from Dutton. Last week it was about his position on
Speaker 4: working from home. So what does this say to you,
Speaker 4: this kind of walking back, this apology for things that
Speaker 4: he said. What does that say to you about how
Speaker 4: Dutton is handling himself at this point in the campaign.
Speaker 5: It shows that his campaign is not going so well
Speaker 5: that he's actually, i would say struggling in this moment
Speaker 5: to be able to cut through, provide a clear narrative
Speaker 5: and made up to his own expectations of as being
Speaker 5: seen as a strong man in a time when we
Speaker 5: here in Australia are looking abroad to see what other
Speaker 5: strong men are doing around the globe. His traditional strongman
Speaker 5: approach is now a double edged sword for him.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and there was no whether that was more evident
Speaker 4: in the way that he spoke about Donald Trump. So
Speaker 4: he wouldn't really answer the question as to whether or
Speaker 4: not he trusted Donald Trump, which was interesting. But at
Speaker 4: the same time he was also trying to make this
Speaker 4: case that he could have gotten Australia out of the
Speaker 4: tariffs that Trump is imposing. So he's walking this very
Speaker 4: very tricky line. There isn't he you know? Is he
Speaker 4: or is he not close to Trump? What is the
Speaker 4: message that was supposed to take.
Speaker 5: I don't think there's anyone in the country that thinks
Speaker 5: that Peter Dutton isn't more closely aligned to the politics
Speaker 5: of Trump than he has led on during this campaign.
Speaker 5: He was asked on a couple of occasions by David
Speaker 5: Spears whether he trusted Donald Trump, and his line was, well,
Speaker 5: I haven't met him.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say you trust I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know Donald Trump is my point. My point
Speaker 2: is that who I trust is the Australian people in
Speaker 2: my job.
Speaker 5: He has asked the same question about the Chinese president,
Speaker 5: gig Ping.
Speaker 2: Again, I don't know the president of China, but I
Speaker 2: believe very strongly in the relationship.
Speaker 5: Alberanzi was using the office of the Prime Minister to say, well,
Speaker 5: I've dealt with both men and I have no reason
Speaker 5: not to trust either.
Speaker 3: We have different political systems and that means different values,
Speaker 3: and we have very different values with China. But what
Speaker 3: I've said is we'll cooperate where we can, we'll disagree
Speaker 3: where we must.
Speaker 5: Pointing out, of course, that the Morrison government had no
Speaker 5: diplomatic contact with the Chinese regime throughout their three years
Speaker 5: of government.
Speaker 3: There was no contact, no funatraals, no meetings, no trade well.
Speaker 1: There wasn't diplomatic for its well in terms of the
Speaker 1: trade relationships.
Speaker 5: So there was a point that Alberanzi was able to score.
Speaker 5: But for Dutton, it's a particularly tricky line in that
Speaker 5: he doesn't want to be seen to be too close
Speaker 5: to Trump, but he also wants to highlight the fact
Speaker 5: that he is better placed than Albanzi to be able
Speaker 5: to deal with the Trump presidency, which is a very
Speaker 5: very very fine line to work.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And there was this other really interesting moment, Daniel,
Speaker 4: where Peter Dutton he said that he does believe in
Speaker 4: climate change, but he sort of refused to link it
Speaker 4: to more regular extreme weather events, saying, you know, I'm
Speaker 4: not a scientist.
Speaker 1: We need to it is getting worse.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll leave others to you think, Eric, Well, I'll
Speaker 2: let scientists and others pass that judgment, but.
Speaker 1: Really not willing to say this is climate change happening
Speaker 1: right now?
Speaker 2: Well, as the Prime Minister refused to do the other
Speaker 2: day to make comment in this regard as well. I
Speaker 2: don't know, David, because I'm not a scientist and I
Speaker 2: can't tell you.
Speaker 4: Whether do you think that this really ultimately tells us
Speaker 4: anything about Peter Dutton or about Anthony Alban easy that
Speaker 4: we didn't know about their different approaches.
Speaker 5: I think that was a striking moment in the campaign.
Speaker 5: There was enough said by Dutton, enough intimated by him
Speaker 5: to raise the question as to well, does he believe
Speaker 5: in climate science? Does he believe that severe whether events
Speaker 5: are occurring more commonly now because the climate is changing.
Speaker 5: I don't want to give the Prime Minister too much
Speaker 5: credit for his response either, but he said obviously that
Speaker 5: he does believe in climate science.
Speaker 3: The cost to our economy as well as the cost
Speaker 3: of our environment of not acting on climate change, not
Speaker 3: being a part of the global solution severe.
Speaker 5: And if there is a large proportion of the community
Speaker 5: and the electorate that are concerned about both major parties
Speaker 5: climate policies, Glutton's refusal to go full in and respect
Speaker 5: the science around climate for me was a pretty big moment.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Another big moment I think is when both leaders
Speaker 4: were asked about Indigenous affairs in Australia and David Spears
Speaker 4: he pointed out the fact that night a leader has
Speaker 4: actually visited an Indigenous community during this campaign so far. Meanwhile,
Speaker 4: the gap widens on many fronts.
Speaker 3: Neither side of politics has done well enough for First
Speaker 3: Nations people. That's just a fact and that's something that
Speaker 3: breaks my heart.
Speaker 4: What did you think as you listen to Anthony Albernesi
Speaker 4: defend his post voice plan for Indigenous affairs.
Speaker 5: Well, you know with this one, I've got a bit
Speaker 5: of skin in the game. Of course. What it speaks
Speaker 5: to is that Labor and Anthony Alberzi, well, so much
Speaker 5: political capital during the referendum that they do not want
Speaker 5: to go near Indigenous affairs as a major issue. But
Speaker 5: as things stand at the moment, the same policy settings
Speaker 5: that have been in place now for close to twenty
Speaker 5: years remain around closing the gap, and neither leader this
Speaker 5: election has painted out a big vision post voice for
Speaker 5: what they see the future is for Indigenous affairs and
Speaker 5: Indigenous Australians.
Speaker 4: Daniel is finally, who do you think? In this debate
Speaker 4: ultimately made the most coherent, the most convincing, the strongest
Speaker 4: case as to why Australians should vote for them.
Speaker 5: It has to be said that both leaders acquitted themselves
Speaker 5: very well. Peter Dutton, as we got towards the end
Speaker 5: of the debate, became stronger. He was very clear about
Speaker 5: his vision about making Australia a more prosperous country, a
Speaker 5: safer country.
Speaker 2: I want to make sure that we can invest into
Speaker 2: defense and make sure that we can take crime seriously
Speaker 2: and reduce the problem of crime as it exists in
Speaker 2: our communities, in our suburbs across the country. My vision
Speaker 2: for our country is to make us a safer.
Speaker 5: Crime in Victoria and in Melbourne in particular, in our
Speaker 5: lectures that he needs to win in outer suburbs is
Speaker 5: a state issue, but is an issue that is on
Speaker 5: the screens of Victorians every night and day. And even
Speaker 5: though his ability as a prime minister or a federal
Speaker 5: leader is somewhat limited to that, to be able to
Speaker 5: cast himself in a position where he can intimate he
Speaker 5: will have an impact on crime rates was something that
Speaker 5: I think he was able to weave in quite clearly
Speaker 5: throughout the debate. But overall I'd have to say that
Speaker 5: it was Albanezi that carried the day. But having said that,
Speaker 5: neither leader landed a knockout blow.
Speaker 4: Well, Daniel, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5: Thank you Rerby. Good to speak to.
Speaker 4: You as always. Also in the news today, the UK
Speaker 4: Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gender critical rights
Speaker 4: campaigners and against the Scottish government over the definition of
Speaker 4: a woman. Five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition
Speaker 4: of a woman did not include transgender women who hold
Speaker 4: gender recognition certificates. The ruling will transgender women will not
Speaker 4: be able to sit on public boards in places set
Speaker 4: aside for women. The campaign group Scottish Trans urged people
Speaker 4: not to panic as they work through the implications of
Speaker 4: the court's decision, and widespread bleaching of the Great Barrier
Speaker 4: Reef has become normalized, according to scientists. Government authorities have
Speaker 4: recorded the six widespread coral bleaching event in less than
Speaker 4: a decade, with back to back bleachings over the past
Speaker 4: two summers. The Ningaloo Reef off the coast of Western
Speaker 4: Australia has also been hit by extreme bleaching and heat
Speaker 4: stress this year. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Speaker 4: Thanks for listening.