TOM CONNELL, HOST: Prime Minister, thank you. You mentioned it there in a big part of your campaign, obviously has been the bulk billing incentives, which you say your modelling says that it will get bulk billing rates to 90% by 2030. The AMA and the RACGP are saying they don't see that sort of uplift. So that voters can actually test this claim of yours and the modelling. What does your modelling say bulk billing rates will get to by 2028?
 
ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: The AMA haven't always been great fans of the whole concept of Medicare. That's the truth. So, we're not shocked that, occasionally, not every doctor comes on board there. But the reason why we are so confident is because this isn't some academic exercise. We, in last year's Budget, tripled the bulk billing incentive for concession card holders. And what that has done is lift bulk billing rates up to well above 90%. Doctors under our scheme will go from getting, if they're in a fully bulk billed clinic, will go from earning around about two $280,000 to above $400,000. The modelling that we've done shows that it will be in their interests to have fully bulk billed service. And throughout the country, I've got to say, I've spoken to doctors from Bridgewater in Tasmania, to regional Queensland, Perth, Adelaide who've said exactly that, that that is their intention, is that this change will make that difference.
 
CONNELL: Your modelling must have a 2028 figure though. The per cent improvement?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, what we've got is a 2030 target of achieving that. And it will go up between now 2025, we'll of course, this is a measure that was in our Budget that was funded, and that's our objective by 2030.
 
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, given the increasing demand for government services and the softening of some aspects of the revenue base, will whoever is in government over the next ten years have to take some action to increase the taxation base?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Michelle, we're taking our plans that we intend to implement to this election. What it will do, and it is a big distinction, we'll have not one but two income tax cuts, taking that bottom first rate, the $18,200 to $45,000 rate from 16 down to 15 and then down to 14. We think one of the things that will do, and the modelling when we changed the former government’s - the Morrison Government's legislated tax cuts to make them Labor tax cuts, which by definition were fairer and delivered for everybody. Part of the modelling there showed that it increased workforce participation, that it would actually have a benefit for the economy as well. We know that the Coalition is saying that they'll jack up interest - jack up income taxes and they'll undo that and legislate for higher income taxes at the election.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Prime Minister, for your speech. In your remarks you emphasised the concrete agenda. But I think for a lot of voters, there's still some vagueness about vision. And I want to go to something specific in your policy agenda on that, and that's the Critical Minerals Reserve that you've announced only last week. It seems probably a bit niche, it's a business initiative more than anything, although it's related to trade, but it is $1 billion in taxpayer funds. And in the last couple of days, one of the biggest producers of critical minerals in Australia has just totally slammed the idea. And I want to read the quotes from Amanda Lacaze, who's the chief executive of Lynas, “I have to say that I'm at a loss to understand the policy. It's not going to suddenly make uneconomic projects economic. There's only $1.2 billion in this fund, even if you put half of that towards rare earths, well, that doesn't even cover Lynas’ full year production.” So, I'm wondering, did you not consult the industry here on how this policy is going to work? How can somebody who's a chief executive respond like that to this big idea? Does it suggest the vision is, in fact, a little bit too vague?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No, it doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that if you have a policy aimed at any particular industry right across the board, you'll always be able to find someone who puts their hand up and says, “yeah, I'd like some more government support without any obligations whatsoever.” That's the way it works. Let me tell you. And one of the things that government has to do is to support industry to grow, but at the same time look after the national interest. It is in the national interest for us to have a strategic reserve. That is something that I indicated very clearly as part of the plan that we had in response to the Trump Administration's tariffs. It makes sense, right around the world what is happening is that people are understanding, and governments are implementing policies, they're different ones. But the lesson of the pandemic is we need more economic resilience here, our critical minerals reserve is a part of that.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks for observing the tradition, Prime Minister, of being here today. You mentioned a lot of times in your speech today the backdrop of global uncertainty. And while the US President has featured in our campaign, there hasn't actually been a discussion about exactly where that leads us. So, I suppose what I would like to hear from you is, do you believe that given these new, uncertain elements in the global outlook, we need to tweak our defence posture towards one that's more focused on the defence of Australia, aside from what we're doing with AUKUS? And does it also mean, given that you've responded to the US position on tariffs by reaffirming our view of free trade, that we should perhaps be joining a regional free trade bloc?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we have very strong trade relationships in our region, and we're built on them as well through the work that we've done with ASEAN, hosting every ASEAN leader in March last year in Melbourne. What was important about that was the fact that every leader came. There were no deputies. There were no vice presidents. Every leader of those important nations came to Australia. I've hosted Prime Minister Modi here. I've hosted the Premier of China here as well, our most important trading partner. We have built up really significant economic relationships, and what will be the third largest economy in the world as well, we've improved our economic partnership with India. I think there's a great deal in which that can grow. The US tariffs need to be put into perspective. Our exports to the United States are under 5% of our total exports. And just to give one example, in the meat sector, what's happened because of the disruption between the US and China, is Australian producers are opening up greater opportunities of exporting even more to China. So, out of some of these trade disruptions, what will emerge, I think, is, yes, some challenges, but also some opportunities for us. And that is what I'm optimistic about. And that is what I mean by serving our national interest. On defence policy, let me tell you, the Defence Strategic Review was about defending Australia. That was what it was about. And that's why things such as the production of missiles will happen. Manufacturing will happen here, this year. So not just purchasing, not just procurement from somewhere else, but how do we become more resilient as a nation in terms of our defence policy? And that's why our $57 billion increase in defence investment is so important. But it's very much targeted to what are Australia's national needs as a result of our strategic review.
 
CONNELL: That review was done before Donald Trump came back into power, though, and he's upended a lot of things. Is it - does it need a refresh?
 
PRIME MINISTER: You don't need a refresh to tell any Labor Prime Minister, the party of John Curtin, that we need to defend ourselves. I think it was a Labor Prime Minister who understood that the kowtowing to the UK, as it was then, wasn't going to defend Australia. And I'm very proud to be part of the same party that defended Australia, importantly turned to Curtin not with an election, because the existing UAP Government, conservative government toppled out of office because people thought they needed the national interest defended. And it was Labor who did it then. And it's Labor that will do it now.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Tom. Thanks, PM. I just want to come back to Michelle's point about sort of lack of commitment towards spending restraint or revenue raising to get the Budget back out of the red. I know you've sort ruled out a lot of things, but it's a pretty red-hot secret or unknown secret around Canberra that Treasury wants to go after trusts, something Labor looked at back in 2019. And there is support in your ranks or has been in the past. Is it something that you would look at after the election in terms of the tax treatment of trusts?
 
PRIME MINISTER: What we're looking at is what we're putting forward at this election campaign. We want Australians to get lower income taxes. That's what we're looking at. And we have a comprehensive plan that we're putting to the Australian people.
 
JOURNALIST: What about making money?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, what we have done also, I mean, you're speaking to, there's a Finance Minister and Treasurer just here who, two days ago put out our fully costed plan. Where is the Coalition? We are now are, you know, just three sleeps away from the election date. But importantly as well, many millions of Australians, one in four, have probably voted already, either through postals or in pre-poll. And people have no idea about what their cuts are. And Peter Dutton, in the debates that have been held, has actually said and quoted John Howard as an example that you can't actually come forward – it was in the Channel Nine debate where you were part of the panel, you chose wisely – that, at that time he said, “oh, well, you can't do anything because you don't know the state of the books.” I mean, if I had have stood here at the last election and just said, “oh, we won't tell you what cuts will make, we won't tell you how things add up. Just trust us. We'll tell you after the election”, I would have had an interesting and appropriate response, I reckon. And Peter Dutton deserves the same.  
 
JOURNALIST: He did have changes to super taxes on super. Is the caveat that anything you work on takes effect after the next election, and then it's like breaking a promise.  
 
PRIME MINISTER: No, what we're doing, is putting forward our policies. They're out there. The costings we've put out there and I await at some time, maybe next week, the Coalition to put out theirs.  
 
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Tom and PM. I just wanted to ask actually, on superannuation and on your planned superannuation reforms, one of the most contentious parts of it is this method of raising revenue through taxing unrealised capital gains. There's opposition to that from the crossbench and other members of society. Now, would you be willing to pursue a compromise version of this and replace the unrealised capital gains method with a higher base tax rate for balances worth 3 million or more?  
 
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, we have our policy. We've had legislation it's been before the Parliament and that's our policy. It will affect, importantly, 0.5 per cent of the superannuation population, 0.5 per cent. That's all. And it won't mean they don't get concessions. It'll just mean the concession isn't as large. That's our policy – 
 
JOURNALIST: You're ruling out any changes?  
 
PRIME MINISTER: No. What I'm not doing is changing policy at the National Press Club. You know, we have our legislation – 
 
JOURNALIST: You have before – 
 
PRIME MINISTER: We have our legislation that's before people. And I've been transparent and on the income tax changes, I have the guts to come here and say this is what we are doing, this is why we are doing it. And you will recall at the time the Coalition said first they said they'd oppose it and wind it back before they even saw what it was. Then they called for an election to be held last year to stop people getting an income tax cut, and then they voted for it.  
 
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, your opponent's central proposition is that people are worse off now than they were before the last election. He asks daily that voters consider, are you better off now than you were three years ago? Are Australians better off now than they were before you were elected?  
 
PRIME MINISTER: I'll tell you what the right answer to that is, and that is that Australians would be $7,200 worse off if Peter Dutton had got his way – 
 
JOURNALIST: Good debating tactic, but it's not the question.
 
PRIME MINISTER: That is what Peter Dutton has done. You can't say there's an issue with cost of living and then vote against every cost of living relief measure. That is what Peter Dutton has done. And just as people vote either this week or on Saturday, what they'll consider is who has the best offer for them in three years’ time. A coherent, cohesive set of policies that we want to implement. Cutting student debt, cutting people's taxes, making a difference for first home buyers, making a difference for energy bill relief, cheaper child care, the cheaper medicines that we've put in place, or Peter Dutton's plan that has not a single offer of anything that lasts more than 12 months going forward and then jacking up everyone's taxes. And that's before you get to the $600 billion that he needs to pay for his nuclear reactors.  
 
JOURNALIST: So no, but it could be worse. Is that the answer?  
 
PRIME MINISTER: The answer is that they would have been $7,200 worse off if Peter Dutton had got his way. And Australians understand that.  
 
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister thanks for being here. In the 1983 election campaign, Malcolm Fraser gave an address here where he said to journalists that they were spouting quote and I'm quoting him, ‘bullshit’ from the press gallery. In that spirit I'd like to put that comment in reverse. It could be said there's been a fair amount of BS in this campaign and also before the last election – 
 
PRIME MINISTER: You know, we're in, you know, it’s the middle of day, so kids are watching.
 
JOURNALIST: It was when Malcolm Fraser addressed the Press Club too. Before the last election you said power bills would reduce. They didn't. You said you wouldn't alter the tax cuts. You did. You said you wouldn't change super. You're trying. You said we'd have cheaper mortgages. We don't. You said on election night you'd commit to the Uluru Statement in full. You haven't. And you said when you messed up you would admit fault. Now you say Peter Dutton is seeking to Americanise the health system. He's promising to match your bulk billing funding. Some of your ads basically say he's going to abolish Medicare. You say his nuclear plan will be funded by cuts. Your renewable subsidies and Rewiring the Nation aren't paid for by cuts.
 
PRIME MINISTER: You might want to come up here, Andrew –
 
 JOURNALIST: And my question is –
 
PRIME MINISTER: Have an address.
 
JOURNALIST: Why do you have to exaggerate in this campaign? Why can't you win this election by telling the truth?
 
PRIME MINISTER: We are absolutely telling Australians, as Peter Dutton did on Sunday night in the Channel Seven debate, to give them a free ad to match Channel Nine's ad, that when asked about Medicare, he said the reason why he tried to abolish bulk billing and introduce a GP tax every time people visited the doctor was he wanted it to be sustainable. He belled the cat. That's still his view. In saying that just days ago he was saying that Medicare is not sustainable. He, Sussan Ley, has stood up in the Parliament, spoke about the Liberal Party thinks people don't value things which are free. Medicare is free, Free TAFE, a whole lot of things are free that are important that Australians value –
 
JOURNALIST: So you know he’s going to abolish Medicare?
 
PRIME MINISTER: And when he tried to abolish bulk billing, he tried, he tried and then he tried also to introduce a tax, a payment every time people visited a hospital. He tried to increase the cost of pharmaceuticals by $5. When he couldn't get his way, he froze the Medicare rebate for six years. He ripped $50 billion out of hospitals. This is a matter of record. And Peter Dutton said that if you want to look at future performance, look at past performance, look at past performance. What I did on income taxes was to come here, front up, say I have changed our position. Why? Because there's a cost of living, pressures are on people and it wasn't sustainable to on the 1st of July last year, to say that you and I get $9,000 and the people who've served this meal, the people who've cooked it out the back, the people who'll clean up after us in this room when we leave, get a big duck egg. That is not the Labor way. I fronted up. I had the argument, I won the argument, and they voted for it.
 
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Prime Minister. You said that an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is gone. Your Minister Penny Wong seemed to suggest it may not be gone forever. So, which is it? Where to from here on recognition and reconciliation? And do you agree with the comparison to marriage equality?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, that's not what the Foreign Minister said at all. And she's right here. So probably not a great idea to verbal Penny Wong while she's sitting there. I'll just give you that, I just.
 
JOURNALIST: Do you agree?
 
PRIME MINISTER: I'll just give you that tip for free.
 
JOURNALIST: Do you agree?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Ask any of the Cabinet colleagues. They'll explain to you why that's a bad idea. Can I make this point? We supported a Voice to Parliament. I did it out of conviction, not out of convenience. It's not easy to win a referendum in this country. No Prime Minister has had a referendum in this country this century. The Voice to Parliament didn't come from me. It came from First Nations people who had a constitutional convention at Uluru under the former government, under a process that they set up that led to that in 2017. We put it to the Australian people, which was the gracious request. I think that was something I said I would do, and we did. We also said we would respect the outcome, and we have. What we are now working towards is practical reconciliation. How do we close the gap? The truth is that every government, Labor and conservative has not done well enough because if we had, we wouldn't have, the life expectancy gap, the education gap, the housing gap, the health gap. We wouldn't have First Nations people having diseases that no one in this room will have to worry about in remote communities. What we are doing is addressing those issues, still engaging through the Coalition of Peaks and through First Nations people, but we also respect democratic processes. I said that was the case, and that is precisely what we have done.
 
JOURNALIST: G’day PM. As you're aware the Coalition is planning a whole lot of cuts. One of the things that it proposed was slashing the EV tax break. Now, this is something that was designed by Treasury. It was meant to cost $55 million a year. It's costing more than half a billion dollars a year. That's a shocking blow-out. And a lot of these very well-fed, lovely people in this room would probably be getting that tax break. So what justification is there for such a generous tax lurk to go to the well-heeled? And will you pledge now to at least look at revising it?
 
PRIME MINISTER: One of the reasons why it costs more is that it's been very successful, more people are participating in it, and it was designed to support lowering our emissions by addressing a change which is occurring. We're having, I was Transport Minister a long time ago, and I remember going to a conference in Tokyo, of all the big manufacturers and transport ministers around the world. At that time, 2008, I think it was, might have been 2009, the manufacturers, whether it be Japanese, American, European, all were saying there wasn't any research being done into an internal combustion engine vehicle. And what we've seen is Australia moved beyond the sort of nonsense that the Coalition did of having, saying that you can't have a ute, you can't tow your boat, you can't, all that nonsense. We do have a shift in technology when it comes to transport, around the world. We were one of two nations, the other one being Russia that didn't have any fuel standards. We're the only ones. And it meant we were only getting the really expensive vehicles. What's happening now is that Australians are getting access to cheaper vehicles. That's a good thing.
 
JOURNALIST: Yes, but if your Medicare increase was not costing $8.5 billion, but $85 billion, you would revise it, wouldn't you?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we have costed policies, and we are –
 
JOURNALIST: Clearly not very well when it comes to this one –
 
PRIME MINISTER: No. Well what's happened and what often does happen with technology is that Australians are great up-takers of new technologies. So it's actually one of the things that will lead us to success is the fact that my Government makes no apologies for being involved in things like the quantum issue and a whole lot of other issues. We need to shape it as we go forward. This is one of the ways that we have done that, and it is in place.
 
JOURNALIST: Tax discussions become sort of piecemeal. You get asked, “rule this in, rule that out.” Is it time for another tax review like the Henry Tax Review?
 
PRIME MINISTER: What are we doing here?
 
JOURNALIST: Just a cheeky one on the side.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Yeah. Look, we have our own policy process, and that's what we've done. We've handed down four Budgets in a three year term. I reckon that's four reviews, if you've sat around the ERC for as long as many of the people in this room have.
 
CONNELL: I haven't been invited yet.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Don't hold your breath.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Prime Minister for your time today. You've been asked a few times this term, I think once here, actually, if you have any regrets of the term, and you tend to say that generally nobody's perfect. I'm going to try and get a specific answer out of you. And is there something specific that you regret from the last three years? What is it and what might you be able to do to rectify that if granted a second term?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, refer to previous answers. But also what I say is that, I don't pretend to be perfect. I work hard each and every day, and my motivation is really simple and clear, which is what is in the national interest. How do we strengthen our country? What's important is that, as Prime Minister, you make decisions like every day. You make decisions. And what's important is that you continue to learn every day and continue to grow every day as well as a person. That's what my mentor, Tom Uren taught me, to learn each and every day and to try and grow as a person every day. And that's my approach towards leadership. The other approach that I have towards leadership that I'm really proud of is that Cabinet government is back. We actually have proper processes. You know, the former government didn't have coord comments for a whole lot of submissions. I assure you; we don't have an overhead projector with PowerPoint presentations. We actually sit around, we have proper processes, and I trust my ministers to do their jobs as well and to bring things forward to us. And I think the capacity of the team is one of the big differences in this campaign as well. You've got senior people, but also, you've got some backbencher and assistant minister here as well. And people who have a capacity out there don't have to be hidden. The other mob have shadow cabinet ministers who haven't been sighted. They've got people who aren't allowed to leave their electorate, let alone talk to anyone. I'm really proud of my leadership style. I think my leadership style is one that has brought us unity, not unity by doing nothing, unity by doing something.
 
JOURNALIST: So, no regrets, then? Is that the answer? No regrets?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No, I’m not saying that at all. I'm saying that what's important is that you learn. You learn each and every day, and that is what I do.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks for your speech, PM. If the polls are right, next year, you'll have been in Parliament for 30 years. That 30-year stretch will almost perfectly bookend Australia's golden era, when we had huge amounts of prosperity. Now we could debate at length who's responsible for that, whether it's Hawke or Keating or John Howard. I'm sure that's a wonderful debate, but-

PRIME MINISTER: You can ask me that if you like.
 
JOURNALIST: That will not be my question.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Paul might be watching, so.
 
JOURNALIST: All the more reason not to have the debate. So -
 
PRIME MINISTER: You're in trouble now.
 
JOURNALIST: I'll check my inbox. Anyway, in any case, economists say that golden era is coming to an end without substantial structural changes to the Australian economy. They talk about a creaking tax system. They talk about productivity falling and spending rising. They talk about no longer being able to rely on our mineral wealth going forward. So, to that extent, what tough decisions are you prepared to take in the next term of government if you win, to ensure that the golden era doesn't end with you?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, this economist here has noticed that many economists say you can't get inflation down without a huge spike in unemployment and leaving people behind. You can't get inflation down without smashing real wages. That's what a whole lot of economists would say. They've been proven wrong. Our government will not leave people behind. Our government has had economic reform and has worked really hard to get that inflation figure, down, all forms of it now, into the Reserve Bank band. You know, we've worked really hard without, not just without seeing a spike in unemployment, but seeing unemployment lower on average than any government in 50 years and seeing real wages increasing. That, to me, is something that is in accordance with the principles that I want our government to hold. When it comes to economic reform and transformation, the biggest transformation, perhaps, that's happening since the industrial revolution is going on now. It is a transformation to a clean energy, net zero economy by 2050. That is a huge transformation in the way that things are made. The support for green steel, green aluminium will be absolutely critical as part of that process. Renewables backed by gas, backed by hydro, backed by batteries is part of that process as well. Distributional energy transformation is important. The use of new technology with AI and robotics and all of this is happening. Our job is to shape it in the interests of people because otherwise it will shape us. And that is one of the fears that I have behind my opponent's agenda is it's almost like you can press, as I said in my speech, you can press the pause button and wait for this nuclear fantasy in the 2040s, and it's all okay. 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure during the former government. They had 23 different energy policies and didn't land one. And guess what? You know they're on. If he visited one of the nuclear sites, he could visit the one in Queensland and see the coal-fired power station that's shut because it’s at the end of their life. It's just not possible to extend them forever. And that's why we need to use what is a global economic transformation that's occurring where there's no country that's better positioned because of the resources we have in the sky and under the ground than Australia and backed up by our people. If we're smart, this can be truly the golden era, not just being extended, but because we are also in the fastest growing region of the world in human history, being incredibly prosperous. But it's not sort of just stand still, because if you just stand still, the world will go past you. And the truth is that the Coalition with some of the positions that they take, which is almost like wanting the world to stay still over transformation of our transport and so many areas, is simply, they're not up to the task. And what we're asking Australians for is to continue on that path of moving forward.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Prime Minister, for your address. We've spoken to a lot of workers during the election campaign, and you've taken us to meet some, and so has the Opposition Leader, and they haven't been afraid to give us their views. They say they're spending hours in traffic every day. They're working two full time jobs, saddled with a lifetime of mortgage debt and barely any time to spend with their families. So, is this Labor's vision of the Australian dream? What is your message to those workers.
 
PRIME MINISTER: That our policies have made a difference to workers. Real wages are rising. We've put in place a measure that values workers, that values them through measures such as Same Job, Same Pay, that has introduced measures aimed at increasing the pay, particularly of feminised industries in child care and aged care. We inherited an aged care crisis system that was in crisis. That was summed up with one word in the Royal Commission interim report “neglect.” We're addressing that as a precondition of that. Women's workforce participation is at record highs, the gender pay gap we have made improvements to as well, paid parental leave, including -
 
JOURNALIST: Do you get their frustrations as well? I appreciate what you’re saying.
 
PRIME MINISTER: It's been of course, a very difficult time in the global economy. People have been under pressure. That is why we have taken action, identifying the problem, as you have, is important. What's important as a decision maker is what are you going to do about it? How do you make people's lives better? You make people's lives better by giving them and a cut in their income taxes, by putting downward pressure on inflation. So, the interest rates start to come down on their mortgages, which has happened by making sure that you intervene to give an increase in real wages. During the last campaign, I stood here with my $1 coin where the world was going to end if people on minimum wages got a $1 week increase. Well, we've given three increases. We've put in a submission for a real wage increase as well because we understand the pressure that workers are under. I've met a woman at the miners union conference in Brisbane, their national conference, who's getting $34,000 extra under the Same Job, Same Pay principles because she's working in a job side by side was under labour hire. We've stopped that manipulation, which is there now. Some of those decisions haven't been welcomed by every business in Australia, but we've understood that we don't want to go down the American road of people having to rely on tips to get by. We want fairness in the workplace. A Labor government will always stand up for fairness in the workplace, not undermining wages and conditions. Or in the most extreme example, of course, sacking public servants so you can hire more consultants at higher rates, which seems to be their vision.
 
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Joe Exotic, from the hit series Tiger King, is - on a more serious note - is serving a prison sentence for murder and has been convicted of animal abuse. He's also just endorsed you on Instagram. How do you feel about that? Have you ever met him and has anyone in Labor paid for his endorsement?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Good to see some levity. My, I have a very passionate support for one particular animal, Toto, and I'm looking forward to voting with her on Saturday.
 
CONNELL: No payment to the Tiger King?
 
PRIME MINISTER: He's in jail. Isn't that the question? I wasn't even aware of all of that. But, you know, I'll let that go through. I think the point of that question was to ask the question rather than to get a serious answer, I hope.
 
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Tom. Thanks, PM not really sure how to follow that one up.
 
PRIME MINISTER: It wasn't a criticism, by the way. It's good to have a bit of levity. Good on you.
 
JOURNALIST: Back to serious matters. So, throughout the course of the campaign, you've refused to countenance the possibility of minority government. You said you're aiming for majority government.
 
PRIME MINISTER: That's the plan.
 
JOURNALIST: You've also spoken throughout the campaign about the importance of stability and certainty in what are really uncertain global times. In that context, in the event of a hung parliament, would it not be preferable to negotiate deals rather than govern in a legislation by legislation basis?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No.
 
JOURNALIST: You don't want to elaborate at all on that?
 
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I've elaborated every time, as I did before the 2022 election. I was asked the same thing. I mean, I do find it quite ironic that a group called “The Coalition” are speaking about majority government. They, by definition, are a coalition. We've got 78 seats. We're aiming to hold every single one of them. And we're out there campaigning hard in Coalition held seats and in Greens Party held seats as well. It's as simple as that. Will there be the sort of agreements that we saw previously? No. And we will, you know, we've got 25 out of 76 Senators. Now, we do have particularly good leadership in the Senate, three of which are here, of our Ministers. We've got through most of our agenda. A whole lot of it has been blocked by the “noalition” of the Greens, Liberals and Nats. And, you know, maybe the question can be directed to them. I do note that Adam Bandt said that Tony Abbott was on the phone at the time, asking for support during that period. But, you know, we are campaigning each and every day to secure a majority government. I think that is in Australia's interests. And I ask people, anyone in Griffith and Brisbane and Fowler and these places where I've been in the last week, vote Labor, if you want certainty, if you want to make sure that you don't get Peter Dutton as Prime Minister, vote Labor. That's how you ensure that happens.
 
CONNELL: A deal is different to supply and confidence governing though, right? You're not ruling out governing in minority just with supply and confidence.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Look, we're campaigning for a majority government.
 
CONNELL: I understand that, but a deal is different to supply and confidence is that fair?
 
PRIME MINISTER: I can be asked 50 different ways. You'll get the same answer, which is I'm campaigning for majority government. We're the only political party that can form majority government, where the only political party that's trying to form a majority government. We're not a coalition. We're a proud organisation that had been around for - since 1891. My principles have always been very clear about these issues. It's what we did when I became Deputy Prime Minister in 2013, as well.
 
JOURNALIST: Hi, PM, I have another question about the possibility of a hung parliament. Which is that several independent MPs have called for a review of the AUKUS agreement, and would AUKUS and indeed foreign policy in general, be up for discussion with minor parties and independent MPs in any negotiations that might have to happen to achieve a minority government?
 
PRIME MINISTER: No.
 
CONNELL: Alright. Prime Minister, we do thank you for your time today. We know it's a very busy time. We wish you well in the election campaign. Please join me in thanking the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese.
 
PRIME MINISTER: Thanks very much.
 
ENDS