SUBJECTS: Labor’s $440 million plan to help kids bounce back from COVID; Federation reforms; Failures of the Morrison Government during COVID-19; Russia-Ukraine tension; foreign affairs; Australia’s relationship with China; climate change; Labor’s policy agenda; rapid antigen tests; Federal election; debates.
 
LAURA TINGLE, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB: You've talked about the role of the Federal Government and the fact that this Government has stepped back from it. I just wonder if we could investigate what you mean by that in that area of health. You've talked about the importance of Medicare. And often, you talk about the importance of the health workforce. But also, I think what showed up in this pandemic is a lack of a proper infrastructure of both policy advice and service delivery at the federal level. And, as a test for how you might do it differently, you mentioned free RAT tests. How would that actually work? How would you actually physically make RATs free? How would you distribute them? What role would the Federal Government have that it doesn't have now?
 
ANTHONY ALBANESE, LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY: Other national governments have purchased rapid antigen tests for distribution. What occurred here, even in recent times, and I found the announcement extraordinary, after the Government said that pharmacies would provide free rapid antigen tests for concession card holders. They then told pharmacies that they were on their own getting them. Which is one of the reasons why they're not available. You actually need to take responsibility for that. And I've been approached by companies, for example there's one, that could provide, and they've been trying to get the Government to buy en masse up to, we're talking in the hundreds of millions, available each month, for $3.25. They tell me $4 including freight. Crickets, they hear from this Government. There are so many occasions whereby the Government just makes an announcement and then that's done. It's like the box is ticked and they move on. We actually need a Government with follow through, a Government that plans, a Government that puts in place structures. That's not to underestimate the challenge which is there to rebuild the public service, which has been gutted over the last nine years, and to rebuild its capacity.
 
TINGLE: I'm tempted to ask another question but I'm about to say to my colleagues if we could observe the one question per journalist rule. I've got to be good. First question from David Crowe.
 
DAVID CROWE, THE AGE & SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: Thank you, Mr Albanese, for the speech. David Crowe from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. I think that it is a follow-up question anyway. It is basically on free RATs. It's one of the issues at the moment. We all have family members and friends who are looking for RATs out there. You're offering free RATs and you're saying that a Labor Government would learn the lessons from the pandemic by planning better. But what exactly is your plan? I mean, free RATs for everybody, all the time, anywhere? Do you actually propose that you'd have to have some kind of control on how many people could get? I'm not asking for a costing that you've got from the Parliamentary Budget Office, just the practicalities of how many RATs you could get and how many people could get from a pharmacy or elsewhere?
 
ALBANESE: There are two questions. One is that RATs are available from overseas, but they're also available here. I find it remarkable that Australians companies are manufacturing RATs, sending them overseas because they haven't got approval here. And they can't get purchased here by the Federal Government. It is just remarkable that in my local community and in so many as I travelled, ten days from Cairns right through to Maryborough, in every one of those 20 Queensland towns and cities that I visited, in none of them was there appropriate availability. And the specific circumstances are that for example, people working in medical centres should be available, should have access to a RAT each and every day if that was the health recommendation. For others, by doing it through the Medicare system, just like what they're doing with the concession card holders, you can control how many there are. And you wouldn't want people having them just for the sake of them, to keep it. Don't want to channel Barnaby Joyce, but that was just a nonsense, suggesting that the problem in supply of RATs was because of hoarding. The problem is one of supply. That's the problem.
 
CROWE: So, would you ration the RATs?
 
ALBANESE: Appropriately based upon health advice. For some people, if you're working in a medical centre, you need access to testing each and every day because people are coming in. If are working with due respect, in the Bureau of the Age and the Herald in Parliament House, you probably don't need to test yourself every day. So, a bit of common-sense could be applied here. It's not beyond the wit of the Government, well, a government, that was competent, to work this out. The Medicare schedule provides a record. That's the whole reason why you would do it through the Medicare system. That little card provides you with security as an individual. It also provides the Australian people with security as well.
 
MICHELLE GRATTAN, THE CONVERSATION: Mr Albanese, there has been widespread calls for a Royal Commission to examine Australia's handling of COVID, especially to look to lessons to be learned for the future. If you win the election, will you hold such a Royal Commission? And if so, would you be willing consult with the Opposition Leader to get agreement on terms of reference and commissioners to try to reduce partisan elements in the exercise? And if you're not willing to commit today, could you say why?
 
ALBANESE: Because I lead a process in the best traditions of Bob Hawke, of Shadow Cabinet. That's why I don't make commitments at National Press Club that haven't been through our process, to answer that one. But it is beyond doubt that you will need an assessment. Whether that be a Royal Commission or some form of inquiry, that will need to happen. And the best way to ensure support is to have more consultation with the Opposition in general. I adopt that principle. I adopted it when I was a minister and when I was Leader of the Government in the House of Representatives. So, one of the things that I say to people is that the benefit of having experience in government is you don't have to just take what I said - have a look at what I did. I was Leader of the Government in the House of Representatives in a majority Government. One of the reasons why, if you talk to some of the crossbenchers who chose Julia Gillard as Prime Minister after 2010 was that crossbenchers in that Parliament knew that they got treated with respect. That's just the way that I operate. That is the way that I have operated within my Party, treating my own party with respect, and the way that I would operate across the Parliament.
 
GRATTAN: Haven't you considered the possibility of a Royal Commission into it?
 
ALBANESE: We have considered it. But whilst we're in the heat of the pandemic, our priority at the moment is seeing us through the pandemic. So, when you get through or when you get towards the end, then you'd give consideration to that. That would be appropriate. But it is appropriate at the moment, just as we are here today, with these practical suggestions developed through our processes, led by Tanya Plibersek, our Shadow Education Minister, of – how do we deal with the problems that are there right now? There are parents watching this right now at home who are worried about their kids right now. So, we're dealing with, if you like, the urgent necessities of the one, whilst trying to both create and anticipate the future. And we'll continue to do that.
 
PHIL COOREY, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW: Mr Albanese, Phil Coorey from the AFR. You mentioned Federation reform, but no detail. Can I ask you what you have in mind? And specifically, would you be looking like Tony Abbott was as the last Prime Minister to have a crack at this, at the tax system, at duplication in health and education? And will you keep or change the National Cabinet arrangement? Could you address those specifically, please?
 
ALBANESE: You managed to slip in more than one there, Phil, well done.
 
COOREY: Composite question.
 
ALBANESE: One of the reasons why there's less specifics there is that it is a matter of you can't say that you want to work with the states and territories and then impose things from the Commonwealth. But what you can do is engage in a spirit of good will. And can I say that I've spoken to premiers, not just Labor premiers, about this on an off the record basis. And you'd expect me to do that. We need a clearer delineation of who is responsible for what. Even at the moment in aged care during the pandemic, the Commonwealth funds, regulates. And yet, what we've had is a Commonwealth Government that attempted to shun off responsibility to the states. Even aged care facilities can't get enough PPE at the moment, can't get enough rapid antigen tests for their staff. You had to quote a former New South Wales Premier from the other side - Mike Baird, who leads one of Australia's leading aged care operations, someone who I have respect. I've spoken to him directly about this. He's called for the use of the Australian Defence Force to make beds and to do the essentials in aged care facilities because the system isn't working. And so, I think that working those things through is never easy. But as a Federal Minister, in terms of transport, to use something that is not sexy, we moved from 23 national transport regulators with different rules across rail, heavy vehicles and maritime, down to three. With consistency across the board. With the benefit to the national economy of $30 billion over 20 years. That's microeconomic reform. That's productivity. And it just seems to me that my entire time I've been either a participant or an observer of politics, we've seen more national consistency. That's been the trend, ever since particularly the Keating’s national competition council reforms. In the recent times, we've seemed to have drifted away from that. We have National Cabinet, where the state premiers all come, they tell each other what they're doing, and then Scott Morrison announces it and pretends that there's some uniformity there. We need to do better than that. But one way that we need to do better than that is by being up-front and not saying something in the room and something different outside the room. By not attacking some premiers on the basis of what their political background is, while the same thing is happening in other states and that's okay. You need consistency and we need to work the issues through. If we do, there are massive efficiencies. We need to get back to the growth agenda and the microeconomic reform and productivity agenda. And part of the way that you do that is through Federation reform. The duplication that's there is a problem for our economy, but more importantly, during this pandemic, it's been a source of enormous frustration from people as they look at buck passing. And we need to do better.
 
MAX MADDISON, THE AUSTRALIAN: Max Maddison from The Australian. On tax, you've not stated your position to Labor's 2009 policy to implement a minimum tax rate on discretionary trust despite it being discussed by the strategic policy review committee. Will you revive it ahead of the election or commit to making no changes to the current rules when it comes to trusts?
 
ALBANESE: We announce our tax policy when we announce them. And I have done, stood up here after the review, and said that no policy is our policy until we make it. I've made that very clear all the way through. So, it reminds me of the debate that I used to get from one of your colleagues about, ‘What's your 2030 target? Will you do it? Will it be the same?’ Sorry, but we decide our policy and when we announce it.
 
MADDISON: So, you won't categorically rule it out?
 
ALBANESE: You get into a game there, to be frank. You get into a game of, ‘Will you rule out something else that you might just like to make up?’ It's not our policy. It's not our policy until we announce something. And we will work all of those issues through. I've been very transparent about what our policy process is. And can I say this? We have announced, it's a bit like you know the Monty Python sketch – ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’ People say, ‘Where's your policy?’ Well, apart from since December, an expanded NBN, a climate policy which is fully costed, 465,000 free TAFE places, 20,000 university places in additional, a policy of 500 new community workers to deal with domestic violence, a shipping policy that includes a strategic national fleet, high-speed rail being a priority from Newcastle to Sydney as the first leg, a policy of disaster preparedness using the ERF, a Great Barrier Reef Fund policy, and additional Indigenous rangers. That's since December. That's what we've done. You know what the Government has announced in new policy for the next term since December? Zero. Crickets.
 
KATHARINE MURPHY, THE GUARDIAN AUSTRALIA: Katharine Murphy from the Guardian Australia. I want to bring you back to health in your speech and Labor's commitments to Medicare. Obviously, that involves public health and hospital funding. Last October, health ministers from all the states wrote to Greg Hunt and basically told him that there was an effective underpayment in the current national hospitals’ agreement because COVID has significantly increased service delivery costs in hospitals. So, I'm not asking for the detail or the number. I'm just asking you a very simple question which is a yes or no answer.
 
ALBANESE: Good try.
 
MURPHY: Will Labor provide more funding for public hospitals?
 
ALBANESE: Labor will always be better on health and education than our opponent.
 
MURPHY: Is that a yes?
 
ALBANESE: That's the answer I gave. Labor will always be better on health and education than our opponents. We've already announced a range of policies out there. And there will be more to come.
 
ANDREW PROBYN, ABC: Andrew Probyn from the ABC. You've talked about the Federation, albeit vaguely. But one of the things about the Federation under a pandemic has been that you've been cast often to the shadows in political debates that people might be more likely to know the premiers of other states than they are to know the Leader of the Opposition federally, the alternative Prime Minister. So, for all of those people who do know Mark McGowan more than they know you, who is Anthony Albanese?
 
ALBANESE: Anthony Albanese is the son of a single mum who grew up in council housing in Camperdown. She was an invalid pensioner. As I grew up, I understood the impact that government had, can have, on making a difference to people's lives. And in particular, to opportunity. I had the security because it was public housing of a roof over my head. So, I didn't have to worry about that. Until there was a change of government in Sydney City Council. And a Conservative group got control, who thought that the Council shouldn't be involved in public housing. So, they tried to sell my house. My first campaign, I was 12 years old. We organised a rent strike. We took petitions around to everyone. That was my experience of that. That drove me. That was my first political campaign. And by the way, we won. We got back in terms of a Labor-controlled council led by people like Robert Tickner, and everyone who had been on the rent strike had their back rent written off too, which was a good thing, because it taught a lesson for those people who weren't part of the rent strike. Solidarity works! And then, then my mum was crippled up with rheumatoid arthritis. So, I lived by myself for a long period of time. And I'd encourage people to read Karen Middleton's book, she is down the front here, ‘Telling it straight’. A title made, I hope, about the way that my engagement of politics. I tell it straight. I lived by myself. It's meant that I'm resilient and I'm tough. If people think I'll go into a corner during the upcoming fight, they're very wrong. They're very wrong. Just watch. It gave me a determination each and every day to help the people, like I was, growing up to have a better life. And I think that that is what Australians want, very simply. And no-one does it on their own. I had neighbours who would cook me meals at night so that I got a proper meal. Meat and veggies. They looked after me. They had nothing. One of the things that I've learnt in life too, is that it's often the poorest people, the most working-class people, one of the reasons why I'm a supporter, unashamed, of the trade union movement, is that it's often those people who have less who will give more. That's me.
 
KIERAN GILBERT, SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA: Laura, thank you. Mr Albanese, as you know, it's been a rocky few years, to say the least, when it comes to relations with China. If you win government, do you believe that there can be a reset in relations with Beijing? And what would be the first thing that you would do in office? Would you send the Foreign Minister to Beijing for example?
 
ALBANESE: Well, I think that the starting point is that whoever is in government, it will be a difficult relationship. It will be difficult because the posture of China has changed. It is China that has changed, not Australia that has changed. And that needs to be acknowledged and we need to adjust accordingly. China's more forward leaning in the region. And that requires an adjustment in our approach. So, I don't blame the Government, and never have, for the current circumstances. One of the things that I would hope for, though, is that you can have an Australian policy that would be exactly the same on the Uighurs, on Hong Kong, on Taiwan, on the South China Sea, on human rights, but still have an economic relationship that the Howard Government had and that is important in the region. The rise of China is a fact of our times. And China deserves a great deal of credit for lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. They have achieved that. It's a great economic achievement. The like of which we haven't seen, ever, in human history. But that presents us with a challenge politically, but also of course, it's an opportunity for our trading relationship. It doesn't mean we abandon diplomacy. But I think the US administration put it best when they classified it as competition without catastrophe. We do have competition in our region. And we as a democratic nation stand with other democracies. We stand up for our values. And we should be prepared to not compromise on them at all. But we should also not engage in catastrophe. We should work as much as possible through multilateral organisations. I see our three pillars of foreign policy as being our alliance with the United States, engagement with regional partners, and engagement in multilateral forums such as the United Nations and its bodies. But one of the problems we've had, I think, in the region, is it was very short-sighted for this Government to withdraw from aid in the Pacific in the way they did. If Australia and democratic nations withdraw, guess what? There are others who may want to fill that gap. And we need to ensure that we act in a way that's in our national interest going forward. I think we can do that. But I don't argue that a change of government will simply change the relationship. Because that's just something that we have to deal with. But we have to deal with it in a mature way, not by being provocative for the sake of it to make a domestic political point. We need to understand that there are domestic consequences as well.
 
TINGLE: We're getting close to time, Mr Albanese, but we may keep going if that's Okay with you.
 
ANNA HENDERSON, SBS: Anna Henderson, SBS World News. Just on Ukraine, obviously the situation is very tense. Do you agree with the approach being taken at the moment by the US and the UK in rhetoric and action? And if you were Prime Minister and you were asked, would you agree to provide military support?
 
ALBANESE: Well, we haven't been asked. And it's not appropriate to deal in hypotheticals either. What Australia is doing, and this is a bipartisan position, I heard Marise Payne on the radio this morning, there was nothing she said that I disagree with. And there's nothing that Penny Wong has put out, that I have put out, that isn't consistent with that. Which is that we've been asked by Ukraine to provide assistance against potential cyber-attacks. And Australia has agreed to do that. That's appropriate. We have called for the safety of our own citizens to be the first priority. And that's appropriate as well. And we have called for Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and for a de-escalation is what we called for. This is an example of diplomacy - I have no criticism of Marise Payne at all - I agree with everything she said this morning - diplomacy needs not to deal with hypotheticals and talking things up - what if this happens. Leadership is sometimes about just saying people need to cool it, essentially, is the message. We need de-escalation. I think that is appropriate at this point in time. And I hope that occurs.
 
HENDERSON: On the position being taken by the United States?
 
ALBANESE: Which one? Which position?
 
HENDERSON: On the handling of this by the President?
 
ALBANESE: That's a very broad statement that you make, with respect. Joe Biden said a range of things. The US is providing support, the US is calling for a de-escalation, the US is providing some hardware support to the Ukraine. And that's a decision for the United States.
 
LANAI SCARR, WEST AUSTRALIAN: Mr Albanese, I've got the results of a poll that will be in our paper that shows 51 per cent of West Australians believe Mark McGowan could have done more to prepare to stick to his pledge to open the border on February 5. And only 28 per cent believe there's nothing more he could have done, and his decision was sound. You backed in Mark McGowan after his press conference last week. And you said Mark McGowan has done the right thing by WA, which is keeping their health okay, which is a precondition for keeping their economy OK. Do you still believe that's the case when 51 per cent of West Australians think more could have been done? And do you think he could have done more to prepare to open the border?
 
ALBANESE: I have backed in every Premier. And in the Bass electorate on Saturday, I was asked a number of questions about Premier Gutwein. And I said that I supported his decision based upon the health advice as well he's getting. I think one of the things that has happened during this period, it didn't happen at the beginning. At the beginning the National Cabinet, if you look at National Cabinet coming together, all went out there, there was a particular Sunday whereby then Premier Berejiklian and Daniel Andrews made it clear they had a different position on schools to the Federal Government. And from that point on, the thing just drifted away to the point whereby now if anyone thinks there's national consistency, then it's not a position I share. But one of the reasons why it's drifted away is this sort of game of the Prime Minister being critical of premiers selectively, even though they're doing the same thing. I recall, to get a cup of coffee in Queensland, you need to log on. It was exactly the same rules in New South Wales. One of the things I do know about WA, under Premier McGowan, WA's economy has been the strongest in Australia, WA's exports have kept the national economy going, people in WA have been able to have dinner, they've been able to associate and go to each other's houses, they've been able to go to the pub, they've been able to play footy, and they hosted the grand final last year. So, I'm not about second guessing Premier McGowan and his decision making process. I make no apologies for saying he's done a good job.
 
SCARR: You're trying to secure their vote. Do you agree with them or Mark McGowan?
 
ALBANESE: You're the commentator. And I will leave you to make the commentating. What I agree with is that Mark McGowan has done an outstanding job as the Premier of Western Australia.
 
KAREN BARLOW, CANBERRA TIMES: Karen Barlow, Canberra Times. You said in your speech, you say, ‘The future I am working towards will be demonstrated to Australians within the first term of a Labor Government’. You also spoke of the desire to deliver the legacies that you want for Australians. Really, what can be delivered, tangibly, within 100 days? What's ready to roll if Labor is elected?
 
ALBANESE: Well, I'm not going to do the 100 day game. What can be done in our first term is we can reform the whole childcare system, for example. So that you have more affordable child care and so that the same time you move towards and we've said we'll do it - that change will come in after a year. And then we'll have a review as well by the PC about whether we move then towards universal affordable provision. So, that's an example of a change. In the first term as well, we'll have established the National Reconstruction Fund. $15 billion to support new industries. And that will work in conjunction, obviously, with our Powering the Nation fund. We'll have our $20 billion plan to fix electricity transmission. The work is being done on that by AIEMO with their integrated systems plan. This is low-hanging fruit you can achieve in the first term. We can change the trajectory, so we're headed towards 43 per cent reduction by 2030, so we are going to international conferences not being the naughty kids in the corner with Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Australia can bring respect to our position on climate change. On gender issues and women's safety, we've said 500 additional workers. You know, one of the tragedies of the pandemic has been the increase in violence towards women and children. It's a national scourge. We can have leadership on that. We can adopt immediately the Respect@Work report. How hard is that to adopt the Respect@Work report that's been sitting there, they didn't even respond to, for more than a year. There's a range of changes that we can make in our first term, across the economy, social, and environmental. We have put time frames on the whole range of things that will be there. I want an advance, as well, in our first term, we'll have a National Anti-corruption Commission. We'll have a Royal Commission into Robodebt and the scandals that occurred there. We will be rolling out the expansion of the National Broadband Network to over one million homes and businesses in addition. We'll have five-year funding for ABC and SBS. And we will restore the ABC's funding that was cut by this Government.
 
DOMINIC GIANNINI, AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS: Mr Albanese, Dominic from the Australian Associated Press. Given you have promised to legislate net zero, how will you enforce it, and will you strengthen the safeguard mechanism to expand to cover more industries or lower the baseline?
 
ALBANESE: No, to the latter. We think the current industries that are there provide certainty going forward. So, there isn't a single business that is currently not covered by the safeguards mechanism that will be covered. It's a straightforward plan. And it's one that will work and that's been fully modelled. And we put it all out there. Our plan didn't have a little provision, a little asterisk, which is in their pamphlet of ‘Stuff we made up that doesn't exist yet, and by the way, it doesn't even add up to net zero by 2050 anyway’. We have put out a comprehensive plan. And I reckon if I stood up here, at any of the previous, I think this is probably number four, speech at the National Press Club as Labor Leader, and said, or in the response to any of the questions like the tax questions, ‘What are you doing 2030?’ And said, ‘What we'll do, I'm going to have a plan and it will be endorsed by the ACTU, it will be endorsed by conservation groups, mainstream conservation groups, it will be endorsed by the Business Council, AIG, and by the way, the National Farmers' Federation will give it a shout-out as well’. I would have been laughed out. Any journo would have said, ‘You're kidding me, that's a bit ambitious’. Well, we did it. And we did it fully costed. I didn't come here and say in advance, ‘By the way, the reason why we're doing it because we want to wait until the US election’. I remember Phil Coorey asked me a question outside Parliament House. I said there's two events, the US elections will change the climate debate globally. And it did. And secondly, is Glasgow. It was appropriate to wait until Glasgow, it was appropriate to see what they put out before we put out ours. One of the things I am determined as well, it goes to the theoretical questions I get asked from time to time by members of the gallery, I've been determined to give one answer, not to give an answer in 2019 and then come back in 2020 and say, ‘Well, now this has changed’, and give a different answer in 2021. When we announce our policy, it's a policy for the election. When I stood here at first address to the National Press Club, I said, as I said on the day that I became Labor Leader, ‘I'm not about tactics. I'm not about what happens in a week or what happens in a month’. I'm about - I said this before, to many of you - about two dates. One is election day, what is our offer to the Australian people? We know this
Government's pretty incompetent, and pretty dishonest, frankly. But what is our offer? What is our alternative? I understand we've got to have an alternative offer. We've been putting that out there very consciously. When we make a commitment, we mean it, it's costed, we do the detail, we work through. And just because it's not a source of conflict doesn't mean it's not serious. To my mind, it means the opposite. It means it is serious. We talked it through in advance, we thought about the problems that may be there. And we have dealt with them.
 
GIANNINI: But you have announced this policy, so what is your one answer about how you're going to enforce it?
 
ALBANESE: I'm not sure what you mean.
 
GIANNINI: You said you're going to legislate net zero.
 
ALBANESE: Well, the legislation for the safeguards mechanism is there. It was introduced by Tony Abbott. It was Tony Abbott's legislation. And Tony Abbott's legislation provides for the companies that are a part of the safeguard mechanism. What hasn't happened is that the Climate Change Authority hasn't put forward an oversight of it that ensures it's consistent with net zero by 2050. What we did wasn't to adopt 43 per cent by 2030 and then decide how aware going to get there. What we did was say these are the mechanisms we're going to do. Rewiring the Nation to fix electricity transmission. Make electric vehicles cheaper. Fix the safeguards mechanism so it actually does what it is supposed to do and intended to do and reduce emissions. A range of policies we have put forward in the Powering Australia Plan are all there for all to see. And it happens that adds up through the RepuTex modelling to 43 per cent reduction by 2030 which is consistent to getting to net zero by 2050.
 
MATT KILLORAN, COURIER MAIL: Over your leadership, you have changed or shifted the Party’s position with regard to coal mining to be more consistent and more in line with, ‘it will be up to the international markets’. When it comes to coal-fired power stations, over the next decade there will be closures. What do you say to those workers when it comes to the future and sustainability of their future? And will an Albanese Government consider intervening to extend the life of those stations in a similar way to the Morrison Government with Liddell if it is required for either the sustainability of the power grid or their jobs?
 
ALBANESE: The Morrison Government didn't do it. They talked about it and then did the opposite. That's consistent with what they have done the whole way through because they got hit by reality and the market. So, Liddell will shut because of the problems that are there, because it's at the end of its life. And if you speak to people in the energy sector, including the head of energy security appointed by this Government, Kerry Shott, Kerry Shott will tell you why Liddell couldn't have been kept open. So, that's one of the things I've avoided. Josh Frydenberg used to stand up in Question Time day after day and give questions about Liddell. You know, we now say, ‘What about Liddell?’ And he doesn’t talk about it anymore. Because the opposite has happened. Our policy, in terms of modelling, will have no impact on any of the timeframes for the shift that is occurring. There are changes in our energy mix. There are changes in our energy mix because the cheapest form of new energy in Australia is clean energy. I was at Gladstone in your great state of Queensland last week, at the Rio Tinto Alumina refinery. They're looking at hydrogen. They're looking at ways to shift to clean energy. Why? In part, it's about a message to shareholders and all of that. But the big driver is economics. They want the company and the business to be more efficient and to have lower bills. That's why they're doing it. Just as throughout the whole country, you can visit anywhere and see solar panels on roofs and battery that are reducing power bills. The same reason why individuals are putting better than just about any country in the world, solar panels on their roofs. Some of them, it might be because of climate change. I'll tell you what the big driver is. They want to pay less in the power bills. That same logic is happening throughout the economy. 
 
JADE GAILBERGER, HERALD SUN: You have been pretty critical about what you call the one trillion in Liberal debt racked up during the pandemic. Before the election, will you tell voters how you plan to pay back that debt? And do you think the budget can be repaired through productivity gains and economic growth or will your Labor Government cut spending?
 
ALBANESE: It would help of the government was trying to drive productivity growth. It would help if they had a plan at all. My criticism of this Government isn’t that whoever is in government during a crisis would need to stimulate the economy, just like we did during the Global Financial Crisis. At that time, the Coalition had all that nonsense rhetoric about now they would like to forget it. The problem with this Government as they have racked up a trillion of debt and no legacy. The former Labor governments I was proud to serve in weren't perfect. But the legacy from the GFC included paid parental leave, included the National Broadband Network, fibre-based, not copper-based, included more funding for urban transport than any government in history. It included rebuilding one third of the interstate rail network and included the bring-forward of the completion of the Hume Highway and major improvements to the Bruce and the Pacific. We had projects like the Regional Rail Link in Victoria, the biggest single investment in a project by any Federal Government in history. Where is the legacy? Carparks, Sports Rorts. They have 16 billion in decisions taken but not announced. That is decisions taken to spend taxpayer money that they won't tell the people watching this broadcast what it's going to be spent on. That's my criticism. This Government have no credibility when it comes to economic management. I have a record of being able to manage a portfolio. And I had a substantial portfolio. At the end of the Government, I was Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Communications and all of those things. I have been Opposition Leader now for three years. I haven't managed to point to any problems. This Government have had $100 billion of new spending in two budgets that weren't even 12 months apart and they cut the infrastructure investment by $4.2 billion in their last budget. That's the problem. So, if you have an end to waste, an end to mismanagement, you can actually make some measures towards budget repair. If you have economic growth, driven by higher wages as part of the problem that's there at the moment, insecure work means that people are not in a 
position to make contributions, if you have an economy that is seeing new industries grow throughout National Reconstruction Fund, our action on Powering the Nation, then you can turn around the economy. And that is our vision. Their vision is, I'm just not sure what it is. More of the same. So, we will work those things through. But I am very confident that our economic team as well, Katy Gallagher, she comes along to these things so that I don't make commitments that haven't been through processes. And she is very good at it. And those people who watch her at the Senate COVID committee will know that I'm justified in being intimidated by Katy with regards to making commitments on the run. We make no apologies for that. We will be responsible. We've made no easy ‘We will just throw money everywhere’ commitments. We have made commitments. And one of the things that my Shadow Cabinet know is if you want a commitment, show how there will be payback as well. So, childcare for example. The truth is we costed that it $6.2 billion over the forwards. But every analysis says that every dollar you spend in childcare will increase economic growth, will payback by more than double. So, they are the things that I am looking forward that actually grow the economy, not just things that are one-off and are then gone. That's a part of how you build a legacy.
 
TINGLE: Finally, Mr Albanese, will you commit to debating the Prime Minister during the election campaign either here at the National Press Club or elsewhere?
 
ALBANESE: Every day, every week is fine. I can't get into debating him in the Parliament. There has never been a Prime Minister who is so shy about having a debate. It's one of the things I've spoken about today was about democracy. You know, this Government have acted differently from that lead by Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. No other government shuts down debate the way that this one does and is so scared of having a debate. I am up for a debate here with the Prime Minister. I am up for a debate on ABC, 7, 9, 10, Herald, West, you can all host, Guardian. Everyone can host one. I will turn up wherever they are. We will wait and see whether he turns up. I'm available next week, by the way, when he turns up here. I think an election should be a contest of ideas. And I think the more debate, the better. I suspect, though, given the letter that the National Secretary wrote to my National Secretary, Paul Erickson, which had an out clause in it which meant that he could veto, they wanted a committee of 57 people to decide how the debates would happen and everybody gets to veto it, that they have set up a structure to avoid debates, not to have debates. And I think there should be a bit of common sense. I say, unashamedly, not just because where you work now, but in front of all your colleagues, I think the ABC should host a range of debates as our national broadcaster. I think the National Press Club should host a debate. But I am up for a debate wherever. I have agreed to here, now, I agreed to do one on Sky. I will debate him anywhere. I will debate on Andrew Bolt, if he likes.
 
TINGLE: Please thank the Leader of the Opposition.
 
ENDS