SUSAN TEMPLEMAN MP
SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE ARTS
MEMBER FOR MACQUARIE
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
ABC AFTERNOON BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY 19th MARCH 2025
SUBJECT: Northwest gas shelf, PBS, Tariffs
PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: As part of Peter Dutton's pledge to extend the Northwest gas shelf he took aim directly at the independent MP for Curtin in WA Kate Chaney, who says that scrutiny needs to be applied to the approval process of the gas plant.
PETER DUTTON: People at the last election were duped when they heard Kate Chaney say that she was a disaffected Liberal. Kate Chaney is a hard-core green. I don't believe the people of Curtin want Kate Chaney to continue with this process of deception.
KARVELAS: Let's bring in Kate Chaney herself, who is one half of our political panel today, along with Labor MP for Macquarie Susan Templeman. Welcome to both of you.
SUSAN TEMPLEMAN MP FOR MACQUARIE: Thank you.
KATE CHANEY MP FOR CURTIN: Thank you very much.
Kate, I kind of have to start with you. Peter Dutton has singled you out here in relation to the Northwest Gas shelf and the way you're representing your community; says you’re a hard-core Green. Are you?
CHANEY: I think we'll get a lot of name-calling from Peter Dutton because that is really all he’s got. He’s shown today he does not understand the WA economy and where its future lies, he’s saying he will repeal the production tax credit which means so much to our future prosperity. And also shown how he does not understand how approval processes work. You cannot do a process in 30 days. We need to look at the relevant information and make a decision on all of the facts, not just rush it through.
KARVELAS: You had previously labelled the WA government’s approval of the Northwest Shelf as a terrible decision and urged the Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to knock it back. You’ve since changed your mind. Do you support the extension of this project?
CHANEY: I didn’t actually change my mind although that’s the way it’s been reported. What I said was these projects should not go through unless we are fully accounting for carbon, we have a robust offsets program, and we’ve addressed the environmental issues and heritage issues. We are still working through that process with the Northwest Shelf and the Federal process looks at different issues to the State process. We have not yet come to a conclusion as to whether or not they are environmental and heritage issues that would prevent this project from, on balance being good for Australia. We need to see that process continue to roll through. If in fact there is any clue - if it looks at the has been made before the relevant information has been taken into account, it is just going to open it to legal challenge. So Peter Dutton is really doing himself no favours here by questioning the approval process that we are currently working through.
KARVELAS: Susan, has the government allowed this to be an issue by pushing the deadline on this into possible caretaker mode?
TEMPLEMAN: I think the extension for consideration goes to just how complex this project is. Really what this whole issue is showing is that the Liberals and Nationals are prepared to throw out the rules, they are prepared to give verbal approval for something before it has been through any process and then say in 30 days we will tick the box. That is as Kate has said, a recipe for legal challenges but also an appalling way to be in government. It is what we saw from them in their last term, Robodebt, let's not follow the rules let’s make them up, and it goes to the heart of their attitude to say or do whatever it takes, particularly in this pre-election campaign but it is a recipe for appalling environmental decisions. We will obviously work through as efficiently as possible so that the decision that the minister makes, and remember she is not allowed to prejudge, the law says she cannot prejudge, and we will follow those laws.
KARVELAS: I just want to ask you as a follow up, the Coalition wants to introduce a national interest test for projects that are subject to environmental approvals. Would that be think that you could support?
TEMPLEMAN: I think it depends which bit of national interest that talking about. I'm very sceptical about people who have had nearly a decade in government until fairly recently, coming up with the sort of stuff as excuses to push things through that may not pass environmental standards. Even pass the existing environmental standards let alone the approved environmental standard that we want to see. It all depends. To hear just before us, Bridget McKenzie, I’m not any clearer about what is is, how it would work, and in whose interest it would work.
KARVELAS: Kate Chaney final question to you on this. You’ve described this idea of fast tracking the timeframes as from the Donald Trump playbook, how is it from the Donald Trump playbook? It seems consistent with the general policy approach that I think we've heard from the Coalition for some time, isn't it?
CHANEY: For a start, I think it is policy on the fly, like we are seeing from Donald Trump, and I don't think this is very well thought through thinking about let's ignore the processes and say we'll do it and get it done in 30 days. Not only does it open that legal issue but also it really undermines the fact that if you are making decisions that have 50-year implications for our kids and grandkids, it makes sense to look at the information and make sure they are informed decisions, not quick decisions. This will not affect any gas to come on before 2030, it is not like this is holding things up, we need to make reasonable long-term decisions, not snap short-term decisions for political benefit. In that way I think it is quite consistent with what we are seeing come out of the US at the moment and we're seeing again and again Peter Dutton testing Donald Trump lines and seeing which of them fly with the Australian public. But I think the Australian public wants to see sensible decisions made for the long-term, not short-term political decisions.
KARVELAS: Should the citizenship test change to ask questions about anti-Semitism?
TEMPLEMAN: This just follows on from the whole referendum thought bubble yesterday. I don't know what tomorrow’s will be but none of this is clear about what it is achieving and what is the problem it is trying to solve. We have laws in place to deal with people who do appalling things that are antisemitic. We've increased laws to make sure that Nazi symbols cannot be used. We have a whole series of laws that apply to everybody, whether they are citizens or non- citizens. It is not - again - I've been keeping an ear on things this afternoon and when David Coleman talked about it, I do not know how it would work and why are we not singling out one religion, we have - everybody should be respected no matter what their religion. Anything that you are going to put into citizenship tests should be really working with people to ensure that there is a respect no matter what someone's religion or background is.
KARVELAS: Kate Chaney is there anything wrong with asking that question or trying to ensure people come here with values which are not discriminatory?
CHANEY: I think this is completely out of the Trump playbook as well, it is a distraction, this is Peter Dutton trying to pick a culture war to distract from the fact that he really is very short on policy on the big issues that people care about like housing, decarbonisation, cost of living, and to start talking about a referendum on an issue that I think is peripheral and does not solve the problem, is just more distraction and I don't think people will fall for it.
KARVELAS: Just to a breaking story which I consider, and I bet all our view agree is extremely significant and that is the price of medicines in our country, and our excellent PBS. The US industry has named Australia's PBS is one of the egregious and discriminatory programs to be targeted in it Trumps imminent decisions on reciprocal tariffs, blaming our policy for cutting prices and blocking American exporters. That is now going to be the next front of a fight with the Trump Administration potentially. Susan I would love to get your views on how your government is going to handle this?
TEMPLEMAN: Well, we're not going to give any inch on the PBS and cheaper medicines, this is something that has been around for more than 75 years, is when it started. It’s got stronger and stronger, and we are the ones, it is Labor who has made it stronger. So, we will be - that is not something that will be open to negotiation. Not only is cheaper medicine a key part of the things that we've done to help people from cost of living, but it's building on that foundation which means it's not your credit card that determines the access you get to most medicines. And we're always adding more to that PBS. But this is just a fundamental part of how we get equity in Australia's health system. So, you know, it might be - the Americans might want to see us go down the path where people go bankrupt because they're trying to pay for medication but it's not a path we'll take a single step down.
KARVELAS: I think that it is a very very well supported position. Kate, I will give you the final word on this. It will be very difficult for the government as it goes into this battle.
CHANEY: Yeah, that's right. I think we have to be calm and careful in the context of the uncertainty globally. We have a deep interest in protecting free trade principles wherever possible and Australia needs to keep thinking about our own national interest and the fact, we don't want to get into any tariff wars, and we have to do what we can to protect those free trade principles.
KARVELAS: I want to thank you both. You've been great panellists. Thanks for coming on.
ENDS
