Doorstop, Canberra

Journalist: In terms of the $90 million cap, independents that have parties with their name on it don't have access to that cap. That's what they've been told. Can you explain the rationale between why someone with their name in the party doesn't have access to that? So, you know, if it's the Clive Palmer Australia Party. No. UAP? Well not UAP anymore, but previously UAP, yes?

Minister for Trade: What this legislation does is to level the playing field in terms of the Australian electoral system. It also increases the transparency of that system so that all participants in the electoral process are treated equally. The caps that you're talking about, of course, are self-imposed caps by the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to ensure that there's downward pressure on the cost of elections. And I think it's a very fair system. I don't think the criticisms of the Teals are justified. I think this is a very fair system that increases the transparency of the Australian political system. When you walk into the ballot box next election, you will know exactly who is supporting the candidate of your choice. You will know exactly how much they've had by way of donations, and you'll know exactly who's donating to them. So, I think this is a much-improved electoral system that's going to improve transparency and the access to the electoral process by all Australians.

Journalist: Aren't some of the criticisms justified though, Minister? This was rushed through very late last night with very little notice that the other non-government, non-Coalition MPs and senators did not see the amendments until very, very late. Why did this have to be rushed through in this process in such a way last night, if you are, as you say, all about electoral processes and electoral integrity?

Minister for Trade: For three years, so, almost three years ago when I came into this job, the first thing I set in train was an examination of the Australian electoral system. How to make it more transparent and how to make it fairer for all Australians. You shouldn't have to be an acolyte of Clive Palmer, for instance, in order to be involved in the Australian electoral process. Ordinary Australians should be able to exercise their democratic right to get involved into the electoral process. We've done three years, three years of consultation. There's been two official reports and what you saw passed by the Parliament last night was a reflection of that three years of work.

I don't believe there was anybody in that room last night who could honestly say that they had not been consulted and engaged with the electoral process and all of the discussions that had taken place. If people didn't know what was going on, it was their choice. But I've made myself available, my staff have made themselves available. The Department has made itself available to explain all of these provisions. But nothing that was put through the Parliament last night came as a surprise to anybody in that room who was taking an interest in the electoral process. And the reason it got so overwhelmingly supported was because we had engaged in that consultation. Three years. Three years of consultation.

Why were people saying they didn't think that the legislation was to go through? Because they didn't support it. They didn't support the concept that there should be downward pressure on the cost of Australian elections. They didn't support that there should be a limit on how much a candidate can spend in an election. We do think there's got to be a limit. We don't want the system where costs are out of control. And as of last night, there will be downward pressure. The major parties took a haircut in this legislation. We are deliberately reducing the amount of money we can spend at the next election. And that's a good thing. That's a good thing for Australian democracy because it means more and more Australians, ordinary Australians, can participate in the election process.

Journalist: Minister, you said major parties took a haircut from this legislation. $90 million is still a lot of money. The Independents say, there's one right next to you right now, that it will be a lot harder for independentS, smaller parties now to participate in elections. Will it be harder for Independents to be elected?

Minister for Trade: No. This legislation actually makes it easier for ordinary Australians to participate in the electoral process. There's now a cap on how much you can spend in an individual electorate. That must be good for all ordinary Australians who want to participate in the electoral process.

Zali Steggall, MP: Minister, if that's so sure, why won't you send the bill to inquiry to be assessed that it is actually democratic and fair?

Minister for Trade: Because we've been engaged.

Zali Steggall: Because you don’t have time?

Minister for Trade: We've been engaged. We've been engaged in this process for three years. From the day, from the day I took office, we started the process of consultation. For three years, the Parliament has been examining, how do we put downward pressure on the cost of Australian elections so that ordinary Australians can participate in the process?

Zali Steggall: That is just not-

Minister for Trade: And then you don't have to be an acolyte of a millionaire or a billionaire to win seats in the Australian Parliament.

Zali Steggall: Now, why don't you tell the Australian people what is going to happen? The big money that will be in politics is the public money, because now the public is paying for the money that you want to still spend during elections. And the only people that will be able to participate in elections, will be union members.

Minister for Trade: That is completely untrue. Unions are subject to exactly the same rules -

Zali Steggall: Or members of the Labor Party.

Minister for Trade:: Well, stop changing your story. Either you think that it's the unions getting some benefit out of this. Unions are subject to exactly the same rules that every other donor is subject to.

Zali Steggall: As you explained nominated entities, the associated entities, the big pool of cash the political parties have available to them. And the unions and the Labor Party or that little secret loophole in the legislation.

Minister for Trade: There are no secret loopholes in this legislation. This legislation, for the first time, enables every single Australian, when you go to the ballot box next election, to know exactly who is donating to the political party, the candidate of your choice and how much they are donating. So, we will know next time just how much every single candidate is receiving by way of donations. This is the most transparent, this is the most transparent electoral reforms that has ever occurred in this country. And the whole process pushes downward pressure on the cost of elections so ordinary Australians have a chance to be elected. Not those candidates that are supported by the billionaires and the millionaires.

Zali Steggall: For ordinary Australians, a 47% increase to how much the public will pay politicians per vote. A 47 % increase. Think about that. What other sector receives a 47 per cent increase?

Journalist: Minister, the polls are pointing to the next government being in minority, one of the independents, it might need to get you into government at the next election, is sitting right next to you. Very unhappy about this. Some other of the Lower House Independents are also very unhappy. I realise you're not in the Lower House, but does this cruel the government's election chances of actually coming back into government through a minority next Parliament?

Minister for Trade: Well, let me say this. I believe Anthony Albanese will lead the Labor Party to a majority victory at the next election. We have done all the things to try and put in the case of electoral reform, downward pressure on the cost of elections. In terms of cost of living. We're trying to put downward pressure on the cost of living. And I think the Albanese government will be rewarded with a majority at the next election.

Journalist: If I may, this is a press conference-

Zali Steggall: We found out the details of this deal through the press. So, I think it's appropriate we do it here in front of the press. We didn't have the courtesy of a briefing or information of what the deal was. So, it happens in front of the press. We find out through the press. So, it happens in front of the press?

Journalist: If we accept, even if we accept your arguments about downward pressure and fairness. There is still another matter that needs to be reflected on surely. The major political parties are in a good position to organise campaigns. Whenever a Prime Minister calls an election, the independents are not that well-resourced. The next obvious step is having a fixed date, whether it's fixed three-year terms or fixed four-year terms, so all people have the fairness of a timetable so they can plan spending, plan campaigning, plan advocacy and all that type of stuff. Did you reflect on that during this process at all?

Minister for Trade: Yes, yes, I did, and I actually agree with the proposition that you put forward. The difficulty is that that requires a constitutional change. The Australian governments in the past have attempted to implement those changes and for whatever reason the Australian population did not support those changes. So, unfortunately, we have a three-year term system and no fixed date. If it was possible to get the support of the Australian people to change that to say four years and fixed terms, I would be 100 per cent in support of that.

Journalist: Minister, just on Trump's trade tariffs, there's been a lot of mixed messaging out at the White House this week. His Senior Trade Adviser Peter Navarro isn't drawn to the idea of a carve-out for Australia. How are negotiations going there and what's your response to Navarro's claim that Australia is killing the American aluminium market?

Minister for Trade: Well, the Americans will say what the Americans will say. We produce high-quality aluminium and steel in Australia, and we export it to the American market. We have willing purchasers in the United States because of the high quality of our product. I believe we're complying with all of our obligations in terms of entry of our steel and our aluminium into the United States and will continue to do so.

Journalist: As you understand it, is March 12 the deadline now to get an assurance that there will be some kind of carve-out deal?

Minister for Trade: Well, I can't predict what the American government might do in terms of when they'll make the final decision. But can I say this - we'll continue to represent Australia's interests with the United States. You saw the very warm call between Prime Minister Albanese and the American President earlier this week. We'll continue to have discussions and to press our point of view. It makes no sense for the Americans to apply tariff to a country where they've got a deficit. Just to explain, a total two-way trade between Australia and the United States is roughly $100 billion. $70 billion of that is product we buy from America, 30 billion is product we sell into the United States. And of course, a part of that is the steel and aluminium that we've been talking about. But the argument that will be presented to the United States and continue to press will be that it doesn't make any sense at all to be imposing a tariff on a country where you have a trade deficit.

Journalist: On this verbal agreement - the proclamation from the US has spoken a verbal agreement. Someone in the former government has said that there was some sort of voluntary undertaking given by the Morrison government in around 2019 that there would be some sort of voluntary limits, like an informal quota set by Australia on how much aluminium will be sent to the US. In your understanding, was there any sort of undertaking given by the Albanese government? Was that undertaking continued on once the government changed? Can you tell us anything about that particular situation which seems to be at the heart of what's going on here?

Minister for Trade: You'd have to ask Mr. Morrison or-

Journalist: Your understanding of that-

Minister for Trade: Or you'd have to ask Mr. Birmingham what arrangements they made. This government, I believe, has complied with all of the arrangements set in place by the American government. What you have to understand, of course, is that post those arrangements being entered into by Mr. Morrison or Mr. Birmingham, we've had COVID that changed the scene and of course, we've had the war between Russia and Ukraine. But I'm very confident that we comply with all of our obligations in terms to supply into the United States. And I think it's worth noting that in the last 12 months, the caps that have been talked about, we have not exceeded. The products that we've got into the United States have been at lower caps. And why is that? Well, when we came to government, of course, we had all of our eggs in the one basket. We had impediments imposed on us by the Chinese government. We had all of those removed. But of course, we diversified our trading relationship. So, we said to every country, don't put your eggs into one basket. And one of the reasons that our exports of aluminium and steel to the United States have been reduced is because we have found other markets. Last question from Phil Coorey.

Journalist: You did mention the war between Russia and Ukraine. The Financial Review reports today that the Americans didn't oppose us sending more aluminium after the Russian aluminium got hit with tariffs. So, is it the case that Mr. Navarro's at cross purposes here that the Biden Administration welcomed offers from Australia to send them more aluminium to replace the Russian exports?

Minister for Trade: That was excellent reporting by the AFR, I have to say. Very accurate. But look, we have complied, I believe, with all of the obligations in terms of our export arrangements into the United States. There's nothing that Australian companies or the Australian governments have done that conflict with any arrangements that were in place. And that's what we'll continue to do. But I make the point. Our sales of aluminium and steel to the United States are dropping because this government is encouraging companies to find alternative markets, and I think that will continue.