Anna Henderson: Just on some of the detail around the approach of the Coalition to the conflict in the Middle East. There is an active discussion at the moment within the Netanyahu government about moves to annexe parts of the West Bank. Would the Coalition support such a move by Israel on that front? And do you think that would deem the two-state solution effectively null and void?
Simon Birmingham: Well, thanks Anna. So, in terms of how we secure and the world sees a future of a stable, peaceful Middle East in which the security of Israelis and Palestinians is guaranteed, we want to see progress made to that and progress that can be enduring. That’s why we’ve been critical of what we see as a shift by the Albanese government from what have been a long standing bipartisan consensus on a two-state solution that was negotiated and sought to resolve matters of borders, security guarantees, rights of return first and foremost, rather than a potential early arbitrary recognition of a Palestinian state that leaves the difficult questions unresolved. Now, of course, that long-standing bipartisan position hasn’t equally been achieved in the last couple of decades. And people like former President Clinton have spoken extensively about some of the reasons for that. Where we have to take some hope at present is from regional initiatives such as those that indeed I explored with DFAT during Senate estimates last week. Many people were distracted with the US election, but we were exploring other issues and serious ones, and including the Saudi Arabian led efforts to try to discuss what the day after the current conflict looks like and what the pathway and progress towards peace can be and can look like and clearly issues such as land will be very much at the heart of that.
Anna Henderson: But I take from that that you haven’t made a decision within the Coalition about a position on that, or just not one you want to share?
Simon Birmingham: Well, it’s not one where I intend to give a running commentary on every issue that may be debated at a point in time in the Middle East. The principles are the important principles about wanting to see security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. How that is best achieved in ways that aren’t just about physical security, but ultimately economic security for all as well, is critical. But it is going to take significant regional leadership if countries like Saudi Arabia working with, of course, Abraham Accord, countries who I referenced and Saudi Arabia appeared to be coming very close to perhaps becoming one of those nations pre-October 7 and we should hope will be again, in terms of the role that that could add to regional stability.
Anna Henderson: Next question is from Andrew Tillett.
Andrew Tillet: Thanks. And Andrew Tillett from the Financial Review and board member here at the club. I just want to take you to some comments from Anthony Albanese today about Australia as a trusted middle power, perhaps playing a role in managing the US and China help manage their strategic competition. I was wondering if that’s a view that you agree with and if so, what sort of role do you think Australia could play in that? Or whether you think it’s perhaps a bit of a naive thinking on the PM’s part, and that great powers will just do what great powers do and, and talk to each other, and we all get lost in the slipstream behind them.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Andrew. Well, Australia should always seek to play as constructive a role as we possibly can, but I think at this point of change and contest, we also need to be realistic about the challenges that we face. When it comes to our engagement with the Trump administration, there are immediate priorities that we have in the bilateral relationship. I spoke about how we should position and explain AUKUS and how that is best sold to the administration. Clearly, the criticality for our exporters in addressing the proposed tariffs from a second Trump administration proposed to apply universally and seeking to do as the previous coalition government did, as Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison achieved and ensured endured in terms of exemptions from those tariffs is an important priority bilaterally. Of course, beyond those bilateral points of engagement. There will be ways in which we want to seek to encourage the US as to how they engage in our region. Active engagement remains critical and important across, particularly the ASEAN nations, and no doubt there will be times for discussion about the nature of their engagement with China and the implications of that with other nations and on the global economy. But are we going to step up and be able to fulfil some situation that is foreseeable as a significant interlocutor between the two? And I think we’re a few steps away from that at this point in time.
Anna Henderson: Next question from Stephen Dziedzic.
Stephen Dziedzic: Hi, Senator, and thank you for your time. Can I ask a question, please, on climate policy and its intersection with foreign policy? The Pacific has been pretty blunt that they want to see more ambition from Australia, including this government on climate. They’ve also been not universally but often sceptical about nuclear power. How will these trends shape the Coalition’s energy policies, given that all foreign policy is domestic and vice versa these days? And what’s the Coalition’s current thinking on the COP bid by Australia and the Pacific. Is this something that the Coalition still sees merit in, and does it believe that government resources should be ploughed into that endeavour? Thank you.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Stephen, for those questions. To the first one. I think a key point we need to reinforce about the next Australian election and how it is perceived in the Pacific. Is that the debate we will be having about the zero emissions, nuclear emissions technology that the Coalition is taking forward versus the government’s policies and policies, of course, that we contest are expensive and unlikely to actually achieve net zero is that we are having a debate in Australia, not about if we get to net zero, but about how we get to net zero. And that that is a really important message to drive home to those Pacific nations that the construct of debate in this country is focused on actually achieving that, achieving it from our own domestic lens in ways that secure industry and secure our economic strength, which in doing so secures our economic capacity to continue to be a valued partner to Pacific Island nations as well. And that’s how we need to really make sure we take a careful and thoughtful approach to framing that election contest. In terms of iterative targets that are taken under the Paris Agreement and those five yearly gaps. I think there’s an important point also, we need to be clear on here, and that is the importance of honesty and being up front about what is achievable in the time horizons that are there.
It is no more helpful. In fact, arguably, it’s more counterproductive to be in a situation where targets are made but not realised, and you’ve broken your promise to nations than it is to have been realistic in the first place. And of course, we want to stretch to maximum ambition, and I’ve been clear about my desire to see maximum ambition at all times, but it’s not going to go down well if maximum ambition simply translates into broken promises. And that, again, is where honest answers and engagement need to be had about the complexity of the challenge in transitioning to net zero, and particularly the challenge for an economy like ours. And to do so in ways that keep us as strong as we can, as such that we are also as strong and viable a partner for the Pacific as possible. In terms of COP bid. The government is still yet to explain what it’s going to cost, what the details are, how it’s going to work. And so, there are many questions I suspect, that we will want to have answered in that regard.
Anna Henderson: Next question comes from Ben Packham.
Ben Packham: G’day, Senator. Ben Packham from The Australian. Can I please get your reaction to the Dan Scavino tweet on Kevin Rudd overnight? And could you please unpack the Coalition’s position on Kevin Rudd and his tenure as US ambassador? Is this a Team Australia moment in which the Coalition is resolutely behind Rudd, or do you take the view that he should stand aside if this sort of commentary from the Rudd team gets any worse?
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Ben. For anybody in the room who needs Ben’s question interpreted, it has to do with a meme or an image of an hourglass, I gather. And it’s times like these I wish I had a screen that I could project images back out to the audience, so I’m not sure which image I would use. In seriousness, Ben, what we have here is a need for Australia not to be debating the who, but the what and the outcomes and the effectiveness of getting those outcomes. So Peter Dutton and I have been very clear that we have wanted to see Kevin Rudd succeed all along. We have acknowledged and praised some of his successes, acknowledged his work in getting the export trade restrictions eased between Australia and the US, and big AUKUS breakthroughs that have been really important in that regard. And we want to see that success continue, and that’s what matters in Australia’s national interest. Now, Ambassador Rudd and the Prime Minister are the ones who are in the box seat to best make the assessment in coming weeks or months about how effectively he is going to be able to continue to have an influence and get the outcomes that Australia needs. So, we’re not seeking to politicise the role. We’ve been careful to avoid doing that. What we want to see is Australia’s best interests put first and foremost in terms of that role, and we hope for those best interests that Kevin is still able to succeed and to discharge all of his duties to get the best possible outcomes for Australia. Ben, now, I think I’ve forgotten.
Ben Packham: The tweet. What did you think of the tweet? Was that an ominous warning?
Simon Birmingham: Look, I know a member and a significant member of the incoming president’s campaign team posted that. What we are to make of the image. Well, I think I’ll leave it for others to comment on the image. I’ve spoken to the substance.
Anna Henderson: If the president elect in the last year has referred to our ambassador in the United States as not the brightest bulb, is it really tenable for that person to be at the forefront of our engagement in Washington?
Simon Birmingham: Look, as many would point out, the president elect has just named secretary of state, who had some pretty sharp things to say about him, but who ultimately campaigned alongside him. He’s been elected alongside a vice president who had very sharp, pointed things to say about him, but who he chose to make his running mate. So I think we’ve got to be conscious of keeping an open mind, which is what we have tried to do in relation to the question around Kevin. And look, Anthony Albanese said, let me give you a little political on this point here. Anthony Albanese said he was never going to appoint Kevin Rudd to this post. That’s what he told the Australian people when he was questioned. It was a ridiculous proposition. Then he changed his mind. Or perhaps it was in his mind all along, and he was just misleading before and decided to appoint Kevin Rudd to this post. And he did so at a time that Donald Trump was a declared candidate for the presidency. So the risks have been known all along. The risks were ones that the government chose to take. Now we have backed in the appointment. We’ve wished Kevin success. We’ve celebrated where he has had success. We want to see that success continue. Hopefully it can. Hopefully indeed, the type of forgiveness that has been demonstrated to those members of the new administration will be extended in this case as well. But ultimately, the PM and Ambassador Rudd have to put Australia’s interests first.
Anna Henderson: Next question is from Tess Ikonomou.
Tess Ikonomou: Thank you very much for your time today. In your speech, you said Russia should pay a higher price for their aggression, and a just peace for Ukraine should be sought. If your definition of a just peace differs from the Trump administration’s position, would the Coalition be prepared to publicly criticise the US and push for a different resolution?
Simon Birmingham: Thank you. So, securing a just peace is important. And what do I mean by a just peace? I touched on it in part in the remarks. It is one where Ukrainians feel safe and secure in their sovereignty. It’s one where Vladimir Putin does not feel empowered to repeat in a few years’ time, what he has done over the last couple of years. So how that is secured is obviously something that needs to respect the views of the Ukrainian people and ultimately put their safety at the forefront of those discussions. Now, I don’t think I can be any more up front than in these days still, after President Trump’s election to a second term, to be openly canvassing that. To be clear about the fact that, yes, of course, we all want to see peace. And these are the areas in which Donald Trump, as a disruptor, may, may actually be able to get breakthroughs. He did so with the Abraham Accords that I referenced in his first term. So we have to hope that we can see if there is to be a peace it is one that stands the test of time in the years ahead and gives Ukrainians those opportunities. They’re the benchmarks that we’re outlining. And of course, they’re the benchmarks that my comments will be held against in the future.
Tess Ikonomou: And if you disagree with the Trump administration, what would the Coalition do?
Simon Birmingham: Well, I would expect what I’ve said right now to be replayed and reflected back, and that we would need to assess what’s happened. And again, we’re dealing with hypotheticals as to how it may actually unfold. But in setting those important benchmarks, it’s not to be saying that this war should be fought to the last Ukrainian, because that’s not good for Ukraine. And it’s not to be saying that we oppose the instinct of President Trump to try to find a way to peace. But what that pathway is matters enormously, not just to the Ukrainian people, but to what it sends as a signal to Russia, to China, and to others around the rest of the world about what aggression can yield and where lines will be drawn. And we need those lines to be drawn in a way that deters future aggression, rather than increases the risk of it.
Anna Henderson: Andrew Probyn.
Andrew Probyn: Senator, just following up from Tessa’s question. The fact is that Ukraine won’t be able to defend itself without the military assistance of America. And America contributes something like three times the nearest amount of, I think Germany, second. Do you believe that a just peace can exist if Volodymyr Zelenskyy is forced to cede eastern parts of his country? And can I just jump in with a totally different question? Yeah, I know, but you mentioned arbitrary detention before. Um, do you think enough is being done to get Robert Pether out of an Iraqi jail, given he’s been there for 1250 days?
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Andrew. So, to the question of what a just peace looks like. I’m not going to seek to pre-empt what the lines on the map ultimately are. I think we’ve got to be pragmatic about how those negotiations will unfold. But clearly, what I have stressed the importance of is the future security of Ukraine. You rightly touched on Ukraine’s ability to wage the war at present, but there is also the critical factor as to Ukraine’s defences in the future. And Ukraine must be if it is to, if the end outcome of this war is to be good for Ukraine and Ukrainians, and also for broader global deterrence. Ukraine must be in a position where its security for the future looks stronger than it has been in the past.
In terms of Robert Pether, I raised Robert Pethers case again in Senate estimates last week, and indeed have had contact from his wife, Desiree, in the weeks since. This is a case where this is an Australian and a detained in Iraq, and his sentence is due to conclude early next year, February, I think, from off the top of my head. And he should be released at that time, if not sooner. And he should be in a position where he is free to go at that time. And that is certainly the advocacy that we have been pushing for. I understand great effort has been extended in terms of advocacy on his behalf. We want to make sure that attention to how seriously it should be taken, and his plight is that is well understood and that there is no letup in that regard.
Anna Henderson: Next question is from Ben Westcott.
Ben Westcott: Ben Westcott from Bloomberg. Thank you so much for your speech, Senator. Very interesting. You said in your speech that Australia’s policy towards China should be predictable. During the last Coalition government, now, opposition leader Peter Dutton, had a couple of different positions on whether Australia would join the US in defending Taiwan. He said it would be inconceivable at one point that we wouldn’t. And then later on, he sorts of walked that back a bit, saying that we’d see what the situation was at the time. Given that another the next Coalition government, if you’re elected next year, might conceivably face the horror scenario of an invasion of Taiwan. Could you give us some clarity at this point on whether or not a Coalition government would move to defend Taiwan, attacked by China?
Simon Birmingham: Well, thank you. You’re taking us forward quite a few steps in that regard. So principled and predictable is the framework that I’ve outlined for how our engagement with China should be and should operate. That’s important because we shouldn’t deviate from those values and national interest statements we have. And indeed, part of that is that we would not wish to see any unilateral change to Taiwan and its circumstances, and not wish to see an invasion of the sort that you’ve characterised. And clearly it would be both principle and should be entirely predictable to Beijing that Australia would condemn such action and oppose such action, and indeed do everything we can to deter such action from occurring in the first place. Now, in the eventuality that it unfolds, what the nature of conflict is, what role the US or others undertake, these are all unknowns. Before we get to the question of how Australia would respond. Our prime job is to deter it in the first place, and to work with our partners to try to deter that from happening in the first place. It would not just be bad for the Taiwanese people, but not just be bad for our region. It would be bad for China and Chinese people in terms of the economic disruption that would potentially cause the loss of life, it would potentially risk the damaging on flow in terms of reputation. So, whilst I understand the desire to try to lay out or seek an answer for something many steps down the track, the reality is there are lots of turns and forks in the road before you get to that point. And where our focus in the here and now has to be is on how we do build those deterrence frameworks so that diplomacy can do its job, so that Beijing decides to respect the status quo as it is.
Anna Henderson: You were around the table in the government when these discussions were happening. You don’t want to go there, but in terms of the obligation that you think Australia would have if there was an invasion, what is Australia’s obligation?
Simon Birmingham: Well, Australia’s obligation is to stand by our principles, to argue for them and to create that deterrence, as I said, in the event of conflict. Our obligation is to act as we see it, as the government of the day sees it at the time in the best interests of Australia. Now the best interests of Australia would be firstly, if the conflict doesn’t happen. Secondly, if it is a conflict that the aggressor doesn’t succeed. Thirdly, if there is a conflict that doesn’t spread elsewhere into the region. These are some of the factors that have to be weighed at the outset in terms of consideration that would be given. And if you take the very serious and significant step committing Australian troops and military resources and capabilities, which is, of course, always a possibility. You’ve got to be doing it against those assessments. How do you ideally deter it? But if you are seeing it occur, how do you stop it from becoming broader in a regional context? How do you also ensure that the aggressor, if they haven’t been deterred, is defeated and not victorious?
Anna Henderson: Sarah Basford-Canales.
Sarah Basford-Canales: Thank you, Senator, for the speech. Sarah Basford-Canales from the Guardian I want to ask a question that’s been asked of the Opposition a few times, so I’ll just quickly rehash some points. Since the conflict started in Gaza as a result of the tragic 7th October attacks, there’s been more than 40,000 deaths officially. Many of those women and children, many more missing and unaccounted for. The ICJ delivered its advisory ruling in July that Israel must stop the occupation and it must make full reparations for the internationally wrongful wrongdoings. While the Coalition has acknowledged the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it’s continued to back Israel in its right to defend itself in its campaign. I’ve got three related questions. Firstly, is there a red line for the opposition in terms of that death toll continuing to rise by the thousands in the coming months and potentially years? Does the opposition still think this is the best pathway to peace and a two-state solution in the situation? And what would a Dutton government do differently if it were to be elected next election?
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Sarah. So, I think the last question first, and I really did touch on that in responding to Anna earlier and that is that our view is that we should stand by [indistinct] to any prospect of a two-state solution, the long-standing commitment to that being fully negotiated and negotiated by settling questions on borders, of security guarantees, of rights of return. But that also we should be engaging in what other regional path processes and pathways might be possible. Many point to the fact that perhaps a two-state solution is some distance off. That the reality of the situation in Gaza. The absence of governance that is either not compromised by Hamas or capable of progressing forward, creates a circumstance where perhaps those Abraham Accord countries, Saudi Arabia and others will have to play a bigger role if they can reach an agreement point possibly with Israel, in the future. These are all unknowns, but possible points of consideration.
We are resolute in terms of our position around Israel’s right to self-defence. We are so because of the way in which Iranian sponsored terrorism so horrifically attacked Israel on October 7th, but so demonstrably remains committed to the destruction of Israel and does not recognise its right to exist. So, that presents a constant threat that no other nation could or would accept living alongside in those circumstances. Of course, we equally want to see the tragic loss of life come to an end and for a breakthrough point. But you can see by statements out of Qatar just in the last week. The frustration that exists in relation to Hamas’s unwillingness to release hostages, to lay down arms, and to stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields in this conflict. And so that’s where our convictions lie in terms of support for Israel’s right to self-defence and desire to see a ceasefire, but one where the terrorist threat is removed and where hostages have been held now for some 13 months-plus are finally released in those circumstances. And to create a circumstance where in the future, those Palestinians can live with as much security and freedom from terrorist influence as those Israelis seek as well.
Sarah Basford-Canales: Just a quick follow up point on the civilian death toll, though. Is that a consideration that might affect the Coalition’s resoluteness on that position?
Simon Birmingham: The civilian death toll is something that pains absolutely all of us. And of course, it is a tragedy in any and all conflict and a very significant tragedy in this one. But we’re clear in terms of the principles we stand by and the outcomes we ultimately seek.
Sarah Basford-Canales: Thank you, Senator.
Anna Henderson: Our next question comes from Dan Jarvis-Bardy.
Andrew Tillet: Dan Jarvis-Bardy, from the West Australian. Thank you for your speech. Senator, just back to the incoming Trump administration. You’ve expressed confidence that Australia can deal with Trump based on your experience in his first term as a minister in the Morrison government. If Trump’s list of nominees for key posts is any indication, Elon Musk, for instance, then it’s shaping up as potentially more unpredictable and more volatile than it was in the first term. We perhaps underestimating how difficult and challenging the next four years could be.
Simon Birmingham: But Dan, I don’t think we should ever underestimate the challenges that lie before us, and particularly not when we look back on the unknowns that we’ve confronted. Indeed, we see a big theme in terms of the speech I just gave was that reality that the world is a vastly different place from the one you and I and anybody else in this room grew up in, and the huge challenges that has thrown at us and has in terms of the strategic circumstances of our time. Now, I’m optimistic, based on the experience we had, that we can work with a second Trump administration, that we should be able to make a success of it. Not just work to manage the problems, but actually make a success of it, and that we should be seeking out those potential opportunities. And yes, there are disruptors like President Trump, who is clearly bringing in to disrupt things like government efficiency in the US government through the role that he has given to Elon Musk. Wouldn’t mind having a bit of disruption of efficiency in the Australian government at times either. I’m not saying that will be the right pathway, but who knows, maybe there will be glimmers of lessons that could be learned along the way. Equally, when you look at the Secretary of State appointment, the National Security Advisor appointment, the ones important to those strategic challenges we face, I think we see people who, as I said, have got a priority on the stability and security of our region and that presents an opportunity that we can and should take advantage of.
Anna Henderson: So does the Trump victory empower the Coalition to look at more significant public service cuts than they may have previously?
Simon Birmingham: Hello, Canberra. I don’t think it will change the policy perspective we’re bringing. That policy perspective is one of real concern about the ballooning size of the Australian Public Service. We did have a cap in place as a Coalition government on the size of the public service. This government has lifted it. It’s coming at a huge ongoing additional budget cost, and I’m not sure anybody can point to the efficiency that Australians are getting in terms of responsiveness from government as a result of it.
Anna Henderson: Tough crowd for that answer. Jason Koutsoukis.
Jason Koutsoukis: Senator, thanks for your speech. Your Coalition colleague Bridget McKenzie said last night that she believes that the social compact that has held up Australia’s migration policy together, or public support for migration over the years, has snapped. Do you agree with that statement? And what can be done to get migration back to being a bipartisan issue? Is it in Australia’s interests for migration to be a bipartisan issue?
Simon Birmingham: Well, it is certainly in Australia’s interests, for my part, for certainly in Australia’s interests for migration, to enjoy that social licence and public support, and where migration enjoys that social licence and public support. It is generally, of course, then a bipartisan position because of that. Now, what has caused it on this occasion to be frayed, to snap whatever phrases people choose to use. In previous times, pressure points have come from illegal arrivals and those challenges. They’re not, of course, completely eliminated. But at this point in time, it is much more home grown in terms of the pressures big cities feel on their infrastructure and especially the impacts on the housing market. And they’re the things that we have clearly identified that need to be addressed. And if you look at the way Peter Dutton has outlined Coalition policy in this space, it’s not actually to say that we want to be dramatically dialling down the migration numbers forever. It is actually a case of being clear that we need to dial them down in the immediate term, while we drive up the policies around housing to ensure housing availability is stronger for all Australians, citizens, permanent residents or visitors to our country, and get to a circumstance where we do rebuild that social compact around migration. So, I think there are a number of home-grown challenges that we need to address to ensure that support or something that is important to our nation comes back. The other point I’d make, and I know I’ve got an esteemed former leader of the National Party here with me today, but how are we also better achieve the target that’s eluded many governments over the years but to see greater permanent migration settlement in regional communities. Those regional communities are not without their own housing challenges in some places present. So, I’m conscious that it is even frayed in some of those parts of the country. But as a nation, we would be stronger if we had more regional centres of size and of strength scattered across our country, rather than the consolidation that that is very much a part of the Australian model.
Anna Henderson: Julie Hare.
Julie Hare: Julie Hare from the Australian Financial Review. Thank you. Jason just stole my question. So, I am going to ask you about stage three tax cuts. Peter Dutton said on the radio this morning that the Coalition was rethinking stage three tax cuts and getting inflation under control was more important. Could I get your comments on that? Where the Coalition’s thinking is on that at the moment, please?
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Julie. Well, the Albanese government breaking its promise and junking stage three tax cuts was a travesty in the sense that it eliminated a significant reform piece from the tax cut proposal, which, of course, was the elimination of the 37 cent in the dollar tax bracket. And that reform was going to ensure that the vast majority of Australians lived a life free of bracket creep for a very long period of time, and that was something that would have been good for our competitiveness and our productivity as a country. But the government chose a different pathway and of course, chose to spend the money. And we accepted. At the time, we weren’t going to stand in the way of Australians receiving those funds. Spend the money they have. And I think what Peter was rightly alluding to this morning is as it comes into the next campaign, we will have to have a look carefully at the state of the books as we make those final budget decisions, and where we can go in terms of further tax cuts will be one of those big key points in terms of those final budget decisions. But we’ve got a government at present that keeps putting out more and more spending decisions. And we, of course, will be looking to see where we can rein them in. Touched on one just before in terms of that ballooning size of the public sector but finding that space for us to then affordably commit to tax cuts is a difficult task. As Shadow Foreign Minister, it’s not one that falls to me like it did when I was finance minister, but I know that that Angus and Jane will be working very hard to ensure that we give Australians back as much of their money as we possibly can but do so in a responsible way.
Julie Hare: I just want to ask, though, if that kind of backflip that has been announced by Dutton this morning, why is that not a broken promise? Whereas what the government did was broken promise?
Simon Birmingham: Oh well, I completely reject the characterisation there. Julie, I think we’ve been clear since the government broke its promise and changed the law. We’ve been clear that we would then have to recalibrate. That’s not something that has been in doubt. We never came out of that legislation and said, well, that’s okay, because at the next election, we’ll simply come in and say, well, we’ll do what we had as well as what’s just been done. That was never said at the time, never committed at the time. We were always clear that in terms of what the future tax policy would be, we would have to work through that. Given the changed circumstances that have happened through the changes to the income tax laws, and that we would bring that policy forward at the next election for Australians to see. We will do that, and they will see it, and it will be as ambitious as it can be. And what they can have confidence in, and is that our priorities will always be about trying to get those taxes as low as possible. Labor’s priority is more on the spending side, and had they been in government instead of the Coalition, you’d have been lucky if you’d seen one stage of tax cuts, let alone the three that we legislated.
Anna Henderson: The next question is from Nick Stuart.
Nicholas Stuart: Senator, members of the Netanyahu government have already begun moving and certainly advocating the establishment of Israeli settlement Jewish settlements in Gaza. Our government currently appears to be holding it- has refusing to actually approve defence, a number of defence contracts with the Israeli government. Do you think this is appropriate, and do you think that Israel should absolutely not be establishing new settlements in Gaza?
Simon Birmingham: Thank you. So two things, obviously two questions there. Firstly, in relation to settlement activity. Australian governments, Coalition and Labor have long been clear that settlement activity is counterproductive to achieving long-standing settlement of issues should not be undertaken. The position hasn’t changed and shouldn’t be changed. Secondly, in relation to defence decisions, I heard some of the evidence given at defence estimates last week. Certainly. I’m not about to second guess the work that rightly, our defence officials do in terms of ensuring that Australian laws and standards are upheld in the interpretation of our defence export controls.
Anna Henderson: So would an incoming Coalition government continue the same policy of not supplying any weapons or ammunition to Israel, or would that be under review?
Simon Birmingham: We have no plans to change Australia’s laws in that regard. And of course, our defence officials rightly uphold the laws.
Anna Henderson: No plans to change the laws. But in terms of the approach that if the Israeli government was to ask?
Simon Birmingham: Well, the structure is indeed as to how those defence export laws operate, and that is the consistency that we would apply.
Anna Henderson: And just finally, I’ll take the opportunity for a final question. We are coming into an election period. Would you be prepared to debate the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, here at the Press Club during the campaign?
Simon Birmingham: I’m always up for a good chat.
[APPLAUSE]
Anna Henderson: I will hand over your Membership of the National Press Club. Thank you very much for your address. We really appreciate it.
Simon Birmingham: Thank you very much. Thanks very much.