THE HON ANDREW HASTIE MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND SOVEREIGN CAPABILITY
FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CANNING

TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW WITH PATRICIA KARVELAS, AFTERNOON BRIEFING

Friday 9 October 2026

Topics: Credit card surcharges; Coalition’s immigration policy; artificial intelligence.

E&OE……………………………………

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Andrew Hastie, welcome to the program.

ANDREW HASTIE: Good afternoon, PK. Good to be with you.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Daniel Mulino just argued that the Coalition’s proposal to reverse the ATO ban on credit cards altogether would be very expensive and says you need to get it costed. Do you accept that it would be expensive?

ANDREW HASTIE: It's very expensive already on small business and millions of Australians across this country. And so, it's high time that the government acted, not delaying this for another nine to 12 months, but actually overturning this ban on credit card surcharges that the ATO has put in.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: The government points out small businesses are actually saving $900 million in interchange fees from the capping of processing fees. Do you acknowledge that element of this?

ANDREW HASTIE: Sure, but the general principle here is that we're in a cost-of-living crisis, and the government is making life very, very difficult for small business. Again, we've seen a backflip from Jim Chalmers. We've already seen a backflip from him on the capital gains tax changes for small business, the widows’ tax, the death tax, the testamentary trust taxes that they introduced in the Budget, and now the fifth backflip, which is on the ATO. So, this government is showing that it's not across the detail, it doesn't know how to run the economy, and it's causing a lot of trouble for regular Australians, particularly small business owners.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, but they have intervened. They said they've listened to the feedback, even though it was an independent decision of the ATO.

ANDREW HASTIE: That looks like buck passing, frankly. If you're a Minister of the Crown, responsible for a department, you're responsible for the department. That's why we have a Westminster system of government. So, it's a little bit cute to just blame it on the ATO. In the end, Jim Chalmers is the Treasurer, and he's responsible for the ATO.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, but they are an independent authority, so they do have the right to make these decisions and have these negotiations. That's actually the way that the system works, right?

ANDREW HASTIE: Sure, but the bottom line is this is bad for many small businesses across the country. That's why next week Angus Taylor has committed to introducing legislation to roll this back if the government doesn't take action.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, but if you roll it back, doesn't it mean that the taxpayer will permanently bear the cost?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, we're going to bear the cost anyway. But the reason why people like to make payments in this way is because it works for them. And what we're doing here is removing flexibility for a lot of small businesses across the country. So, this is bad policy. I'm glad the government is responding, but it's not responding quickly enough, and that's why Angus Taylor's proposed legislation next week.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I want to go to migration policy that was announced by the Coalition this week. It's been almost actually a year since you resigned from then Sussan Ley's frontbench in order to speak your mind on these issues of immigration. You've announced your new migration policy this week. Do you think the Coalition is in a stronger place today than you were a year ago?

ANDREW HASTIE: Yes, I do. I think the Australian people have made it very clear that they want to see immigration numbers reduced, and we've taken the time to get the policy right. We're not in a race with One Nation; we're in a race to get this right before the next election. That's why Angus Taylor led us through a very comprehensive policy process, along with Jonno Duniam, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister. And I think the policy does reduce the numbers. It's the biggest cut in Australia's history to immigration, but it also raises the standards and importantly, it's a policy that works in the best interests of the Australian people.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: And are you confident, really, that this policy is not going to deplete the workforce? For instance, aged care workers. We need these people to do these jobs, right? It's going to be difficult with an aging population.

ANDREW HASTIE: That's right. We do have an aging population, but importantly, we've factored that in, and so we're making a priority of aged care workers, healthcare workers, construction workers. We're thinking about where the economy needs skilled migration, and we're emphasising that. But what we're doing is reducing the overall stock of temporary visa holders by 650,000 over four years. Now the reason why big business is making noise about this is because they like having a vulnerable workforce on temporary visas. There's a reason why they want that because they're non-unionised, they can pay them less, and they have an element of power because someone on a temporary visa is not going to make a whole bunch of noise. We want to see more skilled migrants making a contribution to Australia and long-term becoming Australian citizens.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Andrew Hastie, that's almost a left-wing argument, I would say, from my study of political science at university in relation to workers and unionisation. You think that the temporary migration visa system is a way of eroding union rights and workers' rights?

ANDREW HASTIE: Yeah, I do actually. That's why it's so important that we care about the dignity of all people – not just Australians, but all people – and particularly those who are on visas on our shores. I'm a Liberal – I believe in the dignity of the individual. I've heard from a lot of migrants here on temporary visas who have had issues with migration agents and with their bosses and so on. And I think moving people away from temporary visas onto a skilled migration visa, where they can have some certainty and confidence that the contribution they're making to the economy will be rewarded long term with permanent residency or citizenship. But the bottom line is we've got to get the numbers right and we've got to get the standards up.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Is it your view as we look to history – I mean, I've reported on these issues for a long time, and the Howard government, of course, brought in a lot of immigrants, as you know, particularly to fill workforce shortages. Do you think, with the benefit of hindsight, that was a mistake?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, that's a discussion for historians. I think the biggest problem we've had is over the last 50 or 60 years a declining fertility rate, we now have an aging workforce which is needing a lot of care, we've got a shrinking tax base, and our fertility replacement rate is about 1.39. And so, immigration has served as a way of making up for that shortfall over the last 30 or 40 years, but the amount of pressure it's putting on infrastructure and housing means that it's making difficult for young families, or young Australians, to form families and have children of their own. It's a lot easier to start a family if you're in a house which you can grow kids in, rather than living in a small bolt hole apartment in the city somewhere. These are complex problems, but the bottom line is we think the immigration numbers are too high. We want to enliven the dream of home ownership for young Australians, and also encourage them to start families sooner, because we do need Australians having more children.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Pauline Hanson suggests that the Coalition is just copying in her direction on this issue. That she has set the parameters of this immigration debate, and Labor and Liberals, she says, are all following her. What's your response to that?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think she's flattering herself. Any person can go out onto the street and talk to regular Australians who know that immigration numbers need to come down. What we've done, which is different to One Nation, is we've thought the policy through, we've done the numbers, we've consulted closely with the Parliamentary Budgetary Office, and we've thought about the economy as well. This is about getting it right for the Australian people and keeping our country going forward. This isn't something that we've just popped off on social media with a quick video and a few reels. This is a very considered policy, a lot of work has gone into it, and I think the Australian people can have confidence in the policy going forward.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: You've been in hearings all week for the AI Joint Select Committee. Did you believe you heard genuine remorse from OpenAI for the Medicare website breach?

ANDREW HASTIE: I mean, they obviously showed contrition publicly, but the bottom line I think in all of this is: the companies that are delivering AI to Australia now are largely based in the United States or China – mostly the United States. And the argument that I want people to hear coming out of the committee is that we must have a sovereign AI capability here in Australia. The mission I think for the government, for the Coalition, for anyone who wants a stronger Australia is to develop capacity here. That way we can ensure that we keep up with the rest of the world, but also, we have an AI capability that exists under Australian law and is ultimately accountable to the Australian people.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Do you think the outcome of this committee should be bipartisan legislation on AI?

ANDREW HASTIE: I hope the committee demonstrates a national consensus on artificial intelligence and a consensus on some of the things that we need to consider going forward. As for legislation, we hope the government lands in a place that we can support, and I hope crossbenchers can support it as well. But it's a matter of getting it right, looking after Australian intellectual property, which is what we heard a lot about this week from creatives who presented to the committee. They are considerations that we need to work through – copyright law and so forth. But I think we can get there. I think this is a task for the country. We need a settlement that works for all Australians – workers, business, government, and so forth – and I'm confident we can get there.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: So, you'd prefer it not to be a contested area?

ANDREW HASTIE: No. I think artificial intelligence is such a big challenge that let's just say we land in a partisan place – that makes it very hard going forward if we're essentially politicising a capability. We can obviously disagree on certain things, but I hope at the end of all of this that Australians realise we do need a sovereign AI capability. We can't just be vulnerable to changes in the United States or elsewhere, but we have a capability here that is sovereign and is accountable to the Australian people.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: The Australian data centre operator, Firmus, has withdrawn its application to go public, which was set to be the biggest IPO in 30 years. Is this a cautionary tale about AI financing?

ANDREW HASTIE: I've read quite a bit about Firmus over the last few days, and I'm not close to it, I don't know the players involved. Suffice to say, I like Australian companies that are ambitious, are bold, and this looked to be a big IPO, but that's all over for the time being. And I think there are some lessons here. We heard, at the committee yesterday, from CDC and one of the data centre providers they partnered with. There's a lot of lessons here, but I think with AI we've got to be really careful that when we invest in it, we we're getting something that can deliver the outcomes we're after.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.

ANDREW HASTIE: Thanks, PK.

[ENDS]