SUBJECTS: The economy, the Budget, the business community, home insulation scheme, the Australian dollar, the Cabinet, immigration
CHRIS BOWEN:
Good morning, Peter. Good morning, Paul.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Treasurer is one of those jobs where there's a lot to get your head around, and it's a difficult portfolio early on for new Treasurers. What's the underlying cash rate?
BOWEN:
2.75 per cent is the official cash rate. Thanks for asking…
VAN ONSELEN:
And the inflation rate?
BOWEN:
Around the same.
VAN ONSELEN:
Moving on from – we've got your questions…
BOWEN:
That's A Current Affair sort of question.
VAN ONSELEN:
Well you never know…
BOWEN:
But I'm more than happy to answer it.
VAN ONSELEN:
…You can always create a headline with a question like that.
BOWEN:
I'm more than happy to answer it.
VAN ONSELEN:
But let's move into something that's a bit more detailed than that. The mining boom has come off. Kevin Rudd has made that point on the way through. The retail sector is going to be all-important. Now, how do you see employment in the retail sector going forward for this country?
BOWEN:
Well, you're right to say that we're going through a transition in Australia's economy at the moment. The Prime Minister and I have been pointing this out for the last week. The investment boom in mining is coming to an end, and we are seeing an intersection of the mining and non-mining sectors, and the non-mining sector needing to step up more. And that's what we've been talking about, because while we'll continue to be a very strong exporter of mineral commodities, the sorts of big investments and mining projects that we've seen in Australia for the last few years which soak up employment, create a lot of jobs, are drawing to an end, and they're moving to the export phase. So that's still good for national income, but it doesn't soak up that level of employment.
So what we've said is, the services sector more generally – you talk about retail, but I would have to say I would take a broader approach than that. You've got to look at the services sector, which is I think, under-examined in the national political discussion, does need to be right up there in the discussion about how we can compete on services and manufacturing, to make sure that we continue to see high levels of investment as that mining investment comes off the boil.
VAN ONSELEN:
Generally speaking, you'd be pleased by the Aussie dollar coming off a bit?
BOWEN:
Look, it does provide some support to manufacturers in particular, exporters in particular, and I think that's a good thing. I think that, you know, it's been commonly assessed by the Reserve Bank that the dollar was a bit higher than it should have been. And the Governor had made that clear in his public statements, and that was a result of various factors around the international economy, of which Australia – it meant our dollar was overvalued for a period of time.
It does mean that our manufacturers get a bit more assistance, and I think we've seen the AIG Manufacturing Index, for the first time, turn around a little bit, and I think that's an early good sign for manufacturing.
So I do think that's good for confidence, and I was surprised during the week to see Mr Hockey say that decline in business – a decline in the Australian dollar would be bad for business confidence. I think he's fundamentally misunderstood the impact of the Australian dollar decline, and I think he's misunderstood the impacts that has on Australian business.
PAUL KELLY:
Mr Bowen, would you call yourself a fiscal conservative?
BOWEN:
Well, a fiscal orthodox or fiscal conservative, all sorts of people would have their own labels, and labels can be overdone, but generally I do take a fiscally orthodox approach, yes.
KELLY:
You accept the label fiscal conservative?
BOWEN:
Well, others have applied it, and I don't object to it.
KELLY:
Okay, if we look at the current Budget; the Budget forecasts a return to surplus in three years, 2015-16. Do you stand by that?
BOWEN:
Well, I've said the Budget remains the Government's Budget. It's Treasurer Swan's Budget, but I stand by it as the new Treasurer. It remains the Government's Budget, and that means the forecasts are also the Government's forecasts. And I've also said, very clearly, that I support the fiscal strategy of the Government to return to surplus over the medium-term cycle. I've said that from my first days as Treasurer. The Prime Minister has said exactly the same thing, as has the Finance Minister, so we stand by that.
KELLY:
I appreciate that point, but I just want to ask you: the Budget says the return to surplus will occur in 2015-16. Do you stand by that?
BOWEN:
Yeah, that remains our fiscal strategy, Paul, it does. I've also made clear, in a transparent way as I can, in my first days as Treasurer, that there are challenges for the Australian economy. The terms of trade have fallen since the Budget. We've seen iron ore, and gold, and coal – both metallurgical and thermal – come off the boil in terms of trade since the Budget. Against that, we've had the Australian dollar come down, which has a countervailing impact. So we've laid out some of the long-term challenges.
KELLY:
Sure, but I think what you're suggesting there is that growth will probably be short of what was forecast in the Budget. So do you think we're in a situation now, essentially a bit of growth below trend?
BOWEN:
Well, that's already the case, and I'm not saying that we're going to see a big impact on real growth, but we are seeing an impact on nominal growth, nominal GDP, and that does have other impacts on the Australian economy.
KELLY:
So this presumably will mean we're likely to see unemployment creep upwards. I mean, being realistic, that's where we are, isn't it?
BOWEN:
Well we've already seen Budget projections, Budget forecasts, with 5.75 per cent – that's one you didn't ask me before, Peter. You dropped the ball there, you could have asked me that one as well. Five point seven five per cent is the Budget forecast for unemployment, and that remains the Budget forecast. Unemployment with a five in front of it is still very good compared to the rest of the world, but it is creeping up from where we are at the moment.
KELLY:
Okay, well in this situation, what are the appropriate macro settings in relation to both fiscal and monetary policy as far as you're concerned?
BOWEN:
I think the appropriate macro settings are the current macro settings, which is to return to surplus over the medium-term cycle. That means you don't rush to surplus now, because that would be bad for the economy, if we rushed to surplus this year or next year. That would be bad for the economy, it would be very contractionary, it would be a judo chop, if you like, to the economy, because it would contain growth. But it is appropriate to return to surplus over the medium term.
KELLY:
So you're not recasting economic policy at all, in fact? That's basically your position?
BOWEN:
Well, yeah, I'm sticking to the fiscal strategy that's outlined, I supported it when the previous Treasurer introduced it, and I support it now that I am the Treasurer.
VAN ONSELEN:
Can I ask you about this term, the medium term, because the previous Treasurer, as well as the current Prime Minister, as well as yourself, all talk about the economic cycle, and you're referring to the medium term. It's understandable, isn't it, that voters look at this, and they keep seeing the surplus projection getting pushed out, and they wonder, what is the outer limit of the medium term?
BOWEN:
I understand that question, and I understand where you're coming from there, but we've outlined, Paul's outlined, what the Budget papers say, and we stick to that strategy.
Now, of course you've got to keep monitoring economic activity, you've got to keep monitoring the world situation, the Australian domestic situation, and you've got to respond accordingly. But you lay out a strategy, and you work towards it, and that's the Government's intention.
KELLY:
Now, you've made it clear that any fresh initiatives, any new spending, will be offset by save so there's no change to net spending overall. Does that mean if the new Rudd Government announces new policy, announces new spending commitments, simultaneous with that you will announce offset in savings?
BOWEN:
What it means, and that is part of the fiscal strategy we outlined before, obviously for returning to surplus over the medium cycle, if you're going to have new spending to stick to that strategy then you do have offsetting savings as well. Now -
KELLY:
And you'll announce that at the time?
BOWEN:
Well, would you announce it all in the same package on the same day? Well, that's not part of the fiscal strategy, Paul, but the principle is when you're making changes within the fiscal envelope and there are offsetting savings as you go.
KELLY:
And you would identify the offsets, presumably, at some point.
BOWEN:
Of course. Of course.
KELLY:
Okay, well, in relation to carbon, I mean, there's been a lot of talk that the new Government will move to the floating price ahead of time. Do you see advantages in doing that?
BOWEN:
Well, Paul, there has been a lot of talk about that and the Prime Minister's made it clear that everybody should calm down. There's a process for a new Prime Minister, a new Cabinet, to consider various matters through all the normal ways with the advice of the bureaucracy through the Cabinet Committee process in Cabinet, and that's a big decision which would be done that way if it were to be done, and I'm not going to – with all due respect, Paul – this is not the Cabinet table. This is…
KELLY:
Sure. I understand that we're all involved now in sweetness and light and it's complete consultation and very strong, orderly process, but…
BOWEN:
A great way of putting it, Paul, yes.
KELLY:
Given that a lot of the business community would like to see this change, do you see merit in it?
BOWEN:
Well, as I say, there's an internal process underway and that's where I have my say as Treasurer on what I think should happen, and that process is an important one and we have been consulting pretty closely with the business community. That's been quite public, that's the approach both the Prime Minister and I take, that business has a very important contribution to make…
KELLY:
Have they asked you to do this in terms of these consultations you've had with them?
BOWEN:
Look, I think business has – I mean, obviously business speaks with many voices, so it's not just - there's not a homogeneous voice across the entire business community. But various sectors of the business community have made their views plain about carbon pricing and timing and other sorts of matters, and they've made those views publicly and privately.
VAN ONSELEN:
If you are going to float the carbon price and then have to deal with I guess the economic consequences of that, that there would be a bit of a black hole, have you considered the idea of adopting some of the Coalition's commitments to cutting funding as an easy political way, I suppose, of covering off that cost as well as denying them options into the future?
BOWEN:
Well, again, Peter, we have a process we're going through. I'm not going to foreshadow any particular announcements today. They'll be considered carefully.
We have talented Cabinet, a talented Expenditure Review Committee of the Cabinet, and they'll weigh up the economic and policy impacts of any decisions we have to make, and that'll be our guiding factor, not the political impact, even though it's an election year and of course we have a view to politics. I'm not taking you for somebody who wouldn't accept that we would have some view to politics in an election year, but we would have our economic and political impact as being our guiding principles when making all decisions.
VAN ONSELEN:
You must be going through, obviously, the Budget and looking at where you might be able to find, say, as I accept that you're not going to announce anything here before you've had it approved by Cabinet, but what about, in the general sense, administrative spending, because when you look at line items in the Budget it is the case that one of the real growth areas in terms of spending over the life cycle of this Labor Government has been in administrative costs, which, in a sense is code for size of the bureaucracy?
BOWEN:
Well, by the same token, though, we've had efficiency dividends which have been substantial and efficiency dividends where you say to departmental secretaries you must provide savings and those savings often come out of administrative costs.
VAN ONSELEN:
But in fairness, that has sort of come off the back of the GFC. We saw massive increases in administrative costs during that period, and what we've seen since then is not a scaling back of those costs, but rather the efficiency dividends so that they don't keep rising too much, here was a huge growth in that one- to two-year period.
BOWEN:
Well, I think you're underestimating, with respect, the impact of the efficiency dividend, because it is something that departmental secretaries certainly say to me has an impact on how they do their business. You know, it's just - it's part of life, it's a necessary part of managing the Budget. These days it's a standard budget measure, and it is necessary because it does continue to drive those efficiencies.
So yes, we had the Global Financial Crisis, we've had important Government programs which needed to be delivered and delivered carefully, and that involves some administrative costs, but by the same token we have the efficiency dividend, which does provide return to the Budget bottom line as a result of departmental secretaries and senior executives finding ways of driving administrative efficiencies.
VAN ONSELEN:
Can I ask you on that, when you talked about programs delivered carefully, obviously the ‘Pink Batts’ has been in the news after that Coroner's report. My question about that is what for you personally, and I guess for the Government more broadly, was learnt by that ‘Pink Batts’ saga? It's one thing to say sorry – I mean, that's the political imperative as well as the good human imperative, but what was learnt? Was one of the things learnt the Government shouldn't try to hastily involve itself so directly?
BOWEN:
Look, for me it's a reminder of the importance of the debate on regulation, frankly. And can I say firstly, I think the Prime Minister has done the right thing here by obviously apologising to the family and making clear how the Government feels about this matter, and it's a difficult matter for everybody. Any death in the workplace – and there's far too many, there's far too many deaths at workplaces across the country, and that's been a focus for the Government as well. It's not just about the home insulation scheme, it's about occupational health and safety across the board, and it's something that is very important to us generally.
I think for me, as I say, the question is one - it's a reminder of the importance of the balance in regulation. You know, we talk a lot about regulation and the need for deregulation, and I get that and embrace that, but this was an industry which was, in many respects, under-regulated, and that's been something that is a reminder. When you hear about the case for deregulation, you've also got to bear in mind, when you've got an industry where standards may not be particularly well regulated, and that's something that governments need to bear in mind going into future.
VAN ONSELEN:
But learning better regulation or appropriate regulation is one thing. What about government intervention? Has there been any thought process on that as well?
BOWEN:
Well, I think there's the intersection of the two. When you've got an industry which is – where regulation could be improved and obviously you've got that situation where we were stimulating economic activity – exactly the right thing to do. Means we got through – one of only three advanced major economies around the world not to go into recession, which will be the standout achievement of that period of government. Of course, you've also got to, you know, bear in mind going forward the intersection of Government intervention and stimulus with regulated industries. That's a lesson to both sides of politics.
KELLY:
Do you accept that Australia is now a high-cost country and that we do have a competitive problem?
BOWEN:
Well, I would put it this way, Paul: we are not going to compete on cost alone. We're going to compete on innovation, we're going to compete on research and development. Of course we have higher costs than other countries with much lower wages, much lower wages, and we have never been in the business of competing against very low wage economies…
KELLY:
I'm not suggesting that, though, but every business group over the past 18 months has said we've got a competitive problem.
BOWEN:
Well, I accept the role of government is to promote competitiveness. I see that as the key – one of the key economic roles of government, and it's…
KELLY:
And what will you do to do that?
BOWEN:
Well, we'll continue to do things like the National Broadband Network. We'll continue to do things like invest in infrastructure, and we'll continue to appropriately regulate. Now, I note, for example, that labour productivity is rising faster under our workplace relations laws than it did under WorkChoices, for example. So you hear a lot of discussion about that, but it's a discussion that needs to be had in context.
KELLY:
We're seeing the dollar adjust, but it's important to ensure this becomes a depreciation in real terms. Do you agree with that, and how will you achieve that?
BOWEN:
Well, the dollar is set by the market, and governments generally don't intervene and the Reserve Bank only intervenes in extremes…
KELLY:
Yeah, I'm not talking about government intervention. What I'm talking about is seizing the competitive gains of the depreciation. How do you do that?
BOWEN:
Well, I think the settings are in place for that to occur. We have enterprise bargaining now, we don't have centralised wage fixation, so the two intersect quite well.
The floating of the dollar is doing what it was intended to do by Paul Keating in 1983, which means that Australia now responds automatically to international developments. The floating of the dollar was one of the key reasons we got through the Asian financial crisis, it's one of the factors in getting through the Global Financial Crisis, and it means that the Australian dollar is responding appropriately now and the other settings, the other deregulation in the economy, also means that that flows through and you see that appropriately being built into all the discussions and negotiations that occur throughout the economy.
KELLY:
Well, let me ask you about industrial relations. One of the complaints of the business community is the industrial laws that have been passed in recent times. Will you revise any of those laws in terms of union right of entry, in terms of penalty rates, or review the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission?
BOWEN:
Look, Bill Shorten, as the relevant Minister, has had a process of review and he's made various announcements, and that is the Government's position and it's the position we continue with. He's implemented a series of reforms which strike that balance, and I think he…
KELLY:
So you're happy with the existing balance?
BOWEN:
Yes. Yes.
KELLY:
What's your response then to the fact that the business community is up in arms about this and beating a drum about it every second day?
BOWEN:
Well, as I say, we continue to talk to business; and it's not our role to agree with trade unions on every point and it's not our role to agree with business on every point. It's our role to work cooperatively with both and to reach our conclusions based on the policy evidence before us. Now, the business community would like some changes. Unions would like changes too – they'd like changes to go much further, and we don't agree with those either – and there are changes that some people in the business community would like to make.
It's not just about labour costs in terms of competitiveness. Obviously that's a big factor. It's about management skills, it's about infrastructure, it's about communications ability. That's why we take a holistic approach, investing in the NBN, investing in infrastructure, making sure that our workplace relations settings are competitive and efficient but fair at the same time. That is the balance that we strike.
VAN ONSELEN:
Your predecessor as Treasurer was always keen to rule out not just certain aspects of tax reform such as the GST but even putting them on a table for review of taxation arrangements in this country. Are you more open minded about what gets reviewed as opposed to necessarily what gets implemented?
BOWEN:
Well, I do think there's a case for ongoing discussion, particularly with the states, about tax reform. I don't think there's a case for increasing – I know where your question is going, so let's get straight to the nub of it. I don't think there's a case for increasing the GST and I don't think there's a case for broadening the base.
VAN ONSELEN:
How can you know that unless you actually have the review to determine?
BOWEN:
Well, because the GST was put in place after an exhaustive process, and for example, I think there's a case for talking to the states about a more efficient tax system and reducing the number of taxes we have in Australia which don't raise very much money, that are a compliance burden for business and an administrative burden for Government. That is a very important discussion to be had, but you wouldn't do that, I think, by increasing the GST because of - if you are raising money through the GST to give the states more money to abolish taxes, then you're not giving it back to people who would be impacted by the increase in the GST, and it's necessarily regressive nature.
VAN ONSELEN:
Speaking of former Ministerial colleagues, what's the choice here - because it really is a binary choice. Is the current ministry of a lower quality than previous ministries…
BOWEN:
No.
VAN ONSELEN:
…because the loss of people, or are you glad to be rid of under-performers?
BOWEN:
It's neither of those things, Peter. Obviously some very good performers have decided to leave politics. They've made a good contribution to Australia.
Having said that, the Prime Minister took a very consultative approach to the formation of the Executive, the Cabinet, the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries. He consulted with a number of us – a number of senior ministers. And the big challenge here was the amount of talent we had on the backbench – in finding room – and there were very talented back benchers who simply didn't get promoted to the Executive because there was no room because we decided to keep many of the current serving members in place.
VAN ONSELEN:
But it's either a weaker line-up or a stronger line-up.
BOWEN:
Well, it's a good line-up. We did have some very good performers leave the Government. That's a statement of fact, but we've had - they've been replaced by very, very good performers as well. I mean, that fact that Richard Marles has joined the Cabinet for example is a good thing. He's a great performer with a great future. Julie Collins, Jacinta Collins, the new Cabinet members across the board are good performers who will develop in those roles and will become very important members of the Government, as they already are. At other levels, I mean we've seen the promotion of Melissa Parke into the Ministry, a very good performer again. The promotion of Ed Husic into the Parliamentary Secretary ranks; good step forward. Ed's somebody who's got a lot to contribute.
But as I say, I mean, there are a whole number of back benchers who we could've promoted - the Prime Minister could've promoted into the Ministry and they would've done an excellent job and they will be ministers in the future.
VAN ONSELEN:
Do you want to name a name or two for us?
BOWEN:
Well, I don't want to really start because others will say why did they miss out. But, you know, people like Nick Champion and Michelle Roland just to name - just two, are ministerial potential performers. But at this point there was no room to promote them into the Ministry simply because we already had so many good performers and there was no case for changing that position.
KELLY:
You've obviously had your briefings from Treasury officers. Have they suggested in those briefings that more recently we've seen ongoing revenue weakness – I mean, revenue weakness has been a big problem over the last few years. Is this trend continuing?
BOWEN:
Well, as I say the big change has been the terms of trade and that does impact on Government revenue. I've made that position quite plain. And that is something that will continue to need…
KELLY:
So this is an ongoing problem for you.
BOWEN:
Well, the terms of trade don't turn overnight.
KELLY:
Sure.
BOWEN:
So if they've fallen since the Budget they're not likely to increase dramatically tomorrow. That's a statement of fact and all that needs to be factored in. Against that, as I say, the falling Australian dollar is a positive impact on government.
KELLY:
Okay, well, can I just ask the question in a broader way? I mean your chief adviser, Martin Parkinson's given a series of speeches over the last few years talking about the fiscal gap we confront in this country between where the revenues are on one hand and where spending is on the other. In terms of your strategy looking at this fiscal gap, what is your preference about how it's to be fixed. That is, increasing taxes or cutting spending?
BOWEN:
Well, you can't – with all due respect it's not that simplistic a question, Paul, because when you're constructing a budget, you look at both of those elements. Now it's a statement of fact that if we had the same tax to GDP ratio as the Howard Government had we'd be in surplus today. That's a statement of fact. That's not to say we aspire to get back to that tax to GDP ratio, because we don't. But it's a statement to say well, look, all this nonsense about us being the highest taxing government that you hear from Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey, well we're a lower taxing government than the Howard Government was.
KELLY:
Well, I guess what I'm really asking is: are you a taxer or an axer?
BOWEN:
Well, again, Treasurers don't have the luxury of being that simplistic in their approach. I do think you have to take…
KELLY:
I thought you might have a preference.
BOWEN:
I think you've got to take a strong approach to government spending. You've got to ensure that it's efficient as possible and sometimes there are difficult savings decisions to be made. That's been the case for all Treasurers and it'll be the case for me. That'll be the case going forward as well.
VAN ONSELEN:
Can I ask you about this tax to GDP percentage debate because it's often had - it's not that relevant though is it when you're running significant budget deficits, whereas the Howard years were running significant budget surpluses. Because if you equalise those out, that's the more relevant point.
VAN ONSELEN:
No, but it is a relevant point to say that the Howard Government taxed a high proportion of our GDP, and that is a relevant point, and we have seen a reduction in that level and that would account for us being in deficit. We could announce tomorrow that we're going to return to the tax to GDP ratio of the Howard Government by putting in place various measures and get us back to surplus. It wouldn't be a responsible thing to do but it could be done.
And that is the underlying point that we're making, it is not just about expenditure decisions, it's about tax levels as well.
VAN ONSELEN:
Your former portfolio of Immigration is now held by Tony Burke. Tony Burke's a former shadow immigration minister from the pre-2007 era. A lot's changed since his rhetoric then versus the reality of what the task before him is now.
BOWEN:
Well, a lot has changed and you do need to respond to emerging circumstances and we've seen obviously – and I speak with some personal experience here – the people smuggling business model is a very resilient one and a very agile one and they'll respond very quickly and they'll lie to the potential clients and they'll make things up and you see that very regularly.
I think Tony is taking obviously the right approach here because what he's doing is saying - well, it's the same thing as I did and the same thing as Brendan O'Connor did with our learned experiences – well, we've got to have a system which tries to stop people drowning at sea and gives people who can't afford a people smuggler the chance of a life in Australia. And that means some tough decisions. Tony's making them and he has our support as he makes them.
VAN ONSELEN:
You're part of the inner sanctum, inner circle of Kevin Rudd. He's been consultative in the process of appointing positions in Cabinet. Is it true that Tony Burke wasn't the first choice as Immigration Minister?
BOWEN:
I'm not – obviously when you're putting it together in Executive, you consider a range of options. Immigration is a portfolio which is difficult. You've got to put one of your best performers in there and Tony is one of our best performers.
VAN ONSELEN:
But was he the first choice?
BOWEN:
Well, I'm not going to go through private conversations. Obviously when the Prime Minister's constructing an Executive he considers a whole range of options – a whole range of options for positions. He took the view that Tony was well placed to be a good Immigration Minister. I think that's a good decision. I think Tony is a strong performer in a very difficult portfolio, and I think he'll do it well.
KELLY:
Do you think a lot of the boat people are economic migrants and if you do, what's the basis for that view?
BOWEN:
Look, I do think in any large movement of people you're going to see a whole range of motivating factors. And I do think you do see people coming to Australia for economic purposes. That's not to say they're bad people or they're doing something that we wouldn't do in the same circumstances. If you were in a very desperate economic circumstance and you could see the chance of a life in this wonderful country of Australia and you had the resources to do it, I daresay all three of us would make that decision for our family. And that's not an illegitimate decision for them to make.
But we have to have in place rules and procedures to ensure that our refugee program, our humanitarian program is for refugees – not economic migrants. And that is a challenge when – because you get people who put a case to our Department of Immigration officers and they need to make a determination in difficult circumstances as to whether it is a case of economic migration or genuine persecution under the Refugee Convention.
VAN ONSELEN:
So is their determination process what is broken here? Because at the end of the day that determination process tells us straight up whether someone is or isn't a refugee, and it's guesswork when Bob Carr said that he believes that most are economic migrants.
BOWEN:
No, I don't think it's guesswork. I think he's commenting on some of the things, some of the trends we've seen. Most of our refugees or asylum seekers come from three or four countries. And you see trends emerging in that pattern. And you see – and our immigration officials on the ground report to the minister of the day – those trends. So we did see a big surge from Sri Lanka last year when I was the Minister. We took the view that we needed to respond very resolutely to that and we returned 1,000 to Sri Lanka because very clearly, very clearly, those people who we returned did not exercise our responsibilities under the Refugee Convention. They were very clear cases and we needed to take what was at the time, you'll recall, a very controversial action of returning people by aeroplane within a matter of hours, days of their arrival in Australia.
That's the sort of consideration you need to take and when the Foreign Minister talks about that, he's talking about those trends which we see emerging. It's not, it doesn't mean that every single person from that country in those circumstances who arrives qualifies to that criteria of an economic migrant. It doesn't mean that you can't be a middle-class person and still not be a genuine refugee. Of course you can be. But it does mean that the Department of Immigration reports trends to the Minister of the day, which would indicate significant levels of attempted economic migration along with those who are fleeing persecution.
KELLY:
Just going back to the economy briefly to finish up. I mean, there's been a lot of speculation about what the Government might do. I'd like to try and get some signals from you on this. Is it realistic to think that the Government could cut taxes for small business?
BOWEN:
Well, look…
KELLY:
Is that on the agenda?
BOWEN:
Well, let me say this: I think both - the approach that both the Prime Minister and I would take would be a pro-small business approach. We want, frankly, the Labor Party to be a party that small business is comfortable with because we see small business as an engine room of the economy.
So you could have - you could aspire to be assisting small business more. Now does that mean we will have the fiscal envelope to make some of those decisions in the immediate term? Not necessarily. It could be something that we need to work towards over a long period of time.
KELLY:
But this is something you'll be looking at.
BOWEN:
Well, I'm not going into specifics with you again, Paul, this morning. But it is fair to say that we do have a pro-small business philosophy and we would be looking at ways where we can work together with small business. But we are in constrained fiscal circumstances.
KELLY:
What about sole parent support?
BOWEN:
Well, I'm not going to go through a shopping list, with all due respect, this morning. We could all tick off this policy or that policy, what about that, what about this. The answer's going to be the same to all those questions which is we have a new Prime Minister, a new Cabinet, with a fresh approach, a fresh set of eyes to some issues which we are working through.
VAN ONSELEN:
Chris Bowen, you've been generous with your time. Thanks for joining us on Australian Agenda.
BOWEN:
Always a great pleasure.