KIERAN GILBERT:
Thanks for being with us this morning on AM Agenda. Joining me now from the Sky News Centre, I have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury. David, good morning.
DAVID BRADBURY:
Good morning Kieran.
GILBERT:
And from Melbourne we've got the Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson. Bruce, good morning to you.
BRUCE BILLSON:
Hello to you, Kieran and David.
GILBERT:
Bruce I want to ask you first of all, Scott Morrison said it was not a reasonable cost for the Government to fly 21 relatives of the Asylum Seeker victims for the funerals yesterday in Sydney, to fly them from Christmas Island to Sydney. What is your view?
BILLSON:
Of course those family members should be at that very difficult service, the laying to rest of their loved ones, an incredibly important part of peoples lives, those near and dear want to be apart of that moment of great grieving and commemoration and having family members there is appropriate. I think Scott's point is that we're unclear about why the decision was made for the funeral services to be held in Sydney, I think that's a reasonable question to ask, but we'll all learn more next week in Senate Estimates when the decision making process will hopefully be a little more illuminated. May I extend my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in that tragic event.
GILBERT:
Joe Hockey made a very, you know, differentiated himself quite clearly from the comments of Scott Morrison, he said "no matter what the faith or colour of the skin of a person, they have every right to say goodbye", so there was clearly a division there on a very sensitive day, a day the funerals were being held. Do you think it was appropriate for Scott Morrison to be making those comments yesterday?
BILLSON:
I'm not sure the division's quite as some would portray it. I think the issue of the families coming together for this extraordinarily difficult moment, the grieving, the loss, the laying to rest of the remains of someone very dear and immediate family members. I don't think there is an issue there about that being an occasion that should be attended by family members. I think Scott was making a point about it was unclear why that coming together, that occasion, was in Sydney. This highlights the enormous tragedy of people making these very dangerous journeys to Australia which is why we need to get this policy area right…
GILBERT:
Bruce, should he have made the point yesterday, on the day of the funerals though?
BILLSON:
Are you talking about Joe or Scott?
GILBERT:
Scott Morrison suggesting that the funerals could have been held elsewhere, was it the appropriate day to be making that point, on the day these people were being buried?
BILLSON:
I think yesterday was a day of reflection and commemoration and the loss of life is invariably the focus we should all be giving and the issues around the decision making process we can canvas in Senate Estimates next week.
GILBERT:
So you're saying it wasn't good timing for Scott Morrison to be making those points?
BILLSON:
Well the opportunity for those decisions to be examined presents itself next week. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families of loved ones who lost their lives and that is the way it should be.
GILBERT:
David Bradbury, the Prime Minister was asked about it yesterday, there have been reports today that it took a bit of time for her to find her voice on this, saying that she was asked about it initially and she said that it was a matter for Ministers at home.
BRADBURY:
Well I don't know about those reports but I think the facts are pretty simple and that is the Government has taken a course of action in this particular area, and we saw what happened yesterday when Mr Morrison came out and tried to make a political point around it. I just want to put on record that I think that the comments that we've heard from Bruce today are very decent, sensible comments and I think that they very much reflect the comments that Joe Hockey made yesterday. But the point that I would be making is that sure, Scott Morrison went out, clearly this was an overreach, it was an insensitive thing to do, I think it was a shameful low. But, that was one thing. But when Tony Abbott was given the opportunity to pull him into line and to acknowledge that this had been an overreach, and to make some of the sensible points that Joe Hockey made and that Bruce has made here today, he refused to do that. It's okay for Bruce to say that there is no division within the Liberal party. I have not seen such a clear cleavage within the Liberal Party on a philosophical issue in a long time. I've got to say, that there is now a very clear choice within the Liberal Party on these matters. You've got the Hockey view, which says that there should be a more moderate approach to these matters, and then there is the Abbott view which we've seen through revelations in The Australian today, but in large part is a position which has been outsourced to a vicious and virulent email campaign that has been mounted by various elements within One Nation. Frankly, I think that the divisions within the Liberal Party have never been greater and Joe Hockey was right to do what he did yesterday, Bruce Billson is right to do what he has done this morning, but frankly Tony Abbott needs to come forward and to distance himself from those comments and to make it clear that he is not going to take the One Nation approach to this issue, that he is going to ensure that a little bit of decency is preserved in this debate. For goodness sake, we had funerals going on yesterday, to make the sorts of comments that we saw from Scott Morrison and backed up by Tony Abbott was frankly just callus.
GILBERT:
Bruce Billson, David Bradbury refers to a One Nation approach, but one of your own former Liberal colleagues, Bruce Baird, the predecessor for Scott Morrison in the seat of Cook says that he's worried about a lurch to the right that reflects the Tea Party movement in the United States, what do you make of that?
BILLSON:
We can offer comments on comments and have an analysis full of commentary. The circumstances of this tragic loss were stark, vivid, they moved everybody to see that ship thrown against the shore line at Christmas Island was a terrible and tragic reminder that we have a policy challenge here. There are 6200 people in detention centres, policy failures with boat arrivals, people taking these extraordinarily dangerous journeys to come to Australia. We can have a commentary about timing of this particular issue, but it's a small part, an important part, but a small part of a much broader policy challenge the nation faces and I wish David and his colleagues would put as much energy into examining the border protection policy failures as they are trying to insight conflict within the Liberal party about the tragic events of the last few days.
BRADBURY:
I've got to say Bruce, that I'm not trying to incite anything. I think Joe Hockey came forward and made his comments very plainly and very clearly and as I said I do applaud you for standing up and showing the courage of your convictions on this issue. But frankly, you made the point about the tragedy that we've seen, and I want to put on record that I actually think that the way the Opposition conducted themselves around the time of that tragedy was entirely appropriate. But what I can't understand is why we find ourselves now in a situation, on a day that some of the bodies of these people are being buried, that we have the sorts of insensitive and inflammatory comments that we saw from Scott Morrison and backed up by Tony Abbott, you know, I think that it was a shameful low, and frankly I think that the people in the Liberal Party that have been courageous enough to stand up on this should be applauded but they must be very concerned about the direction that their party is heading in.
GILBERT:
Well we've covered this story substantially now, lets move on to the mining tax. David Bradbury the Treasury forecasts have only just been released over the last couple of days. Up until now we've only had a sense of what the first two years will generate, now over the ten year period, it's going to be $60 billion less than the original mining tax was going to generate, so this has been one hell of a compromise.
BRADBURY:
Well we have always said that there would be revenue implications from the agreement that had been entered into when we put forward the compromise arrangement that involved the Mineral Resource Rent Tax….
GILBERT:
They're big implications though, $60 billion...
BRADBURY:
They are big implications but I simply make this point, that I have seen some of the commentary that's being made and in particular the criticisms being brought forward by the Liberal Party and frankly it's left me scratching my head. In the first instance, we were told that this is a "great big new tax" that had to be defended and fought against and the Coalition went to the hilt on this. Now the criticism that we've seen coming forward from the Opposition is that, well it was a 'great big new tax, but it's not as big as we thought it was going to be'. Now, what sort of criticism is that? It's either a big tax, or it's too big or it's too small. The reality remains that we are committed to delivering real improvements as a result of the introduction of this new tax and the improvements that we will deliver will be reductions in company tax, we will be boosting retirement savings and we will be delivering improvements in infrastructure. The point remains, that had the Liberal Party got their way, had they been elected, there would be no such tax and…
GILBERT:
Doesn't this diminish the prospect for reform, how can you deliver everything you said that was tied to the mining tax when it's going to be such a short fall in revenue generated?
BRADBURY:
Well the commitments we have made, we will deliver. In terms of the mathematics of the funding, we have taken these matters into account and the various so-called revelations we've been saying made in the papers today, are matters that have been factored into Government decision making from the time that decision has been taken. I make the point that it seems to me rather hypocritical on the one hand for the Liberal Party to be saying "this is a great big new tax" but then on the other hand to say that it's not nearly big enough.
GILBERT:
Okay let's hear what Bruce has to say about this. Bruce, these forecasts from the Treasury suggest that the projected revenue from the mining tax is going to be $60 billion less than the original plan.
BILLSON:
Yeah and people have to be concerned about that forecast from Treasury. It follows a series of forecasts from private sector analysts saying that the numbers on which the Government was basing its claim were incredibly shaky. You've just heard the Government say that they've spent the money from the mining tax, this cobbled together policy flawed idea of a mining tax that has lurched around and can't even be described and the details aren't known, yet we know that the revenue is just not going to be there, that the Government has already spent. This underlines the vulnerability of the budget position where this Gillard Labor Government and its predecessor Labor Government, have so created a structural deficit in our finances, there is an enormous hole about the revenue requirements into the future where Governments making spending commitments beyond the forward estimates and even within the forward estimates are not backed up by revenue. So we're going to see debt and deficit, the Government spending like there's no tomorrow, without any plan for actually financing the spending. They need to get rid of the mining tax, it was flawed in it's design to begin with, the Government conceding that itself by the changes, now the amount of revenue it's bringing in is not within a bull's roar of what was promised and the Government has already spent that money, that's not there. People should be concerned about the underlying structural deficit that this crowd is embedding in our budget for decades to come and be very concerned about the trajectory of our nation's finances.
BRADBURY:
Well that's simply not true.
GILBERT:
But David you've still got a stink with the mining companies over the royalties regime as well where the States are reimbursed.
BRADBURY:
And Kieran we continue to work through those issues. For Bruce to say that that money has already been spent firstly is a dishonest thing to say…
BILLSON:
You said it yourself David, you rattled off all the areas where you were spending the money.
BRADBURY:
Bruce, we have announced the areas where we will be implementing a range of structural changes that, in the long term, will be a national benefit.
BILLSON:
That's called spending. Spending the money that's not there.
BRADBURY:
The money hasn't been spent…
BILLSON:
You've made announcements, you've told everybody on this show where all this money is going that's not there.
BRADBURY:
The money hasn't been spent. The second point that Bruce made is he talks about how spending decisions have been taken in relation to matters that are beyond the forward estimates. Well, I thought that was the height of hypocrisy given the so-called spending cuts or spending deferrals that we saw from the Opposition just a week or two ago, when their way of restoring some sort of structural integrity to the budget was to defer spending decisions beyond the forward estimates. The reality is, when it comes to the Mineral Resources Rent Tax, we are using this new taxation approach to ensure that we are securing a reasonable return to tax payers for the exploitation of natural resources, to deliver sensible long term benefits for the Australian people. More infrastructure, boosting retirement savings and cutting company tax.
GILBERT:
Gentlemen, David Bradbury Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and Bruce Billson Shadow Minister for Small Business, thanks so much for the discussion, we'll catch you soon.
BRADBURY:
Thanks Kieran.
BILLSON:
Thank you.