KIERAN GILBERT:
Good morning and welcome to the program. The Treasurer says that it's D-Day for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, calling for detail in his Budget reply to the Parliament tonight. Coming up on the program I'll be joined by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. We'll be speaking to her live from her office. First though, joining me is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer David Bradbury, and Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson, gentlemen great to see you both. The focus in the wake of Budget 2011 has been on middle class welfare. David first to you, what do you make of the debate around this and the suggestion that you're undertaking class warfare because at the same time you're expanding welfare for those under the cap with teenagers 16-19, but if you're above the cap you get nothing.
DAVID BRADBURY:
I think these claims of class warfare are just preposterous to be honest. There has always been a cut off point when it comes to family payments since the inception of family payments. There has to be a cut off point where some people receive the payments, and others do not. The measure we have introduced in this Budget is in fact a measure that we've previously introduced and in fact I note that Tony Abbott supported that measure in fact when we introduced that measure he said that we were too soft and that we should have presumably been even harder in that respect. But let's also provide a bit of context and a bit of perspective around all of this. There is a debate going on as to whether $150,000 is rich or not, and nobody is suggesting that a household income of $150,000 makes you rich. There is another question that has to be asked around where that cut off point for welfare payments should be set at. Now, we have taken a particular position on that and some 2% of family payment recipients will be affected by that. Not 2% of all families, 2% of recipients will be affected over time as their income increases and they push in to the next bracket. Let's also be clear about what this is all about. We saw from Joe Hockey yesterday that this is actually part of the broader strategy from the Opposition. They are determined to try and use this Budget to force an early election.
GILBERT:
Okay, we'll get to that in a moment because I don't know exactly how they can do that when you've got the numbers in the Parliament. Bruce, let's get to the point that David made about the Coalition actually backing a freeze in the first place, that's the assertion you were making.
BRUCE BILLSON:
I'm not too sure what he was talking about.
*Inaudible*
GILBERT:
He's making the point that the Coalition actually backed the freeze on indexation in 2009.
BILLSON:
I mean people are talking about this being an attack of middle class welfare. We're actually talking about families in David's electorate and in mine. Households that need a level of income to buy a home these days start getting described as not requiring any assistance at a time when cost of living pressures are really punishing families. This measure actually reaches down to households with $45,000 income because it's a freeze not only on the threshold levels but a freeze on the value of some of the Family Tax Benefit supplements. It would be wrong to say this is just about people earning over $150,000. The other thing that people are really outraged about I've seen in most of the newspapers today, they're highlighting cameos about real families, two incomes, people with second jobs that are battling to pay their mortgage, knowing interest rates are going up because of the debt and deficit in this budget. They look at the budget and see that the Government claims to be saving $2 billion on this, but they're spending $1.7 billion extra on failed border protection policies. So, people are saying that it's not just about the measure itself, it's about the priorities and what's important in the eyes of the Government. Families and small business have been done over.
GILBERT:
We'll get David to respond to that point you made about border protection. But, first of all, the assertion here from David that Joe Hockey has said that the Coalition will do anything to bring on an early election, what is the strategy here? Is it to create a sense of chaos or what?
BILLSON:
I'm not sure what the Government expects. You've seen this before when not everybody agrees whole heartedly with whatever the Government says or whatever its line is of the day is somehow hostile to them. Our job as an Opposition is to keep pressure on the Government. Our job is to make their life difficult in a sense that they need to be held accountable for their actions and decisions. We need to put a spotlight on bad Government action, on failure to deal with key issues such as cost of living pressures, the harm and the hardship of Carbon Tax and that is our job, to keep that pressure on. If it gets to a point where people think that the only way to solve an issue such as the Carbon Tax is to take it to the people and get the electorate to vote in it, then that's not unreasonable. It's wrong to suggest, as some people might infer, that it's our job to be nice and cosy with the Government.
GILBERT:
Well we'll get David's response on that and a couple of other things and points that you made such as the blow out in border protection, will people feel it's a bit rich that they're copping a hit while you're having a blow out in that sense? But also, the other point about income earners on $45,000 who are going to be hit by the cap on end of year supplements.
BRADBURY:
Bruce is being very misleading about that. Supplements were introduced to protect families against claw back of payments at the end of the year. Those payments, when we look at the data in terms of the amounts that have been required to be clawed back, essentially we are seeing now that payments are more than people are requiring for those clawbacks. But the point that Bruce did not make, is that he didn't answer the question about why they supported these measures in 2009. He did say that it's the Opposition's job to hold the Government to account but I think frankly that this Opposition sees their job as being to say no to everything and we'll see just how much they have to say no to tonight. They've already announced $3 billion worth of savings that they will block. You can't block savings and then criticise the Government for not having a pathway back to surplus. This is a Budget that will deliver us a pathway back to surplus. On the point about Joe Hockey saying that what this is really all about is to force the Parliament back to an election, and we will see more obstruction, but unwittingly, what he has done is he has lifted the bar in what is now expected of Tony Abbott this evening. Tony Abbott is giving a Budget reply speech. Now, if they're serious and they believe that they're in a position to force the Parliament to go back to an election, well we want to see a little bit more tonight than we've seen of Tony Abbott in the past.
GILBERT:
We'll get to that as well, I want to ask Bruce a bit about that, but on border protection you haven't answered that question.
BRADBURY:
On border protection, we are doing all that we can to address this issue. There are costs associated with our border protection policies as there were costs associated with the policies of the previous Government. We have, in recent times, introduced a series of new measures and the Malaysian agreement is part of the overall strategy that in time, if it works and I believe it will have a good chance of making in:
roads into some of these challenges, then that will reduce costs over time. There are challenges there and expenses that Governments incur that they don't have a lot of choice about. We will see tonight from Tony Abbott whether or not he continues this mantra of, 'we won't save, we won't cut but we want to spend more to somehow preserve services'.
GILBERT:
Okay, Bruce…
BILLSON:
Well he's had a pretty good run there of not talking about the issues…
GILBERT:
Well give us your view on those issues, obviously you're going to put the boot in again on border protection because the answer wasn't really…
BILLSON:
Well the answer wasn't there and David avoided saying that the blow out, not cost blow out in border protection costs are roughly in the vicinity of what has been cut out of family benefits. That's the issue and what he was saying was just because the Government has dished up savings means that all of them are sensible. That is just ridiculous. When they're talking about savings they're ignoring the fact that what they're claiming is savings are actually new taxes and tax increases. So, you've got tax increases masquerading as savings. Savings are supposed to be virtuous…
GILBERT:
If they're not virtuous Bruce, will you have an alternative tonight as David says? The Treasurer says that it's D-Day for Tony Abbott tonight.
BILLSON:
It's D-Day for debt and deficit for Treasurer Swan. He's actually getting mixed up with the days. Tuesday was D-Day, blow out and budget deficits this year, next year blow out and debt, $135 million a day we're borrowing…
GILBERT:
Shouldn't there be some detail tonight from Tony Abbott?
BILLSON:
What you'll see tonight from Tony Abbott is a better way forward. You'll see him outline a better way forward for our country. To tackle the challenges our nation faces, to ensure that the Australian public understands that the Liberal and National parties understand the key priorities of the Australian people, that's what you'll see tonight. I think it will be a very interesting contrast to the confused, mumbled bits and pieces where the Treasurer was saying that he wants to get people back in to work but then in the Budget they're knocking off the Entrepreneurs Tax Offset…
GILBERT:
But isn't there hypocrisy in your argument? You're saying that they're not necessarily virtuous like this cap on the family payments when you backed them in 2009.
BILLSON:
The point we're talking about is this Budget and the reply. I'll have to check David's assertion, I know there can be assertions on the table here…
BRADBURY:
Well it went through the Parliament.
BILLSON:
It's always important to check those assertions. There were some assertions about what the Coalition did with the GST after the election. That was in the Budget straight after the election…
BRADBURY:
Forget the GST, we're talking about the family payments now.
BILLSON:
We're sort of saying that same sort of discipline should apply to the carbon tax. What I'm saying though is tonight you'll see Tony Abbott outline a better way forward for our country. That's what you'll see tonight, a way forward that responds to the priorities of the Australian people. The pressure on households, the cost of living demands that are being increased by this Government, the need to regenerate enterprise, and getting people to keep reaching for a better life and not run in to these roadblocks.
BRADBURY:
You can't have it both ways.
GILBERT:
David just on the point that's been made by previous Labor Oppositions that when Budget reply came around, that there wasn't always an alternative Budget in place. Oppositions don't have resources such as Treasury like you, Mr Shorten and Mr Swan do, how can you expect a fully detailed Budget alternative tonight?
BRADBURY:
Well, there are a couple of points to make. The first one is every year that is what the previous Government expected of the Opposition and really raised the bar in terms of what the expectation really was. Certainly, Labor Oppositions always did what they could to deliver a Budget reply speech that clearly set out the points of difference around the budgetary measures that the Government had set out. The second point to make about this is, I don't remember any Labor Oppositions say that they were going to use a Budget as the pretext for forcing an early election. Now, if that is what this is all about, there are no magic puddings in all of this, they talk about how it was too savage in many aspects and how it wasn't savage enough in other aspects.
GILBERT:
You're raising this issue about it being a pretext for an early election, but how can that eventuate?
BRADBURY:
Presumably the argument is that they'll use it to block supply…
BILLSON:
The point is to talk about anything other than the Budget.
GILBERT:
Well how can they block supply? They don't have the numbers David.
BRADBURY:
Ask Joe Hockey…
BILLSON:
This is just a decoy to stop talking about the real issues here…
BRADBURY:
Ask Joe Hockey what he meant about it. The point is, Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, they're all out there saying that they want to force the Parliament to go back to an early election. Now, if they're serious about that, the very least they could be doing is present a genuine alternative in the Budget reply tonight and they've got to do better than they did at the last election. If the reality of what happened at the last election be known, the reason that the Coalition is not in Government is because of the fraudulent costing that they based their policies on going in to the last election…
BILLSON:
But you've picked up many of those…
BRADBURY:
When they went before Treasury, an $11 billion hole was found.
GILBERT:
Let's hear Bruce.
BILLSON:
These savings that the Coalition detailed as part of a $50 billion package were so bad that the Government picked up a number of…
BRADBURY:
No $11 billion black hole from us.
BILLSON:
So what they're looking for tonight is to outsource the work of Government to the Opposition again. We're happy to give you those savings and some of them have been picked up. We keep doing the work for you…
BRADBURY:
So you'll support them then?
BILLSON:
Tony Abbott's out there talking about the need for a focus on mental health, then you've got Julia-come-lately say we'll do something about mental health, about workforce participation - we're out there and again the Government comes in late. But, this black hole is interesting too. You know what one of those black holes was Kieran? The claimed black hole was our focus on welfare to work measures and there was an investment required to achieve greater levels of workforce participation. You know what the Government wouldn't count? The actual savings on income support achieved by getting people back in to work…
BRADBURY:
It wasn't the Government, it was Treasury.
BILLSON:
And the income tax they'll be paying when they're back in work. So you've got to be very careful about these claims of black holes…
BRADBURY:
It was independently costed by Treasury.
BILLSON:
What I know is that Labor loves us doing their work for them.
GILBERT:
Okay Gentlemen we've got to take a quick break, we'll be joined by the Prime Minister shortly and we'll be right back.
*BREAK*
GILBERT:
Welcome back to AM Agenda, with me this morning David Bradbury and Bruce Billson. Gentlemen let's look at another element of the Budget which has caused a bit of controversy in the press today particularly in the News Limited press, David, about the set-top boxes. Electricians are concerned that there might be safety issues with the accreditation. David what is the Government's advice on that?
BRADBURY:
Our advice is that some of the claims that are out there at the moment are misleading. In terms of this program, and I think that there are a couple of facts that we need to put on the table. The first one is that there has been bipartisan support for programs of this nature which will assist low income earners in particular pensioners to make the transition from analogue to digital TV. It's going to be a really big change for society and I think it's important that we do provide that assistance. The regime that will be in place, there are very strict requirements in place, all installers will have to be registered and there is a proper registration process, documentation will need to be presented before someone is authorised to install under those arrangements. Part of that includes people that are putting themselves up, offering themselves to deliver these services, would need to demonstrate that they have had some time in the industry, in fact some of the documentation requires them to have been in the sector for at least a year.
GILBERT:
These concerns though are being raised by Master Electricians Australia. Bruce I'll get your thoughts on that in a moment, but if you're saying that they're false claims that are being made by this peak body…
BRADBURY:
Well certainly they are one peak body. My understanding is that various bodies have been consulted as part of this process and there are various stakeholder groups that are connected with the digital switch over that have been involved in that exercise. Obviously, as with the implementation of any Government policy, we are committed to ensure that that is implemented in the safest possible way. The protections that have been put in place are quite extensive, and we will continue to liaise with all of the stakeholder groups to make sure that is the case.
GILBERT:
Okay, Bruce what's your view here?
BILLSON:
Well David's right, it's like the pink batts really. I hope that all those assurances, which sound very similar to the assurance we heard with the pink batts scheme are actually delivered.
GILBERT:
38,000 installations have already been done.
BILLSON:
And they haven't been without problems. I've just been speaking to some of my colleagues about that. We understand the set-top box idea, we have no issue with that. I mean people can't understand why…
BRADBURY:
So you do support the idea?
BILLSON:
You've had a good run. Again this is an example of Labor. The idea that you get set-top boxes out to people, you've got to take into account the mismanagement…
BRADBURY:
Do you support it?
BILLSON:
We're okay with the set-top boxes going out to pensioners, no issue about that, little bit curious as to why the Budget has them costing ten times what you can pick them up for at your local electrical and audio visual store, and again you're seeing this issue that the Master Electricians, people who rang the bell on the insulation program saying be careful. I hope the Government is careful of waste, mismanagement and this program going off the rails. It seems to be there again, let's hope that David's assurances come good. Although, they were kind of the same assurance we got on the pink batts program. Fingers crossed it's executed thoughtfully, and the cost that appears there by the numbers of set-top boxes doesn't materialise but we'll keep an eye on that and I'm sure everyone else will too.
GILBERT:
David just on another element overnight the Assistant Treasurer moved in the Parliament the Government's debt ceiling to $250 billion, this seems to have been done without much fanfare last night quite understandably…
BILLSON:
Very understated for such a huge number.
GILBERT:
What is it, around 248 or something like that?
BRADBURY:
These matters, I know there is a lot of interest in them and people get excited about it, but in the end the debt figures that we have are the debt figures that we have and we are pulling out of debt at a rate that is not comparable by any other country. Our debt and deficit levels as a ratio of GDP are not matched by any other developed country in the advanced major economies. We have debt and deficit as a very small portion of GDP compared to other countries. We have a pathway, a plan, to get the Budget back into surplus and ultimately to reduce those debt levels over time.
GILBERT:
The Opposition are having some fun today David and I'm sure Bruce will join in on this about the Treasurer who was asked this morning about when the last surplus was, and the Opposition is enjoying themselves with that, saying that he didn't know or he didn't want to say when it was.
BILLSON:
Can you enlighten us on that? Pressure's on.
BRADBURY:
No, I can't.
BILLSON:
1999.
BRADBURY:
1999? So we weren't in Government but we delivered it…
BILLSON:
1989 sorry.
BRADBURY:
We can go back to history, but Labor hadn't been in Government for a very long time, that's the first point to make. It's pretty hard to deliver surplus Budgets when you're not in Government. We weren't particularly happy about that we wanted to get out of Opposition as quickly as we could…
BILLSON:
Cute, cute.
BRADBURY:
We are in Government now, but equally…
BILLSON:
So another economic Minister didn't know when the last surplus was.
BRADBURY:
Equally, we have had the challenge of the Global Financial Crisis and we've done exceptionally well in weathering that storm. We're pulling out of it, and most Australians, and most people in my electorate are actually much less concerned about when the last Budget surplus was delivered by a Labor Government. What they're more concerned about is when the next Budget surplus will be delivered. We are committed to doing that by 2012-13 and if Bruce and his people are committed to that too they won't be blocking those savings measures we've put in place to deliver that surplus.
GILBERT:
Bruce just on the point David made about the 12-13 timetable, it is well ahead of comparable countries as he said, so you're drawing on history. What did you say? 1989?
BILLSON:
Yeah 1989 was the last time…
GILBERT:
Yeah, well that was a long time ago and you were in Government for well over a decade in between.
BILLSON:
No, that was the last Labor surplus. You're getting mistaken with Coalition surpluses…
BRADBURY:
When was the last Coalition surplus before the Howard Government? Tell me when it was.
BILLSON:
What you're seeing is a Government that wouldn't know a surplus if they fell over one…
BRADBURY:
We'd have to go right back into ancient history.
BILLSON:
Under the Coalition Government you've seen surplus after surplus delivered. That is what's given the base to what Labor now claims is their good work. They've done nothing to ease pressure on debt and deficit. They're just relying on the good work of Treasurer Costello and Prime Minister Howard. They're making hay out of other people's work and it would be nice if you guys could make a contribution on what you claim is a virtue.
BRADBURY:
And what, the Global Financial Crisis didn't happen?
GILBERT:
Gentlemen, good to see you both. David Bradbury and Bruce Billson, thank you. We'll take a break and be back with Prime Minister Julia Gillard.