HOST:
Joining us this morning the Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury and the shadow assistant Treasurer senator Matthias Cormann, Thank you very much for your time this morning gentlemen.
BRADBURY:
Good morning
CORMANN:
Good to be here.
HOST:
Now first to you David Bradbury, Paul Keating warns that we risk becoming a derivative power, a western out post. What do you make of his comments?
BRADBURY:
Well look, I obviously have a lot of time for Mr Keating and his contributions in these matters but respectfully I would disagree with him on this particular point. I think that it is entirely open to Australian to maintain that the stance that we have at present and that is one where we have a very strong and ongoing relationship with the US. That is a historical relationship that has certainly be strengthened in recent times. But that doesn't of its nature preclude us being a very open and active participant within our region with very strong relationships whether it be with countries like Indonesia or Malaysia or other countries right across our region, I think that we have very deep and very strong relationships with those aforementioned countries but I think more broadly the work that is ongoing as far as this Government is concerned really is about taking to the next step that degree ofenmeshment in the Asia region that Mr Keating and others have previously spoken about .
HOST:
But Barack Obama's speech in the Parliament here where he announced that US troops were going to be stationed in Darwin, he was also critical of China's policy in that speech. Do you believe that China must have looked upon that speech unfavourably in terms of Australia?
BRADBURY:
Well look, there will always be occasions where particular partners across the globe might express views that might not be as welcomed by others as some other statements that are made but the point remains that we have a very strong relationship with the US through the alliance. I think it is entirely appropriate that that be the case and I don't think anyone in the contemporary political debate, in Parliament at least, is suggesting that shouldn't be the case but in terms of the relations we have within our region they are strong and I would suggest are strengthening over time and it is entirely appropriate particularly as we embrace the opportunities of the Asian century and that is a very key and central focus of what our government is trying to deliver on.
HOST:
Senator Cormann, Paul Keating was very critical of the Rudd and Gillard Governments but he said this problem really started with John Howard being seen as America's deputy in the region.
CORMANN:
Well look we have got a very strong relationship and a very important relationship with the US and we have got very strong relationships in the region. I mean, Paul Keating seems to have an out-dated view, a bit of a Cold War period type view of the world where there are different blocks in the world and somehow we have got to pick sides with one block and against the others and that is not the way we see the world and that is not the way Australia should see the world. It is in our national interest to continue to have a strong relationship with the United States and to pursue a strengthening relationship with countries in the region. I mean the single thing that has weakened our relationship with Indonesia in recent years is the current government's decision to threaten Indonesia's food security by switching off live cattle exports overnight into Indonesia. Tony Abbott has said for some time that our relationship with Indonesia is, in many respects, the most important. They are the most immediate neighbour in the region of course and an Abbott Government would work very had to strengthen our relationship with Indonesia. But that does not come, and neither should it come, at the expense of our very important and our very strong relationship with the United States.
HOST:
David Bradbury how important is that relationship with Indonesia?
BRADBURY:
Look it's a very important relationship but so too are the relationships between Australia and its other significant Asian neighbours. We very much see our prosperity lying in this region, in the Asia pacific region, the Asian century. Key countries, whether it be the larger countries of China and India but of course more broadly across the region, the opportunities that are going to present themselves in the coming years in this region are immense. It is absolutely central to our economic prosperity moving forward that we develop deep, lasting and significant relationships. I think the other point Paul Keating is making is mature relationships and I think we are achieving those sorts of relationships which will of great befit to Australia in the future.
HOST:
Did Australia's defence cuts come up at all in these talks David Bradbury?
BRADBURY:
That is not my understanding but I certainly haven't been directly involved in those talks but there have been some commentary in the papers on these matters. If you look at what has actually been said by the participants of those talks there is no evidence that that has been an issue.
HOST:
Do you think I was a big issue Senator Cormann?
CORMANN:
Well it is manifestly an issue that the US is concerned about – I mean clearly if you look past diplomatic niceties -
BRADBURY:
But why do say that? Why do you say that?
CORMANN:
Well we have had some reports from very senior US Officials that are raising concerns; I mean Leon Panetta raised the issue of budget cuts in the defence context yesterday. I mean look, manifestly the US is concerned, you know with the diplomatic niceties that generally are observed in these sorts of contexts you wouldn't expect the United States to be any more direct in their commentary – but I mean this Government has been using the defence budget like an ATM to fund its reckless spending in other parts of it. This is a government that has lost control of its budget, they have spent over $172 billion more than they have raised in revenue over the last four years and of course that is despite massive cuts to the defence budget –
BRADBURY:
But how much would you increase defence spending by Mathias? Put your money where your mouth is. How much are you going to increase defence spending by?
CORMANN:
Well if you want to look at our costings for after the next election I invite you to have that conversation then -
BRADBURY:
Are you giving a commitment?
CORMANN:
The day that I am part of the Government I will answer these sorts of questions. And we will of course release our costings in the lead up to the next election.
BRADBURY:
But you also have to answer questions about where are you going to rip expenditure away from if you are going to fund that. Schools? Education? Family payments? You've got to front up to a few hard questions at some point.
CORMANN:
Well David I would invite you to look closely at our budget costings at the next election. And maybe you might vote Liberal, if you want the balanced budget you'll have to –
HOST:
We'll just leave it there guys just – cuts – we have seen a big outbreak of violence in western Europe over austerity cuts there. David Bradbury what does that tell you about the Government's attempts to bring the budget back to surplus?
BRADBURY:
Well I think it really does very starkly show the differences between the nature and the strength of the Australian economy versus the challenges that countries are facing elsewhere. If you listen to some of the conservative commentators and in fact some of the Liberal Party members on these matters – take Andrew Rob, just a week ago backing in a report that suggested Australia would have to start to have to undertake austerity-like measures in order to achieve a sustainable budget. You know, these are the sorts of ridiculous statements that are occurring. Australia is the stand out performer in the international economy. Why? Because this Government took decisive action through the global financial crisis to support jobs. We continue to run a tight budget, that is appropriate, we will do that in a sensible way. Now when we make difficult expenditure decisions, and we have had to take some of those, Mathias and his lot generally oppose them because they want to talk about fiscal sustainability but then they want to vote against it. When we do these things it is difficult but I have got to say that in the scheme of things Australia is so much well placed than so many other counties in the world and when you turn your TV on and you see people rioting in the streets in places like Greece that should be a reminder to all Australians that, sure things may not be perfect, but I'll tell you what, there is no country that I would rather be in than Australia.
HOST:
Yeah, we are certainly a long way from Europe in terms of our economy and unemployment and the like. Senator Cormann, should any credit at all be given to the Government for that fact that we are in such good shape?
CORMANN:
David, let's be very clear, the reason Europe is facing a day of reckoning now is because Governments in Europe have lived beyond their means for too long, they have spent more than they have raised in revenue for too long. The reason that Australia is in a better position is because back in 2007 we had no Government net debt we had $70 billion worth of Commonwealth net assets and for the past four years the Government has spent $172 billion more than they have raised in revenue, they have put us onto a European track. Now we haven't been on that track for quite as long as countries across Europe but the point is if we continue on the track that Labor has sent Australia on, our day of reckoning will come too. If you then have to then make the tough decisions quickly that is when you get the sort of disquiet, public disquiet that we are currently getting across Europe –
HOST:
One way to boost the coffers would be to broaden the GST. Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor this morning have suggested a review into the GST, is there any room at all for improvement in the GST David Bradbury?
BRADBURY:
Well, but before answering that question in greater detail, what we have just heard from Mathias is this mythology that you hear from the Liberal Party that somehow they woke up in 1996 and all of a sudden the project of reforming the Australian economy to make it competitive and sustainable in the future began. Well this has been a project that has been going on for decades and in fact if there was a starting point it was probably when Labor came into Government in 1983. That is why the Australian economy has been strong throughout this period but key decisions that we took in response to the Global Financial Crisis made a difference. On the GST, look our position has been very clear on this. We do not support an increase in the rate and we do not support a broadening of the base. Now many of the hand-wringers for reform out there that you often hear come from the state governments. Now let's be frank about this. Sure, consumption has not continued at the rates we have seen in the past and perhaps states are not receiving the same increases in GST that they might have been expecting, but the reality is have a look at what has been happening to our budget with the $170 billion write down in revenues. These are the realities of a post-GFC world, it means that all Governments have to be more responsible with the way in which they spend their money and equally we all have an obligation to look at our tax bases and to make sure that they are efficient.
HOST:
And just very briefly a response Mathias Cormann? Just on the GST please.
CORMANN:
Five days before the last election Julia Gillard said there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead and after the election she said the independents and the Greens made me do it. I note that David Bradbury says that there will be no GST increase in the base or the rate. With the Coalition there definitely will not be. Because you can -
BRADBURY:
Well that is not Joe Hockey's view.
CORMANN:
– trust the commitments, people can trust the commitments that we make. But of course with Julia Gillard and people like David Bradbury you never know whether after the election what they said before the election it will hold, particularly given the independents that are keeping them in Government are now pushing for it.
HOST:
Okay we have got to take a break but we will be back right after this though.
[BREAK]
HOST:
Welcome back, well yesterday the Prime Minister reacted fairly angrily to the latest reports regarding her time at the law firm Slater and Gordon 17 years ago. The press report yesterday in The Australian was that $5000 in cash had been deposited in Julia Gillard's account at the request of her then boyfriend. Let's hear what the Prime Minister said on this yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER:
This matter has been trawled over for the best part of 20 years and at the end of it being trawled over of the best part of 20 years there is not one finding of wrong doing by me and there is a reason for that – I didn't do anything wrong. This kind of smear that we are seeing in today's Australian. No allegation of wrong doing by me but the story is being published today. This is smear pure and simple and I'm not going to dignify it by becoming involved in it.
HOST:
And in today's Australian newspaper there is another report the AWU official who was said to have suggested that union funds were paid for renovations for Julia Gillard's house back then now says he is sure that he didn't make such a declaration. I am still joined by Mathias Cormann and David Bradbury. First to you Mathias, apart from hurling insinuations what is the actual allegation against Julia Gillard that the coalition is making here?
CORMANN:
Well let me just make the first point that this is not something that is purely pursued by the Coalition. What we have got in the newspapers, what we have got in the media -
HOST:
I agree with that
CORMANN:
- are reports that are based on evidence and records from the former union officials and former colleagues of Julia Gillard at Slater and Gordon. Plainly what the Coalition is concerned about is that faced with some very specific and reasonable questions the Prime Minister refuses to answer and manifestly that is now increasingly a matter for concern for the Labor Caucus too. I mean very specifically – did the Prime Minister receive a $5000 cash payment from her former boyfriend Bruce Wilson or did she not? And if she did was there reasonable explanation for it and if there was a reasonable explanation for it why not just say so? Did she get involved in the conveyancing work for the purchase of the property or did she not? I mean the Prime Minister by not directly answering specific and legitimate questions actually raises more concerns than what the issue might warrant, if there is nothing to hide why not just -
HOST:
What's unusual about $5000 being passed between two people that are in a relationship?
CORMANN:
Well obviously in the context of allegations which are documented that Mr Wilson set up a slush fund helped by his then loyal Julia Gillard that of course some of that money was misused then obviously there is a legitimate line of inquiry, like where did this $5000 come from? What was the reason for the $5000 payment? If there is an innocent explanation for it surely the Prime Minister would just give us that explanation rather than to let all of that innuendo as you describe it hang around there? I mean it is damaging the office of Prime Minister that she is not prepared to transparently answer it.
Both talking
HOST:
Just one at a time Mathias Cormann we'll let David Bradbury have a say now.
BRADBURY:
So this is the new approach is it? That we throw the mud, it doesn't matter if there isn't any basis at all to it? And people have got to come forward and give some sort of detailed explanation about something that may or may not have happened? This is ridiculous. The bloke that is said to have been the centrepiece, the person that made the disclosure that was when recorded allegedly in this diary, that he now comes out today and says I have no recollection of ever having said it.
CORMANN:
No that is not right, that is not right. You are talking about a different official there.
BRADBURY:
Now what is going on? What is the nature of the allegation? Mathias says that the Liberal Party is not out there primarily pushing this barrow. I can tell you they are pushing this barrow, a barrow full of mud and sludge and they are up to their eye balls in it. But what they need to ask is –
CORMANN:
AWU…
BRADBURY:
I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said there.
HOST:
One at a time. With no interjections, I'll just let David Bradbury finish his point here.
BRADBURY:
I think David you asked the question, what is the substantive allegation being put? Mathias had a good run and he still couldn't come up with one. Now the point is that this has been trawled over for almost 20 years and there is nothing to it, nothing. Now I would have thought the people at The Australian, when you're flogging a dead horse, when you finally come to that realisation it's time to dismount and hang up the whip, instead of continuing to flog this dead horse.
HOST:
Julia Gillard has blamed specifically Tony Abbott for this campaign of smear but as you have pointed out there it hasn't really been lead at all by Tony Abbott. He has answered questions on it yes and says that Julia Gillard may have some questions to answer about this. Mr Bradbury?
BRADBURY:
Well this first point, I didn't see Mathias taking a backwards step in prosecuting the case just a moment ago. The second point I would make is –
HOST:
But it is not Tony Abbott though.
BRADBURY:
The second point I would make is frankly is this really what Australian journalism has come to? That someone can run a front page story one day, clearly hadn't checked their facts because the very next day they run another story that basically says yesterday's front page was wrong.
HOST:
Mathias Cormann is right there, there are actually two different claims, the claim in The Australian yesterday related to $5000 in cash, the claim today relates to a separate allegation that was made about renovations to Julia Gillard's house. So there are actually two different officials being talked about in yesterday's Australian and today's Australian.
BRADBURY:
I am sure I could go into Mathias' past 20 years ago and go and find handful of people that he had some tangential interaction with reflect upon things they may or may not have recollected and we could run front page stories for the next year on it. But the point is, at some point someone has to ask the question, what is the relevance of this, what is the nature of the allegation? Is there any basis for the nature of that allegation? And if not, frankly the Prime Minister is getting on with the job that most Australians are interested in, and that is doing the things that are going to make a difference for the future of this county. And I think that the Liberal party is actually misreading what is going on out there in the community at the moment, people are walking away, turning their back on Tony Abbott because of the negativity that we've seen. And what is their response? Well rather than hear that message they decide to come out with another barrow load of mud and throw some more and serve up another dose of negativity.
HOST:
Mathias Cormann I will give you the last word on this, are people, as David Bradbury suggests, turning their back on Tony Abbott?
CORMANN:
Well as I travel around Australia people are turning their back on this Government. I mean talk about negativity I mean this Government of course has thrown a whole barrage of mud and negativity at Tony Abbott in the last few weeks and months and has that been having an impact on people's perceptions? For sure. But we will just carry on with the job of holding a bad Government to account and presenting ourselves as a strong and effective alternative Government that is focused on strengthening our economy and take Australia forward so –
HOST:
Mathias Cormann we are out of time, sorry to cut you off there we are out of time. Thanks very much for your comments this morning and thanks to you too David Bradbury.