HOST:
You might have heard in the news this morning that Joe Hockey in London last night delivered a speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs in which he said, clearly, unequivocally, the age of entitlement is over. Joe Hockey says that maybe Australia should look to Asia for a better sense of where our welfare system will be heading. We, perhaps, are too generous; it should be the end of the era of popular universal entitlement.
Well, the Government have been quick to jump onto it. David Bradbury is Assistant Treasurer in the Gillard Government. Mr Bradbury, good morning.
BRADBURY:
Good morning, Jon, how are you?
HOST:
Do we waste some of our welfare money?
BRADBURY:
Look, I think that there's always a challenge of making sure that our welfare money is better targeted and that's certainly been a focus of many of the initiatives that this Government has introduced. But there is on the one hand this question of better targeting of entitlement and, obviously, particularly as we face challenging times, we need to make sure that the Government support and assistance that is provided goes to those families, those individuals and those households that need it most.
HOST:
Sure, but these are the battle lines being drawn for the next Federal election. Joe Hockey's saying, "a weak government tends to give its citizens everything they wish for, a strong government has the will to say no", and he is portraying you as a weak government, and Tony Abbott, if he gets into office, as a strong government that's prepared to say no.
BRADBURY:
Well, let's just analyse the facts. When we look at some of the efforts we've introduced to better target entitlements, we see for things like the private health insurance rebate, we've introduced targeting that was opposed by the Coalition. We see with measures to tighten up the eligibility for the baby bonus and spread that entitlement over a period of weeks rather than as a lump sum, we introduced that, that was opposed. There's a whole range of measures we've introduced to better target entitlements and welfare, but the Opposition –
HOST:
Well you might be better targeting them but he says this is people enjoying benefits that someone else pays for, essentially.
BRADBURY:
Well, this is actually the point I'm making Jon, that we were better targeting, which means that some people cease to receive those benefits, the Coalition voted against those measures. When it comes to the private health insurance rebate, and I saw Mr Hockey on television last night –
HOST:
On Lateline.
BRADBURY:
I thought he made a compelling case for the means-testing of the private health insurance rebate – until he was asked specifically about it and he said, no, private health insurance is different.
Now, frankly, when it comes to runs on the board, the Coalition has had an appalling record when it comes to tightening up the targeting of assistance.
But can I make this point more broadly Jon, that what I think most Australians would be most disturbed about in what Mr Hockey had to say is this notion that somehow we should be comparing our social safety net with those of our Asian neighbours in this region.
HOST:
Well he says otherwise you go down the European path and those countries are going broke.
BRADBURY:
And this is the same sort of argument they made about labour standards and Work Choices. Now, in the end, we should not be cutting our living standards and engaging in a race to the bottom when it comes to the social support system we have in place. We need to make sure it's a well-targeted system but I think this is something that will be scaring people in their homes all around the country, this notion that somehow, the only way that we can be competitive is to embrace the sort of social security networks and social support networks of countries where they're virtually non-existent. I think that is a very dangerous proposition –
HOST:
Well they're saying families should be more, people should be more reliant on their families. Families should be more supportive of those amongst them who have needs.
BRADBURY:
And Mr Hockey should spell out exactly what he means by that. He should indicate one measure that he's announced that might actually deliver that reality. He should actually explain to the Australian people why, on all of the other measures that we've introduced to better target entitlements and welfare to ensure that money is targeted to those who need it most, that he has actually opposed these measures.
Can I make this broader point Jon that what we are talking about here, what Mr Hockey is talking about is stripping away entitlement and money from working people who need it most, and this is the same Party that wants to deliver corporate welfare of the sort that we're seeing with a big fat tax cut to miners. Are these people on the same planet? They're out there selling big tax cuts for miners, billionaire miners, and at the same time they're talking about stripping away entitlements, family payments, support to seniors, all of the other parts of our social infrastructure that deliver the support and assistance that families, seniors, households need, and all of this is coming at a time when so many people are doing it tough.
HOST:
And because so many people are doing it tough, they think electorally this will appeal to those taxpayers who think others are either getting a free ride or ripping off the system.
BRADBURY:
Well if implicit in your question that this is all about politics from the Liberal Party, then nothing would surprise me.
HOST:
Well it's all about politics from the Labor Party too, for goodness sake.
BRADBURY:
Well Jon –
HOST: For all of you it's about politics.
BRADBURY:
Jon, when we means-tested the baby bonus, we didn't get a lot of people cheering for us. I tell you what, we had a lot of people that missed out on that entitlement that were upset about it, but we took that decision because it was the right thing to do, and we did it, even though it was opposed by the Opposition. We delivered it. So to suggest that our policy framework is all about politics fails to recognise that fact. Now there are plenty of other examples: private health insurance rebate. I don't see people knocking our doors down to thank us for means-testing that initiative but it needs to happen to be sustainable, because in the end, most of these measures are about ensuring that there is adequate support being provided to those people that need it most.
But I ask the question: how can a Party that supports providing a big fat tax cut to miners - we want to give a tax cut to working Australians to deliver the sort of benefit in the future that Joe Hockey is actually saying we need to provide, that is to get people off the pension down the track so they can support themselves in retirement, we want to do that, and instead of doing that they want to deliver a big fat tax cut to billionaire miners? They've got no credibility at all on this issue.