HOST:
From the Sky News Centre, the Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, and from Melbourne the Shadow Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, good to see you both, gentlemen.
DAVID BRADBURY:
Morning Kieran.
BRUCE BILLSON:
Good morning.
HOST:
David, I want to start with you. Some sound advice there from Bill Kelty, saying that the Government and the nation's going through a tough period of reform and transition and to just explain to the Australian people what it's all about and tell the truth.
BRADBURY:
These are good words of advice, and certainly matters that we take on board. I think one of the challenges that we have is trying to convey to people the nature of the challenge that we as a country are facing and to explain to them the nature of the program and the plan that we have in place to try and make a difference and to try and prepare Australia and our economy for the future. I think we've certainly tried in recent times to have a bit more straight talking about what it is we are trying to do and I think when you look at the detail of the Budget that we've recently handed you can see that there is a lot more of that straight talking starting to happen. What we are saying to the Australian people is that we know that many families out there are doing it tough and whilst we look at all of the underlying indicators of the economy, whether it be strong growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, record pipeline of investment, but for many families around Australia they're looking at these indicators and they're saying, well, I don't necessarily feel as though I'm getting the benefits of the boom. And that's why we've been very focused in this budget in particular in trying to make sure this is a Budget that not only gets the country back into surplus but spreads the benefits of the boom so that families, seniors, people all around the country that are entitled to share in some of the benefits of this boom are starting to see just exactly how we want to make sure that they get some benefit out of what's going on.
HOST:
Bruce, what do you think about this? The point is, despite all the criticisms made by the Coalition of the Government, it is a period of transition, particularly given the difficulties involved with the patchwork economy that the nation faces at the moment.
BILLSON:
Well, I think that Bill Kelty's contribution wasn't the only bit of straight talking yesterday, Kieran, I think Jac Nasser's was also equally relevant, where he was pointing to some of the very factors that you've just identified and made the simple point that Australia needs to be at its best, we need to perform well in our strengths, be nimble and able to adapt and adjust to those changes and to map out a roadmap about a vision for how we plan to do that for the future. Jac Nasser, along with Bill Keelty, was basically making the point that the public hasn't seen that from the Government and that's where the straight talking comes in and contrast that with the economic strategy, the pillars, that have been outlined by the Coalition which we think are needed to restore the hope, reward and opportunity for Australian people and Australian businesses.
HOST:
And he's not just you're average businessman is he, David Bradbury, Australia's most influential businessman, the chairman of BHP, the former global head of Ford. Mr Nasser, obviously has a lot of experience and the way that he described the IR system as a much more difficult industrial relations environment. He says he 'cannot overstate how the level of uncertainty about Australia's tax system is generating negative investor reaction'. It was a scathing speech from the BHP boss.
BRADBURY:
Well, Kieran, I have read the speech. I wasn't there to view it, but I have read the speech, and I think that the media coverage of the speech has missed one significant point and that is that Mr Nasser gave the surplus the very big tick and said that he supported the Government's economic management and the approach that we are driving in returning the Budget to surplus. But can I address these issues more specifically of industrial relations and tax. On the question of tax, clearly there are many people in the business community that are disappointed that we are not in a position to deliver the cut in the company tax rate that we had intended to deliver. But I make this point very clearly, and that is that our determination to try and cut company tax remains undiminished. We will work with the Business Tax Working Group to try and deliver that. But can I make this point, that if Mr Abbott had shown a preparedness to work with the Government, to support a cut in the company tax rate, then Australian businesses right around this country would already have that tax cut. But in addition to that, can I make the point that we have delivered tax relief to many businesses, particularly small businesses, as a result of the measures that we've been able to get through the Parliament. But once again, we had to do that without the support of the Opposition.
HOST:
Bruce Billson, you're response there, because that company tax cut, the Government does have an argument, you were going to oppose it, you said that it was funded by the mining tax and didn't want a bar of it.
BILLSON:
Well, that's right. This is the straight talk that I think Bill Keelty was taking about, when you claim you're offering a tax cut but you're replacing it with another tax, that's not a tax cut, that's a tax con and that's why the Coalition was principled and clear in its approach. Tax cuts are driven by reductions in expenditure, that's the only durable way of delivering tax cuts or alternatively nurturing growth, so that the pie is growing bigger and that might produce reductions in rates. They're not complicated ideas, but when the Gillard Government gets to try and do these fiddles, only talk about what it perceives to be an upside, never mention the downside, that's where people lose confidence and why they look at the Government and wonder what they're doing. I'll give you one other example, Kieran, if I may, in the Budget there was the confirmation the Entrepreneurs' Tax Offset would be abolished, now that was a tax incentive, an encouragement, some reward for the smallest businesses in Australia, not just those structured as a company, but all of the smallest businesses in Australia, getting some encouragement. That tax was abolished, the taxes on the modest income they earn is going up yet the Government wants to say it is doing all these helpful things and talks only about companies, bearing in mind less than a third of Australian small businesses are companies, fewer still are profitable and fewer still will benefit from the measures relating to company tax cuts that David just mentioned.
BRADBURY:
Well, that's just rubbish, Bruce. Two points to make there, the first one is yes, in relation to companies, we've introduced loss carry back, which will be a significant benefit to many of our companies out there, and in particular I make the point that one in six manufacturers are expected to benefit from that particular measures. But on this argument, Bruce, you come forward and you say that only about a third of small businesses are companies and therefore the cut in the company tax rate…
BILLSON:
[inaudible]
BRADBURY:
Let me finish, Bruce, let me finish. You say a third of small businesses only are companies, and that was the justification for blocking a cut in the company tax rate…
BILLSON:
[inaudible]
BRADBURY:
Well, what's your justification for opposing…
BILLSON:
[inaudible]
BRABDURY:
… the instant asset write off. You are supposed to be the Small Business Minister, when it comes to the instant asset write off, which will deliver massive benefits to small business, you went into the Parliament and voted for it. And Kieran , can I just make this point…
HOST:
Let's hear Bruce. David, you've asked a question, Bruce, you're response.
BILLSON:
David, I'm grateful you've given me a chance to have a say, because you're quick to say someone's cutting you off, but you're happy to drone and run over other contributions. Now, in terms of the instant asset write off, the Coalition is the one that supports tax cuts where they are legitimate, where they are tax cons. Sorry for speaking while you're interrupting there David. But where you have got carbon tax, which is going to hurt and harm every small business in Australia, as the justification for revenue that you then want to give back in small part to businesses that have the cash to buy some eligible assets. People are awake up to that, there was a 48 per cent reduction, sorry, a 48 per cent increase in small business insolvencies last year alone. A 95 per cent reduction in small business start-ups, they are looking at what's going on, uncertain about what the Government will do next, recognising there's a challenging economy to work with and that the Government is actually making things harder, not better. Tax cuts are achieved by reductions in outlays or a growth dividend, not some fiddle that the Government seems to keep trying to put across as a con to the Australian public.
HOST:
We're going to move on, because you're obviously not going to agree on any of that. Let's move on to the Thomson matter. David, John Faulkner says the ALP needs to disclose how much in paid on the legal bills. Why do you need Senator Faulkner to tell the ALP to do this? It just seems common sense; that honesty that Bill Kelty referred to.
BRADBURY:
I understand that those matters will be disclosed to the membership, there's a conference coming up and from what I understand, those matters will be detailed at that point in time, so I don't think there's any particular controversy about the fact that these matters will be disclosed and they will be available to members. But ultimately, they are a matter for the Party.
HOST:
The Electoral Commission cleared Mr Thomson of any breaches of the Electoral Act yesterday, Bruce, so it seems at least in part, some of the claims that have been made in the Fair Work Australia report have been, well, he's been cleared of at least some of them here.
BILLSON:
Well, it was interesting, Kieran, you pointed to that AEC report, and what it did was confirm what most people know and that is that, you know, the union movement, one of its primary objectives is to fund Labor election campaigns. There's no great surprise in that. I mean, there was, I think, some union members might be surprised that that much of the resources that goes to unions and in this case the precariously, financially vulnerable HSU has gone into electioneering in the name of supporting Labor candidates and that Craig Thomson was directing that union funded effort to his advantage and possibly others. I don't think that's a great surprise. I think the issues that were raised in the Fair Work investigation relate to whether this is a responsible and appropriate and honourable use of union funds and a range of other allegations about how union funds should be organised. The Electoral Commission has highlighted what we all know, unions are the funding, guiding, strategy arm of the Labor Party, and I don't think that came as any surprise to anyone. The more serious matters still remain unresolved.
HOST:
On the Peter Slipper matter, apparently Christopher Pyne did email James Ashby after those drinks that were had in March. It seems there was more contact, Bruce Billson, after those drinks.
BILLSON:
No, I think that's a complete overstatement of what actually is the facts of the story, Kieran. I mean what supposedly is the great revelation today is that after, as I understand it they had shared a beer, there was an email exchange of a few lines on the same day. Christopher Pyne has made the point that he hasn't had email contact since the, after March 19, they shared a beer on the 19th of March and there was an email exchange that followed. There's nothing new in that, there's nothing that, sort of, takes away from the sleaze that surrounds this Government and any attempt to come up with a conspiracy theories is some justification for the tawdry events that surround the Speaker are just attempts to distract the community away from what the Government really needs to tackle and that's the sleaze and dysfunction at the heart of its political strategy.
HOST:
Okay. David, there does seem, the email's innocuous. It's hardly a smoking gun, as far as I can tell, it's pretty innocuous stuff.
BRADBURY:
It's a smoking gun in so far as it puts paid to Mr Pyne's original story. What it shows is he told a porky. He came forward and said that there was no contact of this nature. Now Mr Pyne, he's been uncharacteristically quiet on this issue and in fact a I note that the Liberal Party has gone pretty quiet on the Peter Slipper affair since these revelations have come forward. But Mr Pyne went on radio and he failed to indicate on several occasions, he failed to be clear about the nature of his contact and his interactions with Mr Ashby. Now, what is clear here is that there were late night drinks and nibbles. In what context that occurred, what the nature of those discussions, what the nature of any follow up interactions were is unclear. Mr Pyne, the man who is noted for his verbal diarrhoea on most occasions needs to come forward and be absolutely clear and specific about the nature of his interactions and his contact with Mr Ashby. He hasn't done that and until he does that, I think there'll be huge questions being asked about the extent of his involvement.
[inaudible]
HOST:
No, no, no. I want to move on.
BILLSON:
David's just accused a colleague of being dishonest. [inaudible] completely false and let the record show that Mr Pyne said there was no email contact after the night where they shared a beer. That is exactly what the story proves out.
[inaudible]
HOST:
Bruce, I want to ask you before we go to the break. We've only got about a minute. It's an important issue. We should have discussed this earlier to be honest, that's probably my mistake here. The Opposition, do you support the National Disability Insurance Scheme or not? Because the language from Joe Hockey yesterday seemed to be very different to what previous messages from Tony Abbott.
BILLSON:
No, no, we do support the NDIS. We've offered a collaborative, bi-partisan approach with the Government. The Productivity Commission said $3.9 billion was required, the Government has put $1 billion on the table, shirt-fronted the States. What should be the greatest collaborative enterprise between levels of government and our community for at least a decade is being used as some sort of partisan division of wedge political tactic by the Government. It doesn't have the funding to implement the Productivity's recommendation. It's not approaching it in the collaborative way that was encouraged and it's not following the careful advice of the Productivity Commission about how the scheme should be designed and implemented. Joe Hockey was making the point there is a funding task still to be addressed whoever is in Government.
HOST:
We do need try and show a bit more discipline. If I'm saying we've got a minute, we've got a minute. David, 20 seconds please.
BRADBURY:
Look, I think that this is just further evidence that there's a lack of commitment to the NIDS from the Coalition. It's all good and well for Mr Abbott to be out there on a regular basis as he is saying yes, we support this scheme. But at every opportunity Mr Hockey has, he's out there indicating that there is a lack of support from the Coalition when it comes to funding the NDIS. Frankly, I think that they need to resolve their internal differences. People suffering disability in this country deserve the support of both Labor and the Opposition and until that happens we're not going to have a scheme in place. But we are committed to delivering it and that's why we've put a billion dollars on the table.
HOST:
David Bradbury, Bruce Billson, thanks for that.