HOST:
David Bradbury, thank you for your time. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says that if the West Australian Premier Colin Barnett wants to talk to other Premiers about a new GST redistribution deal, he should go for it. What's wrong with that?
BRADBURY:
Well on the weekend, Mr Abbott confirmed that there have been secret talks underway, not just between he and Mr Barnett but between Mr Barnett and the Liberal Premiers of the eastern States. Now, on the one hand, Mr Abbott wants to send soothing signals to people in Western Australia that somehow under an Abbott Government he would increase Western Australia's share of the GST revenue; yet on the other hand he wants to send soothing signals to people in Tasmania and South Australia to tell those people that they won't be losing out. Now unless he is proposing to increase the GST pie, which means jacking up the rate or imposing the GST on even more items, then there is a limited amount of money to distribute, and if he wants to rip money away from New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, then he should be honest with the Australian people that that is what he intends to do.
Our figures show that if Mr Barnett were to be given what it is he is seeking, that would mean that over the next two years alone $2 billion of GST revenue would be redirected away from New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria to increase WA's share. The Premiers of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria would need to explain to the people of their States how it is, with that reduced GST revenue, that they're going to be able to deliver the schools, the hospitals, the infrastructure that their States need.
HOST:
Surely the Premiers of those States, and the Premiers of the other States, South Australia and Tasmania as well, would not agree to any change in redistribution that's going to so heavily disadvantage them, so it's a non-issue at that level, isn't it?
BRADBURY:
Well if that is the position, Mr O'Farrell, Mr Napthine and Mr Newman should come out and rule it out. They have refused to come onto the record and rule it out, partly, I think, because they're trying not to embarrass Tony Abbott, to not expose the fact that his suggestion that somehow he has a plan that would increase GST for WA that would have the support of the States is nothing more than an attempt to curry favour with people in Western Australia in the lead-up to the election. Unless, of course, he does have a plan to increase the rate of the GST or broaden its base. You can't make the existing share of GST go further without taking it off someone, taking it off Peter to pay Paul. In this case, in the case of New South Wales for example, if Colin Barnett got what he was looking for, about a billion dollars over the next two years would need to be redirected from New South Wales' share to fund an improvement in WA's share.
HOST:
The Budget bottom line in the years ahead, according to recent reports – one notable one released yesterday – looks pretty crook and some economists say the way to fix that is to increase the GST, to make it a true broad-based tax and increase its level from 10 to 15 or even 17.5 per cent. What do you say to that and what do you think the Opposition might be considering about it?
BRADBURY:
Well there's no doubt the Liberal State Premiers would like to see the Commonwealth Government increase the GST or broaden its base. I make the point that all of that revenue would go to the State Governments; it's no wonder they're so keen to see that happen. If there are suggestions that we need to address long-term sustainability questions over the Federal Budget, it's simply not an answer to be talking about increasing the rate of the GST or broadening its base. It's about making sure that our expenditure is of a scale that's within our means and that we're able to have a strong revenue base, a revenue base that we're able to protect from erosion that can sustain and support the expenditure into the future. On the question of the GST, the only thing the Australian people have to fear is wall-to-wall Liberal State Governments, with the vested interest that comes with them wanting to get their hands on more and more of the GST dollar, and a Federal Liberal Government. It's only with the support of all of those parties is there any risk or any threat that the rate of GST would be increased or indeed its base broadened. And when we talk about broadening its base, we're talking about putting the GST on healthcare, putting it on education, or hitting food and other essentials in life.
HOST:
So Labor would never make that move? Labor would never consider changes to the GST to fix the Budget bottom line?
BRADBURY:
We are not proposing to increase the rate or broaden the base of the GST. We are very much focussed on making sure that our expenditure is within its means and indeed the revenue that is necessary to support that is being collected. Part of that is making sure that we've got the mix of taxes right, but it's also about making sure that we protect the revenue base. There's a lot of erosion of the revenue base that's been going on in recent years. That's something that we are determined to make sure that, when it comes to multinationals in particular, they are paying their fair share of tax.
HOST:
What do you make of the Opposition Leader's recent comments in regard to company tax changes that would occur under an Abbott Government, both in respect to the increases that would be used to pay for the parental leave scheme and the promised cuts.
BRADBURY:
Look, this is a shambolic policy. This paid parental leave tax that the Liberal Party wants to impose – and let's be clear about it, it's Mr Abbott's tax, no one else in his Party supports it – it's a tax that will be in the order of $3 billion a year. Across the forward estimates, a $12 billion paid parental leave tax imposed upon the largest companies. Now, the reality is that many of these companies are already funding their own very generous paid parental leave scheme but Mr Abbott wants to jack up tax on these companies. It will effectively be an increase in the corporate tax rate. Now he is doing that; previously he'd said that he would do that at the same time as he would reduce the general corporate tax rate, but now we've seen in the last couple of days he's walked away from that commitment. That essentially means he will be going to the next election, because of this paid parental leave tax, wanting to jack up the rate of corporate tax on 3,000 or so of Australia's largest businesses. Now this doesn't make sense. It's a scheme that will deliver excessively generous amounts to higher paid workers and it's a scheme that will ultimately push up the cost of living because the companies that will be forced to pay this will be the companies that we buy our petrol from, the grocery stores that we shop at and the banks that we lend our money from.
HOST:
Finally, the Opposition's education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, has suggested ANZAC Day has become, in some respects, relegated in our education system to on a par with NAIDOC Week, I think he nominated, and that ANZAC Day needs to be given more pride of place in the education of our children. What's your view on this, David Bradbury?
BRADBURY:
Well as I attend various ANZAC Day services in my local schools, it strikes me that ANZAC Day every year is given greater significance in our local schools. The suggestion that that is somehow not the case is divorced from the reality of what I see, both in my own children's school but in schools right across my electorate. I think it's fair to say that in the last decade or so, the significance, right across the community but especially in our schools, that has been attached to this very significant day for all Australians has only grown. I find it rather ironic for people to be suggesting it's been relegated because my experience has been very much that this has an increasing focus of attention in our schools. I think that's a good thing, I'd encourage that into the future.
HOST:
David Bradbury, thank you for your time.
BRADBURY:
Thanks very much Tim.