Epstein:
Michael Sukkar joins us in our Parliament House studio. Michael, good afternoon.
Minister Sukkar:
Afternoon, Raf. Good to be with you.
Epstein:
Stephen’s in Sandhurst, he’s called already about the topic that kicked off Question Time today, so I’ll bring Stephen in straight away. Stephen, what’ve you got to say?
Caller:
I just want to ask Michael if he thinks it would help that all male politicians and leaders, called out the family violence epidemic for what it is and that is that its male violence on women and it’s a gendered problem?
Epstein:
Can I just clarify, Stephen, you’re saying that male politicians should call out domestic violence as a gendered problem?
Caller:
Yes, I’ve heard Marise Payne do it and I think I’ve heard Dan Andrews do it but I’ve heard nobody else do it.
Epstein:
Michael Sukkar?
Minister Sukkar:
Well I think Stephen makes a pretty good point. I certainly think it’s helpful if everybody, but particularly people who are politicians who have got a megaphone so to speak, call it out for what it is. There’s probably few people who are more critical of the way in which violence in any form, but particularly against women and children, pervades our society than me. I can’t say I’ve ever come across a politician on either side of politics who doesn’t in any way, shape or form, call it out for what it is. It is violence, there’s absolutely no doubt about it…interrupted.
Epstein:
Is it gendered violence though? That was one of the findings of the royal commission?
Minister Sukkar:
Well the stats are clear, the stats are absolutely clear and that’s why the government has worked and taken up something that was commenced under Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, the action plan against violence against women and children. We’re up to the fourth action plan now and it’s one of the few things in Parliament that gets absolute bipartisan support…interrupted.
Epstein:
Can I ask you a really very sincerely non-partisan question because the language that the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister used, how do you explain to someone that governments have been focussing on this but we’re still failing?
Minister Sukkar:
I must say that there is an element that every level of government – the federal government and we work very closely with the state government particularly on the action plan against violence against women and their children – there is an element where events like what we saw last week have you shaking your head and thinking what more should we do? Inevitably, you say that what has been done in the past – well intentioned thought that it is – is it working? Obviously we’ve all been extraordinarily moved by what happened last week but there are literally and sadly, these tragic and evil events that happen on a far too regular basis. I wish we could say that this was an event that was unprecedented but it’s not. It’s absolutely not unprecedented so of course we reflect on what more we can do and as Minister for Housing, as part of the fourth action plan, we’ve put more money into building more accommodation so that women can flee a violent partner without having housing as a barrier and we work very closely with the states on the building of that accommodation but as the housing minister I look at that and think, well okay, we’ve put $78 million into it, is that enough? I suspect every level of government around the country and every minister, is looking at their own portfolio and thinking, ‘okay, we’ve committed to doing this, we think it’s very worthy, do we need to do more?’ I think that’s the sense of Parliament today. I think there was a bit of exasperation on both sides of the House thinking, ‘what more do we need to do actually, in years to come, ensure that we’re standing up in parliament and talking about how these things don’t happen as frequently as they do.
Epstein:
Well, we’ll keep talking about these things and how we run the systems and we’ll see how we go. Let’s bring Tim in from Coburg. This ties into the net zero emissions debate that was the more fiery part of Question Time. Tim, what did you want to say?
Caller:
Good afternoon, Raf and good afternoon, Michael. Since the ALP released their position statement saying that they’ll have net zero emissions by 2050, they’ve been criticised for not having costings or plans available. I’m just wondering, does the Coalition have costings both direct and indirect public costing and privatised costing passed onto the consumer for their technology plan, both the 2030 and 2050 targets.
Epstein:
Well, we haven’t seen the technology plan yet, I don’t know if that’s formal government policy yet. But you’re asking if they’ve costed their policies, Tim?
Caller:
I just want to know what the cost is because the ALP have been lambasted for a few days about not having costings and I’m just wondering what the government costings are?
Minister Sukkar:
Absolutely, Tim. For the commitment that we’ve made to reduce emission by 26 per cent by 2030, that is fully costed, taken to the election…interrupted.
Epstein:
That’s not true, Michael.
Minister Sukkar:
Absolutely fully costed, Raff, taken to the election…interrupted.
Epstein:
Where?
Minister Sukkar:
In every single policy that we’ve outlined…interrupted.
Epstein:
Michael, forgive me, I have asked in detail from a number of Ministers.
Minister Sukkar:
Raf, you’re interrupting me. The climate solutions fund that we took to the election were in addition to the Renewable Energy Target and were in addition to a range of policies including the small scale energy target as well. All of these things have a costing associated with them and they in one way, shape or form help reduce the emissions that are part of our target. Labor just haven’t learnt their lesson here from before the election. We all remember when Bill Shorten quite right got eviscerated for not being able to give answers to simple questions…interrupted.
Epstein:
I’m happy for you to continue to criticise the Labor Party but I just want to point something out.
Minister Sukkar:
Raf, Tim’s question is about Labor’s announcement so that’s why I’m referring to, Labor, Raf
Epstein:
I just want to point out something, if I can. There is no government forecast modelling or costing of how you get to 28 per cent. There is something modally of the numbers of how you use the Kyoto carry-over credits to get to that target. I’m not talking about whether or not that is a good or a bad idea. There is no government modelling or forecasting that shows the full cost to the economy of getting to Paris. That’s not on the Department of Environment website. I’ve been looking for that in the nine month lead up to the election and since the election. It’s not there. I’m not criticising other parts of your plan.
Minister Sukkar:
Raf, I’m referring to costed policies taken to the election that help reduce emissions and get us to that target.
Epstein:
You said that it was fully costed to that 28 per cent goal and that’s not true.
Minister Sukkar:
26 per cent, Raff, by 2030.
Epstein:
26 per cent. You said that you were fully costed to get there. That’s not true.
Minister Sukkar:
Well, Raff, I disagree. I wholeheartedly disagree. The point that I was making for Tim is this. What Australia has historically done is that we have progressively set targets. So in 1998 we set a target for 2012. In 2009 we set one for 2020 and in 2015 we set one for 2030. Here you’ve got the Labor Party that’s set one for 2050 – mind you, none of the current crop of Labor politicians will ever be held accountable to it because they’ll be long gone by 2050 – they have absolutely no idea – they’ve admitted it – absolutely no idea what it costs. More importantly, they’ve got no idea how they get there. So it’s maybe a very noble aspiration but they can’t tell us how many people might lose their job, that it might require taxes on electricity, that it might require taxes on other products and in the end, it’s very easy for politicians – and we’re all tempted to do it, I can assure you – very east to set targets so far out that we will never be held accountable to them. We’ll never be held accountable for the milestones, we’ll never be held accountable to the final number, but you cannot take those seriously and Anthony Albanese will not be in politics in 2050. But to be taken seriously, he has to be able to say what it will cost. If he doesn’t, then it’s just empty rhetoric and cannot be taken for granted and sadly show that he hasn’t learnt the lesson that Bill Shorten learnt from his perspective during the election which is that if you don’t have an answer to that question then the Australian people won’t accept it.
Epstein:
So what do you know that the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council, 73 nations like Britain and Canada, the IPCC, they all advocate that goal. If it’s silly for Labor to propose that, are the business council and the industry group and 73 nations like Britain and Canada and all the world’s scientists, are they silly too?
Minister Sukkar:
Well, hold on Raff, it’s not their responsibility to do Labor’s homework. The Business Council and AI Group are not in government. They don’t govern this country. If you are the alternative government and you are trying to say to people that here we have an incredibly plan and something that we think is worthy, it’s incumbent on them to do their homework, not other people. It’s not up to any third party industry group or the government, and to go back to Tim’s original question, it’s not up to the government to do Labor’s homework and tell everybody what Labor’s plan is going to cost.
Epstein:
CSIRO think that it’s beneficial to the economy. They’ve done modelling as well.
Minister Sukkar:
It’s not up to the CSIRO to do Labor’s homework either, it’s Labor’s job.
Epstein:
I’m not asking about Labor right now, I’m asking about if the CSIRO, all of those countries, all of those industry groups think it’s a good idea, what are you saying to them when you say that it’s a bad idea and who are you getting that advice from?
Minister Sukkar:
No, no, Raf, you’re verballing me in a very bad way. What I’m saying to you is very clear. Tim, and I might be making an assumption here, Tim might think it’s a very worthy and noble objective.
Epstein:
I’ve kind of moved on from Tim’s question.
Minister Sukkar:
Well I’m still answering it. So it may be very worthy, Raf, but it is incumbent on the Labor Party to explain what it will cost. If you don’t explain what it would cost and more importantly, how you’re going to achieve it, we might all be in furious agreement about how noble it might be, but there’s no credibility to it. You could name an innumerable number of individuals and groups and others who think that in theory it’s quite noble.
Epstein:
Well there’s a lot of countries and a lot of groups in this country so I’m asking who you’re listening to when you say we won’t adopt that policy.
Minister Sukkar:
Well I think that any policy should be costed, Raf, and if you can’t say what it’s going to cost, you can’t say how you’re going to achieve it, then it’s worthless.
Epstein:
Okay can I ask you about a policy?
Minister Sukkar:
Sure.
Epstein:
You’re losing 7,000 megawatts of coal fired power over the next decade. According to your own government department, you’re losing something like four Hazelwood power stations over the next decade. What’s that cost to that and where will all those people work?
Minister Sukkar:
Well Raf again, these are aspects of the economy that are happening on their own. They’re not happening because of explicit government policy.
Epstein:
Well no, you’ve made a promise to get to 28 per cent so we’re going to have less coal and we’re losing something like four coal-fired power stations and they’re your numbers and your policies. You just said that they need costings.
Minister Sukkar:
Well I don’t disagree with any of that but renewables are going to increase from 31 to 41 per cent of generation so they’ll pick up that slack. What I’m saying to you is that if something is a consequence of a government policy…interrupted.
Epstein:
Well that’s a direct consequence of a government policy. You’re claiming credit for the increase in the use of renewables even though you actually opposed the Renewable Energy Target the renewable energy agency…interrupted.
Minister Sukkar:
Well hold on Raf, the Renewable Energy Target has been maintained by this government and it was setup by a former Liberal government.
Epstein:
Well let’s not argue about the history of the Renewable Energy Target.
Minister Sukkar:
Well that is going into history but we’ve maintained Renewable Energy Target that is driving a lot of the investment into renewable energy.
Epstein:
There’s a lot of renewables coming and that’s your policy, okay. So there’s the equivalent of four Hazelwood power stations coming out of the system in the next ten years according to the government’s own figures, the Department of Environment. What is going to happen to those workers? Where will they work and how much will it cost?
Minister Sukkar:
Well, Raf, you’ve ignored my answer. If it’s not a direct consequence of a government policy, then…interrupted.
Epstein:
You’ve just claimed credit for the policy of renewable energy?
Minister Sukkar:
Well no, we claim credit for the fact that we’ve got emissions 13 per cent lower than 2005 levels which gives credibility to the target that we’ve committed to. I think we’re sort of talking at cross purposes here, Raf. It’s very clear to me that there will be organisations, which you’ve named, who will think that it’s a good aspiration to have net zero emissions by 2050. What I’m saying to you is that, and I’m trying to say it really clearly, that means nothing, Raf, if you can’t explain how you’re going to get there and I think that it’s incumbent on you – and I’m not sure if you disagree – I think that it’s incumbent on a government or an alternative government to explain in very clear terms, what the consequences of that ambition are, which is quite above and beyond, how you’re going to meet it. I don’t think that that’s particularly controversial.
Epstein:
Can I ask about the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme? I don’t think the government ever pretended that this would fix everything in the housing market. I think that it’s 10,000 people per year and you’re helping people buy their first home. Do you think that it’s having an impact on the market or is it just something that benefits the people who get the programme?
Minister Sukkar:
Look, I don’t think it’s at a scale that is going to have an appreciable impact on the market in terms of increasing demand or anything like that but it is making a significant difference for 10,000 people a year. One of the interesting stats that I’ve seen I the last week or so that I’ve seen is that we’ve seen a recovery in the housing market out of the correction that we’ve experienced and it’s actually being driven by first home buyers. Now, I’m not suggesting that that First Home Loan Deposit Scheme is necessarily the reason for that, I think that it’s adding to it but it’s been very successful. We’ve had 6,500 people take up guarantees really in about six weeks. There’s about 1,000 people that have settled on a property and there’s another 5,000 people that are literally out there with a government guarantee looking for a home and…interrupted.
Epstein:
So does it cost you money, Michael Sukkar? Or is it just a guarantee? It doesn’t cost money does it?
Minister Sukkar:
So at the moment, banks are requiring about a 20 per cent deposit. We’ve identified that getting the deposit together for many, many people is one of the most significant impediments because by the time you save your deposit, the market has moved and then the benchmark gets further and further away from first home buyers. What we’ve done is that we’ve setup through the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation government guarantees which means that you can get a loan with a five per cent deposit. We’ll guarantee up to 15 per cent of the loan which means that you get the loan with a five per cent deposit, you don’t have to pay for lenders mortgage insurance…interrupted.
Epstein:
Is it worthwhile – and I don’t want to be cruel because I completely appreciated that the government is doing something to help 10,000 people and I know that it’s not a partisan disagreement you’ve got with Labor – is it worthwhile? It just seems like it’s a bit of a lottery, you’re able to help some people but you’re not able to have a huge impact. Is it worthwhile?
Minister Sukkar:
It’s being targeted at a part of the market where we expect that people who qualify for this will be able to get one. It’s not a lottery at all, you’ll get one. There are house price caps and there are income caps. So even though there are a lot more first home buyers per year, if you’re looking to but quite an expensive home for your first home which some people are able to, then you’re not in the scheme. If your income is above a certain level then you don’t qualify for the scheme. But for people who are on middle incomes who are struggling to get that deposit together, all things being equal they should be able to get a government guarantee and get into the property market, in some cases years ahead of when they would otherwise so it’s very worthy for them I can assure you.
Epstein:
Oh no, I don’t doubt that.
Minister Sukkar:
But it’s not a lottery, Raf.
Epstein:
Well I mean a lottery in that not everyone can access it.
Minister Sukkar:
Well if your income is about $125,000 a year, no you don’t qualify. If you want to purchase a property in Melbourne above $600,000, you don’t qualify. So there’s those usual sorts of caps that apply so it really focusses on those middle income, first home buyers who are paying their rent, they’ve got the cost of children, they’ve got a whole lot of other costs, getting on top of all that to save for a deposit is very, very difficult. This helps them get into the market. They can service the loan, I can assure you that the banks and smaller lenders are very enthusiastic about this.
Epstein:
If I can, Michael Sukkar, I just want to bring in Eric from Dandenong to discuss an issue we haven’t discussed for a while. Eric, what’s your query?
Caller:
Hello Michael. Eric from Dandenong. I sent you an email regarding the Liberal’s cash restriction bill.
Epstein:
This is about a $10,000 limit with cash.
Caller:
Yes. In terms of Australia’s economic problems, we are not improving our productivity as with our wage growth. I don’t understand why the Liberal Party is putting a restriction on the use of cash instead of letting the market forces decide which way to go because looking at the Reserve Bank lowering interest rates, we are on a downhill trajectory to negative interest rates? So when that happens, people have to pay interest to put money into the bank, so I don’t understand why the Liberal Party is putting a tax on instead of making the pie bigger so that all Australians can enjoy the benefits of a booming economy?
Epstein:
Michael Sukkar, a lot of people don’t like that limit on how much cash they’ll be able to use.
Minister Sukkar:
Well just to clarify for Eric. Of course you can enter into transactions of above $10,000 but in cash, we are taking the advice of the Black Economy Taskforce which found that, particularly bikie and other criminal gangs were using cash purchases of jewellery and cars to launder money, not to mention that there was some tax evasion going on. This has been done in a number of first world jurisdictions around the world. It’s not particularly novel…interrupted.
Epstein:
I guess Eric’s argument might be that most people using that amount of cash aren’t criminals and that you’re crimping their ability to expand the economy.
Minister Sukkar:
I don’t know many people who engage in a single transaction of $10,000 or more in cash. Sure it does happen but it’s not particularly common so I think that we’re talking about a fairly small number of people in society. But what that Black Economy Taskforce found was that through the purchases of vehicles and jewellery in large volumes, criminal gangs were using that as a vehicle for laundering money, even in some cases purchasing property to launder money and this is purely a response to try and crack down on those bikie and criminal gangs.
Epstein:
Michael Sukkar, unprompted, unexpected question. Something that drives you nuts in public? With the sad death of June Dally-Watkins who taught so many people across this country about etiquette, I’ve been asking people about things that drive them crazy. People have mentioned phones in cinemas, people stopping other people getting off a train. Is there a public behaviour that if I made you king of Australia for a day, you would decree illegal?
Minister Sukkar:
Well there’s all the usual ones. I suppose one that you haven’t mentioned, and I say this as someone with two little boys – one two and half and one ten months and I’m normally carrying one and holding one – is people who are walking and paying no attention as to where they are walking so they will literally bump straight into you and it’s often hard to manoeuvre around them when you’re carrying one in one arm and for some reason in town, in Bourke Street and other places, I don’t know even if it’s because they’re looking at the phones or just not paying attention to where they’re walking. So I’m not really a stickler for these things but I do hate it when people bump into me. I’ve probably been guilty of it myself but it is a bit of a pain.
Epstein:
Okay, eyes up people. So says, the Federal Minister. Thanks for your time, Michael Sukkar.
Minister Sukkar:
Thanks Raf.