JOURNALIST:
… joins us now. Good morning.
TREASURER:
Good morning, Matt.
JOURNALIST:
You're in Adelaide?
TREASURER:
Yes, I am in Adelaide today. I am doing some functions, and I believe you are having morning tea down in the mall. And congratulations. I think it is a great cause.
JOURNALIST:
Yes, we are having a, it's a part of, as you know, Australia's biggest morning tea for the anti cancer effort.
TREASURER:
Yes, which is great. We have been having a morning tea in our own office, so we are trying to support it as well.
JOURNALIST:
Now, Treasurer, yesterday you were on the New South Wales south coast. Today you're in Adelaide. This is part of your post Budget sales, sales spiel, is it?
TREASURER:
Yes. After the Budget, I try and get around Australia as much as possible, and I have been to Queensland and New South Wales and now South Australia. And explaining to people about the Budget, and where the economy is, and talking to them about issues that are of interest. And it is a great opportunity, actually. We have a week off Parliament to go around Australia.
JOURNALIST:
The latest Newspoll, yesterday I think, showed that it's the first Budget since the Dawkins, last Dawkins Budget, that has not had a very positive reaction. Are you, are you troubled by that?
TREASURER:
Well, the poll actually showed that the majority of Australians thought it was good for the economy. That is what it showed. And I, when people said, "Well, you know, do you think this gives benefits to you?" then they said, "Well, we, it wasn't one of these, what we call an election, a pre-election Budget." But when people were asked, "Is it good for the economy?" "Yes," they said. "Do you support the Government's spending on defence?" "Yes." "Do you support the Government's spending on security?" "Yes." "Do you support the Government securing our borders?" "Yes." So, it was a fair Budget, but it was not an easy one. I think the public recognises that.
JOURNALIST:
We're getting a lot of callers in our programme, people particularly worried about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the cuts to that Scheme, cuts to the, to the disability pensions, tighter requirements. Are you getting your message across that it's not as bad as it first appears?
TREASURER:
Well, the changes are that if you are a pensioner, the cost of a prescription is going to be $4.60. Now, that is not the cost of the medicine. Some of these medicines are $100, $200, $300. But whatever the cost of the medicine, the taxpayer provides the subsidy and the pensioner co-payment is $4.60, which is an extra dollar. But after you have had 52 in a year, they are free anyway. So, it is not a large rise. It is an additional dollar. And the object of this is, to try and make sure that we can continue to bring new medical treatments onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
JOURNALIST:
And have you managed to get that message across to the Democrats, because the Democrats have sent a very clear message soon after you handed down your Budget, that they would, they would join with Labor to block those, those changes, particularly to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?
TREASURER:
Well, I think if they were to sit down and to actually think about it carefully and to look at it, they would see that there is a lot of sense in this, because no Government is going to be able to afford to bring new, effective but highly expensive, drugs onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme if the taxpayers do not have the capacity to pay for it. And you have got to have a fair way of bringing these treatments on. For example, we listed a new treatment last week, which cost $6,745 for a prescription. Now, a pensioner can buy that for $4.60 and the taxpayer subsidy is $6,740.40. So, even though the pensioner pays $4.60, it is not the full cost at all. The full cost is picked up by the taxpayer, and you have got to have a way of making that affordable. And this is my point: That we want new treatments all the time, they are expensive treatments which have to be bought principally from overseas from the drug companies. We have got to have a sustainable way of financing that.
JOURNALIST:
Peter Costello, what if, though, that they, they remain locked against this, the Democrats and the Labor Party? What is your fallback position?
TREASURER:
Oh well, if we do not make this Scheme financially sustainable, the Scheme will just crack under its own weight. That is why it is completely opportunist to say, "Oh well," as the Labor Party is saying, "Oh, we'll oppose making it financially sustainable." If you do not make it financially sustainable, it will not continue to operate.
JOURNALIST:
Are you saying that you, if the Democrats and the Labor Party don't pass these rises in the Budget process through the Senate, that you're going to have to have a look at the Benefits that are offered under the PBS?
TREASURER:
What I am saying is, if we do not make this sustainable now, in, you know, four, five years' time, certainly in 10 years' time, the cost of the flow-out in this Scheme will be so great, it just will not be sustainable. The do-nothing is not an option. There are two options here. We start with small measures now to make it financially sustainable or, if we do not, you will have more drastic measures later on. And the people who say, "Oh, do nothing," are really just sitting around waiting for this big financial trouble to come along in four, five, 10 years' time. And they are essentially trying to fool the public, trying to fool the public into believing that this Scheme can continue on a, on a basis which is not financially sustainable. And that is why I say do not listen to that nonsense. Nobody believes that you can have the best medical treatments in the world for free. It cannot be done. I think the public is smart enough to realise that, and when they hear the Labor Party and the Democrats say, "Oh, there's no problems. No, it will all continue." They know, they know that is not right. And the important thing is to make sure it is sustainable.
JOURNALIST:
Peter Costello, isn't it about time the National Party and the Liberal Party buried their differences and merged?
TREASURER:
Well, look, there's been talk of a merger for a long period of time but it is not something that I think should be part of the public debate. I think it is for the Parties themselves to discuss within their own private Party forums and…
JOURNALIST:
So, it was, it's not a crazy idea though is it, it almost, I mean you would think a logical fit?
TREASURER:
Oh, look, it has been around. We have been in Coalition for a very long period of time and I am a great supporter of the Coalition. And, it has been said over the years by some that we should go further than just Coalition, others take the view that we shouldn't. But these discussions happen from time to time and I think it is a positive development within the confines of the Party. I think it is up to the Parties themselves to conduct this discussion.
JOURNALIST:
Can you tell us what you personally think?
TREASURER:
Well, I will do that within the confines of the Party.
JOURNALIST:
So, Nick Minchin was a bit silly, was he?
TREASURER:
Well, the only point I would make is, it is not something to go out in, into the public debate. You have got governing councils of each of the Parties. If there were to be new arrangements it would be a matter for them, and it is really something that should go to the governing councils, I think, of the Parties. If they are interested you would get progress, if they are not interested you wouldn't. But, you have got to first assess the views of the governing councils I think.
JOURNALIST:
Now, Peter Costello, I saw you with a golf club, a photograph of you with a golf club - I am a bit worried about your grip - in the paper…
TREASURER:
It looked very bad, didn't it.
JOURNALIST:
…and then I thought, he's on the front lawn of The Lodge, he's trying out Bob Hawke's putting pitch. You're not? No truth to that?
TREASURER:
I was actually in Merimbula, and we were at a golf club and they asked me to go outside and hit off the first tee, and it was a pretty awful sight. It wasn't just the grip that was bad, the swing was even worse.
JOURNALIST:
Peter Costello, thank you.
TREASURER:
Thank you very much for your time.
JOURNALIST:
Thank you.