Topics: milk prices for farmers, budget savings measures, superannuation, AFP investigation into NBN leaks, support for the homeless, same sex marriage plebiscite
E&OE ….
RAF EPSTEIN:
Gentlemen welcome.
SCOTT RYAN:
Afternoon Raf. Afternoon Tim.
TIM WATTS:
Afternoon.
EPSTEIN:
It’s all love and smiles up in Canberra.
Look, 1300 222 774 is the phone number if you care about the budget deficit, budget debt. That is the essential, crucial topic most of the time and especially right now.
Quick question for you Scott Ryan outside your portfolio area, Murray Goulbourn has something like a $40 million profit, it was announced today. Should some of that go to the farmers who owe $100,000 to their own cooperative? Should some of the profit be used for that?
RYAN:
I haven’t seen the story but I have been uncomfortable with the clawback provisions in those contracts. I know that with the contracts, people entered into them freely, but we’ve made some changes for unfair contracts that will take effect from, I think, next year. But I think farmers can have a legitimate grievance that money they were paid is now being clawed back through a mistake, commercial as it was, that has dramatic impact on people’s lives.
EPSTEIN:
Tim, what do you think?
WATTS:
Look Raf, I can’t claim that it is a big issue in Footscray, the area that I represent, but it does sound fair enough to me. Without being an expert, yes, it seems pretty reasonable.
EPSTEIN:
Do you consciously not buy the supermarket branded milk?
WATTS:
You try to be socially conscious about these things. My grandparents were actually dairy farmers out in Warrnambool, so I try to take that on board.
RYAN:
My family too. I think a lot of Victorians were. My family had the dairy in Moonee Ponds, the
suburban dairy, and my grandparents came from down that way.
EPSTEIN:
So neither of you have allergies, I’m guessing because you’ve got raw milk in your childhood, is that right?
RYAN:
This was well before I came along.
EPSTEIN:
Did you know that theory? If you grow up around raw milk, silage and cow manure, you almost certainly, unless you’ve got a strong genetic pre-disposition, you almost certainly won’t have an allergy, no asthma.
However, that’s not what I invited you here to talk about.
As a keen watcher of parliamentary language, before we get into how we reduce the budget deficit, the Finance Minister, for whom I think English is his third language, if I’m correct.
RYAN:
He has several.
EPSTEIN:
He does have several. I’m pretty sure Flemish and French were his first languages. I’m pretty sure. He has introduced a new way, essentially accusing his opposition of being cowardly – that’s Tim’s party, the Labor Party – but he got backed up by the Treasurer and it’s an interesting and new political metaphor. Have a listen.
It’s wibble wobble because they won’t back what the Government wants to do when it comes to budget repair. Scott, can I ask you …
RYAN:
It’s not what the Government wants to do Raf, that’s the whole mistake.
EPSTEIN:
Let me ask the question. You want the Labor Party to do what you say they proposed during…
RYAN:
And what they say they proposed.
EPSTEIN:
You’re not doing what you said on superannuation.
WATTS:
I think there is a bit of wibble wobble on their backbench at the moment.
RYAN:
Wait, we haven’t actually brought the superannuation legislation forward yet. It was announced in the Budget and that will be coming forward and going through the normal consultation process. But as a way of finding common ground, the Government took the measures which we announced we would do, Labor announced it would do and said, where we both said we would do the same thing, where these things would be happening if Bill Shorten had won the election – and it was a close result – and we said we would do the same thing, that is going into a savings bill in Parliament next week because we think that’s the first step towards fixing the Budget.
EPSTEIN:
Have you circulated the Bill yet?
RYAN:
The Bill will come out next week in the normal passage of events. But what Labor hasn’t said is that they’ll support the measures they took to the election, the things that Bill Shorten said that he would do if he was prime minister right now. That’s all we propose to do.
WATTS:
On the wibble wobble point Raf, you know, you just wish this Government would spend as much time on their own backyard, on improving the Budget situation and what they’re doing as the Government, as they do on the petty insults towards the Opposition. This is a day-to-day thing from this Treasurer, he spends more time on insults than he does on his own economic policies.
EPSTEIN:
I do think it is unreasonable to ask you to support something you haven’t seen, however, isn’t it fair to say, ‘listen, these things you support, not only do you support them in principle, you included them in the savings, effectively in the figures you presented to the Australian people at the election’. It’s fair enough to that extent to say ‘listen, support it in principle. Sure, reserve your final judgement for the legislation itself, but it is okay to ask for that in principle’, isn’t it?
WATTS:
And our actions in the Parliament will reflect our statements in the election campaign, there is no controversy there. But the reality is this Government has form when it comes to switching the details on bills in the interim, so we do need to have a look at that detail and take it to the Caucus.
RYAN:
The Labor Party has form because in the election before the last one, we tried to legislate the promises they made in that election and they said, ‘oh no, no, it’s different when you’re doing it’.
EPSTEIN:
But it is different, isn’t it?
RYAN:
The promise is the same from both sides.
EPSTEIN:
But it is different because you make a proposal for a saving in one part of the budget and you say, ‘we are going to use that saving, we are going to hurt that group of people, to benefit another group of people’.
RYAN:
Money is fungible. In the end, money is used for different purposes, but the Labor Party made promises, we can call them savings, but what they are, are promises to reduce spending in a certain area. Where we did the same thing we are saying, ‘can we at least legislate the things we agree on?’
EPSTEIN:
Brent in Point Cook on budget deficits. Brent, what did you want to say?
CALLER:
I just wanted to say I am actually concerned about debt, but one thing I find puzzling – well Australian politics is puzzling in its own right – is that we don’t talk about overall debt, including public (sic) debt. My greater concern is that we now have the greatest public (sic) debt to GDP ratio in the entire world…
EPSTEIN:
Do you mean private debt? Do you mean the money we owe, as opposed to government?
CALLER:
Sorry, private debt, that’s correct. My real concern is that, at the end of the day, the Government can always, or should be able to, work its way out of debt, but my concern is we will lose our AAA credit rating and what that does to the public (sic) debt, the result of that, what that means for our banks in terms of them owing money overseas, in relation to our private debt, the economy will get into real strife.
EPSTEIN:
So , we all owe too much money, Government and the Labor Party. Scott, I’m sure you want to respond because that picks up on some of your themes. But Tim, I just want to, I guess it is where some of my frustrations as a voter, I find it frustrating that the Government is sort of arching up and saying, ‘agree, agree, agree’, without showing the legislation. But I also find it infuriating that you’re putting forward, you’re saying – Bill Shorten made a big speech today, the Opposition Leader – here is all our list of great ideas to reduce the budget deficit, including negative gearing and capital gains tax changes. You lost the election! It’s insulting to our intelligence, isn’t it, to put up a major proposal that was a big subject of debate at the election and you say, ‘well even though we lost, we think it is a good idea’.
WATTS:
Raf, as Scott said earlier, it was a very close election result. The policies that we took to the people at the last election, that Bill Shorten reiterated today as a good faith offer for a Parliament that will work, $8 billion worth of savings over the forward estimates, $80 billion over the medium term.
EPSTEIN:
But you lost the election on those policies. That’s what drives people crazy about politics.
WATTS:
But these are policies that have merit, that can improve the fiscal bottom line, these are things that we ought to be doing for the good of the nation. If the Australian people want a Parliament that works, it is going to have to be a Parliament that fixes the budget bottom line.
RYAN:
So what the Labor Party is saying is, ‘we are not going to say yes to the measures we said we would do, and where both sides agreed during the campaign’, but they’re saying, ‘even though we didn’t win the election, we still think you should legislate our policies’. For those with a memory, I suppose it is like John Hewson saying to Paul Keating ‘you should introduce the GST’ after the 1993 election.
EPSTEIN:
I’m not sure it is quite the same.
Can I ask you, is your superannuation policy ironclad? The Prime Minister was specifically asked on Adelaide radio during the campaign in reference to your Party Room being upset, whether or not your superannuation policy was ironclad and he said ‘yes, absolutely, it is ironclad’, yet it seems up for change.
RYAN:
Well no, what had been happening and what we made clear before the election after the budget announcements was that there’s always consultation around implementation. This is well outside my portfolio area and as yet (inaudible)
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) What other policy gets changed after it’s been announced?
RYAN:
Well a lot of tax laws for example do, are finessed through the consultation phase. But superannuation is uniquely complex and I think that’s one of the issues. Most people think about their own superannuation –
EPSTEIN:
That’s obfuscation, Scott Ryan.
RYAN:
No, no I think – I stand by the Prime Minister’s words –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) If you change the retrospectivity, or you change (inaudible)
RYAN:
Hang on, no to be fair, Labor uses that term but lawyers –
WATTS:
The IPA uses that term.
RYAN:
That’s not retrospective, I will challenge that.
EPSTEIN:
Let me get away from retrospectivity. If you change the date from when it applies because in the budget paper it says counting from 2007.
RYAN:
In the budget paper we said we would count it from 2007 because that’s as far as tax records went.
EPSTEIN:
Ok, but if you change that date, if you change that half million dollar amount that gives you significant tax concessions, that’s not an implementation and consultation, that’s a change of policy.
RYAN:
If we changed it by a month, would you consider that to be –
EPSTEIN:
No but you wouldn’t change it by a month.
RYAN:
But my point is, and if we change the low-income tax offset that’s being introduced to people, particularly women, around the edges, and I think this comes to the issue of you can change things a little, and I’m not proposing nor suggesting that that will be. It’s not a black and white issue the way I think you’re suggesting it.
EPSTEIN:
2007 to 2016, is pretty black and white.
RYAN:
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.
EPSTEIN:
That’s not going to change?
RYAN:
All I’m saying is don’t believe everything you read in the papers, because I know a lot of things I’ve read in the papers about my portfolio aren’t necessarily true.
EPSTEIN:
Ok, ok fair enough. Daniel has called from Croydon. Daniel, what did you want to say?
CALLER:
Hi guys. I would say that I think the guiding paradigm of economics at the moment seems to be driven by an attempt to equate the federal budget with a household budget, you know with the same sort of spending and income constraints. What I know of monetary theory, which I know is not widely viewed as, well it’s not widely adopted but we are sovereign in regards to our currency, it’s a fair currency it’s not backed by gold –
EPSTEIN:
Right, so we’ve got flexibility as a government to get into debt, is that what you’re saying?
CALLER:
I’m not actually sure whom we owe money to, I mean it’s, we’re like the (inaudible)-
EPSTEIN:
(inaudible)
CALLER:
But I thought we borrow in our own currency because we are sovereign.
EPSTEIN:
Not always, no, we borrow a lot – I’m not sure of the percentage, but there’s a lot of money borrowed overseas. You issue bonds and whoever wants to buy them can buy them.
CALLER:
Okay well that changes things dramatically, thank you.
EPSTEIN:
Okay Daniel. We issue bonds and borrow money as a government, don’t we?
RYAN:
You borrow mainly by issuing bonds.
EPSTEIN:
That’s the main source?
RYAN:
And it’s done mainly in Australian dollars. The challenge of course is if you started to print money, you’d have inflation rise, interest rates rise.
EPSTEIN:
Let me just read a few of the texts. Tim Watts is with me, he is the Labor member for the seat of Gellibrand. Scott Ryan is with us, he is the Special Minister of State. I should ask him a plebiscite question in a tick, but Scott Ryan is absolutely correct!
Says Gideon in Burwood, ‘it’s bad enough when Labor stands in the way of Liberal proposals for budget repair, the fact that Labor is opposing their own ideas is as irresponsible as it is hypocritical.’
Mary has a text, ‘Please remind the Liberal member that Labor are the Opposition. They don’t have to, nor are they indebted to accept whatever the Liberals want. They should be negotiating, not bullying in their approach. This does seem beyond the Liberals comprehension.’
I will ask about the plebiscite.
Tim Watts, you might not like an AFP investigation into leaked documents from the NBN, but they have begun that investigation. Why don’t you just let them finish and do what they want to do?
WATTS:
There are some really important issues and principles at stake here, Raf. The documents that have been seized by the AFP in these now two separate raids, and I understand that the raid in Parliament House is still going, it’s ongoing, are issues that relate to the accountability of a major government business enterprise, spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Now there are long-standing conventions that documents provided to Members of Parliament, to Senators in the conduct of their work in the Parliament in holding government to account, those documents are protected by parliamentary privilege.
EPSTEIN:
Well it’s an untested question at the moment, isn’t it? The Parliament will need to vote to prove that what you are saying it true.
WATTS:
We have claimed parliamentary privilege, and the Senate will adjudicate that when it returns. But this is a fundamental principle in our democracy, and it’s one that I should say ought to be defended robustly by all members of parliament, regardless of political stripe. That’s a very important point.
EPSTEIN:
It’s a little hypocritical though, isn’t it? I mean there was no lack of willingness to ask the AFP to investigate, in fact I think they investigated, who had leaked a video of Kevin Rudd. I mean you, your side of politics has been quite keen to ask the AFP to investigate leaks. This is of more substance at least than the Kevin Rudd video.
WATTS:
Let’s see. I mean Malcolm Turnbull has not disclosed his discussion with either the NBN board or management about the instigation of the AFP inquiry. Neither has Mitch Fifield, I should say. He’s subsequently said that there’s been discussion with NBN management and him on this issue. In Opposition –
EPSTEIN:
Hasn’t he said that they didn’t have anything to do with the investigation? Isn’t that what the Communications Minister said?
WATTS:
He has subsequently said that he has been advised by NBN Co that they were initiating the request to the AFP.
RYAN:
But shouldn’t he be?
WATTS:
No it wasn’t his position initially. Initially he claimed he knew nothing about this at all and then he backtracked –
EPSTEIN:
But are you accusing the Minister of interfering in the investigation?
WATTS:
The Minister?
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
WATTS:
Well what we’re saying is that Malcolm Turnbull needs to disclose all of his contacts with management and the board.
EPSTEIN:
That’s different, that’s slightly different. Disclosing contacts is different. Are you saying that the Government is influencing the AFP investigation?
WATTS:
No not the AFP investigation, we should be very careful about that. Discussions with NBN Co about the referral –
EPSTEIN:
You’re effectively accusing the Government of pressuring the NBN to call in the cops.
WATTS:
We are asking for Malcolm Turnbull to come clean, to full disclose what contact he’s had. But we should also say that there’s a fundamental principle here too. In Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull demanded that the kind of documents we’re talking about here be made public. He wanted transparency, he asked for it. So when the NBN Co board comes complaining about this material that reveals that they are both behind and over budget, why wasn’t Malcolm Turnbull saying we’ll make it public. That’s what I wondered when I was Opposition – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
EPSTEIN:
Scott Ryan, the documents don’t show the NBN in the light you’d like the NBN to be bathed in. It’s a fair request, isn’t it?
RYAN:
There are plenty of good stories about the NBN.
EPSTEIN:
No but the documents that were leaked don’t show the figures you’d like.
RYAN:
But this is the point, what Labor’s trying to do is just throw mud at the wall and hope some of it sticks. The NBN is an independent body, an independent corporation. It made this referral because it judged that it was within the interests of it, with its taxpayers as shareholders –
EPSTEIN:
Confident the Government didn’t ask for the inquiry?
RYAN:
Absolutely.
EPSTEIN:
100%?
RYAN:
Absolutely, and –
EPSTEIN:
No pressure, no hints?
RYAN:
None whatsoever and what Labor’s trying to do-
WATTS:
Well why won’t Malcolm Turnbull say it?
RYAN:
… Is to try parse words because they’re trying to dodge responsibility for what they’ve done today and what they’ve been doing since they happened, which is alleging political interference with the AFP, and you either disown what Stephen Conroy’s said, or you back it up right now.
EPSTEIN:
Much more important question, someone wants to know where the Moonee Ponds dairy was that your family was involved in?
RYAN:
The one my grandparents ran was in Robinson Street. There were three in Moonee Ponds. I’ve looked them up on Google, you can find them.
EPSTEIN:
There you go.
WATTS:
Just on that last point from Scott, he’s asking us to disown Stephen Conroy. That came from a press release from Michael Keenan today. This is the bloke who in the last election campaign –
RYAN:
Oh here we go, sledging and throwing mud, deferring, not dealing with the issue.
WATTS:
… Conducted the most disgusting, simple, baseless, gutless smear against Anne Aly in the last election campaign. That’s why Scott’s jumping in here at the moment. Once he apologises to Anne Aly, I’ll listen to him.
EPSTEIN:
I’m not sure that most people could follow the details as to NBN, let alone what happened in Perth.
RYAN:
We’re not even talking about what we were talking about. This is the whole –
WATTS:
The integrity of Michael Keenan talking about smears, honestly, give me a break.
EPSTEIN:
Gentlemen, I’m not sure everyone’s going to follow with that conversation. However, we’ll keep talking about the NBN, we’ll keep talking about the budget deficit, we’ll find out from Scott Ryan about the plebiscite as well on same-sex marriage because that is one of his duties as Special Minister of State, to organise the machinery around that.
So gives us a ring on 1300 222 774.
Let’s get some traffic with Chris Miller.
(traffic report)
EPSTEIN:
Scott Ryan is Malcolm Turnbull’s Special Minister of State. Tim Watts is the Labor backbencher for the seat of Gellibrand. I do want to ask about the plebiscite, but Scott Ryan, do you personally, if someone is asking for money in the street, do you often/ever/never give them money?
RYAN:
Rarely.
EPSTEIN:
Rarely. Why?
RYAN:
Because, particularly when I’m in the centre of Melbourne where I see it, I know there are some great services available and quite frankly I remember years ago there were a few too many regular faces.
EPSTEIN:
Why does it matter if they’re regular?
RYAN:
Because I think that – I mean I know some of the people involved with the Salvos, they have a very strong outreach program at the top end of town – and I do think that we do need to be careful, as the Lord Mayor said, to not make it easier, and we do have good – they’re always under stress – but we do have very good services in the centre of the city. Now but on occasions, I’ll be honest –
EPSTEIN:
Sometimes it gets you in the heart, doesn’t it?
RYAN:
Yeah and look on a cold night and especially if you see someone that’s particularly young, to be honest.
EPSTEIN:
Sure, ok. Tim, do you give money?
WATTS:
Look we all have our own moral code on this, Raf. Whether you feel –
EPSTEIN:
There’s no right or wrong answer.
WATTS:
No, well that’s what I’m saying. Whether you deal with the injustice that’s immediately before you, or the structural causes of all injustices, I mean this is what Tolstoy talked about in What Then Shall We Do. I mean do you give money to the beggar in front of you, and if so, do you give it to the next five, the next 10, the next 15. Frankly, that’s why I got into politics because I wanted to make an impact at the macro level, because I wanted to deal with the structural causes of poverty and we should make the point in the context of this rather minor discussion about the behaviour of the Prime Minister – it’s petty in a lot of ways, the way it’s been talked about.
EPSTEIN:
The five dollars he gave to someone on the street.
WATTS:
The five dollars he gave to a man, is that there is a big spike in homelessness at the moment. That’s a really serious structural problem that should be addressed by our parliaments, by our governments, something which should be talked about at the macro level.
EPSTEIN:
Look actually a whole lot of ticket inspectors had a go at a woman who tried to help someone, a homeless person on a tram. She tried to help them pay their fare, we’ll get to that after five o’clock.
But Steve’s called from Doncaster, he can ask my question for me about the plebiscite. Steve, go for it.
CALLER:
Thanks Raf. Look it’s a message for Scott or a question for Scott, I want to say that at the last election I actually voted Liberal, or eventually voted Liberal for the first time in my entire life. And I just want to urge you as a new supporter mate, give it up. Cancel this ridiculous plebiscite idea. It is perfectly obvious that the vast majority of people in the country are now happy to accept marriage equality. Take it out of the realm of the plebiscite and simply get the parliament to do its job. Just vote on it, just like you did when John Howard inserted man and woman in the first place. Just get it done.
EPSTEIN:
Okay Steve, let me put that to Scott Ryan. He does have particular carriage of this issue for the government.
RYAN:
Well the people who think there’s so much public support for it, I don’t understand why they oppose it, I’ll be honest. The plebiscite decision was one made of course by the Party Room and the Cabinet under the previous prime minister. But I find the arguments, not just put there by Steve, but a lot of the arguments I’ve read about how we can’t trust the electorate to have this debate responsibly, I actually find those deeply offensive. I actually have a great deal of faith in the Australian electorate. Now we took an explicit promise, that was the centre of difference between us and Labor to the election, to have a public vote on this. Politicians don’t get criticised for many things more than breaking their promises. This is a black and white promise we made and I and the Government are committed to legislating to give people a vote. I think people will vote in favour. I will vote in favour, and I have a great deal of faith the Australian people will conduct themselves responsibly and respectfully.
EPSTEIN:
Tim Watts?
WATTS:
We should be clear Raf, the only reason we are talking about this plebiscite, is internal Liberal Party politics. That’s it. It doesn’t make sense rationally, it doesn’t make sense constitutionally, it doesn’t make sense politically even for the Prime Minister, I think.
EPSTEIN:
All of that can be true. It’s still a policy that they took the election and they won. Don’t they need to stick to it?
WATTS:
And I went to the public at the election pushing for a conscience vote in the parliament, one that I’ll vote in favour for –
RYAN:
Which you’re banning after 2019. You only get a conscience vote now, you don’t get one in three years.
WATTS:
(inaudible) Very keen for a conscience vote when Parliament resumes next week, because we know that there is a majority in both houses of Parliament now. This is something that we could save $160 million dollars, you know this is the most expensive backbone transplant in history, frankly. It just gives the Liberal MPs the ability to do what they know is right and what they know the Australian public wants to do.
EPSTEIN:
Scott Ryan, Michael Kirby, former High Court judge, was making the argument we didn’t have a plebiscite on whether disabled people should get the same rights as everyone else in the community, it that a fair argument in this situation.
RYAN:
Oh we didn’t have a plebiscite on a number of things –
EPSTEIN:
So why a plebiscite on this?
WATTS:
That’s a good point, Scott.
RYAN:
Because our Party Room overwhelmingly made a decision to offer this as a policy to the Australian people. We took that to the Australian people. We won the election. We got more than a million more primary votes than Labor and we won on the two-party preferred vote.
EPSTEIN:
Quickly Tim Watts, is it going to happen. Is Labor going to back the legislation? What’s going to happen? Will the law for the plebiscite actually pass?
WATTS:
There’s absolutely no need for that legislation to ever come into the Parliament Raf. We can have a free vote on this the first week of Parliament.
RYAN:
But not in 2019 when Labor prohibits a vote for their own members.
EPSTEIN:
I have to ask Pauline Hanson and Nick Xenophon. Gentlemen thank you. Scott Ryan, Tim Watts.
(ENDS)