Subjects: 2016 election; same sex marriage; Budget costings.
EO&E…
RAF EPSTEIN:
Your questions are welcome for Tim Watts. He is the ALP member for the seat of Gellibrand. Tim, thanks for coming in again.
TIM WATTS:
Great to be with you at the business end of the election campaign Raf.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Certainly is the business end. Everyone is engaged now. Everyone is scrutinizing the policy of everybody in the election. Scott Ryan joins us as well. He is not only a liberal senator here in Victoria, he is Malcolm Turnbull’s Minister for Vocational Education. Scott welcome.
SCOTT RYAN:
Thanks Raf.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Keeping your portfolio after the elections? I’m assuming everyone is, if you win.
SCOTT RYAN:
I learned a long time ago from watching people, not to provide public advice to the Prime Minister. If we get re-elected it will be a matter for him.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, and Tim, quick question. Is there an automatic leadership vote under the new rules with Labor? If Labor loses …
TIM WATTS
Well, if we win the election, Bill will take on the prime ministership and we will all be very happy sailors.
RAF EPSTEIN:
As the rules stand, after every election if you are in Opposition, there is an automatic election, is that correct?
TIM WATTS:
Yeah, that is my understanding I guess.
RAF EPSTEIN:
That is a Kevin Rudd change that he brought in these rules with the…
(Interrupted)
TIM WATTS:
At the Balmain meeting that is right.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Fascinating. I’m fascinated too by the British process where the Party Room chooses the final two candidates and then the Members vote. Scott you are going to adopt that?
SCOTT RYAN:
I’m not a fan of that…
RAF EPSTEIN:
No, not a fan of that.
SCOTT RYAN:
No, I think that parliamentary systems work best when Members of Parliament, a leader maintains the consent of the comrades. You are seeing the chaos of the alternative approach with Jeremy Corbyn where 80% of his colleagues have no confidence in him. He is saying well …
RAF EPSTEIN:
I’ve got the mandate and the agenda.
SCOTT RYAN:
The radical leftists in the British Labor Party are going to keep me here.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Or just all the people who joined. Still, anyway, I looked at this …
SCOTT RYAN:
I think they had a cheap membership for a while that allowed a lot of suspicious memberships at the time.
RAF EPSTEIN:
The conservatives as well, like the Party Room chooses the final two and then the Members choose us, correct?
SCOTT RYAN:
I can see that and Canada does it as well.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Do they?
SCOTT RYAN:
Well at least Canadian conservatives do I should say. There is some sort of Party membership vote in it as well.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Look, let’s get to the, as I said the business end. Let me put the counter arguments Scott around stability and the Coalition. It’s your Government that produced a Budget that saw business confidence and consumer confidence plummeting. We spent 18 months watching you bicker and try to clean up that mess and your leader hasn’t even been in for 12 months. That is not a recipe for stability, is it?
SCOTT RYAN:
Well, I think what you’ve seen over the last 12 months, the last 8 months and particularly over the last 8 weeks is extraordinary consistency and discipline from Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and the rest of the Coalition. Malcolm Turnbull made it clear last year that he was going to look at for example all the tax options. He did that in the public domain.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Well, I understand he regrets putting all those options on the table. In the Kitchen Cabinet, which is tonight, he thinks it wasn’t the best idea to put all the options on the table.
SCOTT RYAN:
The refreshing thing about Malcolm Turnbull as a person is that he is quite frank and honest and open about these things. I think I’ve said on this program before Raf, that yes we did put them in the public domain and then Malcolm did explain why we’re not going to do certain things and then that underpinned what we announced in the Budget.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Sure and for the sake of discussion, he’s been consistent, he has only been consistent since last September. How do we know we’re not going to have more instability after the election?
SCOTT RYAN:
Well, I think what you’ve seen over the last 8 weeks, the last, particularly over the last 8 months is that the Coalition is committed to the plan we’ve announced to implementing it because we know the risk that Labor pose. We’ve seen that when they released their Budget costings which miraculously have increased deficits and debt and then somehow miraculously in two or three elections they promise to kind of get better. Everyone in the Coalition knows how that story ends. We are still cleaning up the mess and it’s going to take years more to do so.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Quick response, Tim Watts?
TIM WATTS:
Well, because it’s Fight Club I’ll pull you up Raf. When you say that Malcolm Turnbull has been consistent over the last 8 months.
RAF EPSTEIN:
I said for the sake of the argument.
TIM WATTS:
For the sake of the argument, yeah, because since he’s taken over, let’s recount their economic policies. We’ve had discussion around a GST for an extended period of time. We’ve had discussion around dealing with bracket creep. That was a priority for a while, everyone has sort of forgotten about that one. We had discussions around getting rid of the excesses of negative gearing. All of that fell behind the wayside. It was difficult to find a policy that lasted more than a month. Now they’ve got the chutzpah to run at a federal election campaign with the slogan of ‘Stick to the Plan’ talking about they’re going to maintain this $50 billion corporate tax cut over ten years. Well, I haven’t heard much of a record of sticking with anything over the last …
(interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
There is more stable policy under Bill Shorten you think?
TIM WATTS:
Well it’s stable policy because of the way we’ve gone about it. We, over the last two years have been very deliberate in the way we’ve made our policy making. Some things like superannuation that the Government has got themselves into a terrible model over is something that more than 12 months ago we’ve said that …
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, you raised superannuation because I would argue I could not get a straight answer from your Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh. Your policy to tax over $75,000 at the concessional rate. Is that your policy now? Yes or no. Does that policy remain? Over $75,000 tax at the concessional rate.
TIM WATTS:
We are operating in a policy environment where Scott Morrison has been like someone trying to reverse a parallel park a shopping trolley, watching him there. It’s out of control and it’s all over the place. We very deliberately set out a policy over the last 12 months and now the rug has been pulled from…
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
Why can’t I get a Labor person, and Chris Bowen couldn’t give a yes or no answer to this either. You directly attacked Scott for not having consistent policy which is fine, and there’s some substance to that argument. For some reason, Labor has decided in the last week of the campaign not to stick to a few simple elements of its super policy. I don’t understand that.
TIM WATTS:
We don’t have to have a policy of going very deliberately through a very complex…
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, can I give you a specific question? On your website, it says you will tax over $75,000 at the concessional rate. Is that going to be your policy after the election? Yes or no.
TIM WATTS:
We have said that we will follow over a six months period a deliberate policy review process of the new arrangements that the Treasurer has dropped on the Australian public two months out from an election. This is a very complex area of policy as the Deputy Leader of Liberal Party Julie Bishop found to a chagrin recently. It’s not an area where you can go through it, willy-nilly. The chaos and dysfunction of this Government in this area of policy is not a model to follow frankly.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Let’s go to a question William has called from Williamstown. William, go for it.
CALLER:
G’day Raf. I just want to give (inaudible) Watts a bit of a tip that his leader could have snatched this election win if he paid attention to what Nigel Farage said last Friday …
RAF EPSTEIN:
Right, I can imagine Bill Shorten taking advice, but yes.
CALLER:
Farage said in Britain, this is the United Kingdom independence day, Shorten should have been all over the top of that and said, “We want a Republic in Australia,” and the conservative stiffs would have melted, they would have been terrified …
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay William, have you got a question for Tim?
CALLER:
When after we lose, and I’m dreadfully sad, I am a 40 year member of the Party, but after we lose, there has got to be a movement in the Labor Party. I’m not the first to call for this but I’ve been the vanguard. That is for an alliance between the left of the Labor Party and the Greens and people like Tim have better watch out.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, hey William I just want to clarify. Are you are talking about sort of the way The National Party and the Liberal Party are in a Coalition? Is that the sort of thing you think should happen?
CALLER:
No, they’re forging a new political party.
RAF EPSTEIN:
A new party, okay, let’s give Tim a chance to answer.
TIM WATTS:
It’s always good to get a calling from a constituent and a Party Member.
SCOTT RYAN:
Indeed a preselector!
TIM WATTS:
I have strong incentive to respond favourably to this question. I’m very happy to talk about the republic and Labor has a clear policy setting out a timeline for how we get to a vote on the republic.
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
I think he wants you to merge with the Greens he doesn’t want a the republic vote.
SCOTT RYAN:
Tim is in the right though…
TIM WATTS:
I’m happy to talk about a republic because it highlights Malcolm Turnbull’s instability. This was a founding principle of …
(Interrupted)
SCOTT RYAN:
This is the worst segue I have heard all election.
TIM WATTS:
A founding principle of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership.
(Interrupted)
SCOTT RYAN:
Come on Tim.
TIM WATTS:
He forged his political identity championing the republic. Just a few years ago he talked about that it’s always time to talk about constitutional reform and a republic and now it’s not the time. Why? Because he is not governing in his own…
(Interrupted)
SCOTT RYAN:
He has made it clear for years that …
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
Can I get a quick prognostication from both of you. Who knows if Kelly O’Dwyer will lose his seat to the Greens? Who knows if David Feeney will lose his seat to the Greens? I guess from both of you, two, three elections from now, will the Greens have more lower-house seats, Scott do you think?
SCOTT RYAN:
My tip is – I used to be a voter in what is now Batman – my tip is that, if David holds on this time, the demographic change in Batman is actually moving up High Street and St Georges Road pretty quickly and that that seat will fall to Greens as Melbourne has. I’m a voter in Melbourne now so I’ve seen what’s happened in…
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
You do expect an incremental increase in Green’s lower-house seats?
SCOTT RYAN:
To a handful at best.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Do you agree Tim?
TIM WATTS:
I can’t look that far ahead but what I’ll say is that if that does happen, it won’t be a good outcome for progressive politics. The Greens like to talk about standing up for what matters. They don’t deliver anything. David Feeney as a member of the Labor government delivers on issues like climate change, marriage equality, you name it. It won’t be a good outcome for progressive politics if the Greens continue to grow as an anti-politics movement corroding the progressive movement in Australia.
RAF EPSTEIN:
We are actually going to have a chat to Sarah Hanson Young after 5pm so if you’ve got a question especially for her, you might ask her about going to a coalition with Tim. I don’t know what sort of response I would get.
Scott, can I ask you whether or not there is actually a significant difference between you and Labor when it comes to the Budget. I’ll use one number if I can. Labor says they will run up bigger deficits of $16 billion, bigger than you by $16 billion over four years. Now, over four years the Government is going to spend something like $2,000 billion. I think the average for the budget over the four years is about 500. It’s like less than 1% difference between you and Tim Watts. Given you haven’t, like Labor gotten your deficit forecast right while you’ve been in Government. A less than 1% change, that is a negligible difference isn’t it?
SCOTT RYAN:
No, it’s actually not, and that is why columnists have come out and said that they have more pressure on the credit rating with Labor’s so called Budget planning. Now, we’ve got to remember that a AAA credit rating might not sound like something in its own that is that important but it forms the basis from which all our mortgage rates and all the small business loans are based. A loss of a AAA credit rating or a weakness in that would lead to higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Anyone in business will tell you if you can take 1% gain on your accounts, you will actually take it in a heartbeat. That is how you actually go from …
RAF EPSTEIN:
It’s essentially a rounding error Scott. I’m not criticizing you. Governments don’t get their deficit numbers right every year.
SCOTT RYAN:
That is why we have taken, and the estimates now are more conservative than they were under Labor because the problem we had, the reason we’ve got this deficit is that year after year, the highest ever terms of trade since the Victorian gold rush were in place when Wayne Swan was Treasurer. They were substantially higher than they were when Peter Costello and John Howard were in office. Every time there was a forecast, Wayne Swan would go out and spend the money before it arrived in the bank account and then he’d go up the following year and say, “The money didn’t turn up,” and then he’d spend even more money. The forecasts were constantly dropped …
RAF EPSTEIN:
Scott, I could quote Joe Hockey back. If you, Joe Hockey was going to have a surplus in the first year then it was a surplus in the first term, now it’s a surplus five years from now.
SCOTT RYAN:
We never had our spending blow out. We never had our spending constantly increased. We were dealing with the fall in the terms of trade and there were some estimate mistakes made there as there always are, but we didn’t go out and spend the money assuming it would come in as Labor did. That is why we have got this entrenched deficit that we are slowly bringing down. That is why you can’t set us on a trajectory again that Labor have which says, it will be worse in four years but will be better than you in seven. Three elections away, that is a farce. They are saying that they will make it better in two or three elections.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Tim you’ll get a chance to respond but just to go probably one of the numbers people actually do remember from Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey’s first Budget is the $80 billion cut to education health. I don’t want get into the debate around whether or not it’s there. The claim from Labor of an $80 billion cut to education and health over ten years, you are not putting that health money back into the budget yet that $80 billion is still quoted. It’s hypocritical isn’t it, to campaign for years on an $80 billion cut and then not promise to give that money back. That is hypocrisy, isn’t it?
TIM WATTS:
Well, Raf, the $80 billion you’re talking to isn’t a Labor figure. That comes from Joe Hockey’s first Budget. He set it out very clearly over a ten-year timeframe with $80 billion tax.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, and for the sake of this argument, let’s accept the $80 billion. Why are you spending it? Why are you putting that money back into hospitals?
TIM WATTS:
What we’ve said on hospitals that we’ll restore that funding over a four year period over the term of the estimates and then we will re-enter into negotiations with the states to do the ten year funding. That is substantially more than the Government has committed. There is no one disputing that the Labor’s commitment to health and hospitals fund is stronger than the Government’s.
RAF EPSTEIN:
It’s talking about things that are 20 feet high and then promising people things that are one foot high. It’s outrageous rhetoric and small delivery isn’t it?
TIM WATTS:
Well, we’ve been arguing for two years now, the existence of this $80 billion cut and that was denied by the Government. That is why we continue to make that point that on their own forecast and their own trajectories they are making that cut. What we have said is we’ll restore it in a four year period and that four years we will enter into a negotiation with the states to enter into a long term agreement.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, can I ask you both actually, we talk about numbers a lot. I fire numbers at both of you. How often, when you are speaking to a constituent or someone at a polling booth, do they ever bring up numbers either of you?
SCOTT RYAN:
Some, what I will say those who might be involved in the sector, so in my portfolio those who know vocational education in schools will talk to …
RAF EPSTEIN:
The normal people there Scott …
SCOTT RYAN:
Yeah, so that is one of the sides but I think everyone gets one vote Raf. It’s an election.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Yeah, no sure. I’m just curious if the numbers penetrate.
SCOTT RYAN:
I think they do. I think you raise a point that they are so big, they are not easily comprehensible even for those of us in politics. I think people tend to raise their personal experience and they can sometimes relate that to a number.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Tim, do people, I don’t know, you’ve hammered the $80 billion, I just want to know if anyone actually ever says it back to you.
TIM WATTS:
I talk about the practical consequences. A number of people will raise the future, the Williamstown emergency department with me. That something has been raised is a consequence …
(Interrupted)
SCOTT RYAN:
They can go and speak to Daniel Andrew is about it because he runs the hospitals.
RAF EPSTEIN:
They do, they talk about issues. They are not across, has the deficit doubled, tripled, budget black holes that sort of thing.
TIM WATTS:
They are interested in the practical impact of them.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, fair enough I was just curious. 1300 222 774 is the phone number. Same sex plebiscite in a moment and more of your questions. First in traffic with Chris Miller. Hi Chris?
(Traffic update)
RAF EPSTEIN:
Tim Watts is with me. He is the ALP backbencher for Gellibrand. Scott Ryan is a Victorian Liberal Senator and Malcolm Turnbull’s Minister for Vocational Education. Sean is calling from Sunshine. You might be one of Tim’s constituents as well. Sean go for it.
CALLER:
Thank you for taking my call. This is a question to Scott, and I’m very concerned about the plebiscite for a number of reasons, but I’m really worried that the question that is going to be asked and the enabling legislation haven’t been released. I think that trust is a big issue. In politics at the moment there is a lack of trust right across the board. My concern is that, like the republic question was (inaudible) that the enabling legislation is going to be unpassable deliberately so that the plebiscite will never happen.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Can I clarify Sean, are you saying that the question will be drafted so the politicians don’t allow the plebiscite or you are saying that you think the plebiscite will be written in a way to urge its rejection? I’m just not clear.
CALLER:
Well, I’m concerned that the enabling legislation in the first place allows a plebiscite to happen, and that includes the question that will be asked, will be written in a way that it will not be supported by Labor or the Green because it’s becomes unpassable and therefore never happens.
SCOTT RYAN:
Firstly I disagree with your characterization of the republic referendum. That was a very simple question, it was factual.
CALLER:
Oh, please.
SCOTT RYAN:
No I think it was, it simply outlined the model. “Do you believe that we are a monarchy … ” I can’t remember the exact words but “should be replaced by a president elected by two thirds of Parliament,” or something akin to that. I think that is entirely fair.
CALLER:
You can’t even be honest about that. You can’t …
RAF EPSTEIN:
Let him at it Sean, you will get a chance to respond.
SCOTT RYAN:
I think we are disagreeing with respect. I actually think that was a fair question. You may have a different view. We’ve made a commitment to a plebiscite and I think given that Malcolm Turnbull has made clear that he’ll be campaigning for a change, we can trust that Malcolm Turnbull will ensure, and the Government, the Coalition will ensure that it’s a fair and reasonable question…
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
We have to take it on trust.
SCOTT RYAN:
It’s a matter, if the Labor party is saying that we can win an election with this being the core element of our policy platform and they are still going to reject the idea that a government elected with the policy to let there be a public plebiscite, the Labor party will stand in the way of that. Then Sean quite frankly, your question should be directed towards Tim and why the Labor Party won’t commit to allowing that.
CALLER:
That just confirms my concerns.
SCOTT RYAN:
Why is that?
CALLER:
That you are already blaming Labor for something that hasn’t happened.
SCOTT RYAN:
No, I’m simply saying we’ve got a commitment to a plebiscite. You are asking me, why is it that the Labor Party might vote against it and I can’t answer that question.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Look, I want to get a response from Tim in a moment, but Scott Morrison last night was asked to simply say if he would vote yes if the nation voted yes. Let’s just have a listen. I think he was dodging the question, let’s listen.
(Audio clip from 7.30 with Leigh Sales and Scott Morrison)
SCOTT MORRISON:
I said that I will respect the outcome of the plebiscite.
JOURNALIST:
Why can’t you just answer that question clearly? Would you vote for same sex marriages or no?
SCOTT MORRISON:
Leigh, I’ll use my words, you can use yours. You are not allowed to put words in my mouth.
JOURNALIST:
No, but I would like clarity.
SCOTT MORRISON:
I have said that I will respect the outcome of the plebiscite entirely.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Respect might mean he doesn’t vote for it Scott Ryan. What is the point of a plebiscite? Julie Bishop is now saying she’s going to look at the plebiscite electorate by electorate. What is the point of a plebiscite if the Government MPs don’t listen to the results?
SCOTT RYAN:
What Malcolm has said is that the result of the plebiscite will be reflected in legislation. I will personally give that commitment, the result of the national plebiscite will reflect the …
RAF EPSTEIN:
There is no obligation of the Party Room to respect the plebiscite, is there?
SCOTT RYAN:
Well, the Liberal Party historically has not had a capacity to bind its Members. Now, if I had a colleague or two that, for example wish to abstain from a vote but not deny it, then it doesn’t make any substantial change to the passage of legislation. I think Scott has said that he will respect the result of the national plebiscite. The important point is, will the plebiscite result change to the definition of marriage if the plebiscite supported that proposition? I think that is something the Government can absolutely guarantee.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Guarantee?
SCOTT RYAN:
Yeah.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Tim, does Labor automatically support the legislation for the plebiscite? How does it work?
TIM WATTS:
Our position is that this is a matter that can be very quickly resolved by the Parliament with a conscience vote on the Bill. We can do that very quickly.
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
I understand that is your position but …
(Interrupted)
TIM WATTS:
The dogs’ breakfast that the Government is inviting us to support is the kind of policy that you get when you’ve got six people with their hands on the steering wheel. You’ve got people like Scott, you’ve got people like the Prime Minister. You’ve also got people like Cory Bernardi, Eric Abetz, all yanking and going in different directions. That gives a wriggle room for complex …
(Interrupted)
SCOTT RYAN:
A diversity of views.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Simple prediction, if the Coalition wins the election, there is only a few liberal people who have said they will abstain.
TIM WATTS:
Let’s save $160 million. Let’s save a divisive plebiscite and just bring it on for a free vote in the Parliament.
SCOTT RYAN:
Let’s give the public a vote.
TIM WATTS:
Let’s just vote in the Parliament.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Let’s let Jenny have a go calling from Preston. Jenny, what did you want to say?
CALLER:
Hello there. I’m really concerned about the plebiscite. I’m in a rainbow family (caller cuts out)
RAF EPSTEIN:
Sorry I missed that, you have what? Sorry, you broke up. Did you say you’ve got a few kids? I just missed it.
CALLER:
I’ve got one nine year old son and I’m very concerned about the effect of the plebiscite campaign. The negativity that will be enacted from different groups and the effect of having to explain to him why our family is considered second class basically. Why people are going to be abusive and anti. As has already been discussed, the amount of money could easily be put towards something much more positive and just for the Liberal Party to say yes or no. A no would be much simpler.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, Scott?
SCOTT RYAN:
Without meaning to dismiss someone who has different situation than the legitimately held fears or concerns, I have a very optimistic view of the Australian people. I don’t think that those who peddle hate or things that other people find uncomfortable, I think they do it today. I think it happens, we’re all going to be riled up.
TIM WATTS:
So we’ll be writing them a cheque to do it during the plebiscite?
SCOTT RYAN:
Well, no this is the point. The Labor Party impugn, and this is what I don’t understand. The idea, I find it deeply offensive the idea that the Australian people cannot be trusted to have a responsible debate. I find that deeply offensive, that the great bulk of the population…
(Interrupted)
RAF EPSTEIN:
Scott I get the point of your passion. You can hold both concepts in your mind, can you? You can say most people are decent. At the same time you could argue, and it’s reasonably plausible in a courtroom or with courtroom of public opinions, taxpayer funds are going to go toward people who could say some really objectionable things. Both of those propositions can …
SCOTT RYAN:
Taxpayer funds go to things that I find objectionable now. It’s no secret, I’m a free speech advocate. I’m concerned at the limits on speech in this country in a personal sense and I’ve said that publically. The best way to repudiate views that we don’t think are appropriate is for them to be debated and repudiated by the community and Malcolm Turnbull is as well placed as anyone, and he said that is what he would do.
TIM WATTS:
Okay, that is an easy thing to say ideologically but it doesn’t help nine year old kids growing up in rainbow families. They are the ones who are going to pay the price in this plebiscite and that is what we saw in the Irish…
SCOTT RYAN:
That is just outrageous.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Scott says those things are already said.
SCOTT RYAN:
They are already said.
RAF EPSTEIN:
If they are already said?
TIM WATTS:
Are we cutting million dollar checks to these groups to run national advertising campaigns saying their parents are unable to be good parents?
RAF EPSTEIN:
I’m not sure we’re going to get an agreement. Quick question for both of you, Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull have both changed their minds on this issue. Three years ago they both had the opposite views about Parliament versus a plebiscite. Is that simply the healthy changing of vines or the very reason that there is going to be so many people not voting for the major parties Tim Watts?
TIM WATTS:
Look Raf, Bill Shorten saw the kind of debate that happened in Ireland during the referendum there where rainbow families were frankly put on trial, were vilified and he said, “No, we don’t want that in Australia.” Malcolm Turnbull saw that and said, “You know what, that is a price that I’m willing to pay for the leadership of the liberal party.”
RAF EPSTEIN:
Scott, he’s changed his mind, at least his policy on this issue. Is it one of the reasons leading to dissatisfaction with major parties?
SCOTT RYAN:
No, what Malcolm has been quite honest about saying is that he is not a dictator and he leads a party where there is collegiate decision making. Now, a good Prime Minister, a good leader does not always get their own way. The party and the cabinet had a debate on this a long time ago, the party policy was determined and the Prime Minister is reflecting the Party policy. Now, the idea, Bill changed his mind from winning, I think it was the Baptist church. I was there for a wedding when I was about seven actually, the Essendon Baptist Church where he was at. Bill was doing what Bill does which is pandering and telling people what they want to hear.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Okay, quick prediction with that same majority or minority, Tim Watts, is your team going to win more seats than the Liberal party do you think?
TIM WATTS:
I think we have put a very good case to the public. We deserve to win more seats. When I talk to the constituents in my electorate, they are not happy with Malcolm Turnbull.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Going to win more seats Scott?
SCOTT RYAN:
I don’t get into predictions on public radio three days before elections. I’ll be honest Raf, I’ll let you do that.
RAF EPSTEIN:
Fair enough Tim Watts and Scott Ryan thanks for coming in.
TIM WATTS:
Thanks for having us.
SCOTT RYAN:
Thanks Raf.
(ENDS)