Subjects: 2016 Federal Election; Labor’s budget black hole; Section 70 Crimes Act; NBN; training colleges.
24 May 2016
TRANSCRIPT OF SENATOR THE HON. SCOTT RYAN
FIGHT CLUB WITH RAFAEL EPSTEIN AND MARK DREYFUS, ABC 774
MELBOURNE
Subjects: 2016 Federal Election; Labor’s budget black hole; Section 70 Crimes Act; NBN; training colleges.
EO&E………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
RAFAEL EPSTEIN:
Joining me for Fight Club is Scott Ryan, he’s a Liberal senator here in Victoria. He is also Malcolm Turnbull’s Minister for Vocational Education. Scott, thanks for coming in.
SCOTT RYAN:
Thanks for having me, Raf.
EPSTEIN:
And Mark Dreyfus joins us, he is the Member for the seat of Isaacs here in Melbourne for the Labor Party. He is also Shadow Attorney General and he was attorney general in the previous Labor government. Mark, thanks for coming in.
MARK DREYFUS:
Very good to be with you, Raf. Hello, Scott.
RYAN:
G’day, Mark.
EPSTEIN:
Look let’s start on costings. I did say I never – personally, I rarely trust one political party to assess the costings of another. However, there does seem to have been a mistake, Scott Ryan, when you’ve been assessing Labor’s promises, you say they’re from foreign aid-promised cost $19 billion. They say it cost $800 million, so about one twentieth what you claim. There’s a big difference between $19 billion and $800 million. That’s a big mistake, isn’t it?
RYAN:
Well when Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann yesterday launched this document, they made it clear that there was some uncertainty around some of the numbers in there because Labor was trying to have a bet each way. So on foreign aid, Tanya Plibersek hasn’t walked away from her commitment and her criticism of the Coalition Government’s changes to foreign aid. Yes, they did make an announcement –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) One radio interview last July.
RYAN:
Well yeah but it’s a radio interview last July and it’s something that Labor have constantly raised and constantly criticised the Government for, and then they did launch a policy last week. But we made clear that there was some element of uncertainty between $37 and $67 billion. Now Bill Shorten who made a joke about another million or another billion here over the weekend, a flippant joke about taxpayers’ money, shows how little he cared. And so –
ESPTEIN:
(interrupts) It’s a crucial debate for you.
RYAN:
Absolutely.
EPSTEIN:
Economic credibility and you’re already leading in the polls on economic management. There’s a big difference between $19 billion and $800 million.
RYAN:
And as the Prime Minister said today, Labor could clear that up instantly by saying they’re not going to, they’ve stopped their criticism, they support the government’s changes to foreign aid, but they won’t do that because it is a question of honesty here, Raf. Labor’s trying to have a bet each way on a lot of these issues, and at no point have they said there’s anything less than $37 or $32 billion of unfunded spending. I mean, Bill Shorten and Tony Burke and Chris Bowen yesterday basically said ‘oh, look, it’s not $67 billion it’s only $37 billion of unfunded spending’.
EPSTEIN:
I’m not sure, did they say only $37 billion Mark?
MARK DREYFUS:
I just need to say that this is laughable to hear Scott trying to defend what was a smoking ruin of a press conference by Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann yesterday. Scott’s just said they launched this policy document, or this funding document, yesterday – it’s sunk. It’s gone. And you’ve quite correctly raised the $19 billion figure. Just bear in mind that Julie Bishop, just last week described our commitment of the $800 million, that is the actual commitment we’ve made, as modest. Within a week, we’ve got Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann trying to invent – completely invent, it’s a falsehood – a $19 billion figure. And I’ve actually got a bit of this document that concerns me because I’m footnoted – no let me finish Raf – I am footnoted in this document , to support a claim by the Liberal party that Labor has committed to $108 million of arts funding. And you read the footnote, and it’s me saying after the 2014 budget, I’ll read it out ‘Labor believes the arts are a vital part of Australia as a nation and worthy of government support.’ That’s been translated into $108 million dollar commitment. They are making this up and their credibility is gone, Raf.
EPSTEIN:
There is a big problem though with oppositions, and we had – I think this is a bipartisan problem – you can promise everything to everyone and worry about it after the election. There is a substantial difference between government and opposition.
In government, you’ve got to present a budget, so your sums are there for everyone to see, and I’ve tried to critique the Government on the budget, however in Opposition, yes you get your policies now costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey did, but we never actually get to see a proper tally of your promises. We have to take you on trust, don’t we?
DREYFUS:
Well on the contrary. We have not only had all of our policies costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) But the cost of an individual item is different to the tally of them all added up.
DREYFUS:
We are going to this election with fully-costed policies and fully-costed savings. And as Chris Bowen has said over and over and over again, and we mean it, we will go to this election with more savings than spending commitments. It will be a very responsible position and unlike anything that the Coalition’s done in recent memory from opposition. We go with a full set of policies to this election, something that I’m very proud to have worked on over the last two and a half years.
EPSTEIN:
Can I ask you a deficit question? Would the deficit be less, under the ALP? That’s an important question isn’t it, if you want to compare apples and apples?
DREYFUS:
We think actually it would be possibly not much less because –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) But that’s a commitment, that the deficit is less under a Bill Shorten Labor government?
DREYFUS:
I’m not going to engage in that sort of commitment.
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) But you just said it would be, so is that a commitment or not?
DREYFUS:
Yes, because we take a very responsible attitude to fiscal management, unlike this Government, in which the deficit has blown out. They’ve tripled the deficit since coming to office, the amount of spending is now higher than at any time since the Howard government, taxes are higher than at any time since the Howard government –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) But can I ask you to repeat – I asked you if the deficit will be lower under Labor and you said it would be. Are you happy to repeat that?
DREYFUS:
It would be based on the attitude and the responsible position we are taking. And our full costings and our full position will be available as Chris Bowen said, much earlier than two days before the election, which is where Abbott and Hockey got us to when they were in opposition.
EPSTEIN:
Look 1300 222 774 is the phone number. Scott Ryan, Labor’s going to deliver a smaller deficit.
RYAN:
Let’s look at Labor’s record. Mark, and Bill Shorten, were part of a government that broke every single budgetary promise about the deficit getting better and coming back to surplus for every budget they were in office and only one of those years did revenue decline, only in 2009.
Every other year revenue increased. Labor’s record tells us exactly what they’ll be like in government, where apparently there’s only a $37 billion dollar black hole. They’re blocking $18 billion of savings in the Senate, they’re promising to spend $2 billion more than they’ve actually said that they’ll save, and yesterday on top of all that, Tony Burke flags that ‘oh it’ll be worse over four years but it’ll be better over ten years’. It’s like my waist line – I’m always going to lose weight next year. This is Labor’s track record. They always say they’ll make it better but the outcome is always worse. We could all remember Wayne Swan saying the ‘budget surplus I deliver tonight.’
EPSTEIN:
And I know a significant debating point and maybe it’s more than a debating point, is that each time you’ve come in to office you’ve had to deal with a significant debt, however, you’ve got a significant issue around economic credibility. I accept very much in the polls you’re ahead as economic managers. However, Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey said we had a debt and deficit disaster. The deficit is triple what Treasury said the deficit was during the election campaign and the debt, I think it’s gone from roughly 10 per cent to roughly 20 per cent of GDP. So in the vernacular, the deficit’s tripled and the debt has doubled, from a party who said we had a debt and deficit disaster.
RYAN:
And every time we have tried to bring the debt and deficit back under control by controlling spending growth, often it hasn’t been about reducing spending it’s been about limiting growth, Labor has blocked us. In the Senate, Labor actually voted against changes to education funding they announced as Labor policy in the last election. That is how craven they have been. They have intended, they have wanted to make this deficit worse, so Mark can sit here –
EPSTEIN:
So the only thing stopping you from progressing is Labor. I mean, if I’m a Coalition voter and I wanted less debt and deficit, you have not delivered that to me, have you?
RYAN:
The overwhelming proportion of spending by the Commonwealth spending in a budget is actually set by separate legislation so the budget can’t change it. Every time changes were announced in the budget –
DREYFUS:
This is the ‘not our fault’ defence.
RYAN:
Well you voted against it Mark. You voted against changes you announced as policy. They were going to change higher education funding, they voted against their own policy, because Labor’s interest has been trying to make this worse. They in no way have contributed to helping us improve this situation. At the moment, they’re blocking $18 billion of savings in the Senate, including those that will be redirected towards supporting greater childcare rebates to women, and particularly women trying to get back to work.
EPSTEIN:
Can I ask you both, every independent economist and the people who run some of the most important things in Government are saying to both sides of politics, you are not doing enough. I meant the cut-through from what Treasury and Finance said last week and what every independent economist says is, you both need to spend less and tax more, and neither side of politics is anywhere near that. I’ll start with you Mark. Why can neither major party do what everyone says needs to be done?
DREYFUS:
Well actually we have delivered already or committed already, to a whole range of revenue measures which the government likes to deride Labor for –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) Well it’s the economists deriding your proposals isn’t it?
DREYFUS:
No no, not at all. They’ve said that they approve and the major credit rating agencies, economists are saying ‘good on Labor for coming up with the proposal to raise the tobacco excise, good on Labor for coming up’ –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) Very individual measures, Mark. I’m not saying people don’t approve of those measures, however Saul Eslake, Chris Richardson, the ratings agencies, the people who run Treasury and Finance, neither of them, sorry none of them, think that either side has really done anything about what we call a structural deficit.
DREYFUS:
We are doing more to deal with the revenue side than a Government, which has a Treasurer in it saying, Scott Morrison’s saying ‘we don’t have a revenue problem, we’ve got a spending problem’. What a nonsense.
No economist thinks that, Labor doesn’t think that, the ratings agencies don’t think that, the Reserve Bank doesn’t think that and I noticed that Scott, sitting next to me, has managed to talk about Labor’s economic record in office without once mentioning the Global Financial Crisis, the largest economic downturn in 75 years. I’m very proud of what Labor did in government for six years steering Australia’s economy through that Global Financial Crisis and for Scott to pretend that it didn’t happen, it’s a standard Liberal pretence. It’s a pretence –
RYAN:
(interrupts) In one year Mark, in one year –
DREYFUS:
To pretend that the Global Financial Crisis, which so damaged economies across the world didn’t happen here, it’s pretty extraordinary.
EPSTEIN:
Okay, you’ve made that point. I’m happy for Scott to respond, but Scott, like I said the budget gives us more ammunition as journalists, but can I just ask about that general proposition –
RYAN:
Yeah, exactly.
EPSTEIN:
About either spending less or taxing more? Tax as a proportion of the economy is going up over the next four years under your government. Why should we believe what you say, if that’s happening, if tax is going up?
RYAN:
Tax is marginally increasing, but it will still end up at less than what Labor had forecasted because they weren’t undertaking tax cuts. We’ve actually saved more than we’ve spent, within both the budget and MYEFO –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) Is that your point of comparison, we’re going to do better than Labor said they would have done three years ago?
RYAN:
Given that they legislated all this fixed spending that a budget can’t change – I mean a government can announce a budget and it can announce that it wants to make changes to, for example, childcare payments, which we’re trying to increase for those on lower and middle incomes, but unless you get separate legislation through the parliament, in this case Labor’s voted against it, you can’t do that. We are actually saving more than we are spending, Scott Morrison announced that both the mid-year update in December and in the budget. And yes, tax is marginally increasing –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) You’re not saving much more.
RYAN:
We’re saving $9 billion more I believe at MYEFO and budget when you consider the decisions made.
EPSTEIN:
Can I query you on that? There is $1.7 billion in savings over the next four years. There is $1.7 trillion in spending over the next four years. The new budget savings are $1.7 billion over four years, that is one tenth of one percent of the total.
RYAN:
And that builds on decisions taken in December –
EPSTEIN:
(interrupts) But it’s not much, one tenth of one per cent.
RYAN:
No, and one of the things that politicians need to, one of the lessons quite frankly I think politicians have learned on both sides over the last 20 years is you can make all the decisions you want, you need to generate public consent and public support for them. And so we’re making the case and we’re demonstrating that we’re re-prioritising taxation by saying company tax cuts actually lead to greater jobs growth, greater economic growth. We’re refocussing the superannuation tax concessions to support people at the lower and middle income end. We’re trying to do the same to family tax benefits to ensure childcare, support for childcare, so people can get to jobs. But what Labor’s doing has actually got tens of billions of dollars, we can argue whether it’s $37 or $67, in unfunded spending and they’re promising to increase taxes and they’re promising to increase the deficit.
EPSTEIN:
I will return with Mark Dreyfus and Scott Ryan. You’ve heard what they’ve both had to say about what they will do and what they say their opponents will do – what do you think? We’ll try and talk jobs as well and whether or not we can stop the AFP cracking down on whistle-blowers. 1300 222 774. What do you make of what you’ve heard? Let’s get traffic with Jimmy. Hi Jimmy.
(traffic report)
EPSTEIN:
On text: ‘Two prime examples as to why we should all vote for an independent. It’s painful to listen.’ That’s John in Brighton, who’s not happy.
Can I ask both of you, actually I might start with you Mark, you’re the lawyer. Section 70 – that was a bit derisive, sorry – section 70 of the 1914 Crimes Act. Why am I bringing it up? When Kevin Rudd swore and that video was released, the Australia Federal Police were asked to investigate the leak. It’s the same law that has led to an investigation to leaks on the NBN, it’s the same law that’s led to a doctor who spoke out on the treatment of asylum seekers having a couple hundred pages if AFP files built up on him. It’s a crazy law, isn’t it? Don’t we need to change – technically a government could prosecute, or try and investigate someone for leaking any government information. That has to change doesn’t it?
DREYFUS:
I think we’ve got to draw a distinction between national security information and I don’t think anyone’s in any doubt about the need for secrecy in some aspects of national security, very, very much so, but it’s the protection of a life and our entire national security to keep secrets. But in this NBN case, just to go to the case we’re looking at here, these were documents about costings and timings. They’ve all gone up on the net, so we know what the documents are and they’re actually an embarrassment to Malcolm Turnbull. That’s what underlying this.
EPSTEIN:
But this is the point isn’t it Mark? Both sides of politics get the AFP to investigate simply when they are embarrassed. Media organisations have been trying to get a legal change, essentially saying there’s got to be an overwhelming public interest for why this information should not be disclosed. At the moment, there is no test. You basically get investigated and potentially prosecuted if you’ve disclosed government information.
DREYFUS:
Well you’re talking to the person that as attorney general legislated for the first scheme of whistle-blower protection at the Commonwealth level.
EPSTEIN:
But it didn’t change this test though, did it?
DREYFUS:
It certainly interacts. Commonwealth public servants are now protected if they go through certain processes before they go public.
EPSTEIN:
Scott, are you going to change it?
RYAN:
I’m going to do you the courtesy of answering the question directly, Raf.
I think a law – I don’t think automatically that a law like that doesn’t have a place, I think there’s an important place for whistle-blowers. But it’s not just about any information – if a law’s been broken, if people are being put in harm’s way I can see the importance of whistle-blowers, but I don’t necessarily think that it should be up to anyone that works to release any government information they choose. It could be done selectively, it could be done maliciously.
Now in this case, like all other cases, to be fair, the Government does not direct the AFP to investigate, the Government does not conduct an investigation. In this case, like all others as when Labor did it, a matter was referred to the AFP, in this case nothing to do with Government at all, but then the AFP decides to undertake an investigation and what it prioritises. So Mark tried to make this about the NBN, you mentioned the video of Kevin Rudd –
DREYFUS:
(interrupts) It is about the NBN.
RYAN:
The truth is if you want to talk about the NBN, we’re signing up as many people a month as Mark did in three years.
EPSTEIN:
We might have an NBN conversation later. Chris is in Northcote, what did you want to say Chris?
CALLER:
Gday Raf. I don’t know where I start. I just listen to these two guys talk and they do not understand that we average Australians are sick and tired of them obfuscating whilst they’re talking about future, future, future, there are kids that can’t buy houses, there is corruption within government – you talk about the whistle-blower legislation – those parties don’t want it because they want to hang on to power. I just beg you gentlemen, just to get in a tram or a bus and listen to the average punter. Training academies are ripping us off, there’s no TAFE, education, health and everybody’s life is not better. So while you blokes keep talking about the future, people like myself and my family are battling to survive and we listen to you blokes talk about the future.
EPSTEIN:
Chris I appreciate you giving full voice to your frustration. Specific question – do you want to ask about training and house prices? Is that your primary concern?
CALLER:
I would say I can’t believe all these training providers are being allowed to re-tender for their jobs. I know they say it’s a state issue, but I think federally if the government’s saying the federal government want to look after fellow Australians, they should step in.
EPSTEIN:
Okay Chris now I just want to give them both a chance, so just hold on one moment. Scott Ryan, I know that actually the training issue is directly your portfolio, but can you address – you’re not unfamiliar with the concern –
RYAN:
Oh yeah.
EPSTEIN:
Both of you are not talking about the things that matter to everyday people.
RYAN:
Well today we’re answering your questions Raf.
On the training providers, honestly, probably no one knows better than me the scandal of what’s been going on in the private training sector.
I’ve been, since I got this job three months ago, every waking hour has been spent cleaning up the disaster Labor put in place in 2012. In every court case people are hearing, every example that has been referred to in public is about, were examples that happened under the laws Labor set up before we changed them last year. Every single one. Every single rorting training provider, every court case is all about before we changed the law and we’ve still got more work to do.
On issues like health, look I agree, I will catch a tram home form here tonight, but um in this case look it’s – I appreciate people’s frustration but we’re answering your questions Raf.
EPSTEIN:
Okay, Mark – the general concern and the training college stuff?
DREYFUS:
I’m out there every day talking about health and education and jobs, which is what people want to hear about. We’ve got very clear policies on health and education and jobs. We’ve got different priorities to the Labor Party and people are increasingly starting to understand that. And on the training colleges, I’d only say do not point the finger at the previous administration. This government’s been in power-
RYAN:
(interrupts) It’s your laws.
DREYFUS:
Since September 2013 and was incredible slow to act on what was apparent to all concerned, including Chris, your listener, what a rort was going on .
EPSTEIN:
Can I just ask you both briefly, who’s going to win? Scott Ryan, who’s going to win the election?
RYAN:
Wait and see. We’re about six weeks away.
EPSTEIN:
But the polls are knife-edge, is it actually knife-edge?
RYAN:
Look I’ve said before Raf, after having seen what happened in Queensland for example a few years ago, every single election is going to be a tight context, the old assumption about elections and margins no longer apply.
EPSTEIN:
Mark, is it literally knife-edge the way the polls portray it?
DREYFUS:
It’s an open contest.
EPSTEIN:
Yeah?
DREYFUS:
And I think Scott’s quite right to mention the Queensland example, where even where it was not perceived to be an open contest, Labor won that election on the 30th of January 2015
EPSTEIN:
Final word maybe goes to Pam in Bacchus Marsh. What did you want to say Pam
CALLER:
I wanted to say to go to the History channel on Foxtel and have a look at what Teddy Roosevelt did when the country were lined a mile or two mile long with no jobs, no food, no nothing. So he made everybody employ somebody. You cannot find – Australians cannot find jobs. Everybody’s coming in to the country and taking our jobs and we’re on a farm, we’ve been responsible people, we can’t get a healthcare card, my husband and I. He’s got cancer. We have to pay for our, every bit of medicine we get, we cannot get even a healthcare card now. Kevin Rudd gave away the money that started the economy but where did he get that money? He got it off Peter Costello that had the funds in government.
EPSTEIN:
Pam you’ve summed up a whole lot of issues so I am going to take that as a comment and not a question. Gentlemen, thank you for coming in.
RYAN:
Thanks for having us Raf.
DREYFUS:
Thanks, Raf. Thanks, Scott.
(ENDS)