ABC TV News 24 Snapshot
Interview with Sally Warhaft and Tim Wilson
18 August 2010
9:15am
E & OE
Subjects: Debate, partisanship, policy costings, policy vision and ideas, polls
SALLY WARHAFT:
Hello I’m Sally Warhaft and welcome to Snapshot, our weekly discussion of the major issues concerning voters in the lead-up to the federal election campaign. And it’s our last Snapshot and I welcome Tim Wilson from the Institute of Public Affairs, my co-panellist. Good morning Tim.
TIM WILSON:
Good morning Sally.
WARHAFT:
And our guest today is Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield from Victoria. Thanks for joining us Mitch.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good morning Sally.
WARHAFT:
So Tim, the debate about the debate about the debate.
WILSON:
Well, yes I don’t know whether we’re actually going to have a debate yet. There’s technically been an agreement. Mitch, Tony Abbott’s been running away from this debate at points. Particularly because Julia Gillard really wants to focus on the economy. Considering this is traditionally a strong area of policy for the Coalition, why is there such an indifference to actually doing a debate on this very specific topic?
FIFIELD:
Well I don’t think Tony’s running away from a debate at all. We proposed at the start of the campaign three debates which is what Kevin Rudd undertook when he was Prime Minister. Julia Gillard said no, lets just have one debate. We accepted that. Subsequent to that, Julia’s campaign was needing a circuit breaker, so she decided another debate would be a terrific idea. But what we’ve seen in this campaign, a good new innovation, is the town hall meeting format that we saw at the Rooty Hill RSL. I think it’s great because journalists have plenty of opportunity to ask questions and politicians have plenty of opportunities to ask each other questions. In this format you get real questions from real people and hopefully you get real answers as well.
WARHAFT:
It’s arguable that we’ve even had one debate really. I mean I would call the debate that we had a joint press conference really. There was no real interaction between the two Prime Ministerial candidates. What worries me about the farcical nonsense in the last couple of days is if Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, whoever wins the election, can’t agree on the simple terms of meeting up at the later stages of an election campaign, how could we ever hope for bi-partisan co-operation on anything within Parliament?
FIFIELD:
Kevin Rudd promised that there would be an independent commission for debates. That’s something that he squibbed. I think that it would be a good idea to put aside this sort of discussion that you have. But this new format I think is good because you don’t get simply focused group tested lines being delivered as an opening statement and then in response to questions from journalists. You could . . .
WARHAFT:
. . . I agree that is a good format but about that question of co-operating together. Those two individuals, one of them is going to be the Prime Minister, one of them may or may not remain leader of the opposition. Do you think that there can be any co-operation on issues that affect all Australians?
FIFIELD:
There can be and I think there is. There certainly is on national security issues. There’s a great degree of co-operation there. In my own portfolio of disabilities, there’s a lot of co-operation. It’s the area I think were partisanship is most readily put aside. And where there is partisanship, it’s of a much less intense nature. It does happen. But in the hot-house environment of an election campaign, you’re going to have debate over debates. As odd as that seems. But I think a commission is probably the way to go. And let’s give the public the opportunity to ask questions.
WILSON:
Why is there this resistance to debate the economy on behalf of the Liberal Party? We just heard Wayne Swan and he’s been going out there saying that the Coalition is going to blow the budget and blow the surplus. Why’s it a constant issue for the Coalition about debating the economy and Tony Abbott wanting to focus it on other issues?
FIFIELD:
Tony was very happy to debate the economy. He turned up to ABC last night. Julia Gillard jumped on a plane, unscheduled, headed over to Perth without a press pack in toe for who knows what reason other than to avoid the debate last night. But just to pick you up on something you said Tim, debating the issue of the budget being in surplus. Labor keep talking about the budget being in surplus. The budget is not in surplus. It has not been in surplus under this government. This government has not delivered a single budget surplus and they won’t. So we’re very happy to talk about the economy every day between now and the 21st. Because we have a plan to re-pay the debt. We have a plan to end the waste.
WARHAFT:
The policy costings are going to be released today. And I hear that Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb will be fronting up to discuss that and not Tony Abbott. Does this not create an impression that Tony Abbott really doesn’t want to face the economy head on?
FIFIELD:
No. As I say, Tony was prepared last night to go head to head with Julia Gillard. She didn’t front up. Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb, they are the alternative economic team. I don’t know . . .
WARHAFT:
. . . with an alternative Prime Minister.
FIFIELD:
With an alternative Prime Minister. But we’ll see today our full reconciliation of costings. A full reconciliation of spending. And that’ll be a good thing. I think it will surprise Labor because we are going to deliver a surplus bigger than the Labor Party.
WILSON:
In this election campaign, Labor are starting to trot out the NBN, I think the announcement yesterday about the republic after our sovereign, current sovereign passes away, as a way of delivering a mechanism to discuss about vision for the country. And we haven’t heard much from the Coalition in terms of a vision for a long-term future. Even on Q & A on Monday night, Tony Abbot seemed to say his government is about stability more than anything else. What is the Liberal vision taking us to this election?
FIFIELD:
It’s terrific to have vision. I’ve got visions. I’ve got ideas. I’ve got pans for the nation. Tony Abbott does as well. But one thing I know for sure is with the best will in the world, you can’t give effect to your vision if you don’t have the dollars to support it. You can’t give effect to your vision if you can’t even balance the budget. So the first thing you’ve got to do is make sure that you’re living within your means. That you can support the promises and commitments that you make. That’s the first thing you’ve got to do.
WILSON:
So the promise from the Liberal Party at this election is at 2011, if we win, we’ll have, at the next election we’ll have a vision then?
FIFIELD:
No. We have a vision for Australia. We want Australians to feel confident about themselves. We believe that Australians know better how to spend their money than the government. So we want to retire the debt so that in the longer term we can give tax cuts, we can put more money into the pockets of the taxpayers because they’re in the best position to determine how to look after their future.
WARHAFT:
Mitch Fifield, I wanted to ask you, you’re not running for the Senate this term, which must be an enviable and delightful thing to watch what’s happening from a very safe personal position. But I also wonder, you were elected in 2004. About your own vision and hopes of being a Senator and being involved in the national parliament. Do you feel at all disappointed with the lack of ideas? Everybody is talking about this. How does it sit with your hopes when you went into parliament? Are you disappointed?
FIFIELD:
Look I’m not disappointed. Particularly being in the Senate. Ideas are the lifeblood of politics. Ideas are what drive the Senate. We have great debates in the Senate and I think the Senate committee system also provides a tremendous opportunity to put your ideas forward. The Senate estimates process is a great forum to put your views, to hold government to account. So I’ve got to say I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the Senate and I think it really does give an opportunity, we have more extensive debates than they do in the house, so I’m not disappointed from that point of view.
WARHAFT:
But in our broader political culture.
FIFIELD:
Australians are very a practical people and Australians want government to get the basics right. They want government to make sure that at state level the trains run on time. That at schools . . .
WARHAFT:
. . . But people are saying we want ideas. I mean they’re saying it everywhere. Australian people are pragmatic and they want their accounts balanced. But they want some leadership too.
FIFIELD:
Sure. They do. And we’re providing leadership in areas like education where we want to give school principals greater autonomy. We’re providing leadership in health where we want to give local hospital boards control. That’s part of our vision for the nation is to give more control back to local communities. I think that’s a good vision and I think that’s something the Australian community is embracing.
WILSON:
Mitch, there’s a poll out today which shows that Labor may hang on by a four seat majority. That seems to be the similar vein of many other polls, as well as well as an unclear picture from others. Has the Coalition embarked on a strategy of the situation that may occur where there’s a hung parliament and already started engaging with independent MPs?
FIFIELD:
We’re aiming to win this election. We’re not aiming to come second. We’re not aiming to come somewhere in-between to govern with independents. We want to win outright because that’s what the Australian people I think ultimately want is to have a stable parliament, a government with a majority where they can give effect to their election platform and that’s what we’re aiming to do.
WILSON:
But no plans have been designed? There’s been no conversations that have already been had? Media strategies developed?
FIFIELD:
We always talk to other parties and other members of the parliament. But we’re aiming to win in our own right.
WILSON:
So does that mean we actually are, there has been some sort of discussion already on media strategy and consultation?
FIFIELD:
No. And I’m not aware of anything. I’m just saying we always talk to other parties. But I’m not suggesting for a moment that we’re planning a contingency. We’re aiming to win.
WARHAFT:
Just very quickly, the talk of a hung parliament has come about because of polling. Has the obsession with polling in this particular election taken over from ideas somewhat do you think? Has it forced politicians to just respond rather than lead?
FIFIELD:
The polls are a distraction. You know, everyone by this stage is heartily sick of them. Polls are increasingly driving the news cycle. Everyone hangs out for the next Nielsen poll and for the next Newspoll. I think it is a distraction. People do want to see us talking about policy. People do want to see us talking about ideas. And hopefully that’s what we’ll see tonight in the town hall.
WARHAFT:
Thank you Mitch Fifield for joining us today. That’s all we have time for. Thank you to my co-panellist Tim Wilson. And it’s just a couple of days to go so see you later.
ENDS