2 August, 2013
ABC News 24 Capital Hill
Lyndal Curtis and Senator Mitch Fifield and Jill Hall
1 August 2013
5:15pm
E & OE
Subjects: Economic statement, tobacco excise, asylum seekers, government advertising
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Now, on a busy day of discussion about the economic statement, asylum seeker policy and some tit for tat criticism from both major parties. I’m joined by our MP’s panel, Labor MP Jill Hall and Liberal Shadow Minister Mitch Fifield. Welcome to you both.
JILL HALL:
Thank you.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Good afternoon.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
We’ll begin with what we know and suspect about the economic statement. The tobacco tax rise is confirmed and a levy on banks in return for a deposit insurance scheme the Government put in place at the height of the global financial crisis is under discussion. The International Monetary Fund has recommended Australia impose the levy, which many other countries already have, to avoid moral hazard and to make banks bare the cost of any failures. The Government’s confirmed it has been talking to banks about the move, which may have tipped off the Shadow Treasurer.
FILE FOOTAGE:
JOE HOCKEY:
And you know what’s next? I suspect the Government’s going to go and hit the banks and say well the banks are the big bastards that need to be hit now. I suspect that’s what they’ll do, as sure as night follows day. Because this is the Labor way.
PENNY WONG:
The Treasurer today has referenced the fact that the IMF and the RBA have put a view to the Government about the need for a fund to cover deposit protection, and the Treasurer has made clear he is consulting on that.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, the banks are pretty good at charging customers for practically everything. Is it right to charge the banks a fee for the benefit of having deposits guaranteed?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Well Lyndal we know any fee that is charged to the banks, it’s ultimately the customer who ends up paying that. But this is yet another example of Labor not having an orderly policy development process. One day, we have out of the blue, an announcement that they are going to turn on its head the FBT arrangement they introduced only two years ago. Next day we hear that the Government are proposing to increase tobacco excise, and then we hear that the Government have in mind a new tax on banks.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
But we heard about it because they have been talking to the banks about it, isn’t that orderly policy preparation?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Well, there is also a thing called the Australian community. I think it’s important to take them into your confidence and to talk to them. The reason the Australian Labor Party are pursuing this haphazard, disorganised approach to policy is because they are in a situation where they are not living within their means. FBT, tobacco excise, they are desperately looking for additional sources of revenue. They can dress them up as the elimination of rorts. They can dress them up as being a health benefit. But when it comes to those two particular measures, what they’re really about is desperately trying to find money. And with what looks like a new banking tax, well, if you think that is something that is a good idea, talk to the Australian people about it, let’s have a public debate, and take it to the next election.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Jill, it is likely though that if the banks are charged a levy for the deposit insurance guarantee then that would be passed on. Banks aren’t well known for taking costs upon themselves without passing them on to customers are they?
JILL HALL:
I don’t necessarily accept that Lyndal. What I think is that this is a very sensible policy change. What I think is that this is another example about the Liberal Party and the Opposition object to absolutely everything. Now it’s been recommended at all levels that this action be taken and my understanding is that the Shadow Treasurer was quite sympathetic towards it initially or at some stage in the past. But as soon as we put something on the table it’s a positive initiative, something that’s really good for the economy, something that’s been recommended by the IMF, they come out and they object to it. Now there has been consultation, there has been consultation with the banking industry and this is feedback that all members receive through their electorate in relation to banks and making banks accountable in the same way that other members in the community are also accountable.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
What do you think the feedback is likely to be from your electorate on the rise in tobacco excise?
JILL HALL:
On the rise in tobacco excise, well it’ll be very few people, a lot fewer people now that are smoking. It is a health issue. I think there has been an 11% decline in the number of people that were smoking the last time there was an excise increase. When you look at the excise that’s payed on cigarettes on the twenty packet of cigarettes in Australia it’s 49.5%. The world health organisation recommends that, that excise should be up at 70%, this will take us up to 62% by 2016. And that’s in line with countries like the UK, which is 62%, France which is 42%, sorry 64% and New Zealand which is 61%. So I think that this is a measure that is a health measure as well as looking at it from the point of it being a revenue measure. And it’s one that I know that the AMA would support, it’s one that I know that the Cancer Council will support and I know that it’s one that will have a big impact in reducing the number of people that smoke. And that’s something as a community that we’d like to see.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
We might move on now because we’re rapidly running out of time. The first asylum seekers to be sent to Papua New Guinea under the new arrangement are being flown to Manus Island. 40 single adult men were on the first flight. The Government is continuing to send the message that people who arrive by boat will go to Papua New Guinea and not to Australia, a message it’s sending in an advertising campaign. The independent Senator Nick Xenophon asked the Auditor General for an opinion on the campaign, and he’s received a response.
FILE FOOTAGE
NICK XENOPHON:
The Auditor General has also raised concerns about the internal statement of compliance, that statement of compliance is in lieu of the independent communications committee looking at this particular campaign. That has been sidestepped because the Special Minister of State has said there is a matter of extreme urgency. I suggest that a political emergency is not the same the extreme emergency that is in the guidelines. So there are serious concerns that have been raised by the Auditor General.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, the Auditor General says the coverage in a short period of time with the absence of scrutiny could raise reasonable questions about the targeting and scale. But those questions, this is not an actual audit of the campaign so it might turn out that the campaign was targeted in the way supposed to mightn’t it?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Well, the Auditor General did raise real concerns that there was no third party examination of this campaign. That it is a massive spend in a very short period of time. That it is in a hotly contested area of public policy and that it is on the eve of a federal election. Now he made all those points and said that, that could well raise questions as to the appropriateness of this advertising campaign. But I thought what was extremely interesting in the Auditor General’s response was that this Government has spent $2.7 million dollars in 7 days on this campaign. That the full budget for this campaign is $30 million dollars.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Although we don’t know if all of at $30 million dollars will be spent do we?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Look I think that this Government will give it the old college try. That’s money which is targeted for the Australian domestic market. In contrast, only $2 million dollars has been spent on getting information out in to the region where the people smugglers operate. And I think what that demonstrates conclusively is that this campaign is all about domestic politics, it’s not about sending a message to people smugglers, it’s about the seats in Western Sydney.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Jill whenever I ask Labor MP’s about Government advertising you always cite the case of the advertising under the Howard Government which was greater. But Labor came to office promising to have a proper process, yet campaigns like this are able to bypass that proper process.
JILL HALL:
Well what I’ll cite and I won’t refer John Howard’s campaigns. That’s looking backwards and I want to look forward. What this campaign is about is getting a message to people smugglers, and if Mitch thinks that people smugglers just operate in total isolation from Australia, he’s living in an unreal world and you can understand why sometimes the Opposition struggles when it comes to putting together policies.
MITCH FIFIELD:
$30 million dollars in Australia.
JILL HALL:
Excuse me Mitch, excuse me Mitch. I didn’t interrupt you once so I’d appreciate if you could do exactly the same thing whilst I’m responding. What these advertisements are about are targeting the people smugglers through, that are operating within Australia. It’s looking at social media and it’s looking at making sure that the message gets out to the people that are watching what’s happening. And to say that’s it’s just targeting the domestic market and that it’s all about politics is totally incorrect and I think that, that Mitch needs to acknowledge that, he needs to acknowledge the fact when you undertake an advertising campaign like this, that a lot of it relates to what’s happening here in Australia. And that message gets out to the people smugglers very quickly and gets out to those people that are thinking of coming to Australia. Those people that have got relatives and friends that are here will learn very quickly, that if you hop on one of those rickety boats, you’re not going to end up living in Australia. And that’s what those messages are about.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
We might move on to our final issue, the election campaign hasn’t yet been called. But already there is a hint of negativity in the air. Both major parties have been making accusations about the other. Over tobacco donations, business funded travel and of course the New South Wales corruption commission findings. It’s far from the kinder, gentler polity the Prime Minister called for, after ousting Julia Gillard.
FILE FOOTAGE COMMERCIAL:
KEVIN RUDD
I believe all Australians are sick and tired of negative politics. I believe people want all of us to raise the standards.
TONY ABBOTT:
I don’t see why, if they want to make a donation, we shouldn’t accept it. It is legal to smoke, it’s a legal business and I’m not saying we won’t take a donation.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Jill, is it really kinder, gentler politics to come out with an attack ad on Tony Abbott?
JILL HALL:
Well, can I start by saying. That ad it factual, it’s not personal, it’s not attacking Tony Abbott, it’s stating the facts and it’s showing the position that Tony Abbott has adopted over a long period of time.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
But it is attacking the Coalition, not selling the benefits of your policy. It’s one aspect of campaigning, but there are so many positive messages. So many actions that have been taken, since the Prime Minister took over the reins back at the end of June. And what we have been concentrating on is getting that positive message out, making a change, and it has all been about governing.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, the reality is, isn’t it that negative advertising attacks by both sides of party’s will be a feature of the next election as it has been a feature of almost every election.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Well, pointing out the flaws in your opponent’s policies and their incapacity to balance the budget and their inability to deliver even a program like roofing insulation without causing great damage. Pointing those flaws out isn’t negative politics, that’s just the facts.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
But I’ll ask the same question I asked Jill that’s not promoting the positive, the policies that you might have?
MITCH FIFIELD:
We walk and chew gum at the same time, we critique the policies of our opponents and we also put forward out positive alternative. But, Kevin Rudd is the person who has made an art form of focusing on the individual. Part of his rationale for becoming Prime Minister and taking down Julia Gillard was, he said, to stop Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minister. Now, our objective isn’t to stop Kevin Rudd remaining as Prime Minister, it’s to remove the Australian Labor Party from office, so that we can implement our policies rather than theirs, which have driven the budget into debt and deficit, and seen incredible waste throughout Government. So we’re focusing on policy its Kevin Rudd who is focusing on individuals.
JILL HALL:
Can I just ask, I’d like to know what those policies are? To me, the opposition seems to have no policy, the only thing that they do is attack the Government. Every piece of media, every word that comes out of anyone’s mouth in the Opposition is an attack on the Government.
MITCH FIFIELD:
I’m happy to answer that.
JILL HALL:
They believe that they can come to power, that they will be elected just by saying no and attacking the Government.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Mitch, will people see all of your policies in good time before the election? Which means not in the last week before the election day?
JILL HALL:
And will they be costed?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Absolutely, and we’ve got a lot of policy out there. We’ve got a policy to introduce a registered organisations commission, which will ensure that trade union leaders are subject to the same penalties and requirements as are company directors. We have a plan there to stop the boats; we want to bring back temporary visas.
JILL HALL:
That’s a slogan Mitch!
MITCH FIFIELD:
We want to bring back proper competent offshore processing; we want to turn the boats back where it’s safe to do so. So we have policy in workplace relations, we have policy in relation to border protection. We have a policy to fully support and roll out the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And I can go on.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Jill, if I could ask you one final, just quickly because we’re almost out of time. Are you on standby for an election soon?
JILL HALL:
I’m always, I think that anyone that isn’t on standby for an election soon is being a little bit complacent. There is going to be an election soon, there has got to be an election by November. So all members of Parliament should be on standby for an election. But if I can say when I go to the election I’ll go with policies not slogans.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
And that’s where we’ll have to leave it, Mitch Fifield thank you very much for your time.
MITCH FIFIELD: