ABC Radio Sydney Mornings with Linda Mottram
MOTTRAM:
The Federal Budget of course, the Government taking a whack in the polls this morning. Polls in both the Fairfax and the Murdoch press as well showing similar trends, not a lot of support for the Budget. Of course it’s a long way from an election but the hit is very big. One person who’s going to have to perhaps take some of the coalface complaints is the Federal Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Mitch Fifield who joins me in the studio in one second.
It’s not quite going swimmingly, but Budgets rarely do, I suppose. But this one is delivering a hefty whack to the Federal Government. Mitch Fifield is here, Victorian Senator and Federal Assistant Minister for Social Services. Morning to you Mitch.
FIFIELD:
Good morning, Linda.
MOTTRAM:
You wouldn’t have been a happy man looking at those poll results this morning in the papers. ‘Abandoned,’ says the Sydney Morning Herald. It’s not much better in the Murdoch press.
FIFIELD:
Well, Linda, we were elected to make difficult decisions. We’re not in this to win any popularity contests.
MOTTRAM:
Where have I heard that before, never said by a politician before!
FIFIELD:
Never! But, look, I don’t think anyone could accuse us of going down the populist path with this Budget. It’s important to remember that we inherited a situation where we’re paying a billion dollars each and every month on interest, which…
MOTTRAM:
We’ve all talked about this Budget emergency notion that you guys have put out there, which, you can’t find an economist that supports that idea. And then suddenly we get a Budget that breaks so many of the promises that your leader made. It could have been so much easier than this on you.
FIFIELD:
I know there are people who say there isn’t a Budget emergency. But we do have a very serious fiscal challenge that if we did nothing, we would have $667 billion in gross debt within 10 years’ time.
MOTTRAM:
Ok, so why not tackle superannuation tax breaks, for example? This has all been hashed over and I still don’t understand why – I think a lot of listeners still don’t understand why – you didn’t hit that big end more than the bottom end, because all of the economists I talk to say this is a regressive Budget.
FIFIELD:
We’d made it clear, coming into the election that we weren’t going to tinker with superannuation because Australians have had a gut full of super being tinkered with every five minutes.
MOTTRAM:
But you managed to break a lot of other promises.
FIFIELD:
What we’ve done is we’ve put forward a Budget where we believe that every part of the community makes a contribution. And the reason we’re doing this Linda – and certainly from my point of view – is so that we can ensure that we can sustain our social safety net into the future.
And I’ll just take my portfolio area of disabilities. We are delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme in full. At full roll out, that will be a $22 billion scheme. Now, you can’t afford and you can’t sustain something like an NDIS unless you cut your cloth accordingly. Now, we don’t see economic policy and social policy as alternatives. To sustain a good social policy, you’ve got to have a good economic policy and at the heart of a good economic policy is a good budget policy.
MOTTRAM:
Ok, good Budget policy that should have hit everybody equally? But the economists say, universally, pretty much, as far as I can tell anyway, that this is a regressive Budget. That is not sustaining good social policy is it?
FIFIELD:
Well I think it is sustaining good social policy because unless we cut our cloth we won’t be in a position where we can fund pensions into the future. Where we can fund good schools and good hospitals into the future. That’s why we’re taking these difficult decisions, so that we can continue to fund the core business of government, which from my point of view, is schools and hospitals and extra support for people who face challenges for reasons beyond their control like people with significant disabilities.
MOTTRAM:
Do you dispute that this is a regressive Budget?
FIFIELD:
It is a difficult Budget.
MOTTRAM:
No, regressive is the term particularly.
FIFIELD:
Well, people can choose their own words…
MOTTRAM:
I mean the numbers have been put out there, the economists have crunched the numbers. It is clearly hitting, you know people in the lower end of the spectrum, having a harder time making a living and keeping families together, hitting them much harder than the top end of town. It’s clearly regressive isn’t it? You’d agree?
FIFIELD:
I think every part of the community is making their contribution. And yes, it’s difficult, and we would have preferred not to have to take the decisions that we have. But the do nothing scenario isn’t an option and we haven’t yet heard from our political opponents what their alternative plan is.
MOTTRAM:
Ok, you’re years out from an election, this is your Budget, there were other options, I mean given the number of promises that were ditched in this Budget, why not also ditch the promise on, for example, superannuation? There are others we could name as well. You did have other options.
FIFIELD:
Well Linda, we have kept faith with the Australian people with the agenda that we took to the last election.
MOTTRAM:
That’s a bit disingenuous isn’t it?
FIFIELD:
Linda, I don’t think it is. We made it clear at the election that we were going to stop the boats, which we’ve made a good fist at; that we were going to repair the Budget; that we going to abolish the Carbon Tax and those are the things that we’re addressing. Now it would be of great assistance to people’s household incomes, if the Opposition would, for instance, back us in repealing the Carbon Tax. We’ve got clear mandate for that, it would help the average household by about $550 a week, so that’s important.
MOTTRAM:
But your average household is going to lose a lot more than that, I mean some households…
FIFIELD:
Sorry, $550 a year.
MOTTRAM:
Yes, a lot of households losing thousands. Again, a regressive Budget and yet you say you’re committed to good social policy, the two don’t marry up.
FIFIELD:
I think they do Linda. And that’s the problem with our political opponents. They present good social policy and good economic policy as alternatives. It’s a false dichotomy. You can’t have a good social policy with the best will in the world, unless you have a good economic policy. And you need to have a Budget that prioritises and focuses on those things that are more important than others; such as pensions, such as health, such as education, such as a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
MOTTRAM:
And a lot of people questioning whether you are seriously committed to maintaining what has been the agreed social position in this country. And it’s always up for debate, but people are saying ‘we didn’t have a debate, we don’t recall having a debate about whether we want fundamental change to the idea of universality in education, healthcare.’ Are you committed to maintaining that principle of universality?
FIFIELD:
It is a universal scheme, the Medicare scheme. What we’re asking is for people to make a modest contribution. There are appropriate safety nets in place for concession holders and young people who have 10 visits a year. So what we’re doing, we see is underpinning that social safety net, is underpinning that social contract that has been so important in Australia.
MOTTRAM:
But how can that be the case when the state governments are having $80 billion ripped out of health and education funding by this Budget over coming years and they say they can’t fill that hole, they have nowhere else to get that money from? It seems again, the two ends of this discussion don’t meet.
FIFIELD:
Well, we made clear before the election that we were going to continue over the forward estimates the significant increases in spending in health and in education. But we also made clear that beyond that forward estimates period, the previous government had an unrealistic and unsustainable growth for health and education spending and we said we were going to bring that back to a more realistic growth. And that’s what we’re going to do. So no one should think for a second that spending on health or education is going to be reduced or that it’s been cut. It’s not, it’s still going to increase…
MOTTRAM:
Tell the states that…
FIFIELD:
… it’s still going to increase significantly, it’s just not going to increase beyond the forward estimates at the same rate, at the pie in the sky rate, that the previous government had.
MOTTRAM:
Ok, the Premier’s saying, you know the Premier of this State is saying that 300 hospital beds will have to go as of 1st of July. I mean that is a real cut at the coalface where real people have to deal with the health system.
FIFIELD:
What we’re talking about are the numbers beyond what was the forward estimates coming into the last election, but now the first out year in this particular Budget. We’re not making a change to those arrangements before that period. I think what the Premier might be referring to are concession payments which we’ve been making to the States, which will stop on the 1st of July.
MOTTRAM:
Real money that is used to maintain the health and education services that you say you’re committed to maintain, and yet, suddenly, a black hole.
FIFIELD:
Well it’s not a black hole. Spending on health and education is going to increase. That is a fact. But we couldn’t sustain the pie in the sky, unsupported growth, beyond the forward estimates that the previous government had in their numbers. It wasn’t realistic. It wasn’t sustainable. The dollars weren’t there. And the dollars aren’t there for that.
MOTTRAM:
Ok, just quickly, on your particular area, and you were mentioning the Disability Insurance Scheme there. Mark is on the line, in Sutherland. I might need you to just pop those headphones on, hopefully, there’s a little volume button there if you need to adjust it. Mark, you have a question for the Minister.
MARK:
Ah, yes, Linda, thanks for taking my call.
MOTTRAM:
You’re welcome.
MARK:
I’d like to ask Mitch: I, last year, had applied for the Employment Assistance Fund because I’m vision impaired. I can’t use a normal turntable, so I’ve applied for a special turntable under the scheme because I’m vision impaired and work in audio archiving, like, preserving old records and that.
MOTTRAM:
So when you say turntable, you mean, literally, a turntable for vinyl, playing vinyl records.
MARK:
Yeah.
FIFIELD:
They still exist.
MOTTRAM:
They do, I have. Anyway, go on Mark. You need a special one?
MARK:
Yeah, I need a special one. So anyway, I demonstrated the clear proof that I needed such a thing with the appropriate documentation, was denied the funding the first time around, went through an appeal, was still denied and then ultimately, wrote a letter off to Senator Fifield and was still denied. And in an era when he’s sort of promoting the need for the disability, I find this rather, just so wrong, so wrong. What do I do now because I can’t work because I’m being denied this equipment?
MOTTRAM:
Ok, Mitch.
FIFIELD:
The Employment Assistance Fund is an important measure to help people who have some extra challenges but need some particular work supports to get into the workforce. Obviously, I don’t know your particular circumstances, but if you want to provide those to the producers here, then I’m very happy to take a look. But the good news is, in this Budget, the NDIS is going to be rolled out in full. That will provide some important supports, non-income supports, for people. And if you get the daily living supports that you need, as you quite rightly point out, you’re in a much better position to contemplate being in the workforce. And that’s what we want to see happen.
MOTTRAM:
Ok Mark, just put you on hold mate, leave your details there and we’ll forward them. Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield is with me, Federal Assistant Minister for Social Services. Just finally, it’s half past nine, so we’ve got to go to the news shortly, but Jay Weatherill, South Australian Premier, said on the weekend that Senators have to decide where their interests lay. Do they serve the interests of that states that elected them or do they serve the interests of the Abbott Government. Where do you stand on that?
FIFIELD:
Well, whether you be a Senator or a Member of the House, you’re elected to represent your communities. But you’re also elected to take collective decisions in the national interest. So in my case, as a Senator for Victoria, I argued strongly for the East West Link as I know my New South Wales colleagues argued strongly for WestConnex. But you’re also a member of the national parliament and you’ve got to take decisions in the national interest. And what we’re doing doesn’t target or single out any particular state in this Budget. We’re asking all jurisdictions to make a contribution to building a better and stronger Australia.
MOTTRAM:
Well, there’s a lot of dispute about that, there’s a lot of angry texts coming in, I can tell you they’re flooding in. But we need to move onto the news. Thanks for spending some time with us today.
FIFIELD:
Thanks Linda.
MOTTRAM:
Cheers. Senator Mitch Fifield, Federal Assistant Minister for Social Services.