Sky News Australian Agenda
E&OE
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
We are joined live now here in the studio by a presumably somewhat tired Scott Morrison, the Social Services Minister. Thanks for your company.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Very sparky, very sparky. Just like you.
VAN ONSELEN:
Well, I feel tired. Let’s get straight into the election results. Any federal implications in this result from your perspective?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, no. What this was is a win for policy over populism. Bill Shorten says you can take any road. You can’t take the low road that Luke Foley took at this election and that’s pretty clear. I think that should be a message for Bill Shorten too, that fear campaigns and populist reactionary positions from the Labor Party just don’t get you there. I think that’s a good outcome.
The other really good outcome is on the economy. Mike Baird’s win was critical for the national economy. The infrastructure agenda is very important to our economy. It is driving the New South Wales economy; it is driving the national economy so that’s a great win for the national economy.
VAN ONSELEN:
Is the lesson, though, for any political party you need to be up front with voters? Mike Baird was prepared to take his electricity privatisation reform to this election and he has been rewarded with a very sizeable majority out of it.
MINISTER MORRISON:
I think there’s all of that. Even more than that I’d say what Mike Baird did is he sold the benefits of what he was doing. He didn’t sell the features, he sold the benefits and there is a dividend for the policy, which is a tough policy that he was taking to the people in New South Wales. And that was roads, it was infrastructure, it was economic growth, it was jobs. That was his purpose. That was his mission, and the features argument which is what is always a little hostage to the fear campaigns, which the unions and the Labor Party didn’t hold back from, I think this gives all of us, who are interested in constructive reform and policy and change for the better, which I feel there is real benefits, real optimism.
PAUL KELLY:
We were told at the start of this election campaign that Tony Abbott’s unpopularity would prejudice the re-election of Mike Baird. So what is the takeout for Tony Abbott?
MINISTER MORRISON:
The takeout is that good, strong policy as we have been seeking to pursue at a federal level, taking people with you, and explaining the benefits of those policies will get support from the Australian people. But as I said the message here is also for Bill Shorten, and that is the low road of reactionary oppositionist politics with no benefits for the Australian people when your alternative is putting forward a positive agenda is not a road that the Australian people and particularly here in New South Wales will back.
KELLY:
Well, you dodged the question of Abbott’s leadership, so let me ask you directly, do you believe that Tony Abbott will lead the Government to the next election?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Yes.
KELLY:
You do?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Yes.
KELLY:
Why are you so confident, given the polls?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I’m confident because of the plan we’ve got. We are going into a budget where we are bringing down a small business package, a jobs package and a families package. We are also a government that learns. I mean the definition of a bad government is one that doesn’t learn from its time in office. That’s what happened under the previous government. They just wouldn’t get it.
Now, we’re a government that has listened carefully, and we’ve made a number of changes over recent times. The Prime Minister also I think has significantly altered his approach as to how we are governing, and how we are interacting, I think that’s been a very positive process. I think, if we were having this conversation eight weeks ago, Paul, I think the situation was very different. A year ago the New South Wales Liberal Party was in pretty crook shape. Last night they won a thumping election, the worst – second worst result for Labor in its history, worse even than the 1988 result when Nick Greiner was elected. I mean Labor barely managed to pick the lower hanging fruit in the election yesterday.
KELLY:
Let’s just go to one of the lessons in this election that is that Mike Baird put an unpopular reform agenda to the people and won. Will the Abbott Government be prepared to go to the next election putting its own reform agenda to the people?
MINISTER MORRISON:
What we’ve prepared to do and I think this is an answer of yes to you on that, is that we’ll be prepared to continue to sell the benefits of the policies that we’re advocating. We went to the last election – – –
KELLY:
That dodges the issue. I asked you whether you would take a reform agenda to the next election.
MINISTER MORRISON:
We took a reform election to the last election, we will continue to take – – –
KELLY:
It wasn’t a sufficient agenda, obviously.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, I disagree Paul. We said we would get rid of the Carbon Tax, gone, Mining Tax gone. We said – we have done all of that.
KELLY:
You have broken a lot of promises.
MINISTER MORRISON:
We said we would fix the budget and this is a discussion that Peter and I had last night. I think Peter’s view is you have to actually table the legislation before you actually have an election in order to seek a mandate.
VAN ONSELEN:
My view is you just can’t go on television the night before the election and rule out every element that requires cuts to fix the budget at the same time as promising to fix the budget. They’re just inconsistent.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, we have a mandate, I believe, to get on and fix the budget and we’ll be putting those policies again to the budget this year and incremental, strong, modest reform, reform that will take the Australian people with us, and reform that can appreciate the Parliament in which we sit.
Now, you’ve got to be pragmatists about those sorts of things. I believe that’s what we are trying to do. We have learnt strong lessons from our first 18 months in government, but I would say at the same time that there have been significant achievements in our first 18 months in government. The first budget, for all its critics, still managed to halve the trajectory of Labor’s debt in one budget.
VAN ONSELEN:
But at the heart of Paul Kelly’s question really is you’ve got this comparison. You’ve got in New South Wales Mike Baird that laid it all out, largely electricity privatisation, and then brought the voters with him. On your side the lessons that have been learnt, so-called, are being learnt as you retreat from policy positions and don’t even, in many cases, even put them to the Senate, much less put them to the voters at the next election. Are we going to see a large package of reform that you, in a very gutsy political move, take to the next election?
MINISTER MORRISON:
What I just said to you is we are bringing down a budget which will have a small business package, which will have a jobs package, and which will have a families package.
VAN ONSELEN:
But these are all [inaudible]
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, the packages will be announced in due course. These are key areas where we need to improve things for Australian families, get small business moving because they’re the principal employers and they’re drivers of the economy, and we’ve got to get people into work.
I want to see more people on the payrolls of employers, rather than on the welfare payroll of the taxpayer. Eight out of 10 income taxpayers go to work every single day, and that just pays the welfare bill. Now, that is $150 billion a year. We need to ensure that we’re getting more people on employer’s payrolls and not on the taxpayer’s payroll for welfare.
TROY BRAMSTON:
Mr Morrison, can I just take you back to the State Election for a moment. Clearly Mike Baird has had a very compelling and convincing election victory. Yet there was a significant swing to the Opposition in The Hunter, the Central Coast, parts of Western Sydney, Labor looks to claim perhaps 14 seats. There are reasons why there was a swing against the State Government.
What do you think, though, the causes of that swing was? Labor would argue obviously it is privatisation, but they would also argue the unpopularity of the Federal Government which showed up in their research as a factor, swinging votes?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I think that’s just nonsense, the last point, that there was no federal implication in all of this. I think the fact that Labor soft-pedalled so heavily on those issues, particularly in the last week or so, demonstrated that. What Labor did was focused on the low hanging fruit opportunities for them on the Central Coast and The Hunter where there were very specific issues around ICAC and things of that nature.
They were always going to be soft areas for the Liberal Party last night and those seats were pretty much put in the Labor column pretty much from the outset of the campaign. So Labor was able to realise a fairly obvious opportunity for them there in very specific circumstances.
I disagree with you on Western Sydney. We had a swing towards us in Parramatta. We won the seat of Penrith again under some pretty strong opposition. We did very well in south-western Sydney. I mean, in particular places like East Hills, a stunning result for Glenn Brookes, Holsworthy, a stunning result for Melanie Gibbons and then to hold seats like Oatley, which were on a knife-edge after the last election, I think, demonstrated the value of quality candidates. For the National Party the result in Monaro was absolutely stunning.
BRAMSTON:
Can I ask you about the National Party, because the National Party have lost two seats on the North Coast to the Greens. I think that shows that the Greens are a problem for Labor in the inner city and a problem clearly for the conservative forces outside of the major cities. Is that the way you read it?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I think the Greens issue is now a major problem for Labor and it will continue to be a sinkhole for Labor as it drives and draws Labor further and further to the left. I suspect there will be a petition to get Anthony Albanese to run again in the seat of Grayndler, minus Anthony Albanese in the seat of Grayndler at the next federal election based on what we saw last night. Then there will be a Green MP coming into the Federal Parliament in an inner city Sydney seat. And the same would apply for Tanya, but I don’t think she has any plans not to run.
But frankly, when we saw Lindsay Tanner go in the seat of Melbourne we saw it happen. Now, that is the dynamic and that’s Labor’s problem. Labor have created that problem. Yesterday Labor and the Greens were in an alliance, they were in a preference swap arrangement and they were as tight as a drum.
BRAMSTON:
Sure, I agree with that, but what about the north coast of New South Wales where seats have been lost from the Nationals to the Greens?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, I think Andy Green made this point well, I mean the New South Wales coast, particularly the north coast, traditionally dairy farms things like that, has changed. It’s been a massive change in that area. The interesting thing is it’s gone to the Greens, not to Labor, and I think we were always going to have difficulties with the transformational demographic of social change on the north coast but Labor have not been the beneficiaries. The Greens have been the beneficiaries. What that means for Labor, I think, is a very, very difficult question.
BRAMSTON:
Can I ask you one quick question about the north coast. What is your position on coal seam gas, because that was clearly a big vote changer in that region that saw the Nationals lose two seats?
MINISTER MORRISON:
On those sort of issues I’m going to defer to Barnaby Joyce and Ian Macfarlane, other than to say this, it’s predominantly dealt with at a state issue. What I found surprising about the CSG result yesterday in the north coast is the Labor Party scattered these licences for CSG around the state like confetti, and were in part beneficiaries of a swing to them in some of those seats for that.
I think this is a highly, highly impassioned issue, and in some of these seats where there’s swings there is no coal seam gas mining going on. I think it’s an issue which is capturing public attention and there’s a lot of uncertainty about it, and the job of politicians, I think, is to really try and bring some stability into this debate. It’s really a tug-o-war between energy policy and environmental policy, not unlike with open cut coal mines and it’s a very difficult issue for politicians on both sides of politics at a state and federal level.
VAN ONSELEN:
Is that why you don’t want to give us a position? I mean, are you in essence in favour of coal seam gas?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I’m not the Minister for Agriculture, and I’m not the Minister for Industry, so I don’t have a habit of traversing other people’s portfolios. I stick to my own. What I’m saying is it is a very vexed issue, and I think that is displayed in the sort of results that we saw last night. But on that basis, where it was also very strong, was in the seat of Goulburn. I was only down there and around the seat of Wollondilly a week or so ago. Very impassioned views around that issue in that part of New South Wales and Pru Goward, a stunning result for her last night.
KELLY:
Can we just go back to Mike Baird, what’s the key to his success?
MINISTER MORRISON:
As I said, he’s popular but he’s not a populist. I think that’s key to it. Mike Baird is a great bloke, and when people meet him they understand that. He comes from a great political family and a great family full stop.
VAN ONSELEN:
Do you think popularity is in a leader is important without being a populist?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I think what’s important is somebody has conviction and a clear plan and can carry it through. I keep making this point, what Mike Baird did, he just didn’t sell a change, he sold the benefits of change, the benefits of change. And the benefits of a balanced budget, the benefits of a jobs package, the benefits of a small business package and the benefits of a family package is what the Government, our government at a federal level, will be focusing very firmly on.
We can all look at what the sausage machine of that change is and get very involved in that, but the benefits of change are important.
KELLY:
Well, that’s the mistake you’ve made, isn’t it? I mean, you’re sort of implicitly admitting what I was going to ask you, and that is what is the lesson for the Abbott Government? Surely the lesson is that so far, so far at least in the first part of the term, it didn’t sell the benefits of change?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Look, I think that’s a fair point, Paul. I think there was an assumption after the last federal election that there was an appreciation of the benefits of having a balanced budget after the fiscal arsonists that the Labor Party were in government, they left us with this terrible mess. They were the people who ordered the meal and then did a runner on the bill and we’ve been left with it on any number of issues.
VAN ONSELEN:
You guys have had desert though, let’s be honest.
MINISTER MORRISON:
We’ve had desert.
VAN ONSELEN:
There’s a lot of extra spending that has been baked into the budget as well.
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, I don’t accept that Peter. I know you have that view, as do others, but no, I don’t accept that. Our budget policy is based fully on offsets, I mean you know how tough Mathias Cormann is. You want to bring a proposal to the table like I did with reversing the cuts to homelessness funding, $230 million over two years, then I had to find offsets for that in my portfolio. That’s what’s gone through the budget process.
KELLY:
Now, let’s just take your formula about the Premier, he’s popular, but he’s not a populist. Does that apply to Tony Abbott?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, I don’t think Tony would pretend he’s popular, and he’s certainly not a populist, Tony is – – –
KELLY:
That means he can’t produce the Mike Baird technique then?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, I don’t think that’s the right analysis, Paul. I think…
KELLY:
What is then?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Every individual is different. Mike Baird has that winning smile and that incredible natural charm.
KELLY:
Does Tony Abbott have a winning smile?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Which only a few people are blessed with.
VAN ONSELEN:
Tony Abbott’s down from the Campbell Newman cut, isn’t he?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I mean, look, I’ve seen other charismatic politicians, people of great capacity as well who haven’t been able to succeed in politics. I remember back in 2003 John Brogden was one of the strongest political talents I ever saw, but frankly in 2003 we got a result which was not unlike what Labor got last night, pretty much the same. I would put Labor’s result last night more in the context of where we were in the early 2000s not in the late 2000s.
VAN ONSELEN:
At the time in 2003 you said that result was a good stepping stone to government. You were the State Director.
MINISTER MORRISON:
It was the first time that we had, frankly, not lost a seat in Torrens to Labor in quite a long time around the country, so it was a turning point for us at the time. Look, it was still a very, very long way back. What I think happened last night is – I mean Luke Foley was making the point about where they’ll be in four years – well, if he continues to go down the reactionary path of voting against everything the New South Wales people voted for yesterday, then I think he’ll get a message again at the next election.
What it was for Mike Baird is this is a platform now for Mike Baird’s government. He finished Barry O’Farrell’s first term last night, and now the Baird term commences in earnest. He is going back after the ground that we lost last night. I think that shows strength and confidence.
VAN ONSELEN:
We have largely been talking about the New South Wales election, but let’s move into your portfolio area, if we can. I want to talk about this idea of whether or not your changes to the pension constitute a cut or not. Now, Labor is saying they constitute a cut, but obviously pensions continue to rise, but the level of the indexation is what you’re looking to bring down. That’s an acceptable summary, isn’t it?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Two points I make. You’re right, pensions are going up. They’ve gone up by more than 6% since the last election and importantly they have gone up higher than wages growth, but also they have gone up and we’ve maintained the carbon tax compensation, which, let’s not forget, is worth $14.10 a fortnight to a single pensioner and $21.20 for a couples pensioner.
So we got rid of the Carbon Tax and we kept the compensation in that. Now, a cut of $14.10 to the pension for a single pensioner real-time right now would be a significant issue. We kept that. The debate we’re having now, whether it’s on indexation or anything else, is about what this long-term sustainability is of the pension and these types of payments more broadly.
Now, the Intergenerational Report shows that by the end of that projection period that outlays in that area will be 3.6% of GDP if we do nothing, $2.7% if we make a change. Now, in today’s dollar terms that is $14.4 billion or thereabouts in today’s budget. Now, that would wipe out our contribution to the NDIS. That is double, double what the childcare package would be, just even what it is today.
So our argument is we’ve got to have a conversation about the sustainability of these payments. I am not wedded and the Government is not wedded to a particular way we do that. We have a measure on the table, sure, but the Labor Party is saying it’s OK, there’s no need to change anything, there’s no need to even turn up to a debate and that’s the same policy reactionary approach we saw rejected last night in New South Wales.
VAN ONSELEN:
If the Labor Party ends up staying in that position, if they stay there in the lead up to the next election, then that clearly has problems.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Would you agree that’s their position?
VAN ONSELEN:
At the moment I would agree it is, but this is the year of ideas, Scott Morrison, so you never know.
MINISTER MORRISON:
It’s a bit of a wasteland from the Labor Party’s point of view, we’ve sent out the probe, no life on Planet Ideas with Bill Shorten.
VAN ONSELEN:
Here’s what a lot of people think should happen with the pension. They don’t agree with reducing the level of indexation, effectively reducing the level of indexation, they think eligibility to the pension is what needs to change, but you’ve already ruled that out.
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, I haven’t. What I’ve said is that the family home, the principal place of residence, would not be in the assets test, but there are two ways you can deal with this issue over time. Obviously there’s a way you deal with a different rate of increase over time, and let’s be clear what that current proposal is, and that is to use the CPI indexation as a bridge from the current arrangements to arrangements that would track average weekly earnings over time.
That is what’s currently on the table with a three-year adequacy review, so the pension would still go up every six months, and then on top of that there is the safety net of an adequacy review. This is a conversation that will continue. These changes wouldn’t take effect until 2017, so there’s plenty of time, but the other point I was going to make is that whether it’s COTA or National Seniors or ACOSS they will make the argument, as they have, about the broader issue of eligibility and taper rates on assets and things of that nature for people’s current resources.
VAN ONSELEN:
You are open to change then?
MINISTER MORRISON:
We are open to finding a way to make the pension sustainable. We don’t think having a situation that leads you to not being able to absorb the NDIS and the Commonwealth’s contribution is an outcome that we think is acceptable, and we have to get to a better place on this. We’re prepared to have that discussion.
KELLY:
But are you making any progress? I mean you’ve sent the message, you’ve sent the message again today, you’re prepared to negotiate, you’re prepared to sit down, you’re prepared to look at different options, are you making any progress at all with the Senate or with the crossbenchers in the Senate?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I’m a patient man, Paul.
KELLY:
Are you making any progress?
MINISTER MORRISON:
At this stage there’s been no great reaction to what we put forward, but we are patient, because these measures are for the long-term. These measures come into effect where we would like to have something in place by 2017. Now, that gives us a long time to work through this debate.
We just had a discussion about the importance of taking people with you and the benefits of these sorts of changes. I think that’s exactly the situation we’re in right now. So whether it’s on issues of how pensions are indexed for the future, or whether it’s on issues of how it’s constructed and its eligibility, I think these issues have all been put on the table in the debate. We’re part of that debate. The Labor Party is not part of that debate, because they’re happy to have a situation where $14.4 billion or thereabouts would be loaded on to the budget with no offsets, which could as I said at the Press Club a few weeks ago, the welfare budget will eat the budget, it will overwhelm the budget unless we have some sensible management of it into the future.
KELLY:
OK, this leads to the critical question, given you’re convinced the present situation is not sustainable, if at the end of the day the crossbenchers don’t come to the party and you can’t cut a deal do you stand by the announced reform, and do you put the announced reform with the new indexation measure to the Parliament?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves. What I…
KELLY:
No, no, we’re not getting ahead of ourselves. Because this is the announced government policy. We can’t be getting ahead of ourselves. It’s a highly pertinent question.
MINISTER MORRISON:
This is the proposal that’s on the table at the moment. What I’m inviting crossbenchers, in fact the Labor Party, they’re still welcome to the come to the debate if they want to, about what is the long-term sustainability of these outlays and we’re happy to engage on that across a whole range of issues.
I’ve had much better engagement with stakeholders like ACOSS and National Seniors and the Council of the Ageing who are much prepared to engage in the sorts of changes that can be done. Obviously the principal place of residence is off the table in terms of being in the assets test. Something that we look…
VAN ONSELEN:
Why is that? You can live in a $5 million home and still get the pension?
MINISTER MORRISON:
You tell me if the Valuer General in New South Wales or anywhere else in the country struggles to get the unimproved value of land right every time to set rates and other things, how on earth do you think they’re going to go around and get a proper assessment on the commercial value of everybody’s house?
VAN ONSELEN:
Is that the only reason that you’re against it?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I have a more fundamental objection to it, because that is the principal place of residence and has a special place in our society and in people’s lives and the way they have invested in it, but I think there are just practical issues there. This is always put up, no-one thinks about it as we think about it, what’s the practical implications of implementing that policy?
I said at the Press Club I think it’s just a dumb idea, so I don’t intend to pursue it. But that doesn’t mean that you can work off the principle which says as people age they have assets and they have resources, beyond their principal place of residence and the welfare system is about helping people who need it, not people who think they are entitled to it. There’s a big difference between those two things.
KELLY:
Can we come back to the fundamental question now, you’ve made it clear before, you’ve made it clear publicly that you don’t like the idea of putting measures to the Senate, unless you’re pretty confident they are going to pass the Senate, which is fair enough.
Is that the principle that you will apply in relation to this welfare indexation change? Is that the principle that you will live by?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I have always said on welfare indexation issue that I’m open to other alternatives.
KELLY:
I know that.
MINISTER MORRISON:
And I am, and I believe we’ll get to a position where we’ll have better alternatives on this and the combination of them will be worked out over the next 18 months or so. What we believe taking forward, and what we will take forward to the next election is our ongoing plans for a sustainable welfare system and we’ll have that. The Labor Party thinks…
KELLY:
You’ll take to the next election the declared policy that’s now on the table?
MINISTER MORRISON:
That’s not what I said, Paul. What I said is we’re still working through that. How that survives and in what form it looks like and what we’re saying as a government is we’re open to discussion, we’re open to change, we’re open to negotiation, we’re open to compromise, and that’s the process I’m engaged in.
This is not some sort of ideological pursuit. This is a practical question about how you manage the sustainability of the welfare net of future generations of Australians.
KELLY:
So, do you accept that this could well be an election issue front and centre in 2016?
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, I don’t believe it will be. Because I believe…
KELLY:
Why, why? Because you can’t get through – I mean you don’t seem to be able to get any compromise through the Parliament.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Perhaps I have greater confidence in our ability and in my ability to ensure we can get to a better place than we’re at today and it’s based on my faith on some of those crossbenchers, and perhaps a vain hope that the Labor Party might understand that the welfare net that we want to be sustainable at current times on current projections won’t be, and that they will have a concern about, not just the current set of beneficiaries for the welfare system, but future beneficiaries who will depend on it.
I wouldn’t like this to be an issue of which there is great polarity at the next election, I would prefer for us all to be on the same page of this. I think what happened yesterday is the fear campaign of negative reactionary politics, which is exactly what we’re seeing from the Labor Party on the pension. The Labor Party’s policy on the pension is to scare pensioners. They’ve got no plan to ensure the sustainability of the pension. They’ve got no plan to actually pay for the NDIS. The NDIS is only funded 40% by the levy.
Now, where they think the balance of that is going to come from and how the welfare system will absorb the NDIS, the most important reform to our welfare system, I think in a generation, that’s the question for Labor. We will have a plan to fund that and to make sure it’s there. At the moment Labor has a gaping black hole.
VAN ONSELEN:
But if you’re looking to try to woo the crossbenchers in the Senate to support your legislation or any other government legislation, how does calling them feral fit into that tactical approach?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, look, I’m not going to get into that, Peter. I know you get very excited about the rhetoric of all of these things. I think the Prime Minister was making a comment about a whole range of issues and some frustrations we have. But it’s up to all of us to continue to engage not just with the crossbench. I don’t know why the Labor Party are constantly given a leave pass on these debates.
It is the year of the ideas, and the best they’ve come up with is a jobs tax. I’m not surprised that the only idea they’ve come up with is a tax, but a tax that basically wouldn’t pay for one year of the National Affordable Housing Agreement. They haven’t turned up to the table on ideas or reform and Bill Shorten’s, I think, biggest problem after last night and the events of the last eight weeks is the Labor Party will be asking has Bill Shorten peaked, has Bill Shorten peaked. That’s his worst nightmare and I don’t think he’s sleeping so well at the moment.
BRAMSTON:
Can I ask about your crossbench negotiations you’ve just been referring to, Mr Morrison, have you met with all the crossbenchers and how have you found them in discussions in person or on phone?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Look, I’ve always had a very good relationship with the crossbenchers, in particular people like Nick Xenophon and Ricky Muir, who were very pivotal to the decision on the Temporary Protection Visas last year, equally with David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day I’ve had very good discussions with. I’ll be catching up with Nick next week when I’m in South Australia.
The discussion we’re having is actually about let’s get an understanding of what the problem is, and whether we can agree that there is a problem about the sustainability of our welfare system, and whether that is on how we get young people into work. And I had a great passionate conversation particularly with Ricky about getting young people into work. That is an issue he feels very strongly about. Bob Day had a great conversation about families and how we get families into work and staying in work, and more generally we’ve been talking about how we get older people as they age to continue where they’re healthy, to stay and in work and to use their own resources as much as possible so we can help those who need it most.
So we’re talking about what the problem is and what the issues are. Then you move to the issue of our respective views of what the measures are to address those problems, but at the moment I think we need to come to terms with the problem that needs to be solved and that’s the focus of the conversation at the moment.
BRAMSTON:
Have you been able to meet or talk with all of the crossbenchers?
MINISTER MORRISON:
I haven’t met with Jacqui Lambie as yet on this and I haven’t met with Glenn after the changes, they’ve been quite focused on some of the other measures going through the Senate, it was a very busy last parliamentary session. As I said I’ve got patience on this. There is time on this. This is not an issue that needs to be resolved in the next 10 minutes, and I continue to work it through, because we’re not walking away from the need to make changes that produce a sustainable safety net for future Australians, we’re not walking away from that. Measures themselves, they’re the features. The benefits are the things that I remain absolutely committed to, and that is a welfare system that future generations can rely on.
Because what we’re facing now, people leaving school today, people being born today, they cannot be sure there will be an age pension when they come to that position in life if we keep going the way we are. And that is an unthinkable proposition, I think, for most Australians, but I think we need to get a better understanding of that risk.
We always look at who’s better off or worse off in the next five minutes when it comes to political analysis of policy in this country. What about the next generation? Will they be better off or worse off? They’re the questions we’re asking as a government.
BRAMSTON:
Can I ask you about your welfare reform package and then I guess also your proposed changes to the pension scheme, although they are yet to be finalised. Are you looking at these two measures, welfare reform and the pension as revenue measures for the Government that could make savings in the budget to help bring the budget back to surplus?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, that is an outcome, but it’s not the driving issue. It’s about how you can get all of these welfare payments in terms of their eligibility and their focus tight and being able to be accommodated by the budget over the long-term. I mentioned it before the difference between 3.6% of GDP and 2.7% of GDP is what the competing trajectories are on these payments.
Labor’s approach is 3.6%. That is $14.4 billion higher than what our trajectory is based on the current things that are on the table. Now, I think that is worth having a look at and worth committing to try and solve over the longer term. On pensions, I mean what we’ve seen from Bill Shorten, is they came up with the raiding of pensioners bank accounts, the trousering of their bank accounts. We have reversed that. I think that combined with the pension increases we’ve seen since the election should demonstrate and I think it does, our good faith that we want to ensure pensioners have a sustainable adequate payment that supports them in retirement, but it has got to go to those who need it most.
KELLY:
The Government has sent conflicting messages about the return to surplus. What is the policy on the surplus?
MINISTER MORRISON:
That we will return to surplus as soon as we can.
KELLY:
Do you agree with Tony Abbott’s statement that a deficit of between 50% and 60% of GDP is not too bad at all?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, I don’t agree that what is his statement was, Paul.
KELLY:
That’s what he said.
MINISTER MORRISON:
No, no, the context of what he said was there are two trajectories that have come out of the last budget. Our legislated measures get us to about 50% of where Labor’s trajectory debt was going, which was 120% of GDP, by the way. That’s Bill Shorten’s plan, 120% of debt to GDP.
Our current trajectory on legislated measures is half of that. He said there was more to do and we want it to get to that 0%. That’s where we want the trajectory to head and that’s what our measures are designed to do. Now the benefits of that to the economy, the benefits of that to the sustainability of payments, the benefits of that to small businesses and families are extreme. That’s the message that we obviously have the challenge to sell between now and the next election.
KELLY:
How important is it in political terms, do you think, for the Government to look credible on the surplus?
MINISTER MORRISON:
Well, it’s obviously important. Fiscal responsibility is critical to any government and the Coalition governments have a strong track record on these issues and I believe we’re living up to that track record.
But how soon we get there, while you maintain the growth in the economy and that you move incrementally in a measured way, and consistently and methodically towards that goal is what this government is doing, and we have a plan to do that, and that was demonstrated in the forward estimates from last year’s budget. It will be demonstrated in the forward estimates of this year’s budget.
Bill Shorten’s plan, 120% of debt to GDP. That’s his plan and his festival of no ideas has come up with nothing, frankly, not surprisingly, to address that issue.
VAN ONSELEN:
But you’re in power now, and when you came into power, irrespective of what you have to do to change the trajectory, debt to GDP in the low teens, now Tony Abbott talking about how it mightn’t be too bad a result if it gets to 50% or 60%…
MINISTER MORRISON:
Peter, I’ve got to stop you there. Because I know this keeps being repeated that somehow there’s this suggestion we think that’s an acceptable outcome and the Prime Minister does. He does not think that and you can say it as often as you like, but he does not think that. The Government does not think that.
50% is not an acceptable outcome and it’s not the outcome we’re seeking. The outcome we’re seeking is better than that and the outcome that’s being blocked by the Parliament currently is that better outcome. Now, we remain committed to getting the better outcome. We remain committed to it.
VAN ONSELEN:
But he did say that 50% to 60% is a pretty good result compared to other countries?
MINISTER MORRISON:
What he was talking about was compared to the trajectory of 120% of debt to GDP. Now, I’m not sure you would think that half of 120% is not a better outcome than 120%. I mean surely you would agree with that? I’m not about to call you fiscally irresponsible, heaven forbid.
VAN ONSELEN:
But the issue, though, I guess, when or at what point in time is the government going to decide it’s on its watch the debt that is continuing to mount. It can be like turning around a cruise ship. It can take a long time to do. But initially when Joe Hockey came in and he put down MYEFO at the end of 2013 he said this is the moment in time in which there are no more excuses.
We had the Prime Minister at one point say that we will get back to broad balance in 2017. Now, that date has crept out. You are getting blocked in the Senate and so forth, there’s issues there. But at what point do you stop just saying Labor’s responsible for 120% of debt to GDP, when they left office it was in the low teens?
MINISTER MORRISON:
The politics is always a relative business. It’s a choice. It’s always a choice and there are two choices on offer here, and ours is a lower debt future for Australia. That’s the clear outtake of the positions of both the Opposition and the government today. And we are in government and we are working to bring down the trajectory of that debt.
As I said earlier in the interview, Labor ordered the meal and then ran off when the cheque came. They did a runner on the bill. Now, we’re having to deal with the consequences of that, whether it’s ensuring that we can absorb the NDIS, the most significant generational reform to our welfare system that we’ve seen, and we are committed to getting that absorbable and sustainable in the budget.
But to not be able to address any other issues of government outlays because of the political reactionary approach of the Labor Party which we saw rejected in New South Wales last night, my message to Bill Shorten is the low road’s not good enough, Bill, it’s not good enough. That was rejected in New South Wales last night. This government has got a plan to reduce the trajectory of debt, to support families, small business and create jobs, and I encourage him to stop taking the opportunistic, opportunist approach that we’ve seen him take. People deserve better than that and they’ll get it from our government.
VAN ONSELEN:
Scott Morrison, thanks for joining us on Australian Agenda.
MINISTER MORRISON:
Thanks very much, Peter.