Sky News AM Agenda with David Lipson and the Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP
E&OE
DAVID LIPSON:
Let’s get the political reaction immediately. The Assistant Minister for Social Services, Mitch Fifield, and the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh join me on the program. Senator Fifield, good morning to you. No bombs, but armed combat has begun?
MITCH FIFIELD:
That’s right. That’s the advice of the Chief of the Australian Defence Force. I think all Australians will be happy that the first foray by ADF personnel has been concluded safely. The mission obviously will have many iterations. This is the first. But we’re all very pleased that the pilots have returned safely.
LIPSON:
Andrew Leigh?
ANDREW LEIGH:
It’s important to remember why we’re in the Middle East, and it’s to degrade the capacity of IS to engage in its bloodthirsty rampage through northern Iraq. Hopefully the Iraqi Government will be able to work to get the situation under control, and Labor will be watching closely to ensure that this mission sits within the bipartisan parameters which we’ve laid out.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, we’re also awaiting the 200 or so special forces soldiers’ movement into Iraq. They’ll be supporting the Iraqi army, and yesterday we heard the Defence Minister say he was fairly optimistic of the mission ahead in terms of the time scale. I know that we don’t want to put any definitive time on how long our troops will be on the ground there, but do you have any sense on how long they might be there, how dangerous the mission will be, and what your thoughts and hopes are for it?
FIFIELD:
In terms of timing, the mission for ADF personnel will take as long as it takes to complete. I don’t think it’s helpful to put any arbitrary time frames around that, and obviously the Minister for Defence will keep the nation updated. I think one of the positive things here is the bipartisanship that there has been. The Government and the Opposition together recognising that ISIL is a threat, not just to Iraq, not just to the region, but also to the wider world. And we’re very pleased to be able to stand square with our coalition partners to do everything we possibly can to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
LIPSON:
Andrew Leigh, that bipartisanship only extends to the Iraqi border, not to Syria. Could that position change if this conflict evolves?
LEIGH:
David we haven’t received any word from the Prime Minister that he believes there’s a strong case for Australian forces to operate within Syria. Certainly at this stage he’s asked for Labor’s support for a mission within Iraq, and that’s what we’ve given. We’ve also laid down other conditions, that this has to be working in cooperation with the Iraqi Government. It’s a mission which rests on that premise. And also that if there are suggestions of abuse by Iraqi troops, that that would call into question Labor’s support for this mission, as would the use of (inaudible) combat troops on the ground. From Labor’s point of view this is very much an Air Forces and Special Forces operation only.
LIPSON:
The cost will be significant as well in dollar figures. $500 million a year is the estimate that’s been given by the Government. Mitch Fifield, add to that $630 million for boosting our intelligence agencies here in Australia. This is going to impact on the budget, and yesterday the Finance Minister Mathias Cormann wouldn’t rule out anything, including tax increases. This is some of what Mathias Cormann had to say yesterday:
MATHIAS CORMANN (excerpt):
From where I sit now, I’m not going to rule anything in or rule anything out. Obviously to the extent that there are changes, you’ve got to address them. And to the extent that there’s additional expenditure, or less revenue, or lower savings, it is self-evident that you have to make some adjustments. And we will make those adjustments as required in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, is the Government considering tax increases?
FIFIELD:
I think as you saw Mathias Cormann say there, military exercises, military deployments, obviously do have a cost. And where there are expenditures that a government may not have been anticipating, then adjustments will need to be made. And there’s no point in me speculating on those. Those will be addressed by the Treasurer and the Finance Minister in the ordinary course of events.
But David, I think it’s important to point out that there is actually something – in the broader budget context – that the Opposition can do to help here. And that is to facilitate the passage through the Senate of some of the savings measures that the Government has put forward. Now we have got many of our budget measures through, and that’s a good thing. But we would be in a much better budget position today if the Opposition had facilitated more of our budget measures. And I’ll just take one example, that being the social services budget measures which there was a bit of talk about last week in the Parliament. Labor ultimately have agreed to support some of those measures. We could have got those through the Senate last week. We would have allowed Labor to delete some of the items that they weren’t supportive of to allow the passage of those that they were supportive of. But in an act of sheer bloody-mindedness the Opposition made us reintroduce, in a special bill, those measures that they supported. They could have in fact had those supported and through the Senate earlier if they had just taken a common sense approach.
LIPSON:
Andrew Leigh, Labor supports the mission in Iraq, but yesterday you attacked the Government for leaving open the option of tax increases. Is that fair?
LEIGH:
David the view we’ve taken is that the Government has made some seriously problematic decisions since coming to office for the budget. They’ve said no to the revenue from the carbon price, a measure which is not only environmentally good but also adds somewhere between $12 to $20 billion to the bottom line. They’ve said no to the mining tax and they’ve said no to around 60 tax measures which were in the pipeline when the Government took office. That includes things like fairly taxing multinationals, so they’ve said no to a billion dollars of revenue there. And they’ve said no to a slightly higher rate of tax on those with more than $2 million in their superannuation account.
LIPSON:
But as Mitch said, this is an unexpected expense, our involvement in Iraq. It’s unforseen. If you support the mission itself, don’t you have to support a way to pay for it?
LEIGH:
Well absolutely David. And it’s important that the fiscal burden is evenly shared across the community. I don’t think that’s achieved by cutting back on the pension, cutting health and education, while at the same time, giving more to those at the top of the distribution. If you look at the superannuation changes, this is a Government which is able to find money in its coffers for people with $2 million in their super accounts, but at the same time wants to cut back on supports for the most vulnerable. The procedural point that Mitch has gone to is simply the fact that if a government expects to get opposition support for its legislation, we thought it was appropriate that it split the bill and eventually the Government came to its senses.
FIFIELD:
We were prepared to do that in the Senate.
LIPSON:
Mitch Fifield, all wrapped up in this increased impost on the budget, of course, is the ageing population. And reports today that the Intergenerational Report, which we were expecting at the end of this year, is being delayed until next year. Why is that?
FIFIELD:
The timing of the Intergenerational Report is a matter for the Treasurer. But I should point out, David, that it was Peter Costello – a Coalition Government – that actually came up with the concept of the Intergenerational Report and introduced it in the first place. Because we thought that it was important that the Australian public and the Australian Parliament got to have a medium to long-term view of the revenue challenges and the expenditure challenges that the nation faces. Now we’ve been endeavouring to address those in our first budget. Labor have not been assisting us to address those at all. If the Opposition want to demonstrate that they’ve learnt something from the last election, that they’ve learned something from their debt and deficit budgets, then what they need to do is get out of the way and to facilitate the passage of our reasonable budget savings measures. Budgets don’t get back into surplus on their own. They need governments to take decision. We’ve taken decisions, and the Opposition should be responsible and support those.
LIPSON:
Labor’s shown no sign of doing that, being willing to do that, and as such, with the Government’s promise still intact to its budget surplus target – or budget revenue and budget deficit targets – have you been asked in your portfolio areas, specifically the NDIS, to search for any further savings?
FIFIELD:
No. I have not been asked to cut the NDIS. Our commitment is clear. It was there in the last budget. We have made full funding provision for the NDIS. But obviously it is the responsibility of all ministers to always be looking for areas of unnecessary expenditure. We should always be looking to do better in our portfolios. There’s no excuse for ministers to sit back and rest on their laurels. We’ve got to make sure that taxpayers get bang for their buck. That we’re always looking to make sure that we can spend taxpayer dollars in the best and most efficient way possible.
LIPSON:
Andrew Leigh, the last Intergenerational Report in 2010 found the government would be spending two and three quarter per cent more than it’s raising by 2040, because fewer taxpayers will be funding the high expense of an ageing population. Should Labor be helping the Government more to achieve some of its savings, as Mitch has urged you to do?
LEIGH:
David even if the Parliament simply rubber stamps the budget, the deficit would be bigger than when the Government came to office, not smaller, because all the revenue measures they said no to. I think the Intergenerational Report is an important part of the public conversation. It focuses attention on demographics, which is one critical aspect. But it can’t just be a Liberal Party press release. And the reason that Chris Bowen has now called on the Intergenerational Report to move into the hands of the Parliamentary Budget Office is because we’re seeing too much politicisation of the Intergenerational Report by this Government. Now the timing being determined not by what’s right for Australia, but what’s right for Joe Hockey’s political timetable. I’d like to see an Intergenerational Report that looks at the issue of climate change, the impact that sea level rises will have on coastal communities, and indeed on industries like the ski fields or agriculture, which we know are going to be impacted by dangerous climate change. So there’s a range of big intergenerational questions to be considered. But I think that needs to be done in a non-partisan way, rather than a deeply politicised one.
LIPSON:
We’re going to take a quick break here on AM Agenda, and we’ll be crossing to Hong Kong ahead of the deadline for those protests on the streets right after this.
*BREAK*
I’m still joined by our political panel this morning, Mitch Fifield and Andrew Leigh. I want to get your thoughts on the protests in Hong Kong. Mitch Fifield, what should the protesters do? Do you support them as they continue to occupy the streets there?
FIFIELD:
I think David, the view of the Australian Government, and I’m sure that’s shared by the community as a whole, is that we want to see all sides exercise restraint. We want to see this situation reach a peaceful resolution. And ultimately, the unique political and judicial freedoms that are enjoyed in Hong Kong, that they be preserved.
LIPSON:
Andrew Leigh, do you think they should maintain their protest? They’ve been given a pretty good run, and there are frustrations in the community about the fact that large parts of the city have shut down for business and for residents. At what point do you reckon they should give up? Or is there no point?
LEIGH:
David I’m not in the business of being an adviser to protesters. But I am fascinated, as an economist, to be watching the changes occurring here. I think China has made a mistake in moving on Hong Kong in the way it has. Hong Kong’s unique status is a great asset to China. Its share of world financial flow is, I think last time I checked, was about one twentieth. And the risk to China as a whole of seeing those financial flows move, for example, into Singapore or indeed even Sydney is considerable. Shanghai just isn’t ready to take on the role of financial capital. And when I talk to my Chinese friends, I do get a real sense that the crackdown in Hong Kong is sending ripples right through the Chinese financial system. Real concerns about the extent to which the new regime is going to be able to maintain that economic openness which has characterised the success of the Chinese regime over the last few decades.
LIPSON:
Just a few minutes on the program, I do want to touch on one final issue. And that is a report compiled by paediatricians has found that 80% of paediatricians in this country believe that the detention of children asylum seekers offshore is abuse. Mitch Fifield, what’s the Government’s response to these sorts of claims from people who do know?
FIFIELD:
David ultimately the Government doesn’t want to see any children in detention. That’s part of the purpose of Operation Sovereign Borders, is to break once and for all the people smuggler’s business model. To not see boats on the high seas. To not see people in harm’s way. If that is successful, which to date it largely has been, then we won’t have any children, in fact we won’t have any one, in detention. But it’s important to look at the recent context here. Under the previous government, 8,000 children came by boat. And in fact, in the middle of 2013, there were 2,000 children in detention under the previous government. Our objective is to make sure that there are no children in detention.
LIPSON:
There are essentially no children arriving by boat now, Andrew Leigh. But would taking children off Nauru start that flow again?
LEIGH:
David I think the decent treatment of asylum seekers is absolutely vital. There’s two issues surrounding children. One is the one that Mitch referred to – of preventing deaths at sea. And one of the reasons that Labor brought in the refugee resettlement agreement was to prevent the deaths of people at sea including children. But I am concerned by some of the reports we’ve seen over the treatment of asylum seekers in detention. And certainly Labor welcomes the independent inquiry that’s been announced. We’ve had two asylum seekers die in Australian custody, and that raises concerns for me about the treatment of Australian asylum seekers.
LIPSON:
Andrew Leigh, Mitch Fifield, we are out of time. Thank you very much for your company this morning on AM Agenda.