Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) people and particularly our

children who are going to

bear the burden of this in

the future. Now shadow Attorney-General Senator

George Brandis joins us from Canberra. Good morning Good

morning. As part of the

Senate inquiry process as

requested the secretary

Treasury Ken Henry has spoken

and he has answered questions

and he has told the Senate in

no uncertain terms a smaller

package, any package smaller

than this, would heed to

recession so are you

persuaded? No, we are not.

The Opposition proposes to vote against this package

when it comes to a vote in

the Senate next week not

because we do not accept that

the measure of stimulation of

the economy is necessary but

because we say the spending

in this package is too

extravagant and the targeting

of the measures in the package are poor. So you will

vote against this package?

There is no negotiation about

some amendment or change, you

are just voting it down?

Kevin Rudd is perfectly

welcome to speak to the

Malcolm Turnbull has Leader of the Opposition and

indicated he would be

receptive to any approach

Kevin Rudd might care the

make but the Opposition's

position is as outlined by

Malcolm Turnbull in House of

Representatives earlier this week. Just listening carefully to what you are saying that you do accept

that a measure of stimulation

is needed but Malcolm

Turnbull has not been

involved or consulted so you

are voting it down, is this

Turnbull being peeved he has just all about Malcolm

not had a place at the table

because it seems to be what

it boils down to, protecting legacy of the Coalition when

it comes to being the good

economic managers as Malcolm

Turnbull puts it and having a

seat at the table? There is

no doubt that everybody in

Australia knows that the

Coalition are better second

number are numberic manage%

than the Labor Party. The

voting record in the last federal election would not

seem to indicate that Let me finish. We went out of office

62 weeks ago and gave the

incoming Labor Government a

budget surplus of $21

billion. That position has

deteriorated to the tune of

almost $1 billion a week

since. So there is no doubt

about the legacy of the

Coalition Government. The

point is that expenditure of

public fund is a matter for

the Parliament not for the

executive Government under

the West minister system and

it is absolutely appropriate

for the Parliament to

deliberate upon a measure

particularly a measure of

this magnitude. Yes, but that

was not quite my question. My

question was whether all of

this boils down to the Opposition simply wanting to

have more involvement in this

decision than it has rather

than some Sangin analysis of

the efficacy of the package The Opposition has very deep

concerns of the kind I

expressed an as has been articulated by Malcolm

Turnbull, Peter Costello and

Joe Hockey and Christopher

Pyne and other Opposition

spokesmen. We have very deep

concerns and they are e as bated by one of the measures

in this suite of bills which

is an increase in the lending authority of the Commonwealth

from $75 billion to $200

billion so we are dealing

with a $42 billion poorly targeted expenditure package

but a legislative amendment

which would potentially

expose the Commonwealth to

$200 billion worth of debt.

Now is anyone seriously

saying Parliament should not

look at this carefully? Indeed Parliament should look

already saying you are going at this carefully but you are

to vote it down so it seems

there is not going to be any

careful looking at it in the

next week you have made your

minds up The package in its

current form is unacceptable

to the Opposition as Malcolm

Turnbull indicated in the

House of Representatives

earlier in the week. Do you not accept Western

governments and particularly

governments like it would Australia and other

have to go into a phase now

of borrowing, increasing

their borrowing capacity and

of going into deficit in

times like this? Are you

saying that if the Coalition

was in Government you would

not be in this position at

all? I'm not saying that but

what I am saying is that

Labor deficits are never

temporary. This has been

represented to the public by

Kevin Rudd as a temporary

deficit. When was the last time in Australian history

that a Labor Government took

the country out of deficit?

It is hard though to take the

figures seriously because you

Oberoi Hotel vehicle to 400m

that has been proposed by

Kevin Rudd, the figure you

have come up with seems to be

roughly a half of that,

around $24 billion. How do

you arrive at that figure?

Why is that any more effective? It is our

judgement that is a more

prudent and appropriate

measure Based on what?

Based on our view that in

particular the best way of

dealing with as Dr Henry said

yesterday, what we need to do

is put buying power into the

pockets of consumers and it

is our judgement that the

most simple way to do that is

through a range of tax cuts

which is a measure the

Government has rejected

outright. That is fair

enough. The Government can

have its views but the

Opposition is entitled to its

views and that is what

Parliament is for so the

alternative views as the

right way to deal with this

situation can be debated and

the merits of the alternative

proposals can be exposed to

scrutiny. It is possible to

suggest that the Coalition is

simply peeved that you are

not in charge and you are not

running this yourselves?

Virginia, I'm at pains to

pint out to you that this is a decision for the

Parliament. It is the

Parliament that aprop Yates

money, the Parliament decides

whether to expose the country

to debt and the Parliament

decides what magnitude of

that exposure will be. Just

turning to a side issue I

guess you might describe it

today and there is commentary

and chatter about it in the

papers today. In your view

Peter Costello's reappearance

into the public debate does

that pose any serious threat to Julie Bishop or Malcolm

Turnbull? What it poses a

threat to is Kevin Rudd. I'm

delighted that Peter Costello

participated in this debate.

He gave a very powerful speech in the House of

Representatives on Wednesday.

Peter Costello whose

retrospective reputation as

the most successful Treasurer Australia has ever had grows

by the day is a very welcome

back to the frontline of this

debate. He is not going

anywhere then? I hope Peter

Costello renominates for

Higgins. We will see if he