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.
Interview With Joe Hockey MP On Budget 2012 -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) isn't going to raise as much

as the Government is already

committed to spending from

its proceedings. For more in

terms of the Opposition

reaction to this, I'm now

joined by the Shadow

Treasurer Joe Hockey. Welcome. What's your

overall reaction to this

Budget? Well it's a confused

economic message. And if it's

about Labor values, then the

Labor values are that they

don't tell the truth. Where

have they not told the truth?

Well for a start Wayne Swan

says he's coming back to

surplus on the basis of

savings. What he's coming

back to surplus on is an

increase in revenue of $39

billion in one year. $34

billion of tax. Secondly,

they are shuffling money

between years. Infrastructure

spending, they have brought

forward from July to June, so

it's not in the next

financial year, that's over $1 billion.

$1 billion. The Government's

also bringing forward

payments to families, and

using underspins to pay for

that. If all of that was

actually in the following

financial year it would wipe

out the so-called surplus

immediately. Let me ask you about these family #35i789

which is is the cornerstone

of -- payments which is the

cornerstone of tonight's

budget will you support

them? The family tax benefit

A payment s we are inclined to support because by that

stage the carbon tax will be

in place. Allowance changing

we are also inclined to

support but the one off sugar

hit, which is claimed to be

part of education, but is, in

fact, all about the carbon

tax, we are not going to

support. The school kids

bonus you won't support? It's

got nothing to do with school

kids it's everything to do

with the carbon tax. Is your

concern about that, there is no Is your concern about that

there is no requirement for

parents to spend that on

education, there is an

assumption they will but no

requirement for them to hand

in receipts? You know Dave,

and I know, it's got nothing

to do with education, it's

got everything to do with

Julia Gillard's electoral

pain. Julia Gillard and Wayne

Swan, aren't going to be

around to see whether they

actually end up with a

surplus or not. They are

going to leave the heavy

lifting to someone else, Bill Shorten or Kevin Rudd or maybe there will be an election and there will be a

change, who knows. So you

would prefer to revert to the

education tax rebate as it was previously structured

where parent has to hand in

receipts? It is another person's money. Is it is

another person's money,

taxpayers money, is someone

else's hard earned money. And

if you just write out a

cheque to others, it

actually, it is a gift. And

quite frankly, people work

damn hard for their money

and, if you are handing out

taxpayers money there should

be a level of accountability

associated with it. So you

won't support that but the

bigger spending items when

you put them together are the

family tax payment and the

supplementary aallowance thu

have announced tonight you

have said you are inclined to

support those how are you going to pay for them without

the mix. The Pike River Coal

Mine ing tax has dropped in

revenue -- the mining tax has

dropped in revenue it is now

going to raise 9.7

billion. Over four years it

is now more than 13

billion. No-one is taking the

numbers service seriously and that's the

challenge. Treasury is. You

watch. You watch. But still

you are going to have to find

the money from somewhere

without the mining tax. The

starting point is public

service in Canberra is still

around 20,000 employees more

than what the Labor Party

inherited in 2007. But there

is, a contradiction here, you

opposed the company tax cut

bass it was linked to the

mining tax now you are supporting the family

payments but they are also

linked to the mining tax. No,

I don't see how they are

linked to the mining tax.

They are out of revenue. They

are straight out of revenue.

They have got nothing to do

with the mining tax. It is

not hithcated there is no

lease situation to that

effect T is a revenue

payment, so it is Government spin. Couldn't you have said the same about the company

tax cuts though.? No because

they were part of the package

the Labor Party said to the electorate. They were

separate pieces to the legislation. They were part of a package the Labor Party

went to the election on, and

the interesting thing is,

they say the mining tax has

delivered this great wind

fall dividend but the

interesting thing from our

per expectative they have

dumped five of the spending

initiatives associated with

the mining tax. I am unclear

where you will find the money

to pay for the family benefits? You will find out

when the next election is

held there may well be a

scheduled budget between now

and the next election. That

adds to the burden though in

terms of finding terms of finding money. You

will see. Did Do we really

have to wait until... Have

you to do... But I think

voters want to see what your

plans are before then. Last

year I sat here and you were saying isn't it great that

they are only delivering a

$22 billion deficit this

year. I'm not surfy said

that. It turned out to be $44 billion, they forecast they

were going to have 4% growth

they had 3% growth. This is

the thing, what Labor

promises they do not deliver.

So we don't know what we are

going to start the next

election campaign with, all

we know is whatever Labor

promises they do not

deliver. Now, let me go to

the spending cuts in

tonight's Budget. They target

defence, public service, the

foreign aid budget, a raft of

other areas are there any you

are concerned about that We

will need to go through the

details. Nothing is jumping

out you say... I will not

speculate we will need to go

through the details. There

are pretty heavy cuts in the

public service, is there room

for Mr Cuts in the public

service? There is 20,000 more

public servants today than

what inherited in 2007. You

think there is more

room? There has to be more

room, has to be. That is one

area you will look at? We

will look at that. Can you

tell me about the defence

cuts, are you inclined to

raise a concern... We can't

do anything about the defence

cuts because they are part of

the prop writations so we

can't stop those cut

cuts. You can restore the money? All they are doing is

delaying part of the expenditure. Particularly in

relation to the Joint Strike

Fighter. And foreign aid? Well, the Government's

made a decision we can't

overturn that. So, you are

not going to criticise it,

will not raise any concerns

about it? They have broken

the promise. Why is it our

issue, they have broken their

promise. But do you - are

you comfortable about

that? No, what a Government

breaking a promise, I am used

to the Government breaking

promises. Does that concern

you? Have to have these cuts

and if the Government was running surpluses you

wouldn't need to have foreign

aid cuts. Has the Government

taken stolen some your

thunder in some of these cuts? No. These weren't some

of the things you pencilled

in. We will see. Sounds like

it may have been. Don't get

out a crystal ball, let's