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 24 10am News -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) she's an won $22,000 on the tour this year.Sorry, Paul, I have to interrupt you there. Joe Hockey, Shadow Treasurer, has just stepped up for a media conference with Andrew Robb and mutias-Cormann.

The Coalition is absolutely committed to living within its means. After six years of Labor getting every sigil Budget number wrong, enough is enough. Today the Coalition is announcing the great bulk of its savings to pay for our election promises and to leave the Budget in slightly better condition prior to the election. The fact of the matter is most of the $31 billion of savings that we're announcing you already know about. The mining tax package has been a disaster for the Budget. It was initially expected to raise more than $40 billion, more than what it has raised. The package is leaving the Budget $18 billion worse off. Secondly, the carbon tax package, as it stands, leaves the Budget $7.5 billion worse off over the forward estimates. In contrast, the Coalition with its paid parental leave scheme, together with the offsetting savings to pay for the scheme, leaves the Budget slightly better off. Now, the Coalition will accept the savings announced by the Government in the updated economic statement released prior to the election. We do accept the savings. We don't like a number of them but we have to do it to be prudent. The only identifiable saving is that we will not accept are the changes to fringe benefits tax for motor vehicles which we will not proceed with in Government. We have gone through a process now for three years. We have worked with the parliamentary Budget office which has, as I understand it, more than 40 staff, many of them former finance and Treasury officials. We have submitted policies to the parliamentary Budget office, received them back, gone through the process and we have submitted them to our independent verification panel which is made up of three eminent Australians. When we release the final figures at the end of the campaign, that in writing that they verification panel will the numbers verification panel will certify
in writing that they the numbers to be accurate. the numbers to be accurate. So there are no great shocks there are no great shocks here. The great there are no great The great shock is that Kevin Rudd is The great shock Rudd is being proven to have made hysterical and un substanch waited claims about the Coalition. There are no cuts to health and education. There is no increase in the GST. There is no $70 billion black hole, in fact so much of what we're doing is trying to fix Labor's black hole. But that will take some period of time. What we've done is had a thorough process, we have released costings during the election for our policies where it involves money. We are releasing the great bulk of our savings today. Nearly three-quarters of the way Opposition has
through the campaign. No Opposition has ever done this. No Opposition has ever released the great bulk of its savings three-quarters of the through the campaign. No-one. We're doing it. We're doing it because we need to re-establish, on behalf of the public service, on behalf of those people that seek to go into office, we're the only ones that can rebuild trust. We're the only ones that can put in place the initiatives that actually help to rebuild the relationship between the community and their elected officials and we do so because it is the proper way to go about delivering confidence and stability in the economy more broadly and confidence in the Budget position specifically. I'm going to ask my colleague, Andrew Robb, to say a few words and then we'll come to questions and deal with some of your more substantial questions. Thanks, ladies and gentlemen. Just a few concluding comments again about the process. To date, we have released around 40 policies and we have on our website now some 500 pages of detail about those policies. By contrast, our opponents, the Labor Party, have released barely 20 policies and five of those are actually press releases. No other detail. Just press releases. Secondly, that detail is just 70 pages on their policy announcement section of their website. Now, the key point is that compared to Labor we've got some 400 pages of comprehensive policy detail so we have the vast majority of our policies out and now we have fully costed all of those policies, every one that's out there has got a full costing, as Joe said it's been through the parliamentary Budget office, but now all of those policies out there are fully funded. Fully funded with the detail we've released today. The process we've gone through is that we have undertaken - and I've been in and around politics 30 years - this is the most rigorous, the most comprehensive process ever undertaken by an Opposition in the leadup to an election. And there are some four key elements to what we've done. Firstly, we've had systematic internal scrutiny. This has gone on for nearly three years now. A series of processes - I've had the policy committee, I've fed thing through to the expenditure review committee which Joe shares. This has been an interim process, backwards and forwards for three years. A very systematic, internal process of scrutiny. Secondly, we've had extensive contact with stakeholders. All of our front bench have been there for the whole three years and their feedback from stakeholders, any questions we have they know whato go to, how to get the information. Again, it has been a very rigorous process. The third thing, and very importantly s the parliamentary Budget office. organisation, remember, was established by this Government. This Government appointed the This Government Budget office. It's an independent intended to be independent parliamentary Budget office, a costing organisation. They appointed the head of former senior finance official and, as Joe said, there's some 40 professionals, many out of Treasury and finance. So we have gone with hundreds of policies to the parliamentary Budget office and then have submitted those policies to our panel of review, three of the most eminent Australians expert in public policy and public finance. You've got Jeff Carmody who was a senior Treasury official who then went and was principal of Access Economics , if not our premiere independent economic organisation in the country for 20 years, and following that he's done - or including that, he's done the costings for at least five campaigns including both sides of politics. He did it for us in 1996, he did it again for Kim Beazley in 2001 and several other campaigns. Len Scanlon, who is the former Queensland auditor-general, work would both sides of politics. And finally Peter Shergold, who's a former secretary of the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, now the chancellor of these people, their credentials, I think, are second to none. Finally, I'd say to you that the contrast has never been greater. We are being far more open and transparent about our policies and our funding than our opponents, without a doubt, and as a consequence the onus is now squarely on the Labor Party to release how they will fund the programs that they have announced especially given the fact that we're seeing now week in week out the debt is continuing to rise by $1.5 billion, now at 270 billion, going up each and every week since Kevin Rudd's been in office by 1.5 billion and we've got to the point where this Government is borrowing to pay the interest on the debt. Now you say to any family, "You're at a point where you're borrowing to pay the interest on your mortgage," and you've got a problem. Labor must come clean how they'll fund their promises and not wait until the day before the election, as they have done both in 2010 and in 2007. Thanks.OK. Over to you. You've said in your opening remarks that this will leave the Budget slightly better off. What's your estimate to date of the cost of policy spends and revenue cuts that you've announced to date? You've said they're out there.Laura, we're releasing our savings, adding to the savings we've already announced but in total our savings are 31.6 billion dollars. We will release the full aggregate of our expenditures when we release all of our policies. We are three-quarters of the way through the campaign. We've released the great bulk of our policies, all of our policies that have costs, have the costs associated with them which we've identified, and today, after Mr Rudd pfted been calling for this for months and weeks and days and hours, we are responding with $31.6 billion. You'll see our total expenditure and our total savings and the fact that it leaves the Budget in net terms in better position prior to the election, that's when we'll have a proper verification. On the paid parental leave scheme, the 1.1 billion that came out ahead, I assume because you're not Franking the levy. What do you say to investors who are investing in companies which will still be effectively paying 30% company tax but lose an income tax credit? I don't accept that the premise. The bottom line is what we are doing is going to make the economy stronger and you've got to look at the package of policies. Our package of cutting company tax by 1.5% means 199 of every 200 companies with villa tax cut. Getting rid of thes that the companies have

Getting rid of the paid parental leave schemes that the companies have mean they will be better off. We're getting rid of the carbon tax which is a cost to the companies. With everything they do from 1 logistics when Julier Ritz a cost in fuel. We're getting rid of the
mining fuel. We're getting mining tax. None of those companies mining tax. None companies do have mining tax companies do have mining liabilities and they're going to not have to pay liabilities and to not have to pay any mining
tax after this. I to not have to pay tax after this. I want to tax after this. I want to say directly to the investors and self-funded retirees of Australia, you will be better off under the Coalition. Do not believe the Labor Party's claims about Franking credits. You will get Franking credits but this idea that somehow an individual initiative will make life for people worse off when it's not taken in the context of everything else we're doing is deliberately misleading from the Government. The economy more profitable
will grow, companies will be more profitable and dividends will be higher. The list of savings here to offset the mining tax, some of those were also claimed three weeks ago to justify the spending in - the outlays in terms of the income tax and company tax cut so doesn't that prove that you're double-counting some of your savings here? No. And follow-up question can which is you've been saying you'll release costings in good time. We're only 10 days from the election now. Why can't we see the PBO analysis of your costings sowe can be absolutely confident the numbers add up? The verification panel we've set up, which I don't think anyone has criticised the integrity of the three individuals, they will see all of the working papers and they will certify that the numbers will certify that are absolutely right. Now, Labor has no such process. Labor hasn't even launched its campaign yet. Mr Rudd is running around with thought bubbles all over the country, not putting any numbers out there. When I heard this morning that he claimed that all of his policies are costed, that will come as news to everyone else in the Labor Party because there were no costed policies in relation to Garden Island yesterday, there were no costed policies in relation to his statement in the Northern Territory that there are going to be three different tax rates and two different jurisdiction s in a one-hour press conference. We have carefully thought through everything and the tally that I'm releasing today, there's no double counting. You see it all there, $31.6 billion of total savings and you'll see the consolidated balance sheet of our savings. Will we ever see the PBO document s?The PBO, I'm happy to release PBO documents when the Government releasalise of the working papers from the Treasury. Happy to do that and if the Government releases all of the working papers from the Treasury then I'm happy to do so but we've got an extra layer of certification and that comes from the independent panel. Firstly on the Franking credits, you said retirees would get Franking credits but just to be sure, they would get 28.5% as opposed to 30? Yes. There seems to be some dispute at PBO level depending on when they've done it with regards to the effect of getting rid of 12,000 public servants. I know there's a suggestion one of the PBO documents was prepared before May or whatever.That's right. Can you sort that out and why don't you release it insph if you're proud of it and it's a good service, just release it.I'm happy to stand by all of our numbers and the claims made by the Government are false. What a surprise, they've got every number wrong for 6 years and now they're claiming to get our numbers right but again they're wrong. I mean, if Labor can't get their numbers right, how do you expect them to get our numbers right? It's quite absurd. happy to right? It's quite absurd. I'm
happy to prove our numbers. In your list of your list of savings you have one that says one that carbon tax measures no longer needt at 1.5 billion." What are those measures? The second one, the PBO working documents when they costed the 1.5% levy for the Greens, which I think is the same as your policy in that regard- No, it isn't the same. I saw- In terms of the levy, they said that businesses would rearrange their finances and their accounts in the first years and so the revenue would be much lower in the first couple of years. Did they say the same thing to you? Well, you'll see again our final 4-year numbers prior to the election, that's a perfectly responsible approach to take. Secondly, please don't judge us on what someone else has submitted to the parliamentary Budget office. I saw the ABC fact checking service was doing that last night which was kind of unreal but I only state it because our assumptions and our numbers are absolutely correct. Absolutely correct, and we have three eminent Australians verifying that. Again, no-one has done what we have done here. The numbers we are presenting today are correct. We can- As I understood it, their 1.5% and your levy were virtually the same and the PBO said to them it wouldn't raise as much in the first years because companies would rearrange their finances. Did they say that to you? The starting point is we are not going to have a package that Labor
leaves the Budget worse off. Labor did that when-W the mining tax, they spent more than they collected and then they had mining tax, they spent they had a black hole in the Budget. The carbon tax, they spent more against the tax than they collected and then they leave a black hole in the Budget. We will not do that and we've proven that with the paid parental leave scheme. 1.5 billion on the abolish ...The clean-energy financial corporation funding costs, the Australian renew able energy agency, together with a range of fuel tax credit reductions, ozone depleting substances payments and so on, that makes up the great bull of course the 1.5 billion. It is presented on an accrual basis because that is the most comprehensive way to present the numbers. Just briefly, the Government has pointed out or claims that your three eminent people, are not the Treasury and what we're seeing from the Coalition this time is a dismantling of the charter of Budget honesty by not submitting to those rules. What's the answer to that? The charter of Budget honesty was actually amended by the Government to give you a choice between the parliamentary Budget office or Treasury. We choice the parliamentary Budget office because we could be interactive with the parliamentary Budget office in the leadup to the election. The Treasury is only available to an Opposition when you go into an election campaign and even then you need to submit all your policies to the Prime Minister's office who then sends them to the Treasury. I know I'm being a little tough on the Prime Minister's office but I suspect if we sent all of our policies to Kevin Rudd's office before we actually announced the policies, I suspect he wouldn't keep them confidential. The three wise men- The answer on that the parliamentary Budget office was set up by this Government as an alternative to the Treasury during the election campaign and it's actually staffed by members of the department of finance and the Treasury and then we have an additional verification process. Even if you don't believe me, Paul - and I find that hard to believe - even if you don't believe me, believe three people who the Labor Party's always believed. Peter Beattie gave glowing endorsements for Len Scanlon and the Labor Party used Jeff Carmody and Dr Peter Shergold. Two questions - one on a technical thing, how do you - you've claimed a saving from the amount the states would save under do you get that into the Commonwealth do you get Commonwealth Budget? We arrange with the Commonwealth Budget? arrange with Commonwealth Budget? We will
arrange with the State to schemes. State bliB servants have a choice taking the existing scheme to the states or taking the Federal scheme but the states won't be worse off and whilst we're feeling generous towards the states, we're not going to pay for their schemes and allow them just to pocket the benefits.It is a saving to the Commonwealth Budget -orators saving because last time we were more generous and agreed to pay the states and they could keep the benefits of losing their schemes. You see this is the thing, companies that already have paid parental leave schemes zont to pay it out under our scheme, therefore they pocket the benefit, the wage benefit of not paying it out. That's a great benefit to companies and it will add to the bottom line which helps make them more profitable and deliver better dividends. My other question is just to say in terms of the carbon tax and mining tax measures, because there's so many of them now that are being discontinued and Labor's already dis continued half of them, what are you keeping of all those measures that were announced from - spending measures announced and supposed to be paid for by the mining tax and carbon tax? We have said we are keeping household assistance measures which are the personal income
tax increases and the fortnightly pension increases. My strategy is to deliver a stronger economy over My strategy is to deliver stronger economy over the next few years. The way to do that on 1 July next year we get rid of the carbon on 1 of the carbon tax, so we get rid of the ball and chain, but it effectively turns the current tax rates into a stimulus because we're not taking away the compensation relate would the carbon tax, and we're getting rid of the mining tax on 1 July. Then the following year, on 1 July, our company tax cut kicks in as well and the PPL, paid parental leave scheme, kicks in as well which we believe will help drive productive dispy workforce participation. So you can see a clear, strategic plan to grow the economy.. that's what we're focused on. Lot of the programs associated with the carbon tax and mining tax, they were Band-Aids, trying to fix a problem, and the level of desperation in Kevin Rudd in saying he's terminating the carbon tax when in fact he wasn't and it's going to continue to rise illustrates that fact. Does the PPL, your costing bow from 13/14 to 16/17 because once this is introduced it will fall into the 14/15 Budget year so push out to 17/18. Can you guarantee that these costings then mean that there's no negative impact once you fall into 17/18? We don't believe there is any negative impact at. All we don't believe there is any negative impact at all and we're going for the 4 years estimates. I'd say to you that's a hell of a lot better than anything Labor does. Something else, Tony Abbott and
mentioned Direct Action today and said effectively there's no difference between 2010 and 2013 in terms of the costings but all of the assumptions and all the predictions on how it would affect are three years delayed. You haven't - that doesn't come into any of this. How can you be sure that that policy, three years on, is going to work given that the times have changed? We're very confident it will and the original assumptions about the reductions in emissions and the effort that would need to go into it to reduce emissions by 2020 on both sides of politics has been changed. Mr Hockey, you were putting a lot of emphasis on your eminent men to verify all this but it's a very complicated exercise. What resources have they had in order to be able to double check any of the parliamentary Budget office- Everything they have demanded we have given. They will not put their name to the numbers if they are not satisfied they are right. What have they asked for?Athise been a vast amount of engagement with the three eminent Australians and it's been going on for months. This isn't a thought bubble 10 days out isn't out from an election campaign. To out from an election To They've had some separate resources from the Budget resources from the office? No, they haven't. We've given them all the support they need, all the support they need. You say the Budget will be slightly better off under you, would you concede that if we're talking about 16/17 and you're $2 billion better off that's so small as to be insignificant, and that would be by your own judgment in the past, 2 or 3 billion over that length of time is really nothing? We We will leave the Budget in net terms in a better position than Labor. Every time Labor comes up with a number they get it wrong and that deteriorates. We're going to turn around the Budget and get it heading in the right direction. We can't do that all from Opposition but we are determined to climb the mount Get rid of Labor's black holism we'll do the heavy lifting but it's got to be measured and careful and properly thought through and that's what we're doing with our numbers today. Mr Hockey, how many of your policies has the parliamentary Budget office said it cannot cost and what are they and how can the eminent panel cost them if the PBO can't? Because in some cases what you identify is you're going to take a certain U. Of money out of of a program and it's a fixed figure therefore it's quite obvious and the panel's entirely relaxed about that. The second thing is there are some things the parliamentary office can't do and one example infrastructures. We go to the State Governments infrastructures. We State Governments as we've said and I've said previously and ask them what and I've said previously ask them what the funding needs ask them for particular road projects. ask them what the They come for particular They come back with the figure and we agree with that figure. Our verification panel is satisfied with that. Obviously where it comes to State infrastructure the PBO can't give you a number. Compare that with Kevin Rudd in '07 who said, "I'm going to spend a billion dollars on computers in schools," without consulting the State Governments and the computers in school program blew out by $1.2 billion on a $1 billion program. That's how thorough we are being. What other policies can't they cost? That's a great bulk of them. You've said you'll unwind the hit on the car industry that the fringe benefits tax changes. I think it was about 1.8 billion but you've got about 0.9 or almost a billion dollars worth of savings that will affect the car industry in here so you're really only giving about half of that? No, the car industry not only will do better under us, it will survive under the Coalition. We are their only friend and, why? Because these changes to fringe benefits tax are having a massive negative impact on the car industry. You've just got to speak to to identify that
people involved in the industry to identify that and just go and speak to the Ford workers at Geelong who've been stood down for six days because of falling production associated with Kevin Rudd's FBT changes and that's why we are the only friends of the car industry and Labor has simply got it wrong. Now, when you are borrowing money to provide subsidies on the supply side of the equation, it is unsustainable if you are taking a baseball bat to the demand side of the equation and that's exactly what Labor's doing with its approach to the car industry.I want to try and give everyone a go and we've got the press club so you'll have a second-round opportunity as well. Do you have any guarantees the 3,000 companies won't just pocket savings from their own paid parental leave schemes and also pass on the cost of the levy to consumers? Well, of course. You see on the one hand it can't be claimed the companies are going to be massively financially penalised and the shareholders massively financially penalised by our paid parental leave policy and on the other hand complain about them pocketing the benefits of not having to pay their own paid parental leave. The fact of the matter is we are in the business of lifting productivity, lifting economic growth, lifting profits, lifting dividends and our entire package not only pays for itself in relation to the paid parental leave policy but our entire package actually is good for the economy. Can't guarantee they won't pass on the levy to consumers? I'm not getting into that in the same way, for example, Virgin airlines said that it had absorb the carbon tax hit on their balance sheet and they're absorb the carbon the
making a loss. It depends on the circumstances of individual companies. I want to all companies to be profitable. A question of principle, Ken Henry said a few weeks ago that there's a structural problem with the Budget and we need to look at revenue as well as cutting. Do you think, because itemes from this that your plan is to cut in terms of cutting away tax, cutting away spending and kuth away red tape, do you believe that that as a strategy will get us to a structural surplus or do you accept that we need to raise new revenue in some parts? Can I give some context here? Do you think there's a revenue issue here? We cannot repair the Budget overnight and we can't repair the Budget from Opposition but we can start. This is what we're doing. We're levelling with the Australian people. No other Opposition has done this. We are levelling with the