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.
7.30 -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) reason.Connor Duffy reporting. Accusations of black holes and dark lies dominated day 25 of the election campaign as the inevitable argument over costings raged on. The Government claims it's found a $10 billion gap in the Coalition's Budget numbers based on work done by Treasury and finance. The Opposition says Labor's fabricating figures and this afternoon the departments of Treasury and finance shot the Government down, releasing a statement saying they've never costed Opposition policies. It all comes in the wake of the Prime Minister signalling a significant shift on the Government's attitude to foreign investment in rural land. Here's political editor Chris Uhlmann. Tony Abbott is mixing his sports. Full body contact never hurt anyone. And proving there are some thoughts that don't bear contemplating. On behalf of us we have a body suit here signed by the current Diamonds team. You can put it on if you like. Maybe I will have that.But almost any idea is up for grabs in this campaign. In a leaders' debate last night, Tony Abbott shifted ground on the Coalition's plans for Labor's 61 health care hubs. You're not going to shut Medicare Locals? We are not shutting any Medicare Locals. Do you accept that? That is the first time I have ever heard that. That's because just a week ago Tony Abbott's position was more equivocal. The Coalition plans to review the hubs. Can I say that absolutely no Medicare Local will close? I'm not going to say that.But he did hold the line on a question that divides the Coalition. With the sales of land to foreign investments and foreign companies, does either party have any thoughts of stopping those sales? I think it's important that we maintain control of our own country but the one thing that no-one can take away is our land. The Opposition Leader said if foreign investment in agricultural land was in the national interest then it should know ahead and the arbiter of that was the Government's investment umpire. Under a Coalition Government, should we win the election, the threshold for foreign investment review board of foreign land acquisitions will come right down from 200-odd million to about 15 million and we will publish a register of foreign land and agribusiness holdings. Here it was the Prime Minister who sprung a surprise.I'm a bit old-fashioned on these questions and I'm not quite as free market as Tony on this stuff. Kevin Rudd float adsignificant shift in Labor's thinking on foreign investment in rural land. I think in the future if I see a good model for how we should develop some of our undeveloped agricultural lands or some which need a whole lot more investment, I reckon joint venture approaches are much better but I am a bit nervous, a bit anxious, frankly, about simply an open slatheder on this. That's not how the former Trade Minister saw it. We are a country that is dependent on foreign investment, always have been, always will be because we've got a relatively small population and a vast continent that and means we do need the savings of other countries. But the protectionist shift in language fits with the Prime Minister's newly discovered fiscal world view. I am an economic nationalist. This is the latest in a series of economic incarnations. In 2003, Kevin Rudd described himself as an old-fashioned Christian Socialist, that sits reasonably comfortably with this description. I am a committed Social Democrat.By the 2007 election, experience had transformed him. We've all learned from the past, that's why I'm on economic Conservativive. In the wake of the global financial crisis, Kevin Rudd rediscovered his Socialist roots and was asked how that sat with economic Conservativism. I have always called myself a Social Democrat, including during the election campaign. They don't fit particularly comfortably another? They're entirely consistent propositions. Thankfully the one constant in economics is arguing over numbers. Today the Government took aim at the Opposition's $31 billion in savings. It is quite clear that there is now a massive $10 billion hole in the 30 billion they are claiming and beyond that, what of the rest of the cuts necessary to make up the 70 billion which Mr Hockey and Mr Robb have claimed unnecessary for the Coalition for the future?And the traditional fight in any campaign is claim and counterclaim over the ability of the contestants to add up. There is a deliberate strategy by the alternative Government to hide the cuts to come from the Australian people. The Government released documents from Treasury finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office to back its argument. The finance paper shows shedding 12,000 public service jobs saves $2.5 billion less than the Opposition claims, a Treasury minute shows a $2 billion difference in scrapping the low-income superannuation contribution. This is advice given to the Government prior to going into care-taker period. Of course the Minister for finance and I are authorised to released a vice to us when we choose to do so. But estimates are contestable and depend on starting dates and assumptions. The Parliamentary Budget Office advice includes an expiry date and the finance document has all but one of the caveats blacked out. The costing was prepared using a rule of thumb methodology. That is bureaucraties for on the back of the envelope. What the Government is doing in their desperation now, less than a fortnight away from the election, they are compromising the public service.The public service was clearly stung by the political use of its advice in an election. Treasury and finance issued a statement saying at no stage did it cost Opposition policies and points out that different questions will yield different answers and the Parliamentary Budget Office weighed in, saying it was inappropriate to claim it had costed the Opposition's policies and unless all specifications were identical, estimates could vary markedly. We did ask Treasury and finance to cost the Opposition policies on the basis of what the Opposition had said publicly, obviously we don't know all the detail of their policy because they're not telling Australians the detail of their costings or their cuts. But the Coalition is winning some converts. I voted for you. Did you? Wow. We better appointia to the