Jamie Briggs MP

(Greetings omitted)

 

Jamie, I want to start with you.  The budget is just a week away, but Treasurer Wayne Swan has decided to try and extenuate the positives on low unemployment figures and the positive job numbers that Labor is creating.  Now shouldn’t he have been doing this for the past two years, since the financial crisis at least? 

 

Good morning Helen.  Well firstly Labor Governments don’t create jobs, the economy creates jobs, and what we saw Wayne Swan release yesterday were projections that will be contained in the budget, not actual real figures, and I think this is the key thing about this budget that people need to remember is that look at what Labor do, not what Labor say.  Now we know what they’re doing is creating a massive budget deficit.  We saw them dump that out there last week on the day of the royal wedding, trying to cover it over, taking out the trash so to speak.  The Labor Government in this country has not delivered a budget surplus since I was in primary school and they’re not going to deliver a budget surplus in their time. 

 

Alright, can we just stick to the question I asked you which was about, we’re going to talk about deficit in a minute, but about these job losses.  Now you would support that’s a good picture to be selling, wouldn’t you? 

 

Well look I think it’s good that jobs are being created, absolutely.  What concerns me is that Labor has put a set of laws in place through their workplace changes, which make wage based inflation a real challenge for our country, which is not being dealt with, and so yeah it’s great that people are getting jobs, but we have real pressure building with wage based inflation because of Labor’s changes to workplace laws. 

 

Richard Marles, what’s your view about this?  Shouldn’t Wayne Swan and the Government been selling this, their claiming 750,000 jobs they’ve created since they were brought to power.  Shouldn’t they have been selling this at least for the last two years since the financial crisis? 

 

Well I think that this message has been conveyed by the government, but you’re right that it is a very important message and it’s not surprising to me that Jamie doesn’t want to answer that particular question.  One thing that I would pick up on in terms of Jamie’s answer is that governments have an enormous impact on the way in which the economy runs, and in this instance has had an enormous impact on jobs that exist within the economy.  We managed to survive the global economic crisis with our unemployment rate now going down as a result of this 4.5% in the future.  Going in to a global economic crisis, we had an unemployment rate roughly the same as what the United States had.  They’re now at a level of 9%.  It’s because of what we did through the global economic crisis which has got this country to a point of having an unemployment figure which is really the envy of the rest of the world, and I think the important point we need to understand in all of this is that at the heat of the crisis, we got the response right and had we done what the Opposition wanted, had we done what Jamie wanted, and not put in place the stimulus, we would not have the really good employment figures and the really good employment story in this country that we have today. 

 

So where do those jobs come from?  Where have they been created, Richard?  What industries have those 750,000 jobs been created in? 

 

Well we’ve seen throughout the global economic crisis, the really important job creation and jobs sustainment if I can put it that way, in areas such as construction.  We’re obviously seeing a lot of jobs being created as a result of the resources boom, that’s a very important part of the story as well.  But on the east coast, we’re seeing a lot of jobs being created through the stimulus measures that have been put in place and have both created and supported jobs being retained in those fields, so these were really important measures.

 

So in construction, even along the east coast? 

 

Well that’s right.  If you look at the work which has been undertaken in the trade sectors around the Building the Education Revolution and I’ve had the real pleasure of being able to open a number of those projects in schools in my electorate, and that’s just an example.  You’ve seen a couple of hundred thousand jobs supported by virtue of the measures that we took during the global economic crisis, and they are measures which the opposition opposed, and had they had their way we would not be having the really positive job story can tell today. 

 

Alright, Jamie Briggs do you accept the Treasurer’s numbers that the government has created 750,000 jobs since coming to office, and he says another 500,000 jobs will be created in the next two years. 

 

No I don’t Helen.  This is a typical Labor Party who think that they create jobs, they don’t.  The economy creates jobs. 

 

So I guess if you are going to put that sort of rationale you would say that the Howard Government didn’t create any jobs either, to be consistent. 

 

What we used to say was there were 2 million jobs created during the term of the Howard Government, and that was because of changes made to laws, absolutely. That allowed the economy to create jobs. 

 

So that was to do with government, your government did, but not things this government’s doing. 

 

Clearly this job creation in the last couple of years has been driven by China.  That has been absolutely the major driver of our job growth in Australia, and we’re in a very fortunate position with great terms of trade and we’ve got the great opportunities that the boom provides us.  But what the Labor Party try and claim with the stimulus spending, of course if I had a job in the Pink Batts industry, it hasn’t worked out so well for me.  The amount of waste that the government had through that stimulus package is an ongoing disaster for the future of our country and it is going to leave us with a massive, well it is leaving us with massive interest payments, massive debt, all because of the Labor Party’s mismanagement. 

 

Jamie, Wayne, sorry go ahead. 

 

I just think that’s a ridiculous claim that the stimulus package put in place…

 

How is that ridiculous?  There was tens of billions of dollars wasted. 

 

…The stimulus package supported 200,000 jobs around this country. 

 

It did not, it created an absolute disaster. 

 

If you’re one of those 200,000 or a member of one of these families, it made a huge difference…

 

Go and talk to a Pink Batts installer. 

 

If Richard could talk first and say why he thinks that and then you can have a say Jamie. 

 

If you look at all the projects across all the schools around Australia, and any worker that’s participated in those projects, and there are thousands upon thousands of them around Australia, they absolutely know the value of the stimulus package to them having a job and what that has meant for them and their family.  And it’s because of the way in which this government has managed the economy that we have the really good jobs story that we have to tell. 

 

Ok Jamie, do you want to reply to that. 

 

Yeah sure, if Richard is happy to go out and talk to the people who lost their houses through the stimulus spending, through the mismanagement, through all the schools that have had these disasters with the BER, these ongoing disasters.  There are two in my electorate which are still ongoing. 

 

People who have lost their houses or…

 

The people who’ve lost their business because of the government failing to implement this policy properly.  The Echunga BER project in my electorate, where you’ve got small businesses out of pocket because the head contractor has gone under and the Labor Government’s just letting them hang.  So this whole idea that this money was well spent is a joke. 

 

Alright, I do need to move on.  Wayne Swan is also saying that the 500,000 jobs that are going to still be created will not be jeopardised by a carbon tax, whatever happens there will still be the same number of jobs created.  Jamie Briggs, do you accept that? 

 

Of course not, I mean the carbon tax will of course have an impact on jobs in manufacturing, particularly.  We’ve heard Richard’s good friend Paul Howes talk about that in the last couple of weeks.  The local here in Adelaide, Wayne Hanson from the AWU last week said the town in Whyalla will be shut down by the carbon tax.  So of course it’s going to have a massive impact on jobs, and what this issue highlights that the government cannot be honest with people that this policy will definitely have impacts on peoples’ employment, and they won’t front up and tell the truth. 

 

Richard, your view about this impact of the carbon tax.  Wayne Sawn says it will have no impact.  The same number of jobs will still be created. 

 

Well the carbon price, lets be completely clear, the carbon price in the long term and the medium term is a pro jobs policy and it is such an important policy for the future of Australia’s industry and indeed the future of Australian employment, and if the Coalition had any sense of policy beyond the here and now actually look forward to Australia’s future and saw what we actually need to do going forward, so that we don’t fall behind the rest of the world, so we are not lumbered with the most carbon intensive economy in the world, which if we are lumbered with when the rest of the world the goes down a more carbon friendly path, that’s going to see our industry go down the toilet and we’ll certainly see a huge jobs impact there.  If the Coalition actually had their minds focused on that rather than plunging their head in the nearest sandpit on this, then you might actually see them make a constructive contribution to this debate.  The fact of the matter is we need to be moving down the path, we’ve got to start the job now by putting a price on carbon within our economy so that we move from being the most carbon intensive economy in the world such as we are now, and that’s what we need to do from the point of view from protecting the jobs of the future, and of course this is going to be a difficult transition for many industries in Australia right now, which is why we are putting in place really important industry assistance that will make sure we will protect the jobs of the here and now.  This is an issue that is very important to me in terms of my electorate, but you have got to understand that this is a pro-jobs policy. 

 

Jamie Briggs, it is interesting that the Treasurer also answered what he called those outrageous claims that towns like Whyalla would be wiped off the map by a carbon tax.  He was saying that Treasury analysis shows that at $20 a tonne as a carbon price, with the promised compensation to industry, that it would actually cost the steel industry $2.60 a tonne of steel produced, whereas the rising Australian dollar has already cost it $50 a tonne.  So he’s trying to say that according Treasury analysis that the carbon price is adding a tiny amount compared to what the rising Australian dollar has already added. 

 

Well if Wayne Swan wants to argue with his AWU masters, then he can.  All I was quoting was Wayne Hanson who’s the head of the AWU in SA, a key backer of the Labor Party both here in South Australia and federally and what he said on the front page of our daily paper, the Advertiser a couple of weeks ago. 

 

Can you just answer that question, I’m sorry, but the Treasury analysis that says that the carbon tax would add $2.60 to their tonne of steel produced. 

 

I can’t answer that question because they haven’t told us what the price is.  It’s a Seinfeld debate.  It’s a debate about nothing at the moment.  We don’t know what the price is.  We’re guessing about the figure.   Richard says there’s going to be all this wonderful assistance around.  We don’t know where it is coming from.  We don’t how much it will be, so it is impossible to answer that question until we know the truth from the government. 

 

Alright, Richard Marles, it is a fair enough point that we do not know enough detail about a carbon price. 

 

Well it’s not a fair point Helen. What would be really good is that we actually saw the opposition constructively engaging in what is such an important debate for this country’s future rather than simply applying the recking ball to something that this country needs to do.  And you listen to Jamie’s answer then, I mean he is absolutely avoiding every point that you’re putting to him Helen. 

 

What’s the carbon price then Richard? 

 

Well a point was put to you based on the assumption of a particular price in relation to a carbon price. 

 

Ah the assumption! 

 

Yeah well that will all come in out in the context of the discussions which are going on with the multi-party committee on climate change, which would be great, can I say there is a vacancy there for the opposition to take up if they ever actually wanted to contribute positively to this debate.  You can work on the basis of those assumptions, and it’s a valid point that Helen has made. 

 

Alright gentlemen, we are going to take a quick break. 

BREAK

 

 

Welcome back to AM Agenda, joining me on the panel this morning are Richard Marles, the Labor Party’s Richard Marles from Melbourne and the Liberal’s Jamie Briggs, from Adelaide.  Now Jamie I said you could have a discussion about the deficit and we do need to keep this fairly brief, but we are also expecting the deficit to be larger this year, yet still return to surplus says the Government by 2012-13. Jamie, you want the deficit reduced, so you would support the cuts to spending, that would need to be made?

 

 

Well we’d certainly support the cuts to waste. We would argue that there is so much waste in the system, that we should be managing programs properly in the first place, which would reduce the amount of waste in government spending and we wouldn’t be in the position that we are today. So that would be the first point we would make. Secondly, we would have to see what is in this budget before we can say whether we support it or we don’t. And thirdly, Labor won’t deliver a surplus budget. They haven’t delivered a surplus budget for over twenty years, they are not going to deliver a surplus budget in this term of government, they dumped out on Friday in the midst of the royal wedding celebrations, the deficit figure, the likely deficit figure, and I think that says everything about Labor. Don’t listen to what they say, look at what they do.

 

 

So do you think the deficit spending, the deficit having to be bigger this time, partly because of all the disasters that we have had, is not acceptable?

 

 

Look, the Government will come up with every excuse in the book not to cut their waste and that is the truth of it. They are just bad managers, they can’t implement government programs. We saw it…

 

 

Richard Marles, if the Government is saying that the economy is so healthy and with unemployment being so low and job figures so good, why be so tough with the budget, why not return some of the spoils of the mining boom to the community?

 

Well of course, that is being done through a number of measures that we are putting in place, including the Minerals Resource Rent Tax, but if you are talking about the issue of deficit. We will have a surplus in the 2012-13 budget, that is what we have said from day one and we are on course to actually do that. If you look at all the forecasts…

 

 

But you did also promise a lighter deficit this time and it is going to be heavier?

 

Yes, but you know the answer to that question, which is that we have had a series of completely unexpected events over the summer, in terms of our own natural disasters and also one of our largest trading partners in Japan having an enormous catastrophe, which is having a flow on impact into the Australian economy. So I mean that happens, but if you look at all the forecasts going forward, in terms of projected economy growth, projected inflation rates and indeed projected employment rates, these forecasts in the forward estimates are consistent with all the independent analysts from the banks and so forth, and they show that we are on track to getting the budget back to the black by 2012 – 2013 and when we do that, that will represent the single biggest turn around in the budget in Australia’s history from the point of view of peak deficit to the surplus.  

 

 

Let’s wait until you do it. Gentlemen, I have to move on. On asylum seekers, we had a two week protest, really only just finished on the weekend with the last two protesters coming down off the roof, then there was the targeting of the Minister’s office. Now Richard Marles, it looks like this is a portfolio area out of control?

 

 

Well we are looking at putting legislation through the Parliament, which will see that anybody who engages in criminal activity in a detention centre and who is convicted of that crime will fail the character test, with all that that implies, in terms of the attempts to gain permanent residency in the future. Now, what we would like to see is actually some indication from the Opposition as to whether or not they are going to support that because that is about as tougher measure as you can possibly put in place, to make it absolutely clear of the behaviour that we expect of people who are in detention centres. All we are hearing from Scott Morrison is codes of conduct or take away the internet, all of which is stuff that has already been done. What we need to hear is that the Opposition is actually going to support this really important legislation that we are putting forward.

 

 

Jamie Briggs, will you support it?

 

 

Well look, a tough approach would be to stop the problem in the first place to take away the sugar from the table. To take away the business of the people smugglers so we don’t have seven thousand people stuck in detention in Australia, that is what we would say.

 

 

But will you support this legislation to get tougher on those who engage in illegal acts?

 

BRIGGS:

Frankly, I think it is a diversion, a diversion from the bigger problem, they are trying to create this sort to tough action after another disaster at Villawood and so we want to see the legislation, we think the Minister has the power within the current act to do what he is saying he wants to do here. So I suspect this is a diversion, but lets have a look at the legislation. But ultimately, this policy is a complete disaster. For instance, in my own electorate, when they opened up Inverbrackie late last year as a detention facility, it is revealed today in The Australian newspaper, there is still not a memorandum of understanding, signed between the Federal Police and the South Australian Police, if an incident like this occurs. Now my community is rightly concerned about the impact of that, this is a disastrous policy and it is now being completely messed up by this government and it has a significant affect on communities like mine and on our country.

 

 

Richard, there is a point that it is looking very bad and there is a lot of anger out there. And indeed the AFP have come out and said that they don’t in fact have the man power to control these sorts of things. Well I think what has an impact on communities such as Jamie’s, is the kind of scaremongering that Jamie is engaging in. Well, we all know that Inverbrackie facility is one which has families and kids in it, it is a completely different kind of facility to what we see at Villawood, but in any event, if you look at the comments…

 

BRIGGS:

So it’s okay not have police there mate? Is that right? So it is okay to have police that can’t investigate?

 

 

If you let me finish?  If you listen to the comments or look at the comments that have been made by the South Australian Minister in today’s report, what is clear is that if there ever was an emergency situation which occurred at Inverbrackie, the South Australian Police would be there and they would be there under the direction of the AFP…

 

 

They can’t be there.

 

And to the extent that there needs to be greater harmonisation between the various police forces of this country to deal with circumstances of this kind, that is a process which is being led by the Federal Government right now.

 

 

Alright I want to move on, gentlemen you have got about twenty seconds each. I want marks out of ten for Julia Gillard’s trip mainly to our north east Asian trading partners and to the disaster site in Japan,

Jamie Briggs, would you give her any marks out of ten?

 

Look, I think she performed reasonably okay overseas. But she should have been here; she should have been here trying to explain her disastrous policies on border protection, her disastrous carbon tax.

 

 

Okay alright, Richard, what’s your mark out of the ten for Julia Gillard’s trip overseas?

 

A ten out of ten. This was going to our major trading partners, trade is about jobs and that is what she was promoting. But she was also the first foreign leader to visit Japan after their terrible disaster, I think that was really important in terms of our relationship with that country.

 

 

To be fair, I have to get marks out of ten for Tony Abbott’s trip around Australia. Jamie, you have literally got five seconds?

 

 

Tony Abbott’s doing what a good leader should do, getting around the country.

 

 

Alright, Richard, marks out of ten for Tony Abbott?

 

 

I will give him two, I mean on carbon price and immigration; it was completely off the card.

 

 

Alright, two out of ten, we will have to leave it there.

 

But it is important in terms of what he raised in terms of indigenous Australians.

 

 

Okay, well that’s an issue for another day. Gentleman, thank you so much, we have run out of time. Richard Marles and Jamie Briggs, appreciate it. And that is it for AM Agenda, thanks for joining us.