26 April 2012 in Media
To watch the video of this interview, please click here.
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Joining me to discuss the figures and much more besides are Liberal MP Jamie Briggs and Labor Senator and Parliamentary Secretary David Feeney. Welcome to you both.
DAVID FEENEY:
Thank you very much.
JAMIE BRIGGS:
Thanks Lyndal.
CURTIS:
David Feeney, Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, said today that the inflation figures were welcomed, that inflation was constrained. But, is there a risk that, the figures show there is quite a deal of weakness in the Australian economy?
FEENEY:
Well, I think the figures show that the Australian economy is in very robust shape and I think that has been a continuing message for quite a little while now. And, obviously, the Government’s resolve to deliver a surplus in this budget is part of our continuing determination to make sure that the budget settings are as strong as possible, because of course, among other things, that producers relief on interest rates and interest rates are, of course, such a crucial driver for so many families. So, I think the government is very quietly satisfied about where those setting are at and the future prognosis for the economy.
CURTIS:
Jamie, if the economy is growing close to trend and if inflation is constrained and unemployment is sitting at around five percent, is there much to complain about with the way that the economy is going?
BRIGGS:
Well, we are in the middle of a once in a generation boom. We hear the Government talking about the beginning of the Asian century and of course, Australia is benefitting enormously, which is fantastic from that, so therefore, our economy is running along with that boom. So, what we say is, that given these conditions are operating so well, we should be doing better; the conditions around us would allow us to do better. And, we shouldn’t be carrying $230 billion dollars of debt, which means $6 billion dollars of interest payments every year, taking away from necessary services, putting more pressure on taxpayers to pay higher tax. We’ve got a government who is putting on a carbon tax, which will slow the economy down even further; a carbon tax they promised not to implement in the first place. One of the interesting bits of information in the inflation figures today, was that in the March quarter, electricity prices went up ten percent. Now, of course, the Government’s carbon tax is going to add another ten percent to those costs and also put up inflation. So, the carbon tax is bad economic policy, it is bad environmental policy, put in at the wrong time, which will damage the Australian economy and hold us back from taking full potential of what is out there for us.
CURTIS:
David, I am sure you want to respond to that. But, just firstly...
BRIGGS:
I thought he would agree...
CURTIS:
Is there a risk that, if the economy is going a little slower than expected, that the government might actually be getting less revenue than it expected, making it harder to get back to surplus?
FEENEY:
I think the government has always made it very clear that getting back to surplus is a pretty significant and pretty difficult thing to do but I think we have also made it pretty clear that we are determined to do it. I guess the other point, I would make is that, the liberal party can leave no stone un-turned in its search for bad news but, it is getting harder and harder for them to find any. We have had better than expected unemployment figures, we have had external assessment that our economy is a world beater and that Australia’s economy is the envy of the world, we’ve, of course, got a debt to GDP ratio which leaves North America, Europe, most economies of the world gasping for breath with jealousy, so the Australian economy is very strong and continuing to be very strong, Jamie described it as a once a generation boom, well, of course, I guess it might be a twice in a generation boom, Jamie, because, you remember John Howard and Peter Costello managed to squander one of these booms themselves .
BRIGGS:
What, with surplus budgets? With no debt and a future fund.
FEENEY:
What we are trying to make sure that the budget is strong, it’s in surplus and that people realise themselves it is in lower interest rates and a good low unemployment rate.
CURTIS:
Jamie, the expectation now is that the Reserve Bank will cut interest rates at the next meeting, there is also a question about whether it should have cut earlier; do you think the reserve bank has taken the right decisions?
JAMIE BRIGGS:
Well, that is a matter for the Reserve Bank, we actually believe in the independence of the Reserve Bank, unlike Prime Minister Gillard, one of her faceless men, Paul Howes, they now think that they are now better than the Reserve Bank and, want to go around and give it advice all the time. Peter Costello, Australia’s best ever Treasurer, when he was Treasurer delivered surplus budgets nine out of eleven years, so he saved money, put money in the bank, took pressure off the interest rates, and by doing that, reduced regulations on business and allowed things to get on, people have economic freedom in the work place; it’s the complete opposite with the Labor Party, Julia Gillard...
FEENEY:
But, Jamie that just does not stack up, there were ten interest rate rises in a row, in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election, ten interest rate rises...
BRIGGS:
Because, the economy was performing so well. David. Because, the economy was performing so well. David. I mean, the Labor Party doesn’t know their line here. They can’t work out what their position is they want, and they have racked up the biggest debt in our history. Now, David talks about comparisons with international partners, well of course, they have a worse situation, there households don’t compare themselves to their next door neighbour, they just think about how they are going to service their debt and the problem is, within five years, five short years, the Labor Party has left us with a massive debt and they have got nothing to show for it. And, it is a generational problem for our country...
FEENEY:
That’s what we have to show for it Jamie, we have a strong economy.
BRIGGS:
That’s rubbish, absolute rubbish.
CURTIS:
Jamie, you pointed out that you say the government is having trouble with their own lines. Your own leader, Tony Abbott, this morning had trouble with his lines on when the next Reserve Bank meeting might be, we will have a listen to it.
CLIP
TONY ABBOTT:
Should the Reserve Bank lower interest rates today, that will be welcomed, but that is obviously a matter for the bank, I think that the families of Australia will be looking for a break because in nine weeks time they are going to be hit with the world’s biggest carbon tax.
WAYNE SWAN:
If, Mr Abbott was more focused on the economy, if he was more focused on family budgets if he was less focussed on his mud bucket and the baseball bat then he would have known that the reserve bank is leading on interest rates next week, not this week.
CLIP ENDS
CURTIS:
Now, I should point out that Wayne Swan is someone who has had his own troubles with economic figures in the past, but that does bring us, neatly, to the continual fight over allegations against Peter Slipper strongly denied by the speaker, there is a simple claim of sexual harassment and potentially criminal allegations about the misuse of cab charges the civil claims are not set to be heard until after parliament resumes; the allegations about cab charges are being looked at by the Department of Finance and the Federal Police. Jamie, should not both sides of politics hold fire until the processes are done with?
BRIGGS:
Well, Peter Slipper should not be speaker until the processes are resolved; he is innocent until proven guilty. I will go to no higher authority than Labor Minister’s on this matter. I refer and I have got pages here of quotes from Labor Ministers when similar circumstances have happened in private enterprise, for instance with Kate Ellis, is one of the Minister’s, one of David’s closest factional colleagues, said about Mark McGuiness, the former David Jones CEO, who is alleged, made allegations under the same provisions as what the current Mr Sipper has been made under. She said ‘regardless of their background, regardless of the individual details of the case, that we have to give people, standing up and shining a spotlight on these issues and say what they want to bring about change’, so in other words, these allegations should be heard, the speaker should stand aside, very clearly, until these allegations are resolved. Nicola Roxon, the Attorney General, when related to Arch Bishop Hollingworth, when he was Governor General, said exactly the same thing, ‘we cannot afford to brush it aside, keep it behind closed doors, or say it is someone else’s issue, someone needs to take leadership’. Well, we say the same thing; the government should ensure that Mr Slipper stands aside from the speakership until all these allegations are resolved. They are very serious allegations, they are not just matters of civil, as the government would have its believe in the last couple of days, that they are just simply civil matters, they can get to quite serious allegations about sexual harassment in the workplace, in the past the Labor Party has been quick to jump all over people in those same situations, we are not seeing the exact same consistency this time.
CURTIS:
David, would it be easier for the government, if Mr Slipper was to stand aside while all the allegations are resolved, or do you effectively need the number in the Parliament that him being in the speakers chair provides to you?
FEENEY:
Well, I guess there is a interesting issue here for I think all of us in the parliament to think about and that, is that is it necessary for someone to step aside whenever claims are made against them, because I guess, any citizen can bring claims against a member of Parliament, in a civil jurisdiction, and, I guess...
BRIGGS:
This is not a citizen, David, this is a staff member.
FEENEY:
...are we creating a very ugly precedent here, as we say that every member of Parliament, who has allegations made about them must step aside, I can very quickly imagine a situation where that creates an incentive and, suddenly we have an awful lot of people making an awful lot of claims. So, I think there are some serious issues here which probably merit a little bit of judgement and, a little bit of caution ahead of the frenzied partisan debate which is always going to surround this kind of spectacle. But, I guess you want to be careful, Jamie, that you are not calling for something that eventually paralyses the Parliament.
CURTIS:
We might move on, because we are running out of time, Jamie we might move on...
BRIGGS:
Can I just very quickly say, that is very disappointing to hear from a former HSU, from a former union official, Mr Feeney, who is now saying that a serious allegation about sexual harassment, is just a mere private citizen making an accusation against a member of Parliament it is completely false...
FEENEY:
This is a serious...
BRIGGS:
This is a paid employee
FEENEY:
No one is pretending that is isn’t
BRIGGS:
Well, then this person should step aside from his position, you would say the same thing of a private enterprise employer; this is hypocrisy, absolute hypocrisy.
CURTIS:
We might move on, Jamie, you have written an article for the Institute of Public Affairs magazine, defending, effectively, foreign investment; you don’t mind setting up a register of foreign land holdings in Australia. What do you think of the suggestion that the threshold, of which purchases of agricultural land triggers scrutiny of Foreign Investment Review Board should be lowered?
BRIGGS:
Well, we are having an internal discussion about that and we will release a policy discussion paper, at some point, in the near future. It is an important issue, I believe very firmly, that Australia has got great potential in the coming years and to make the most of that potential, we have to ensure we get our setting rights; we need to continue to encourage foreign investment, as we have always had in this country. There are some in the debate who have been making, I think, quite false claims, and they are based on perceptions in the community and, it is important that we don’t feed those perceptions but, rather ensure that the debate is held based on facts and the facts are, the agriculture sector can make the most of the, can make an enormous amount of being Asia’s food bowl, if we get it right.
CURTIS:
David, do you agree that there are opportunities there, while people might be worried about it, that maybe more should be made of the opportunities that are available?
FEENEY:
Yes, I am open minded to that. I subscribe to that old adage,that you can’t manage it if you don’t measure it. Of course, we have now made an assessment that something in the order of 99% of Australia’s farm land is owned by Australian interests. That is something that obviously should be continued to be measured and there is obviously a fair bit of community concern and interest in this issue and I think obviously we need to respond to that as well.
CURTIS:
And, that is where we will have to leave it, David Feeney and Jamie Briggs, thankyou very much for joining us today.
FEENEY:
Thank you very much
BRIGGS:
Thanks Lyndal.