Transcript - Sky News Panel with Jason Falinski

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS
WEDNESDAY, 3 JULY 2019

SUBJECT/S: Bob Hawke, tax cuts, press freedom

HOST, TOM CONNELL: Welcome back to the program. Well, joining me in the studio -Liberal MP Jason Falinski and Labor MP Patrick Gorman. The first time we've all been in the same spot since the election. Welcome back - welcome to the 46th Parliament.

JASON FALINSKI, LIBERAL MP: thank you for having us back Tom we appreciate it.

PATRICK GORMAN, LABOR MEMBER FOR PERTH: Yeah it's good to be here.

HOST: Interesting day, today. Of course, we're talking about Bob Hawke. What are your reflections? He's a man that got about doing some very difficult reform and didn't really get a mandate for a lot of it. Just kind of said ‘this is the right thing to do’. Is that an inspiration?

FALINSKI: You know I think the thing about Hawke that really impressed me was, and I think Neville Wran at the time sort of called his, you know, summit idea as a bit like a kumbaya that wouldn't achieve very much, but he had very firm and sincerely-held beliefs and I think the 1970s for Australia had been a bit of stagnation both politically and economically and he and, to give him credit, Keating, were able to move through all of that very quickly. A number of public servants in this town who have been around for a few decades would say that besides this cabinet of course their other two best cabinets were Hawke’s first cabinet and Howard's first cabinet, so it was pretty impressive time in Australian politics.

HOST: Is there a lesson - obviously the opposition at the time didn't agree with everything but some of the big economic reform they did go for such as floating the dollar. Is that a lesson for Labor as well?

GORMAN: Well I think it's a lesson for anyone in public life that sometimes there are good ideas and sometimes a good idea’s time comes and we see that in the Hawke legacy in some of the reforms he instituted. But also that you know remember he reintroduced Medicare, which had been turned into a user-pays system by the Fraser Government ,so it wasn't all co-operation and it wasn't all kumbaya under the Hawke Government either. It's been a lovely day in Parliament seeing the tributes. People sharing their stories I also commend the Prime Minister for his initiative to establish a Hawke scholarship that's a really appropriate thing to do, but not something he had to do and I commend him and the Coalition Government for doing that.

HOST: Well it is back to enemies tomorrow. Let's talk about a tax cut Jason Falinski. What’s wrong - if you can pass the whole thing, but also perhaps bring forward phase two - what's wrong with doing that? The RBA wants something to get the economy going beyond your plans outlined already.

 FALINSKI: Well, so there are two questions really there. The first question on the tax plan is that's what we have a mandate for. There is a lot of well-understood behavioural economics behind setting out a very clear roadmap for what you're going to do around tax. It's very important that we start to retrench some of the debt that we have on the Australian Government's purse because when you do that you send a very clear signal to both markets, households and companies, that you're going to start creating room in the credit markets for them to grow and furthermore people can actually start to plan where they're going. I mean Labor's making a lot of this are it's not until the 1st of July 2024 but it's important that people know as they're going through their career where their marginal tax rates will end up and there's a lot of economics behind this. It's not just something with a …

HOST: You alluded there to making sure surpluses would be delivered as per the last budget that was outlined is that the watching brief because two rate cuts in two months doesn't say the economy is flying along clearly. Is that a watching brief because it's not surplus or bust is it?

FALINSKI: Well it's never surplus or bust, but no I don't think so I think even the Governor of the Reserve Bank would say it's incredibly important for the corporate and household sector that they know that we're starting to pay down debt because after a while what happens is markets adjust, people adjust to knowing that the debt has to be to pay down at some point. So, you would know in the early 90's Clinton, and as Pat knows, he was just about to interrupt me to remind you of this, that in the early 90s Clinton, you know, got his budget plan through, which reduced the US deficit and that unleashed a  decade of investment and that's what we're trying to do here.

 GORMAN: I’ll take you back from the United States back over the Pacific to Australia - you talk about retiring the debt. Most of that debt was accumulated over the last six years under your government. So if the argument is you've got to pass tax cuts - somehow we start retiring debt. Well you built up the debt in the first place. That's a fact and that's something you’ve got to acknowledge. When it comes to what Labor's put forward, I've not heard a weaker argument as to why you wouldn't bring forward some of those tax cuts.

HOST: Well, the budget surplus - is that the main argument you're saying, to be impinged upon?

FALINSKI: So there would be the budget surplus argument which would then impact on people's future demand. Secondly there is no evidence that it would lead to any material difference in terms of economic activity, if you're doing it straight away or you have it planned out.

HOST: But, it's more money going out to people, isn’t it. If the tax cuts going to help a bit with the economy, the tax cut coming earlier helps a bit more.

FALINSKI: That's why we have the tax offset coming in this year which have, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank pointed, out will have a material effect on consumer demand now.

GORMAN: You say coming in, it was supposed to be in by now. It's the first broken promise.

FALINSKI: Well, if you passed it straight away.

GORMAN: Well, we offered we offer to bring Parliament back early we were all for …

FALINSKI: You guys have not dealt with the fundamental point. We have a mandate to do …

HOST: Well let me get to the fundamental point. Patrick Gorman, in your opinion - we know all the stuff that's going to go on the cross bench, we know the Government is saying ‘pass this tax cut as is’. Should Labor do that when this comes to it?

GORMAN: Well I think you've got two sides who are both in it to win it. The Government wants obviously to prosecute their agenda and I fully respect their right to do so. But Labor actually believes that our plan to bring forward those stage two tax cuts is good for our economy. We're not going to give up on that. I'm not going to give up on that need to make sure that people get more of a tax cut this term of Parliament - every worker a tax cut this term of Parliament.

FALINSKI: I know six weeks is a long time in politics but six weeks ago you said $400 billion in new taxes. We took a plan for a $158 billion dollar tax cut. Now you're telling us that plan’s not good enough and apparently needs to happen sooner. And we're saying we have a very carefully worked-out process and these things don't happen in isolation, you know.

GORMAN: I take you back to your point. Six weeks is a long time politics. In the last six weeks we've had two sets of interest rate cuts. We have seen the Reserve Bank say we're in a national economic situation where you need to have more economic stimulatory impact.

FALINSKI: That's what the loosening of monetary policy is.

HOST: Let me ask you this, Patrick. At the Press Club this year, Chris Bowen stood up and when he was asked about getting your tax measures passed in Parliament he said that clearly the crossbench would respect the Labor mandate because they've clearly outlined that plan. Has the government not clearly outlined its plan on the income tax cut in two successive budgets?

GORMAN: Well, obviously the Government is lobbying the crossbench incredibly hard and let's be honest, they have an easier Senate to deal with this term then they did the last term. So if the Government wants to get this through unamended, then they can talk to the cross bench. If they want to get through what I believe is a smarter, fairer package that gives every worker a tax cut this term then they can take Labor's amendment.

HOST: So is that what you're saying? If you want this through, it’s through the cross bench, not through Labor?

GORMAN: When you’re referring to Chris Bowen’s statement that the crossbench should respect Labor’s mandate so of course the government …

FALINKSI: Did you take this new plan to the people. Like this new plan, of, you know bringing tax cuts forward and not having stage three, did anyone discuss this during the election campaign? You and I both know you didn’t – the Labor Party didn't. So should we just honour the decision of the Australian people?

GORMAN: I have a great respect for the Australian people. They expect us to put up alternate propositions. The fact is in my seat and in your seat there was a swing towards the Labor Party and so the Australian people did listen to Labor's plans. The Australian people did see that we had two very different economic views. They expect us now to work together. They expect us to say well we've had two successive interest rate cuts, the economy is not doing well. We need something other than what you've been putting out there for a number of years. You say this is a multi-year plan, well it's clearly not working.

HOST: Alright I want to get onto one final topic. I think we've established our positions on this for now. The press freedom debate. There are duelling plans here as well. The Government wants an inquiry through the Committee on Intelligence and Security. This is the same committee that effectively gave the rubber stamp to laws already in place. Why is it the right committee to then assess whether those laws are too harsh on journalists and or whistle-blowers?

FALINSKI: Yeah, well I don't think your characterisation of it as rubber-stamp is fair number one. Number two it is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure firstly that our community is kept safe and secondly that press freedom is also ensured. Now that is not to say that we've got it right. In fact that's what the whole point of this inquiry is.

HOST: Can I ask you in a specific sense then should you look at the actual classification not what changes should be made but what's up for review here, the actual classification of documents - what's made secret and how.

FALINSKI: So there are two there have been two pieces on this. One by Michael Sexton who's the Solicitor General in New South Wales. He pointed to the level of judicial officer who grants the warrant whether that should be established. And the second thing was the process of classification and maybe some documents are being over classified and we should be willing to look at that and we should be willing to look at both those issues and I think that's a meaningful contribution. A lot of the contributions in this debate have not been, frankly, meaningful but self-serving.

HOST: One other threshold just to ask you Patrick Gorman on Labor's position whether a journalist should ever be allowed to be raided to get a source in any way a whistle-blower.

GORMAN: I was concerned to see a journalist’s home raided for what was essentially a concern about something that happened within the public service. So it is a concern that many Australians have. It's a concern that I have. One of the reasons Labor said we'd like to see a publicly held inquiry is because we believe that's the best way for everyone to have a say in what it should be our standards and to make sure that we get a set of laws and protections for journalists at times necessary protections for whistle-blowers to make sure that there is a law that everyone accepts and also allows us to talk about some of these other things about what should be a classified document. That conversation itself doesn't necessarily need to be held in secret.

HOST: Alright, well we are right out of time we might pick this up again because we've got two leaders who have spoken about it today and perhaps there'll be some furious agreement down the track. Jason Falinski and Patrick Gorman, thank you

BOTH: Thank you Tom.

ENDS