Transcript - Sky News Interview with Tom Connell

TELEVISION INTERVIEW 
SKY NEWS AM AGENDA WITH TOM CONNELL
FRIDAY, 5 JUNE 2020
 
SUBJECTS: Foreign Investment Rules, JobKeeper, Home Builder Package, Social Housing Investment. 
 
TOM CONNELL, HOST: Let's go live. Our pollie panel; Liberal MP Jason Falinski, Labor MP Patrick Gorman. I noticed this morning you've got your Scott Morrison issued Australia badge on, Jason Falinski, perhaps talking about this foreign investment rule that's going to be announced imminently. It's an interesting time to sort of pull up the drawbridge on investment make it a bit harder. Don't we need all the investment we can get right now with COVID 19?
 
JASON FALINSKI, LIBERAL MP: We sure do need all the investment we can get, Tom. There's no doubt about that. But I think that most Australians would accept that that investment should not challenge our national security or should not cause our national security to be put in harm's way. I don't think any Australian would see this as a strange or indeed difficult decision for the government to make. I think that what the Treasurer has done and David Irvine has done over the last 12 months is something that we should all welcome and congratulate both of them for doing.
 
CONNELL: On board with this, Patrick Gorman? No Australian badge. But that's okay. I don't have one on either but do you agree with the policy?
 
PATRICK GORMAN, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR PERTH: I'll firstly confirm I am in Australia, I'm an Australian citizen and I love this country just in case there was any doubt in that question, Tom. The Prime Minister only gave badges to his own side.  So I have not been issued a Scomo badge. As for this initiative of David Irvine. He is someone that I respect greatly. If he says this is necessary I think it's something that Labor will look at very closely. Obviously we haven't been briefed on the initiative yet. Personally I'm relieved that it's only taken the Coalition six years to learn the lessons of the errors of the sale of Darwin Port. It took them a whole 10 years to learn the errors of their ways when it came to the stimulus necessary to avert the global financial crisis. So hopefully this is a good thing but we'll wait to see the detail.
 
CONNELL: Alright, and we're going to get the announcement imminently so we'll bring that to our viewers live in a few minutes. Jason Falinski, confirmation you're a very influential figure in the party, you were tweeting out that JobKeeper had to end for businesses that were getting back on their feet early. What about businesses that were factoring in they were going to get JobKeeper for six months and perhaps they were losing a bit more money before that they thought we'll make more money once we get back on our feet in the last period of JobKeeper. Isn't it a bit hard for the government to pull the rug from under their feet and end JobKeeper earlier than was expected?
 
FALINSKI: Well the Government was very clear from right up front that this was not something that was guaranteed for six months, that it would be reviewed after three months that we would do that. You know we were always going to make sure that this program went as long as it needed to and not a day longer. Tom, we are accumulating intergenerational debt at the moment. It is something that is exercising the mind not just of everyone in government but a lot of people outside of government if we can save a billion dollars a and a billion dollars there, it's a billion dollars that we don't have to repay in the future. It's a billion dollars that we can spend on health or education or that we could use to lower taxes so that more money goes to productive sectors in our economy. This is incredibly important that we don't waste other people's money just for the sake of wasting it. So look, if JobKeeper can end sooner rather than later. That is something that we should be very proud of. I would make the point though that it's not about ending the program entirely, what it is about is making sure that it is targeted to the right sector. So there will be sectors especially in the tourism space, in the travel space where you would expect some form of program to continue into the future because they will remain largely shut down or nowhere near their true capacity for some period of time.
 
CONNELL: And how would it work. Would you if you're in a sector that seen as getting back on its feet and your revenue still down more than 30 per cent do you get it, if your revenue is down 25 instead of 30, are you suddenly cut out of the program? How would you like to see business has taken off it?
 
FALINSKI: Yeah, Tom I would like to thank you for the opportunity of designing government policy on the run. I really do appreciate that opportunity, but I'm going to on this occasion not take you up on it. I think that this is probably policy design that is best left to the ministers that are in charge of it. They will have obviously all the factors and all the data that they need to make those designs sort of issues.. But look where you can reduce it and better target it, I think that is something, I mean we've ended up with world best health outcomes we want to get well best economic outcomes too.
 
CONNELL: What do you think of this principle; you are free to develop some policy that will never actually become an idea right now, in opposition of course, Patrick Gorman how would you like to see this all happen?
 
GORMAN: What I'd like to see happen is the Government stop inserting economic uncertainty every time they open their mouths. I think when it comes to JobKeeper in particular, there is this idea, the Government can't sit still and what they said was we going to put certainty into the market by providing this initiative. Now they've started to unpick their own policies. We've got the same issue for people on JobSeeker, no certainty about what's going to happen post September, whether that's going to snap back to the old Newstart rate or what's going to happen there. The only thing that's certain from this government is that if you want 25 grand to build a library in your own house they'll give it to you. I mean seriously, you're saying that you can't support the jobs of people, we can't give certainty for the jobs of people in hospitality or tourism, and I endorse what Jason said, that those areas have been hit hard. But you're going to give them more uncertainty. It's just they've just got to stop opening their mouths and actually give the economy certainty at a time where things are so delicate.
 
CONNELL: So where would you sit down if a business has got say 95 per percent of revenue returned in this situation compared to before COVID hit, Is it time to take away a JobKeeper a scheme that gives $1,500 a fortnight to employees? That seems overly generous from a budget that is limited.
 
GORMAN: Well I think the government should start by actually looking at those excluded unnecessarily in the first place. People who've been casuals for a long period of time, people who work for organisations like Dnata we saw the protests yesterday. Those people would be left on the scrap heap. With respect, I think if you were to look at what is the bigger policy issue, the bigger issue is those people who are struggling, week after week with no support, rather than rushing to rip support away from fragile businesses of Australia.
 
CONNELL: There's not so support, the cohort you're talking about are getting JobSeeker. But what about these businesses, if they're 95 per cent of revenue, as an example, should they still get the full whack of JobKeeper. Is that a good policy?
 
GORMAN: Well I'll actually agree with Jason on this. We'll leave it to those in Treasury who actually have access to the economic data to design the policy program but it would be nice if we actually saw concrete evidence of help for those who aren't receiving JobKeeper support before we start ripping it away from anyone.
 
CONNELL: I really want an explanation from someone in the Government on why there's no money for social housing in the recent package, Jason Falinski. All we're hearing so far is "well that's mainly up to the states". So is any sort of boost to housing. States have you know schemes for first home buyer’s grants, so does the federal government. Why do you think the federal government isn't giving any extra money to social housing right now?
 
FALINSKI: Well Tom, we give almost $10 billion, when I say we I mean Australians through their taxes, gave almost $10 billion a year to social housing every single year. It's unfair for people in the Canberra press gallery to continue this assertion that we don't somehow support social housing.
 
CONNELL: I didn't say no money, I'm talking about extra money.
 
FALINSKI: Yeah, but $10 billion is a lot of money, Tom, regardless of who you might be.
 
CONNELL: Let me put this to you then. Is it hard to stomach for someone right now who's waiting for emergency accommodation, we've just seen figures on domestic violence up 30 per cent that might be waiting for emergency accommodation, but hears the government will give $25,000 for someone as a part of $150,000 renovation to a house?
 
FALINSKI: Of course it's hard for them to stomach that. Of course anyone who is in that situation wants the community around them or when they need the community around them to help them would find that hard. But that's not something that lies solely at the feet of the federal government. I mean if you want housing, if you want to improve housing outcomes in Australia. What you need to do is to get stuck into the states about why they're not providing more houses, why they're planning laws make it that even though we live in one of the least densely populated continents in the world we have some of the most expensive land in the world. Now we have been trying social housing for nearly eight decades. The fact of the matter is that we haven't shifted the dial on these things in decades because we keep concentrating on the wrong things. You want to keep putting more money into social housing. I'm there with you. I want to help people who are in vulnerable situations as much as the next guy, if not more. But the fact of the matter is that this policy is not going to solve the problem. The way to solve the problem is to actually get the states to start liberalising some of their planning laws so we can get more housing at lower prices for people in vulnerable situations.
 
CONNELL: If this was a big conversation the states were going to have for example and this could be a federation discussion perhaps, if all of that was something the states would look at, the federal government would be willing to put more money into it do you think, or they should be?
 
FALINSKI: Look, if it's going to work, if it's going to work. I mean we're spending $10 billion a year already on this, almost $10 billion dollars a year already on this. And what you're telling me is that it's not working. So why would you ask the Australian taxpayer to spend more money?
 
CONNELL: Patrick Gorman, is there an issue here?
 
FALINSKI: Well I've got to make the point that what we announced yesterday was about getting more trainees back in work because there have been 70,000 fewer construction things. Now that's what that's about, it shouldn't be conflated with emergency housing.
 
CONNELL: There are still tradie jobs in social housing. If you build some social housing though, you still get tradies jobs don't you.
 
FALINSKI: But we need we need short term work because there's been short term dry up of work. Social housing is a noble undertaking that is a medium term project which is not going to solve the problem.
 
CONNELL: You can do repairs to social housing, there's a huge backlog there, that's short term isn't it?
 
FALINSKI: Sure. And every time we put hundreds of millions of dollars into clearing the backlog of maintenance in social housing, another hundreds of millions of dollars in backlog appears. I mean this is this sort of simplistic idea that throwing more money -
 
CONNELL: Doesn't that mean there's a big problem?
 
FALINSKI: Yes, there absolutely is a big problem, Tom. There's no doubt about that.
 
CONNELL: I feel like we're leaving Patrick Gorman well out of the conversation
 
FALINSKI: Well I apologise for that.
 
CONNELL: I'm just going to bring him in, Patrick Gorman, your thoughts on any of that? Is this a pretty big issue with some need for reform, not just a dollar figure?
 
GORMAN: That was the most extraordinary justification for refusing to invest in social housing that I've ever heard. The idea that because for 80 years we've invested in it, therefore we shouldn't invest any more -
 
FALINSKI: No! It's not working. You guys say it's not working.
 
GORMAN: Jason, really simple question: is it $10 billion a year or $10 billion over 10 years?
 
FALINSKI: No! It's $10 billion. When you add up all the Commonwealth government subsidies to social and affordable housing it comes to $10 billion.
 
GORMAN: So you're including Newstart allowances in that are you?
 
FALINSKI: No. No, I'm not.
 
GORMAN: I think you'll find that we have just we just walked away from reality in terms of the very measly amount that the Commonwealth actually invests in public housing in this country.
 
FALINSKI: Well I can tell you the direct amount of money, the direct amount of money given to the states every single year is $6.9 billion.
 
GORMAN: Let's be accurate here Jason. The only investment you've made, the only investment you've made that is new in recent times was wiping the Tasmanian housing debt. And we know that you did that for votes in the Senate not because of any ideological belief in investing in social housing. The reality is this package from your government which we know that even your own backbench economics committee said, "seems like a pretty bad idea",  we read that in the Australian today. What we know in this package is that you giving money for people to invest in a second roof rather than giving money to people who don't have any roof at all. You campaigned against Labor's school libraries program but now you're giving people handouts to build a library in their own home. I mean it's ridiculous. Not one dollar in the middle of a crisis.
 
FALINSKI: What is ridiculous is what you're saying, Patrick. I mean the one thing that we know tradies won't be building is the Labor Party policy platform because there isn't one on this issue. Anytime it comes to this sort of stuff Labor's answer to everything is just spend more money regardless of whether it's working or not.
 
GORMAN: Spend it carefully, Jason. You always tell me, spend it carefully.
 
CONNELL: There's a lot to discuss, maybe next time. I'm going to have to jump in. I've gone well over. I'm already in trouble. Jason Falinski, Patrick Gorman, we'll talk to you soon.
 
FALINSKI: Well we hate it when you're in trouble, Tom.
 
CONNELL: Yes I know, thank you.
 
ENDS