Subjects: Get Up advertising; wages; Coalition tax reform policy; veterans package; water buyback; Murray Darling Basin; Clive Palmer.
EO&E…………………………………………………………
TOM CONNELL:
Coalition spokesperson as well during this campaign, thanks very much for your time. Let’s do start quickly on that ad clearly in pretty poor taste not even really a very good imitation I don’t think of Tony Abbott
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well g’day Tom well look it was an insult to the couple of hundred thousand Australians who go out there and volunteer their time as surf lifesavers of which Tony Abbott is one, and GetUp should never have contemplated this and it sort of really makes you wonder about the ethics, the standards or otherwise of those sitting there around GetUp who think that taking the piss out of our surf lifesavers is somehow appropriate. It’s not, it’s appalling, it was wrong, it’s right that they pulled it but frankly Bill Shorten is the Godfather of Get Up who’s union helped to fund it set up, where was he? Why wasn’t he out there calling for this to be pulled as well?
TOM CONNELL:
It all happened pretty quickly I guess, he might well be asked about it today, so we’ll see. Yesterday though Bill Shorten was talking to some workers, it’s all about wages for him this week. He said we’ll look at that when asked about an income tax cut on those on $250,000. Are you expecting a Labor match in this area of tax policy?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
No I’m not, and I think this is just showing that Bill Shorten is completely disingenuous on the campaign trail. Last week he was asked by a journalist about his superannuation taxes and he lied in his response, yesterday he was asked by a worker about his income tax policies and he lied in his response. In the end in both cases Labor have higher taxing policies on superannuation, higher taxing policies on wages as they do on retirees on houses elsewhere, and what you’ve got is that when confronted on the campaign trail about their higher taxing agenda Bill Shorten is just blatantly lying. Either that or he’s got so many higher taxing policies he can’t remember them all or he doesn’t understand them all. But I think what’s far more likely to be the case is he doesn’t want to confront the truth when he’s on the campaign trail, and he certainly doesn’t want to be honest with voters or with journalists about the fact that he’s planning $387 billion of additional taxes, that will slug workers like the person he engaged with yesterday that will ultimately slug retirees and others.
TOM CONNELL:
It’s an interesting area though because your policies are a lot better in the future for someone on that salary $250,000, I think…
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
As they are for somebody earning $45,000.
TOM CONNELL:
Eventually they do get better off for $45,000. Labor has said it will have some sort of tax cut plan if it’s in power in six years’ time. But the $250,000 is still not something you guys are exactly shouting from the rooftops right?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
What we’re highlighting the fact that for us the great lasting reform of our tax policy is to eliminate the 37c in the dollar tax bracket, which means that for ordinary working Australians that threat of bracket creep is taken away that they will initially have confidence they won’t pay any more than 32.5c in the dollar, that will drop down to 30c in the dollar under our reforms. That means that you can work an extra shift get an extra job, get a promotion, and have confidence that you’re going to get to keep more of your hard earned workings and yet under Bill Shorten and the Labor Party that won’t be the case, and what was the worker yesterday talking about with Bill Shorten, he was talking about a mate who takes on some extra shifts who does some overtime and therefore earns a bit more, and why isn’t there some tax relief coming their way, well under the Liberal National Party there is tax relief for them, under Bill Shorten despite the fact that he failed to tell the truth to that worker yesterday they will pay higher taxes under a Labor Government.
TOM CONNELL:
I just want to talk to you about the veteran’s package as well being announced today with Anzac Day tomorrow. It includes some wellbeing centers we know about the shockingly high rate of suicide amongst veterans, but it also talks about employment assistance and I know the Minister Darren Chester is always keen to talk about how much veterans can make great employees. You know the extent to which they’re disciplined and hardworking and then you know workplaces really should look at them closely.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
The training of our veterans is second to none in terms of what support they receive while they’re serving in the Australian Defence Forces, and we strongly encourage employer’s right around the country to recognize that they come with the best training and skills and they also can be fantastic mentors for other younger employees, these $62 million plus package of veterans support looks at employment options particularly looks at mental health support as part of the wellbeing centers, as well as housing support to make sure that veterans get into the housing market and can successfully secure stable home ownership for the future, it’s about making sure we recognize that for today’s veterans there are a raft of different challenges that existed for veterans of previous generations as we now deal with an ageing cohort of Vietnam and Korean War veterans, as well as of course new younger veterans from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
TOM CONNELL:
Yeah very different types of battles I suppose as well apart from anything else, the water buybacks issue this is something you’ve been talking about in recent days. You’ve got experience in the portfolio, there’s been a claim made from the Coalition that the company EAA originally wanted $5000 a mega liter, so therefore that the ultimate price was lower. Where’s the evidence that $5000 figure?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
My understanding is that that was in the initial exchanges with the company, I understand that there were a couple of years between when the suggestion was first made by the Queensland state Labor Government, that this water should be purchased as part of the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to when a final negotiated outcome was reached. That final outcome was for a lower price than what the company had asked along the way, particularly when you take into account that we weren’t just paying for the water purchase but also for the removal of certain infrastructure on the properties to ensure that that water flow through to the Narran Lakes, a Ramsar listed wetland, ultimately the evidence that is being tabled by the departmental officials in relation to this water purchase, is very clear that it was recommended by the Queensland state Labor Government, that it matched up with the objectives and needs of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that it delivers environmental outcomes to internationally recognised wetlands, and that they negotiated what they believe was a fair market rates in terms the purchase of the water.
TOM CONNELL:
Okay but in terms of this $5000 figure because the key is if we are led to believe that there was this negotiation on the Government was getting fair value, again, what evidence is there of that, you said it’s your understanding is there anything that’s been released publicly not redacted about here’s what they were asking here’s how he negotiated them down.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well Tom my understanding is that that that information has been put on the record by officials from the Department of Water, and I’ll happily go and check the Hansard transcript if you’d like to make sure that that’s the case. We’ve seen though that each of the claims that have been made by the Labor Party or by others, that this is somehow the largest water purchase ever, it’s not. This was a $70 odd million purchase, the Labor Party made a $300 odd million purchase, this has been part of the cost of delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
TOM CONNELL:
The difference though Minister is about the cost per mega liter, because the size of it isn’t so much relevant in terms of getting value for money. So it’s the $2745 that’s much higher than average and there’s talk about other elements of the infrastructure but do we know how much that infrastructure cost for example, so then you could get the pure water value?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Again officials have talked through the fact that there were those infrastructure components, they’ve done that in three different occasions that they’ve fronted up to Senate Estimates and other inquiries to answer these questions. This is not something that has been without examination it’s been clearly examined to date by the Senate, but we welcome and in fact encouraged as a Government the auditor general to look not just at this purchase but at the entire water recovery arrangements under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Because we are confident there’s nothing to hide here it’s all been done according to the book, in the best interests of delivering against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan
TOM CONNELL:
Is that move in terms of the Auditor-General just to stop the constant talking about it because if everything’s fine and you say it’s all been released what’s the point in doing that?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well the Auditor-General already had as part of the ordinary work program of looking at different policy settings and programs across Government, the water buyback program listed as a possible area for consideration because we’ve got absolutely nothing to fear or hide in this space we’ve said can you please make sure you look at that program as part of your ordinary work agenda, that’s not unusual in the end the Labor Party the Greens and others have sought to smear and mislead in relation to this. We are confident there’s nothing to hide, it’s all been done above board and that’s why we welcome the auditor general’s inquiry and we think that ultimately people ought to look at what the objective was here, and the objective was to deliver the environmental outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin plan, to provide for the water to flow to those internationally recognized wetlands at the top of the Murray-Darling system.
TOM CONNELL:
The other element of this story is the link to the Cayman Islands in terms of this company getting $80 million, one thing Labor is put on the table is that any company getting a Government contract I think the figure is above $200,000 should have to show where it’s domiciled for tax purposes to show where the money’s going, s that a good idea.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Those things can be looked at Tom, I think though let’s understand the choices that were on the table, water had to be recovered from a fairly narrow group of holdings in relation to the Condomine Balonne catchment in the Murray-Darling and it’s in North, It’s in the sort of south western part of Queensland. The departmental advice that’s been made public as part of this process is clear, the alternative to this purchase was to go and basically take out of operation groups of smaller farmers trading within the district now I doubt that very many of your viewers would think it would be a good policy outcome to knock out those farmers rather than to get a get water out of a corporate entity like this.
TOM CONNELL:
We’re running out of time, but you’re open just briefly to that idea from Labor that if you’re going to give out big Government contracts wherever it is that at least can be a consideration if you know where the companies…
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Well there’s a lot of things to consider and the point that I was making there is you’ve got to consider in relation to these things what are the local community impacts? And we sought to get water that would meet the environmental objectives whilst minimizing those local community impacts, and that is as we should do rather than just go in and buy water in a manner that potentially knocks out farmers reduces agricultural and farming productivity and hurts communities, that would be the wrong thing to do.
TOM CONNELL:
A deal could be on the table with Clive Palmer for preferences or how to vote cards at least if the Coalition helps him and his power gets in and we see more chaos, it’s happened before will the Coalition feel at all responsible?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Tom we have a system of voting in Australia that’s compulsory voting and it’s full preferential in terms of House of Reps seats and partly preferential in terms of Senate voting nowadays. In the end every party organisation negotiates around how it is that they would recommend preferences flow the decision ultimately rests with voters. I would be very, very surprised if Labor party officials had not reached out to Clive Palmer and his party to talk about preferences just as you would likely expect that Liberal National officials may have had those discussions as well. We’ve been clear there will be no deals with One Nation, I’d urge voters to put One Nation and Fraser Anning and those parties last to reject the different but still extreme policies of the Greens in relation to how they would undermine national security, to reject Bill Shortens $387 billion of job destroying taxes and ultimately to put a Liberal or National candidate first.
TOM CONNELL:
Is there any issue though because it seems like he’s gonna get all this power from money, is there any issue in Australian politics that a billionaire might be just buying the balance of power?
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
It’s evident to all Australians that Clive Palmer is spending a lot of money in this election campaign, voters should weigh that as part of their overall consideration. What we will urge voters to do every day between now and 6:00 pm close of polls on Election Day is that they should vote for Liberal or National Party candidate, that’s the best way to guarantee that they’ll get 1.25 million more jobs in the future, that they will see lower taxes that we’ll manage to repay Labor’s debt and still be able to invest record sums in schools and hospitals and elsewhere.
TOM CONNELL:
Simon Birmingham, thanks very much for your time today.
SIMON BIRMINGHAM:
Thank you very much Tom